Why should we teach social studies?

This afternoon a colleague of mine asked me why we should teach social studies.  I told her that I have a variety of answers for a variety of situations.  My flippant answer, usually reserved for students intent on disruption rather than understanding, is that the ministry of education tells us that we should.  For the student intent upon learning the actual motivation; however, the answer is far more complex.

The most typical "serious" answer that social studies teachers give is George Santayana's aphorism that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".  Of course, like most famous quotations, this one is pithy, true to a certain degree, and far too limited to truly explain the many and varied of the reasons for learning about our history.  Never the less, because of it's ubiquitous presence in the debate about why we teach history, Santayana's reason to learn history deserves examination.

Hoping that our children can create a better world without making the same mistakes that generations before them have had to endure is a noble endeavor.  By teaching them history, and with it critical thinking, might  inoculate them against some of the more serious mistakes that their ancestors have committed.  For example, we can talk to them of: the Holocaust, of evil, of the movie "the wave", and of Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment.  We can ask them at the start whether "regular people" are capable of doing great evil.   Through that we can make them examine whether evil is something that everyone carries within, and perhaps we can help them to carefully weigh their own consciences when or if their society sanctions what is wrong over what is right.  Properly used, social studies is a powerful tool in creating critical thinkers with strength enough to hold to their most treasured principles when others try to lead them in a wrong direction.

Santayana is almost certainly correct in his assertion, but his reason is inadequate because it does not go far enough.  This is completely understandable because, however pithy, one sentence cannot possibly describe all of the many reasons to teach social studies.  That said, social studies teachers who are in the market for one liners might want to give at least as much weight to a metaphor believed to have been coined by Bernard of Chartres, who used to say that "We are like dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size."  For those who would prefer a more curt version of the phrase, it was more famously reminted by Isaac Newton, who said, "If I have seen a little further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

In any case, the phrase gives yet another cogent explanation.  Simply put, by learning history, not only are we less likely to repeat past mistakes, but we are more likely to make leaps forward in the future by building upon previous knowledge.  The past offers not only mistakes, but solid solutions that can be built upon.  Once one knows how to build a wheel, one can get on to the task of building the wagon.  Unfortunately, if one is ignorant of the wheel because they have not learned what it is or how it is constructed, the task of building the wagon becomes exponentially more difficult.  Naturally, this analogy applies equally to the construction of a democracy as easily as to the contruction of a means of transportation. 

Now, based on the principle that for every complex question there is one simple answer that is wrong, there are many reasons for teaching social studies that are too involved to be encapsulated in a sentence.  Possibly the foremost of these is that social studies is important not only for the knowledge base that it provides, but also for the process skills that it teaches.  Skills that are applicable in all areas of a student's later life. 
An important example of this, is the ability to disagree on contentious issues without being disagreeable. 

Social studies, taught properly, includes the debate and discussion of issues that are important and contentious.  Euthanasia, capital punishment, and Quebec separation all have a place in a social studies classroom.  Properly structured, conversations about these things can provide students with the ability to see other points of view, to possibly empathize with people who do not agree with them, and to learn how to discuss an idea without attacking the person that holds that idea.  These are skills that we rarely see adults use when debating such things-- even adults who theoretically should know how to debate, like politicians.  By teaching our children the skills to behave rationally and civilly, we can hope that they will be better than us when push comes to shove for the next generation of leaders.

Another important process skill that social studies utilizes is that of information gathering and synthesis-- research, if you will.  When our students come into our classes, they can expect to be required to complete projects that require analysis of information, synthesis of information, and the formation and defence of opinions.  All of these skills are crucial in many workplaces.  Students need to understand that when they are writing an opinion piece on capital punishment that they are learning a transferable skill, not merely completing a purely hypothetical exercise for the entertainment of their teacher.  If one practises forming and defending an opinion about the death penalty, then they can more effectively form and defend opinions about everything from their favorite television program to why they have chosen to support a different political party than that of their family. 

Tying process skills and knowledge together, social studies is important in the defence of our democracy.  The problem with the way that democracy is viewed by too many these days is that it is seen as a right, but without responsibility attached.  The key to an effective democracy, however, is participation.  Without participation, democracy is moot.  Without the proper tools, full participation is not possible.  Social studies is the vehicle through which we give our students the tools to fully participate, if they so choose.

The basis for effective participation is a good knowledge base.  Students need to know how we arrived at the government that we currently have, why we chose

The Responsiblility Of The Media-- Through A Lens Darkly

Our society has come to an important crossroads. It is widely accepted that we live in a global village. On some level, we understand the interconnectedness of all things. In particular, we have come to a point where we accept that the actions taken by others in remote locations can affect us profoundly. As we are unable to be in all places and are unable to know all things, we require the ability to obtain information about far away events. Accurate information allows us to evaluate these events, examine how these events impact us, and then form opinions and take actions (if necessary) based on this information.

Given all of these facts, the prism through which we view this Byzantine maze is a crucial tool. Whatever prism we use must be clean, for lack of a better term. For many of us, prism through which we view these distant, but critical, events is the mainstream media. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is anything but a clean tool, and all indications are that the media is becoming dirtier by the day.

The examples of media malfeasance abound, but most will agree that the most egregious offences to true media principles emanate from the United States in the form of "advocacy" media-- most notably FOX news. FOX embodies what I refer to as "advocacy media, all the while vigorously defending the insane idea that it is "fair and balanced"-- the ideal that most of us would agree an actual news station should strive for.

Of course, anyone looking at Fox "news" with an objective eye would immediately conclude that it's columns, it's reporters, and even it's news stories are strongly biased.  As a fan of John Stewart a part of me applauds their constant gaffes because they provide me with a great deal of entertainment.  On the other hand, a larger part of me laments their lack of professionalism, as a person who understands the integral role that media plays in the construction of a civil society.  Even more disconcerting, Sun Media Corp has recently announced plans to bring a network with the same bias to Canada-- a development that Canadians need like another Quebec referendum.   

I hope, I really hope, that Sun Media Corp fails in Canada because my nation has no need of a version of Fox news.  The problematic argument that will be advanced by people that advocate the need for an extremist network is that the market will decide.  This argument makes sense from a market economics point of view.  Things that sell have a market and should exist.  The problem is that truth and honesty, something that media should strive for, do not factor into market economics.  Fox works because it deliberately distorts the truth to make it fit into an extreme right wing view of reality. 

Things to talk on still:

Everyone is an expert on everything, so no one is an expert on anything-- attack on expertise, entering new dark age







Teacher, policeman, lawyer-- if they approach their job in a biased way, they get (rightly) fired.