Tamar Ketko is a Senior Lecturer at the Kibbutzim College of Education, Tel Aviv, Israel. Dr. Ketko’s research examines various historical, educational and philosophical processes involved in the construction of the culture of collective memory of the Shoa in Israel. She is the Curator of the WW2 Jewish Soldier Museum in Latrun and produces historical documentaries and films for Israeli television.
The paper deals with the ethical and political aspects of the work of history teachers, the extent of their influence on the formulation of the national identity of the younger generation in Israel and their involvement in the political, social and cultural aspects of their community. The desire to attain integration between moral commitment to the past and ethical commitment to good citizenship in a democratic state often creates a conflict between critical basic values that adversely affect the process of the formulation of the political viewpoint and way of life of these youth.
The involvement of teachers in teaching history, especially in light of contemporary issues, requires extreme caution, especially in a polarized society. This caution extends particularly to the realm of teachers expressing their own views, which must be done as part of a presentation of conflicting views.
The basic premise according to which teachers are the “custodians of remembrance and omission” of the next generation, leads to the belief that the inculcation of a personal and collective historic identity depends to a large extent on teachers. The content of lessons which whose delivery may be affected by the personal politics of teachers regarding national, political and social issues demands constant evaluation to ensure the required ethical standards, as the teachers take upon themselves the responsibility of formulating the civic profile of the future generation.
History lessons: the rational, political and moral basis
Teachers are generally considered as intermediaries between printed and oral information, between original texts and interpretation, between tendentious rumors in the media and actual facts. At times, these pieces of information are taken as unshakable truths, and all too often the students do not have the ability to make distinctions and evaluate the materials critically. Students are thus “brainwashed” by the ideas and inclinations of teachers who expose the teaching of history to the “sin” of subjectivity. As agents of the written word, teachers – and especially history teachers – are required to relate first and foremost to factual “truth” and only then to the interpretive process. Due, however, to the lack of clearly defined goals in the teaching of history and its political and cultural implications, teachers are apt to be influenced by their personal value systems, which are not always faithful to cognitive, didactic and universal goals.
In Israel’s education system we have lately discerned a tension between historical and educational viewpoints, between nationalist and universal perspectives, and between the ethnocentric and the multicultural (Ben-Amos, 2002). History teachers often have to cope with situations that require deliberation and renewed speculation based on events in the past. Their task is to mediate between historical texts and the present situation of the students (Yaoz, 1994). It is essential to support the teaching of history through the judgment of events on the basis of their moral and humanistic values and to deal with political and military conflicts within the framework of history lessons. However, in order to develop an attitude of tolerance and enlightenment and to encourage critical appraisal, history teachers are required to be most careful about forward their personal political leanings.
As in most dynamic situations, there is a debate regarding the extent to which the history teacher should deal with the accepted portrayal of events as against the pluralist cultural stress and political complexity existing in Israel and other countries, or as Jaraucsh and Lindenberger (2007) defined it, to face “modern tension” that develops between transnational history and international history. In their opinion, care should be taken in history lessons not to become absorbed by restricted thought patterns and to encourage the expression of contrary opinions, especially in those situations where political opinions are involved. They based their approach on that of Benedict Anderson (1991), among others, who called for meticulous examination of the content of the teaching of history to enable them to remain relevant regarding principles and not to be a weapon in the hands of teachers as political agents. In their opinion, the history lesson should expose students to “refreshing” perspectives and pose questions relating to the past which have relevance to current issues and contribution to the future, in order for them to become relevant; as Nora (1989) formulated it, “What is important in teaching history is not artifacts and traces of the past, but rather the type of attitudes a person has toward the past and how the present time in which he exists can exploit it and construct from it.”
We are witnessing a period in which history and culture do not necessarily define what is actually important for the shaping of the personality of the youth. In order to “redefine” historical remembrance as being the presentation of the actual narrative, it is often necessary to recreate it in the language of the present to make possible its integration into history lessons (Koshar, 1994; Wyschogrod, 1998). In this way a meaningful meeting of language of the past with the language of the present will take place, while the teacher will be required to mediate between them, making possible a number of interpretations as well as the scientific basis of historical facts.
It is important to remember that history teachers can be not only “implementers” of the centralized and predetermined syllabus but also its “translators” and “interpreters.” Ultimately, it is this “translation” which determines what they will include in the lessons they give in the classroom (Cole; Barsalou; Freedman; Naveh, 2006). And while there are those who consider history lessons a platform for the expression of their personal opinions, they need to be aware of their role in the formulation of the national identity of their students, of their political attitudes, and the fostering of their personal agenda within the social, military, political, and communications arena – both in Israel and globally.
Ethics and educational responsibility
It would seem that all political, cultural and pedagogic positions of history teachers have a common denominator: people. Those who write and interpret history are people and the texts are intended for people who will study them, learn lessons from them, and choose what is relevant to their way of life.
History teachers are in fact “storytellers” – the essential question revolves around what stories are they permitted to tell in the classroom? Does the teaching of history have constraints? Let us first examine the extent of the responsibility of the teachers to develop moral attitudes, as well as the approach which considers their profession as human activity toward people and the impact on their character (Fenstermacher, 1990; Sockett, 1993).This morality, which is essential to the profession of teaching, is the ethic of education that we should undertake with the utmost care.
The integration of ethical codes professionally is essential not only for the process of critical thinking, but furthermore as an incentive and part of the defense mechanism that will save the teacher from expression or activities that are not fitting or could cause harm to the students (Kasher, 2009, [Heb.]). Let us examine some examples that describe the ethical problems evident in teaching history that have political aspects.
Few Israelis are aware that the battle at Tel Hai in Galilee in 1920 led to the establishment of defense squads. Even fewer know that the memorial prayer Yizkor recited at every event for the memorial of fallen Israeli soldiers is based on the eulogy delivered by the Labor leader Berl Katznelson (1935, p. 12) in honor of those who fought that battle at Tel Hai.
“The people of Israel remember the pure souls of its sons and daughters … loyal and brave, men of labor and peace, who walked behind the plough and gave their lives for the honor of Israel and the land of Israel … We will neither rest nor be comforted, and mourning will not cease until the day when the people of Israel will redeem its land.”
In the socialist reality of the times, the quip that, “It is good to die for our country” (attributed to Josef Trumpeldor after being shot while defending Tel Hai), was added to the list of worthy ethical principles which nurtured the character of the young pioneer intent on building the longed national home. The Yizkor recited at every ceremony is a testimony to its origins, yet the narratives of Tel Hai and Trumpeldor have long lost their “ratings”. What place should they have, and who determines that place, in the national educational, historical canon? Does it belong alongside “Masada will never fall again?” Where, in the cultural canon, is the place of Naomi Shemer’s, “Do not uproot that which has been planted,” which became the anthem of the Jewish settlers evacuated from the Yamit settlements in the Gaza Strip in 1982 and again from the settlements in northern Gaza in 2005, and what is the role of teachers in determining that place?
There is no doubt that association and significance are the consequence of the teacher’s “storytelling” of events and are affected by his attitude regarding the issue of the conquest of Judea and Samaria and the question of the future of the “Land of the Forefathers”. The ethical aspects of identity and identification relating to the relative historical narrative and the history teacher’s ethical behavior in the classroom regarding current events must be taken into account. For example, on the day after the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (4th of November 1995), in most of the schools throughout Israel regular lessons were postponed and teachers were instructed to devote time to a discussion about the appalling event and talk about the significance of democracy, the right to demonstrate, and freedom of speech. Did history teachers who are known to hold right-wing opinions have the right to continue to teach as usual? Furthermore, even defining the “titles” of history lessons is not only a matter of terminology, but rather an expression of judgment about a particular symbol or event.
History teachers have the power to shape their students’ identities and social commitments, with all the attendant implications. Israel’s complex political situation demands that history teachers make their lessons more relevant to actual events and therefore intensifies the need to compensate for their books’ contents. Most of them teach according the governmental curriculum and offer little opportunities to engage in discussions about events and ideas in a more comprehensive way. Take for instance, the story about the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. There were two fighting organizations that led the uprising: the Jewish Fighting Organization, commanded by Mordechai Anielewicz, and the Revisionist-led Jewish Military Organization, commanded by Pawel Frenkel. Because of a cultural hegemony of Labor Zionists in the early years of the State, the history books mention only the story about Mordechai Anielewicz and deliberately ignore the story of Revisionist Pawel Frenkel and his fighters, although Frenkel and his men played no less of a role than Anielewicz’s in the main battles of the uprising. History teachers need to teach about that part of the Jewish historical legacy, without emphasizing any of their political personal points of view during their lessons, in spite of the fact that it is not included in the materials provided by the Ministry of Education.
Such decisions are wrapped up in difficult ethical and political dilemmas. Take, for example, the requirement to the historic national flag in all elementary schools in Israel. More than 500,000 non-Jewish Israeli students, from kindergartens to high schools, (Christians and Arabs) find it impossible to identify with those lessons and the symbols because the flag represents only Jewish citizens – they don’t have a national flag to identify with. With no other choice, they study about the Palestinian flag which is meaningful to them, while their formal state is still Israel. The same goes for the Israeli national anthem, which expresses the Jewish desire for a return to our homeland and includes the words nefesh yehudi homiyah (the Jewish soul still yearns). Further, all Israeli Jewish students must learn about WW2 and the Holocaust, but those lessons are not included in history classes of Israeli-Arab students who are nonetheless legal Israeli citizens. Israeli and Arab students study different historical narratives at the same period of time.
Studying history plays a critical role in the process of forming the national identity of the younger generation in Israel
for both Jews and non-Jews, and yet direction in this regard remains unclear. History lessons are perhaps students’ only opportunity to develop an affinity to their past, their country and to expand their opinions and involvement in events taking place in their environment. It can be presumed that the issues we have raised here are to a large extent part of the process of the formation of the students’ civic personality and their political outlook.
Summary
Perhaps, in contrast to the teaching of other subjects, the teaching of history is dependent, to a large extent, on the constant dynamic of reality at the same time as attendant social and cultural needs. Wars, terrorist attacks and the complexity of the Arab-Israel conflict, the cultural complexity of its inhabitants, the large influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, the multiplicity of political parties – all these have their impact on the adaptation of historical issues and their context. The process of selection of the content of textbooks by their authors and the officials in the Ministry of Education for the teaching of history and its direction inevitably includes the choice of approaches and the support of a certain viewpoint all of which characterize the textbooks. The question is, which material is necessary and which is less important? In order to provide a solution to this question, certain ethical principles must be formulated. These ethical codes will determine each phase of the content and of the implementation of the process, support decisions as to what is to be included in history textbooks with professional responsibility and adaptation to the complex national situation, and will be useful to the extent of relevance to the constantly changing political scene, in each chapter, in photograph or quotations. It would seem that the area of the teaching of history is currently open to methodologies that are dictated and regulated, segmented between several trends in education, belonging to a variety of ideological bases, with an abundance of textbooks differentiated from each other in content and character. The formal curriculum must be based on unbiased history books, in order to enable the history teachers to teach with objectivity while allowing them to express their own views.
This paper has presented a number of examples indicating moral and ethical dilemmas that stress the necessity to formulate basic principles to assist history teachers to encourage political reasoning among their students, fostering their critical appraisal and ability to make personal choices. Thus, teachers can teach about Tel Hai with the tragic story about Trumpeldor, and they can read Berl Katznelson’s eulogy to the fallen, but must take care not to draw direct analogy between those historical events and contemporary political events which may bear a superficial similarity. To do so would venture into historical distortion and is one of the dangers of the uncontrolled liberty history teachers can take. Careful consideration is necessary to maintain the delicate balance between making historical lessons relevant and drawing specific conclusions for current events.
Recently, we have been witness to many far reaching changes in history textbooks in Israel for the purpose of attaining particular national and historical goals. There is nothing wrong in this, if we can be satisfied that such a process has been made academically, professionally, expediently and impartially, and of an ethical and moral standard. So far, no “ethical formula” exists according to which history writers and teachers could protect themselves against inevitable pitfalls – formulation of such principles would contribute greatly to all those involved to be loyal to their personal and national commitments, and further the forging of the identity of the next generation in the State of Israel.
References
Hebrew
Ben-Amos, A. (Ed.) (2002). History, identity and remembrance: images of the past in Israeli education. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.
Broides, E. (1939). Pages of eminence. In Dvar Leyeladim, Tel Aviv.
Yaoz, J. (1944). Values and opinions in the discipline of teaching. In Iyunim Behinuch ( 59-60), pp. 367–372.
Kasher, A. (1993). What is professional ethics? in G. Shefler, Y. Achmon, G. Weill (Eds.) Ethical Issues in the Professions of Counseling and Mental Treatment. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 15–29.
Kasher, A. (Ed.) (2009). Professional Ethics A. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and the Ethics Center, pp. 1–21.
Katznelson, B. (1935). Revolution and tradition. In Bamivhan. Tel Aviv.
Laskov, S. (1995). Trumpeldor – the Story of his Life. Jerusalem: Keter.
English
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. USA: Verso.
Cole,E. Barsalou, J. (2006). The Challenges of Teaching History in Societies Emerging From Violent Conflict. In Freedman, S. W., Weinstein, H.M., Murphy, K., Longman, T. Teaching History after Identity-Based Conflicts: The Rwanda Experience. Washington DC: Special report, US Institute of Peace, pp. 666 -669.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1990). The Place of Alternative Certification in the Education of Teachers. In Peabody Journal of Education (67)3, pp. 155 – 185.
Jarausch, K, H. J., Lindenberger, T. L. (Ed.). (2007). Reflections on Transnational History. In Conflicted Memories – Study in Contemporary European History. England and USA: Berghahn Books, pp. 1 –22.
Koshar, R. J. (1994). Building Pasts: The Language of Historic Presentation in Twentieth Century Germany. In Gillis, J. (Ed.). The politics of national identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 215 – 238.
Naveh, E. (2006). The dynamics of Identity Construction in History. In Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix. Rotberg, R. I. (Ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 244 – 271.
Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire. In Representations (26)7 – 25.
Sockett, H. (1993). The Moral Base for Teacher’s Professionalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wyschogrod, E. (1998). An Ethics of Remembering: History, Heterology and the Nameless Others. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.