Interview with Dr. Arthur Chapman

Professor in History Education, Dr Arthur Chapman is the Head of Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment in the University College London’s Faculty of Education and Society. Dr Chapman’s research interests are History in Education, the History of History Education, and Public History.

In an interview with the Georgian-Abkhaz Context Professor in Education History, prominent British scientist Dr. Arthur Chapman discussed the problematic issues of teaching history in schools and universities, as well as the possibility of the coexistence of different, even contradicting, national narratives within one state system.

The scholar also talks about how to avoid the instrumentalization of history for political purposes, and if teaching history can be used for peacebuilding.

Badri Belkania: The Observatory on History Teaching in Europe (OHTE) at the Council of Europe has published a general report on how the subject of history is taught in Georgia and Armenia, and across the EU. Why is the OHTE report important?

We do not know enough about what is done in history in different contexts

Arthur Chapman: I should start by saying that I’m not an expert on the report but I’ve read it.

I think it is very important for the simple reason that we don’t have what it gives us. It is very rare to have reliable comparative data on what is done in different countries. It is a really good start to the process of providing that and it would be really good to have more countries involved.

We do not know enough about what is done in history in different contexts. And it is important to know that because history has a role in shaping people’s thinking, in how is it modelled in different countries. So, I can say with confidence that the report gives us what we didn’t have before.

I have been involved in small projects over a comparative nature, and it is always very difficult to find anything to work with. I mentioned in my talk, that my colleagues in the The UCL Institute of Education, we were asked by the American government back 10 years ago now to do something similar.

It was informed by Pisa. The PISA outcomes were not so good and they wanted to know what happened elsewhere in Shanghai, in Japan, and in Australia, etc. That was a comparative curriculum across all subjects, actually, not just history. There was very little we could draw upon that was already there. No one does this research. So it is really good that this has been done.

As was said yesterday, when the report was being launched, the fact that it has a major European institution behind it gives the gravitas, which means people respond. So it is important in itself to know that history is taught in different contexts. It is extremely valuable. There is the Council of Europe doing it because they’re able to get better responses than I will be able to as an academic.

Also, it contains a good mixture of things. So it contains on the one hand analysis and comparison of curriculum documents, but also focus groups and collection of data from teachers. And if you just study curriculum documents, you don’t know what the reality is. And maybe this is anticipating a question you’re going to ask later, but it’s even better to have children’s responses as well. That’s not in the report, but I think there was some ambition for it to be in the future.

And another thing that’s important about the report is that there’s a commitment to doing further reports like this by the Observatory, which will mean that we’ll be able to start talking about trends over time. And you should know what’s changing. And not only at the moment, do we not know what’s happening in different countries, we have no idea what’s changing.

Badri Belkania: What were the main findings for you?

The degree to which minority perspectives are catered for way down does not surprise me

Arthur Chapman: I think what stands out for anybody is linked to what they’re focusing on and what they think is important. So in my institute, we have a set of articles education. I’ve been doing work recently collaborating with the Holocaust Library in London, to do research on how we can teach about the Roma and Sinti and the experience of genocide that they had during the Second World War.

And also my institution, we have a centre for climate change and sustainability. So things that interest me greatly, and I’m saying this is just what stuck in my head, the data in the report about the degree to which environmental history is taught, and the answer was its way down the priority list of people.

The degree to which minority perspectives are catered for way down the list of people. None of that surprises me. But it was interesting to see it confirmed in the report. So that’s stood out for me.

Badri Belkania: What are the modern historiographical approaches that you think are missing in most European countries? What approaches would you recommend them to adopt?

Arthur Chapman: One of the things the report showed is an emphasis on national narrative. When we talk about the modern historiography, the key thing what’s happened in the second half of the 20th century, is that historiography moved away from top-down political narrative to history from below – to history of a social kind, of an economic kind, history looking at gender and identity and things like that. But I think school history teaching in general, is still overly political.

Badri Belkania: Usually, history divides nations. There are different national narratives, often contradictory with each other, sometimes even causing armed conflicts. We see this in today’s world as well, be it in Ukraine, Israel, my homeland Georgia, or elsewhere. Why is history frequently instrumentalized and could that be solved in the future?

I think historians are weak compared to states and politicians

Arthur Chapman: It’s very difficult, isn’t it? Particularly if there are political forces that want to use history to stir up animosity and to create reasons to fan the flames of conflict. What can a historian do against a government apparatus?

But we know from history, from analysis of historical narrative, also from social psychology, how narrative is used to trigger a conflict. What you do is create simple categories us versus them, you then ask to identify with one or the other, then create a situation of threat and the natural response to a situation or threat is violence. So now it’s clear. We know how narratives are used to cause violence, to stir hostility.

If we have that knowledge, perhaps we can act to reverse that. You can challenge the simple narratives that say ‘it is us versus them’. Where are the overlaps between us? What do we have in common? And also, who are we anyway?

As was pointed out yesterday, there’s a great deal of diversity in Russia. For example, there’ll be people within Russia, at the moment don’t have a voice because of political structures, but they do not agree. We know about the opposition.

So, I think historians are weak compared to states and politicians. But we understand how narratives work. We know how narratives can be used to promote hate and violence. With that knowledge, we can act against the things that trigger conflict.

Badri Belkania: Do you think history teaching can be used for peacebuilding?

Understanding other people is a route towards getting on with them better – history could promote peace by promoting understanding.

Arthur Chapman: Certainly, yes. I think if you understand why wars happen, you can understand how they might be prevented, or at least the risks mitigated. Learning about history is very useful for politicians and political actors, because it gives you knowledge and wisdom about how the world works, and maybe you can use that.

They’re never straightforward, but nevertheless, we can learn from the past. History has value in that way. Also, one of the things you do in history is you try and see the world from different points of view. Even if you will focus only on your own nation or your own ethnic group.

You’re still looking at people in the past who even though they share things in common with you, are also different from you. If you expand history, so you look at other groups, you become appreciative of difference. And, I think understanding other people is a route towards getting on with them better. So, history could promote peace by promoting understanding.

Also, you can’t do history without being critical. Historians have to assemble source materials, and try and construct models of what was happening from those materials. It’s never a question of just writing down what the materials say. You have to think critically about them, who said that, in what context, for what reaso? So, history gives you the critical skills, it gives you a sense of standing back from things, which is also quite useful in recognising complexity, and recognising opportunities. And all of those forms of thinking are likely to be useful if you’re wanting to achieve peace.

Badri Belkania: In the Caucasus, we have various nations and ethnic groups. Unfortunately, many conflicts happened in our region – between Georgians and Abkhaz, Georgians and Ossetians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis. There were wars in Chechnya, in the other parts of the North Caucasus, very often orchestrated by or with direct involvement of Russia. Some of these conflicts are still ongoing. So, how should history be taught in countries and regions such as the Caucasus, with many different national and ethnic groups, to avoid escalations and conflicts?

The kind of narrative that amplifies conflict, deepens it, internalises it, is the moralising simple narrative, in which you say there are good and bad people

Arthur Chapman: It is very difficult, indeed. Who am I to say to other people what should they do but I will still try to use the example of my own country. In England, we have become very divided in politics for narrative reasons over Brexit – should we be Europeans, should we be independent of Europe? Should we have our empire? These kinds of ideas. So, I think narratives about identity are always very emotive and very complicated.

For very real reason, if you’re trying to promote peace in a situation of conflict, how do you deal with open wounds? I can’t say to somebody whose children have been shot by the person they don’t like that they should try and calm down and acquire enlightened peace loving perspective. It is very difficult. Particularly if you have very broad emotions.

So, one job is to manage that if you’re going to try and have peace. How do you deal with the legacies of conflict? You can’t dismiss them, you can’t pretend they didn’t happen. And for many people, they’re still ongoing. So to try and have a conversation about peace, when people still think there’s a war happening, it’s very complicated. S,  I’m not going to pretend that I have the answers to this.

But, analytically, standing back from it all – how can narratives contribute to making things worse? That’s the question you should ask and don’t have those kinds of narrative. So the kind of narrative that I think amplifies conflict, deepens it, internalises it, is the moralising simple narrative, in which you say there are good and bad people. We’re the good people, everybody else’s bad. What’s at stake is our very survival – this kind of thing leads to war.

How do you get away from the multiple causes of things? I don’t think many things can be explained simply in moral terms, with versus good versus bad. I think that what are the real causes of conflict between countries – partly it’s narrative, but often there’s conflict over resources, access to the sea, something like that. How do you resolve that when you have different groups? One way you can resolve it is by stoking hostility through narrative, which just leads to war.

But how else could you resolve a real material conflict over resources? And we’re gonna see more and more of those. One of the real reasons for migration has to do with water shortages and global warming. This is going to cause more conflicts over resources, which is going to lead to movement, which will lead to fighting. So, telling stories that amplify violence is one way to approach it. That results in war.

There are other ways of approaching it the less destructive of human life. You need engage more people and you need to ask what are the real causes of this? What are the constraints, what are the limitations? Are there ways we can work together?

Badri Belkania: Can different national narratives peacefully coexist within one state?

I think multiple narratives can exist within the same political structure. The experience of my country proves this. We are a confederation, a multinational state with multiple narratives and multiple education systems.

Arthur Chapman: I’m from the United Kingdom, which is a very strange place. The United Kingdom is a multinational state. We have the Scottish, the Welsh, the Northern Irish, even you could say there are minorities, the Cornish, for example. So in my country, we have parallel education systems. The Scottish have their own, the English have their own, the Welsh have their own, the Northern Irish have their own, so we’ve got four different regimes, different systems, different textbooks, everything is different.

The Scottish examination systems are completely different from the English. And, actually, recently I’ve done a paper comparing England and Scotland and it’s quite interesting, because in both countries, they have to think about Englishness, Scottishness, and Britishness. Britishness is the story of what brings us together.

And it’s interesting comparing how in Scotland they divide this – what do they see as Scottish history, what do they see as British history, what is English history and the other way around. So, yes, I think multiple narratives can exist within the same political structure. The experience of my country proves this. We are a confederation, a multinational state with multiple narratives and multiple education systems.