Public discussion of the proposed national standard for teaching history in Russia began in early July. The initiative, advanced by President Putin, has divided society. Denis Sekirinsky, senior research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History and secretary of the National Committee of Russian Historians, speaks with the Valdai Discussion Clu b about the controversial policy.
Historian Mikhail Pokrovsky once said that history is politics projected into the past. Is it true in the modern world?
I believe that it is always true, but especially so when we consider history not as an academic discipline but as a cornerstone of national and cultural identity. In particular, the teaching of history in school is definitely an element of politics projected into the past.
What would having a single history textbook for the country achieve?
To begin with, creating a single history textbook is not being considered now. What we need is to develop a concept for how history is taught. The new Federal State Educational Standard (FGOS), which the government adopted recently, does not contain any practical information. In fact, it is a list of skills and knowledge which school students must have upon completing a course in history, biology or geography.
In the past we talked about a “fundamental core,” which meant that school students had to learn certain historical events and dates. There is no fundamental core any more and there has not been any for a long time. It was replaced with approximate instruction programs. And we don’t even have such programs for the new educational standard.
In other words, the History and Culture Standard, which a special working group is now developing, will in fact be a new history instruction program. In my opinion, it is not the best possible title, but this is what they have chosen. It will not be a textbook proper but a concept, the foundation for writing new history textbooks. As far as I know, there will be two, three or possibly four groups of textbooks written by different authors.
What they are doing now will be a “historical minimum,” that is, a list of dates, events and people to be included in history textbooks. Internet-based discussion of the standard will last two months and then there will be live discussions until roughly the end of November. Then a competition for new history textbooks will be announced, most likely by the Russian Historical Association. Several groups of authors will take part in the competition, which is why there may be differences between the textbooks.
Is it possible, and is it necessary, to take into account regional, ethnic and national differences between the regions when writing a history textbook?
Some authors believe that regional, ethnic and cultural differences should be taken into account, but I cannot imagine how this could be done. Such a textbook would consist of many volumes. I believe that we should instead consider teaching regional history in addition to national history. What is now being done in the regions is nothing more than the study of local lore. There used to be lessons of Moscow lore at Moscow schools, which was not very good, in my opinion. There were also lessons of Ufa lore in Bashkortostan, which sounds very ambiguous.
We definitely need to consider new methods of teaching regional history. The main goal should be to present a region’s history as part of the history of Russia and subsequently to show that regional history is connected with world history. There are many events in history for which this can be done. One of the better known ones is the 1812 Patriotic War [against Napoleon] and the participation of Bashkir regiments in it. First, Europe and the rest of the world learned about the “Northern Cupids” [cupidons du nord], as the Bashkir cavalry was called, and second, the Bashkir learned that there are other, and possibly better, cities in Europe than St. Petersburg.
It is important to trace the connection between regional history, national history and world history. It would do students good to look at their region’s history from a different angle.
There will most likely be contradictions between regional history and Russian history, what with the wars in the Caucasus and the two Chechen wars…
A major event has been planned for this fall – discussions of the difficult issue of the regions’ accession to Russia. What did it entail? Historians cautiously describe it as “affiliation.” But was it a voluntary affiliation or a result of conquest? The process differed from region to region. The meeting planned for September will be attended by historians from Moscow and the regions and will likely be held in one of the regions, where historians, ethnologists and history teachers will try to bring together different assessments and approaches.
What events or facts could be used as a common denominator for history textbooks?
Despite their differences, currently available history textbooks – there are 5-7 textbooks for each grade – have one thing in common: the bulk of the text deals with military-political history. Cultural events are mostly restricted to the last paragraph in each article. Our history textbooks are similar to government budget policy: culture gets what’s left after all other allocations have been made. Moreover, since this paragraph is located at the very end, not every student will read it.
Let’s take a 9th grade textbook on 20th-century Russian history. A hundred of its 250 pages are devoted to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, and only 12 pages to culture. Just imagine: 12 pages for the rich culture of the 20th century. This approach to teaching history through military-political events will not help smooth over tensions and disputes, but will only incite new ones.
I believe that the only solution is to give history textbooks a new direction. They must above all be focused on culture, science, the arts and sports – issues that don’t provoke heated political debates. I believe that focusing on culture rather than political history will help us find a foundation for social consensus.
What events in Russian history are the most contentious among historians and politicians?
Polls show that they are always the same: Stalin, the 1917 revolution, perestroika and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the past 22 or even 25 years, if we start with perestroika.
These events provoke the most heated debates and the biggest divergence in public opinion. What are we to do with Russia’s recent history? This is a difficult question. It has been proposed to end history textbooks with the year 2000, and there are sound historical reasons for this. For example, in the Russian Empire, history was only taught up to the reign of the current tsar. Many history teachers have supported the idea. It would be logical to move the most recent period of our history to the field of social studies, which are also in a critical state.
There are also problems with the Soviet period. I believe that the origins of the ancient Russian state are no longer interesting to people or to the key newsmakers who typically start these public debates. The traditional personalities – Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great – are not very attractive either. The public tends to see them almost as cartoon characters. What did Peter the Great do? He “opened a window to Europe” and cut off the boyars’ beards. Stalin industrialized the country, killed or imprisoned millions of compatriots and won the war. What about Nightingale the Robber? This is also part of our history. In my opinion, people tend to put Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin and Nightingale the Robber in the same category.
Discussions of the new textbooks have lasted very long. Can the idea die in the course of these discussions? Will the printed textbooks be in demand in schools, which are even now converting to digital forms of education?
As far as I know, the Education Ministry is working out regulatory documents on allowing electronic textbooks in the classroom. But the process is taking too long in Russia. For a long time, the worst horror story was that computers would soon replace teachers, which is completely impossible. But this kind of speculation hindered the development of legislation on electronic textbooks. Work on them has been accelerated recently, and I believe that most print textbooks will soon come with electronic versions. Moreover, they will not be available on disks but directly on servers that students will be able to access.
Our schools have computers and Internet access, but the introduction of electronic textbooks is hindered by the lack of relevant legislation. So I think that new textbooks which are being prepared now will be issued both in book and electronic form.
