Writing Multi-Perspective History. Guidelines ERASMUS+ Project: Multiperspectivity in Adult Education Using the Example of the Baltic Sea History (2017-2019)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Writing multi-perspective history. Guidelines ERASMUS+ Project: Multiperspectivity in adult education using the example of the Baltic Sea history (2017-2019) Authors: Jörg Hackmann in cooperation with Ņikita Andrejevs, Anne Brædder, Anders Fröjmark, Claudia Günther, Juhan Kreem, Mati Laur, Anne Sørensen, Valdis Teraudkalns Structure : 1. Introduction: European history and multi-perspectivity 2. What is a multi-perspective history? i. Theoretical guidelines ii. Didactic aspects iii. Aspects of multi-perspectivity iv. Criticism of multi-perspectivity 3. Multi-perspectivity in the Baltic Sea Region i. Transcending national points of view ii. Baltic perspectives a. Multiethnicity and migration b. Postcolonial perspectives c. Giving voice to invisible groups d. Heroes, victims, perpetrators and bystanders in the 20 th century history e. Post-conflict perspective f. Differentiating between ‘true’ and ‘fake’ facts 4. Naming the Baltic Sea Region 5. How to practice multi-perspectivity in the history of the Baltic region? i. Target groups ii. Best examples a. Baltic sites of memory b. Core features of the Baltic history 6. Conclusions 1. Introduction: European history and multi-perspectivity The European core of the history of Europe is the history of its nations and borders – such a seemingly paradoxical conclusion can be drawn from the writings of leading historians from various European nations in different epochs of the 20 th century, such as Oskar Halecki, Hermann Heimpel, and Krzysztof Pomian. 1 If we agree with this idea, we must conclude that Europe – no matter whether as a political project or as a geographical unit – cannot be envisaged without taking notice of the diversity of her inhabitants, societies and cultures and the transgressional character of its history. At the 1 E.g.: Oskar Halecki, Europa - Grenzen und Gliederung seiner Geschichte (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 1957); Hermann Heimpel, Der Mensch in seiner Gegenwart (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954); Krzysztof Pomian, Europa und seine Nationen (Berlin: Wagenbach, 1990). 1 same time Europe as a concept is characterized by the idea of unity in diversity – e pluribus unum . This unity has been identified in manifold ways: geographically – with strategies of inclusion and othering; politically – with concepts of freedom, democracy, rule of law, equality, balance of power, peace; and culturally – with notions of rationality and secularism. Yet, such defining elements cannot be applied without underlining their processual, utopian and appellative character: Europe, thus, is always in the process of ‘making’ or ‘building’ – and recently also of being challenged. Therefore, understanding Europe as a notion or project requires a historical approach which implies the ever-changing nature of the notion. 2 The internal and external boundaries of Europe are focal areas of various conflicts as well as mutual, border-transgressing contacts. Against this background, approaching the history of Europe on the one hand is not possible without considering national histories. On the other hand, a history of Europe is more than just an addition to national histories, instead it must consider their mutual entanglements, both the peaceful ones and those troubled by conflicts. This implies that European history can only be envisaged with a multi-perspective approach, as the discussion on the “European History” textbook has been showing since the 1990s. 3 These tensions in the understanding of Europe and its nations, however, are not the only problems in from past, about which contemporary societies do not need to care. On the contrary, our notions of society are not only built upon common current interests, but also and not least upon commonly negotiated and shared interpretations of the past. Against the background of recently once again increasing nationalist discourses, a societal cutting off from the past may open the door for ‘post-factual’ biases. Our notion of Europe and European unity cannot be based solely on – now and then quickly changing – present sets of interests. A rationally justified Europe a as community of common values, however, has been and will be confronted with the inconsistencies of political practice. Thus, the making of Europe needs a historical foundation. A “Europe without its history,” writes the French historian Jacques Le Goff, “would be a sorry orphan.”4 Debates about what is specifically European in Europe require, therefore, a look into history. At that point, however, one faces various nationalisms which, since the 19 th century, obviously overshadow a historically and culturally based European identity. Against this background, multi-perspectivity has been suggested as an appropriate way to approach European history or transnational history in general. The Baltic Sea region has already served for decades as a field where such ideas have been discussed and put into practice. Thus, it is argued here that stimulating interest in the history of the Baltic Sea region does not evoke ghosts of the past, as some tend to argue, but rather may lead to reflections on one’s identity that goes beyond the limits of the nation (state). This is not only desirable from the perspective of those teaching history at schools and universities or promoting the knowledge 2 Cf. for instance, the criticism of ‘Eurocentrism’ and ‘Western civilization’ in Norman Davies, Europe. A History (London: Pimlico, 1997). 3 Frédéric Delouche, ed., Das Europäische Geschichtsbuch: Von den Anfängen bis ins 21. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2011) (first French ed. 1990); see also following references to papers based on projects of the European Association of History Educators EUROCLIO, the Council of Europe and the Körber Foundation. 4 Series editor’s preface to The Making of Europe (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1995-2010). 2 of history in extra-curricular contexts, but also a necessary element of political education that intends to strengthen the cultural coherence of Europe. The following chapters discuss the concept of multi-perspectivity first and then look at topics where multi-perspectivity is relevant in discussing the history of the Baltic Sea region. Finally, some hints, how to implement multi-perspectivity in debates about history, are given. 2. What is a multi-perspective history? We see multi-perspectivity as an approach to understand history on four levels: as a didactic concept, as an aspect of memory studies and of international research on history textbooks, and also as an important aspect of extra-curricular history projects. i. Theoretical aspects Multi-perspectivity as a concept of history teaching has background in West German discussions of the 1960s and 1970s but it has since then been transferred also to transnational contexts. 5 The notion of multi-perspectivity is based on the general insight that there is no universally accepted truth. Instead, each person has his or her own perception of events that is shaped by personal experiences. Similar argument may be made about groups. It is worth noting that multi-perspectivity is a fundamental means of investigating and approaching the truth, for example, in court cases. Good journalism is characterized by capturing different original tones as well, which should lead to the most accurate possible picture of an event. Memory studies which have experienced an ongoing rise in international scholarly discussions in cultural, historical, sociological as well as political studies start from the insight that given incidents and developments are remembered differently by individuals as well as social groups, and that those memories and their manifestations also change over time. The general opinion that history (in the sense of scholarly historiography) unites but memory divides, as the latter it is based on individual recollections that lack the knowledge of later research, has been meanwhile critically discussed. The main issue here is that, on the one hand, historiography itself is often based on social, political or national perspectives which produce differences. On the other hand, debates on collective memory often include the intention to construct or promote visions of the past that are not divisive. In such a context, memory studies can support the concept of multi-perspectivity. Multi-perspectivity in international debates on history textbooks is connected to approaches to overcome nationalist enmities, when after the World War I school history teaching was identified as a major field to dismantle nationalist enemy stereotypes. After the World War II, an international research on textbooks developed which, during the last years, has initiated not only transnational recommendations for textbooks, but also international teaching materials that may be used in various national school systems. The relevance of a transnational multi- 5 Bodo von Borries, “’Multiperspectivity’ – Utopian Pretension or Feasible Fundament of Historical Learning in Europe?,” in History for Today and Tomorrow. What Does Europe Mean for School History?, ed. Joke van der Leeuw-Roord, Jörn Rüsen (Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung, 2001), 269-295; Robert Stradling, Multiperspectivity in History Teaching: A Guide for Teachers (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2004). 3 perspective approach may be best understood under the consideration of the “European History” textbook which emerged from a private initiative in the 1980s and has been translated into many languages. These translations of the first edition reveal, however, as has been noted several times,