and beware: for those of you who have not yet read the Wertschian tale to
its end, this may be a bit of a spoiler, disclosing the plot. I do this
because in spite of quibbles with style and terminology I find the arc of
the whole story thought-provoking.
=46irst there are the Beck and McKeown studies presented in the early middle
of Ch3, revealing how children having "done" the American Revolution in
fifth grade, at best have learned to tell a fragmented story (i.e. when
they even get the facts right) -- as opposed to one organized into an
integrated whole in accordance with the narrative ideal of history. So the
plot starts with elementary school kids "knowing too little".
It continues with the college kids in the study by O'Connor, who know their
cultural tool too well: all of them accounting for the origin of their
country by organizing their narratives in accordance with the "quest for
freedom" theme, even when components of the story contradict their main
theme. Wertsch analyses the narrative treatment of the contradictory theme
of how people in their quest for freedom deprived others -- Native
Americans -- of their freedom, property and lives. There are several ways
to deal (or not deal) with this contradiction. However, the point is that
none of the subjects offers an alternative story, an alternative organizing
theme. Even the student who voices disagreement with the "quest for freedom
story" does so by telling it, but IN AN IRONIC FASHION.
Then Ch5 goes on to present results from interviews with Estonians about
the "double consciousness" of Estonian history: all the persons who were
interviewed could tell the official Soviet version of how Estonia became
part of the USSR (which they did not believe in), AND an unofficial version
which they did believe in. What is interesting is that the official history
came out as a well organized narrative with a single theme (how the people
of Estonia voluntarily became part of the USSR), while the unofficial
history came as strings of anecdotes or observations. There WAS a coherence
in the unofficial history, however: it was a series of counterclaims to the
claims made in the official version. Now, in the Estonian case the official
history was a cultural tool present in a very standardized printed form,
which had to be mastered in school, and which it would have been dangerous
to disagree with openly. There was no room for irony in public, but on the
other hand there were real inconsistencies in the lives and memories of all
Estonians, conflicting with the official history, and dealt with in
private, an oral history focusing on personal experiences.
Bringing this back to the American case (in the Summary) Wertsch observes
that just like the Estonians were resorting to the "tactics of resistance"
employed by people operating in territory dominated by Another, the
American students who saw contradictions with the "quest for freedom"
narrative were also restricted to tactics of resistance -- having no access
to a territory of their own from which to act (narrate) strategically. Thus:
"In contrast to the opinion that US schools do not succeed in teaching
history, one could argue that the schools have actually done their jobs
quite well: they have equipped students with one, and only one, cultural
tool to employ in representing the past of their nation state." p. 166
Now this IS thought-provoking, especially if brought to bear on the
sociocultural & cultural-historical scholars moving in the disciplinary
territory of psychology.
Eva