I was not initially going to share this, as I felt it was too academic, but a good friend of mine convinced me it was worth sharing. It is laden with information, so if you're not currently supercharged with coffee you're probably better off giving this a miss.
A word of warning: Plagiarists will be shot.
What
are the opportunities and challenges facing the writing and teaching of history
in engaging with a contemporary issue such as Climate Change?
The works of thinkers that have
attempted to explain the problems of society can be simply summarised: the
market economy takes precedence over all else.[1] Sociological thinkers like Marx and Beck
argue that if society were not in opposition to nature and instead understood
its place within it we could move
towards sustainability. This suggests a
systemic problem with our society. In my
view this originates from conservatism and its many serpentine heads;
‘modernity’, technocracy, individualism, careerism, capitalism, denial and
delay. If we are to tackle contemporary
issues we need seek to rectify this systemic problem. History can positively influence society, by
instilling critical values. History can
also expose the faults of the past and present, to inform educators, influence
politics and drive change. This essay
will expose society’s faults, look at the values History imbues and how the
discipline is currently undervalued and threatened.
Before analysing the failures of
society we need to break down misconceptions about History. If you asked people ‘what is the place of
History in combating Climate Change?’ they would likely say, if they did more
than stare, that ’the past can inform the present’. History has however ironically proven that
humanity does not learn from the past and instead relentlessly walks the path
of self-destruction, only ever temporarily alleviating crisis through expansion
or technological development.[2] The other common
answer, or else the cognitive process (or lack thereof) making people blankly
stare, is that ‘History is concerned with the past not the present’. To this Levene and the Rescue!history
movement would reply that if humankind is threatened with foreclosure the
discipline has vested interest in preventing that; ‘Historians for the right to
work: We demand a continuing supply of history.’[3] To do this we
need break free of what Beck terms the ‘technocratic iron cage of environmental
politics’ —in which environmental politics are framed in the context of
preventing the bad, rather than creating the good— and redefine the values we
associate with the present (termed ‘modernity’).[4] ‘Modernity’ currently protects the market,
delaying action and rectifying problems with technology only when they can no
longer be ignored. In the nuclear debate
Sir David King, a Scientist championing the urgency of Climate Change, likened
environmentalists in their opposition of nuclear power (in reality nuclear
waste/contamination), to Luddites, who had attempted to destroy early
industrial innovations.[5] What must be
understood is that Science and technology are not solely responsible for
carrying humanity forward, nor do they follow an arithmetic line of continuous progress. Climate Change attests to this. In tackling a contemporary issue we should
seek interdisciplinary cooperation, understanding the value of each aspect of
society. Technocracy and conservatism
shut down alternatives; History is victim of both and not adherent of either.
To highlight the failings of our
society and our technocratic mentality we need only look at how our
environmental impacts have been managed.
Marx stressed a need to be consciously aware of the consequences of our
actions; he also explained capital derives value from labour and fails to take
into account the value of nature.[6] While developed nations are beginning to try
and regulate this fault, by taxing ‘negative externalities’, ‘we’ have so far
been woeful in wholly understanding and reacting to this impact. Not necessarily ‘we’ as a collective, but
rather the officials able to rectify the problem (see Beck’s idea of ‘risk
societies’, who determines risk).[7] Pigovian taxes or blanket bans have been
delayed far longer than desirable, having significant consequences upon the
environment. One example is the damage
done to the ozone layer. It was
discovered in 1974 that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in spray cans and
refrigerators, could destroy stratospheric ozone under the influence of
ultraviolet light. Governments, under
pressure from the chemical industry, refused to react until ozone destruction
was fully understood—even when the damaging nature of CFCs was almost certain
by 1977. It was only in 1987 when the
world’s media began reporting a ‘Hole in the Ozone’ that the Montreal Protocol
was established, leading to a complete ban of CFCs by the late 1990s. It took more than a decade to acknowledge the
problem, and another to resolve it. It
is expected natural levels of ozone will not return until the middle of the
century.[8] The handling
of Climate Change is therefore ominously familiar. In 2010 an additional 564 million tons of
carbon were pumped into the air than 2009, an increase of 6%. This increase was higher than the worst case
scenario outlined by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change in
2007. However this was only about the
middle of what MIT calculated.[9] This raises a question for which my cynicism
should already imply the answer, what is to blame for this ‘pollution’ of
Science?
I am referring to conservatism; more
specifically the development and evolution of Conservative Think Tanks. These organisations mobilised first against
the spread and fear of socialism, but anti-red became anti-green as
environmentalism began to be perceived as a threat to economic supremacy. CTTs have since banded with a minority of
sympathetic Scientists, to disguise their alliance with conservative ideals; used
terms like ‘junk science’, to damage the credibility of Scientists; demanded
equal representation in the media; and resorted to attacks if necessary, likening
Al Gore’s efforts to that of genocide.[10] Oreskes, in
her lecture on ‘The American Denial of Global Warming’, clarified the impact of
CTTs. According to her work the
scientific community reached consensus in 1979 that human activity was altering
the climate. In spite of this 50% of
Americans believe Climate Change is still disputed amongst Scientists and 30%
do not believe Climate Change is being influenced by humans.[11] There is a paralysing sense of doubt. In light of this I hope my difficulty in
sharing the optimism of those like Cattle, who considered the forth assessment
of the IPCC (in 2007) to be a ‘transformative moment’, can be appreciated.[12] I saw the cumulative might of millions of
dollars and an endless stream of scientific evidence met with the conclusion
that it is ‘very likely’ the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are warming, the
improvement of a more forceful and assertive adverb (‘very’) upon the
conclusions established after the third meeting of the IPCC in 2001.[13] Progress is simply too slow, it has been 40
years since the Scientific community reached agreement and still we tip-toe
around the issue; the public is too conflicted for it to be a key voting issue;
and the wrong questions are still being asked, as one can accept Climate Change
without accepting humanity is causing or catalysing it.
Any strikes to the serpentine head’s of
conservatism have only increased the beast’s ferocity, as evidenced by the ever
increasing quantity of environmentally sceptical books from CTTs.[14] If
contemporary issues such as Climate Change are to be combated these heads must
be tamed or else irreparably severed.
For the Hydra of Greek mythology Hercules cauterised each severed stump
with fire. History must come brandishing
its own flame: truth and the concept of free thinking. As a discipline History pursues both, without
ever being arrogant enough to believe it can wholly attain either; we can
however come closer through awareness of mistruth and critical thinking,
thereby arming the populace against conservative influence.
As an example of this call to arms I
will explain how my own experiences as a History student have influenced my
perception. In the module for which this
essay is written, ‘Past Actions, Present Woes: History and Anthropogenic
Climate Change’, we were asked two deceptively simple questions in our first
lecture, ‘why are you studying History?’ and ‘are you a free thinking
individual?’ To this last question the
most critical answer I can give is that no such thing exists; there are freer
thinkers, but there are no free thinkers.
We are all ultimately constrained by our society and must obey its laws
in order to survive. This does not
however mean we are without ability to influence; this view is supported by
Cooper, who argues environmental history should seek to influence politics,
rather than policy, meaning we should alter society’s current framework as
opposed to operating within it.[15] It is this
awareness that distinguishes the narrow-minded from the freer thinkers. Do we attend University to start on a higher
rung of the metaphorical career ladder, or do we do so for intellectual
development, to shape society, rather than providing another body to help
uphold it? I would like to believe the
latter, but the response ‘to get a good job’ suggested otherwise, at least at a
superficial level. I say superficial
because these are the ideas perpetuated by institutions like Universities,
which are founded upon traditional values and set within a society driven by
individualism. These ideas were not our
own and I don’t doubt they are held by fewer, having had opportunity to
criticise them.
At present our society is painfully
limited. The story of Cattywampuss is
but one example of these limits. A
teacher explained no trace of an animal [Cattywampus] remained; they then gave
facts about the creature’s characteristics and passed around the skull of a
cat. In the test that ensued everyone in
the class got a rap sheet of red X’s.
The obvious contradictions in giving information that could not possibly
have been known and the ridiculous name failed to pique anyone’s suspicions. The initial response from students was
outrage; this then became a source of learning and amusement. Students learned that teachers and textbooks
are not infallible and, by extension, nothing is.[16] Education
should not transform people into submissive sponges. We should not merely sit, listen, absorb and
reproduce; and as human knowledge grows exponentially we should not discard
thinking in preference of knowledge.[17] The world is
developing at far too rapid a rate for knowledge to be prioritised and it is
only through thinking that we may make things better than they already are.[18] History is
not unique in teaching these values, but it provides much more opportunity than
most disciplines for application.
Students are taught not to fit evidence to a preformed conclusion, but
instead to collect evidence to inform a conclusion. This forms the basis for the debate between
adopting ‘eco-pedagogy’ over ‘Education for Sustainability’ (EfS) for History
education. The distinction is best
understood through example. In Cooper’s
‘Education for Sustainability’ article he documents the minutes of the University of Exeter
Having established the benefits of
History I must sadly explain how it is threatened. The Battle
‘Michael Gove, the new secretary for education who has removed public funding for the teaching of history at universities [and other social sciences], wants to protect the position of history in schools. Seeing history as a training ground for patriotism and citizenship … [he believes] that only a return to narrative history will make the discipline exciting and popular’
This is a hard blow. I never considered studying History at
University until A Level. The focus upon
an argument rather than facts, dates, and names, stimulated the then
impoverished gooey thing inside my cranium.
I cannot help but feel a strong surge of anger at these decisions, which
epitomise the problems referenced over the course of this essay; they assert
hierarchy and impose values upon the populace, attempting to instil a sense of
patriotism, rather than a sense of self.
When considering Universities in the UK
[and Switzerland ] currently
provide the best value for money, and that the privatised US
In conclusion, society simultaneously provides the greatest opportunity and challenge when engaging with contemporary issues. At present the majority consciously or subconsciously works to protect the market. History, while not in itself a solution, is a potential means of intellectual liberation. We must embrace History’s ability to develop by understanding it is not purely rooted in the past and I implore educators of all disciplines to acknowledge its values. We should not only focus upon acquiring knowledge, as recent government initiatives suggest, nor should the education system be driven by hierarchical ideas. To meet Beck’s cosmopolitan vision and redefine ‘modernity’ people need to think for themselves, rather than perpetuating indoctrinated ideas. Students should therefore be posed with critical questions and given opportunity to evaluate their thoughts. Like all great civilisations that have passed, we are not infallible. We should attempt to remedy the failings of society, illustrated by historical writings, lest History repeat itself.
[1] J. Foster, ‘Marx's Theory of Metabolic
Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology’ American Journal of Sociology 105 (1999), 388, 393
M. Levene,
‘Historians for the right to work: We demand a continuing supply of history’, History Workshop Journal, 67 (2009),
77-80
[2] K. Pomeranz, The great divergence: China ,
Europe, and the making of the modern world economy, (Princeton ,
2000) pp. 74, 77, 79
[3] Levene M. Rescue!history http://rescue-history-from-climate-change.org/ (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[4] Beck, ‘How to Create a Green
Modernity?’, 258-259, 263-4
[5] Levene, ‘Historians for the right to
work’, 75-77
[6] Foster ‘Marx's Theory of Metabolic
Rift’, 386-7
[7] Beck, ‘How to Create a Green
Modernity?’, 259-261
[8] J. Oosthoek, ‘The IPCC and the Ozone
Hole: A Warning from History’, Globilizations
5 (2008), 64
[9] ‘Greenhouse gases rise
by record amount’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels/print (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[10] P. Jacques, R. Dunlap and M. Freeman,
‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental
scepticism’ Environmental Politics 17
(2008), 353, 362, 364
[11] N. Oreskes, The American Denial of Global Warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[12] Beck, ‘How to Create a Green
Modernity?’, 261
[13] Oosthoek, ‘The IPCC and the Ozone Hole’,
63
[14] Jacques et al. ‘The organisation of
denial’, 361, 363
[15] T. Cooper, ‘The
politics of environmental history’ Journal
of Historical Geography 36 (2010), 349
[16] Owen D. Best Teacher I Ever Had, (1992) http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~leonghw/Courses/cattywampus.html (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[17] P. Grobstein, This Isn't Just MY Problem, Friend
(1991) http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/problem.html (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[18] K. Fisch, S. McLeod,
and J. Brenman, Did You Know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY (last accessed 16
January 2012)
[19] T. Cooper, ‘Education
for Sustainability? Teaching Environmental History in the context of
Eco-pedagogy’, University
of Exeter
[20] Cooper, ‘Education for
Sustainability?’, p.5
[21] H. Hotson, ‘University reform: a flawed
experiment?’, University of Oxford
No comments:
Post a Comment