In terms of my own understanding of historical thinking - I had always thought in a fairly simplistic way - that there was "good" history and "bad" history - not in the content, but in the approach that the historian took. Until recently, I assumed there was a “one to one” relationship between the accuracy of the historical method and the epistemological correctness of the historical account or narrative. Seen in this way, if a certain version of history - a particular story or account - was flawed and erred it had to do with a faulty approach or method used by the historian. My belief was that exaggerations, myths, omissions, lack of balance and over-emotional historical accounts were bad history that could and should be rewritten or re-examined.
The Lowenthal piece has shown me that much of what I thought to be “bad history” (though not all, I as assume that some bad history is simply bad history) is actually “heritage,” and heritage does not apologize or make excuses for what it is. Lowenthal writes that, “heritage exaggerates and omits, candidly invents and frankly forgets, and thrives on ignorance and error.” Through this reading, as well as additional pieces by Graham, Conn and Levin, I’m starting to develop an understanding of the ways in which history differs from heritage, at least in the framework but forth by Lowenthal.
Firstly, heritage is an emotional pursuit. Exaggerated and “fabricated” accounts of one’s heritage are designed to create feelings of patriotism and nationalism, and an undying sense of attachment to the group. Multiple voices and perspective are not included – in fact, almost grinningly excluded. As opposed to history, which on its best days is a just and fair account of history, malleable and open to reinterpreation in light of new information, heritage is tales and myths that instill faith and devotion to one story. As Lowenthal writes, “historians aim to reduce bias; heritage sanctions and strengthens it.” Again, in its ideal form, history’s accounts and evidence are open for all, while heritage is limited to an exclusive group. Heritage is our stories about us.
Secondly then, heritage is about identity and belonging. Heritage does not claim to actually discover what occurred in the past. It is not open to criticism by historical method. Actually, it often builds its strength on sometimes accidental, sometimes intentional misreadings of history. As Lowenthal quotes Renan, “getting its history wrong is crucial for the creation of a nation.” Heritage grows on incorrect and exaggerated accounts of history, and according to Lowenthal, heritage is the stuff of patriotism. We derive our sense of nationalism and identity from the unifying myths and legends that are constructed and amassed throughout our history. What defines us and unifies us is our heritage.
Seen this way, heritage takes on a negative connotation, and it would seem that one of the goals of history education would be to eliminate the place that heritage has in shaping our understanding of our past, as well as who we are in the present. However, there are two points that I find interesting on the side of heritage. Firstly, for many people it is heritage that draws us into an interest, passion and potential study of history. The overly simplistic, one sided, mythological approach to history seems to hold a significant place in shaping our collective memory and identity because the stories are powerful and compelling, and as I have stated above, they are emotional and often patriotic. How many people find a passion for a deeper and more critical study of history (either their own or their culture’s) because of legendary stories and unifying narratives that spark the imagination and stir the soul? And this notion has obvious application to the history classroom, as Lowenthal writes, “teachers of history must above all strive to astonish, students strive to be astonished.”
Secondly, I wonder what role heritage plays in filling a need for unity in order for a liberal democracy like Canada to function politically and socially. As Charles Taylor writes, “ to form a state, in the democratic era, a society is forced to undertake the difficult and never-to-be-completed task of defining its collective identity.” In a nation like Canada, a nation where the majority of the people has external roots, and where the native population is marginalized and practically voiceless, I wonder whether there is a need for a collective identity? I understand the evils of this type of exclusionary approach, but I still wonder if a unifying narrative of who we are as a people is necessary for us in order to move forward together in harmony and good government? While I currently lack the deep historical understanding to take a stance on this notion, I am interested in the role of heritage as a element of liberal democracies.
As a social studies teacher, I find these ideas so fascinating. Teaching grade seven this year, the curriculum is a year-long survey of Canadian History. What I now want to explore is the heritage of our country. I want to develop a deeper sense of what the myths and legends of our country are. I want to somehow expose my students to our nationalistic heritage, and then have them examine these ‘truths.’ What voices are being told? What voices are being excluded? Who is in and who is out? Whose heritage are we learning?
