Nationalism and Identity
To the Editor:
Prompted by Liah Greenfield and Lloyd Kramer‘s opportune and stimulating exchange on pedagogical approaches to nationalism in the November 1994 issue of Perspectives, we would like to suggest some additional perspectives drawn from our own experience in teaching about this protean phenomenon. Our graduate seminar on European nationalism since the French Revolution is organized thematically, but within a general chronological framework. Its point of departure has been to approach nationalism as a question of identity, one in which adherence to the nation in principle, if not in practice, supersedes other forms of identification. Setting it within this context enables students to recognize that nationalism is neither universal nor eternal, and that the same purportedly objective criteria (such as language, religion, or shared historical traditions) need not always be influential in what is a subjective formulation.
We have also found it valuable to explore the popular resonance of nationalism by delving into conceptions of citizenship. Here the emphasis is not confined to a consideration of the rights and responsibilities of full membership in a national community, but also includes an evaluation of the conditions under and mechanisms by which immigrants gain naturalization. The sharp contrasts between France and Germany on this score provide an instructive example, one well analyzed by Rogers Brubaker in his Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Harvard Univ. Press, 1992).
Finally, in tracing the historical influence of nationalism it is crucial not to lose sight of the ways in which nationalism has influenced collective memory and historiography. The possible examples here are numerous, of course; after all, Ernest Renan already recognized more than a century ago the indispensability of a faulty historical memory to conceptions of national identity. In our seminar, the juxtaposition of Henry Rousso’s The Vichy Syndrome (Harvard Univ. Press, 1991) with material on Germany’s Historikerstreit (such as Forever in the Shadow of Hitler? [Humanities Press, 1993] or Peter Baldwin, ed.,Reworking the Past [Beacon Press, 1990]) has spawned fruitful discussions.
Nationalism is a classic instance of a subject of tremendous contemporary importance that can be illustrated by historical perspectives. It is a welcome sign, then, to see the issue attracting the critical scrutiny and diversity of approaches it deserves.
Frans Coetzee
Marilyn Shevin-Coetzee
George Washington University
On Academic Freedom and Pedagogy
To the Editor:
Professor A. Daniel Frankforter’s article, “Conversations in Clio’s Classroom: The AHA and the Assessment of Pedagogy,” in the December 1994 issue of Perspectives heightened my concern about the debate over how best to teach history. I am apparently one of the “few forthright defenders” of expository lectures, although I employ a variety of teaching methods in my classes. But my own preferences are largely beside the point.
Professor Frankforter’s essay fails to place “discussions” of teaching methods within the framework of power. For example, if a majority of one’s history colleagues believes strongly that lecturing should be kept at a minimum, what becomes of the faculty member who just as strongly believes that lecturing is key to his or her mission? Similarly, what becomes of faculty members who find themselves being reviewed unfavorably for promotion and tenure by university or college administrators due to fundamental disagreements over teaching methods?
In short, it is central to the continuation of our profession that all discussions of pedagogy start and end with a clear and unequivocal affirmation of the pedagogical component of academic freedom—namely, that it is the teacher’s right and responsibility to freely choose whatever pedagogical approaches he or she determines to be most effective in the classroom.
David O. Stowell
Keene State College
Caribbean History by Caribbean Historians
To the Editor:
Colin Palmer’s article in the February 1995 issue of Perspectives correctly points out the need to tell Caribbean history “from the perspective of those who made it and lived it.” He forgot to add from the perspective of those who have written it. With but one or two exceptions, Palmer fails to discuss Caribbean historical writing based in the region itself. Students need to know of Curtin, Klein, et al., but they also need to know the Caribbean works comprising a great historiographical tradition: Williams, Goveia, Braithwaite, Rodney, and Higman, to name but a few. Would one encourage the study of German or American history without consulting “native” historical writing?
The larger problem, of course, is recognizing the historical importance of the region. In the great sweep of world historical events, the Caribbean deserves its place as much as any other part of the globe. We Americans forget that at one time these island vacation spots mattered more than the entirety of North America. Ironically, it is academia itself that has contributed significantly to the neglect of Caribbean history. The American Historical Review continues to lump book reviews on Caribbean history under the rubric of Latin America. Until only quite recently, very few colleges and universities offered courses and programs in Caribbean history; the tendency was, and to a great extent remains, to graft the Caribbean onto the courses and programs in Latin American studies.
Let’s not just teach Caribbean history. Let’s listen to the Caribbean historians as well as to scholars outside the region. And let us rid ourselves of the tendency to treat the region as some kind of off-shore Latin America.
Tom August
Milwaukee, Wisconsin