DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS CAPITULO I

Historical memories centred on events such as wars and military sites involving Britain being apparent in the initial thinking of trainee-teachers of majority mono- ethnic White-British backgrounds and socialisation discussed above can have those themes considered as being at a higher level of importance than others in their considerations. It is a suggestion that can be developed further through my

138

mono-ethnic White-British backgrounds to the question: ‘What does the term ‘British history’ mean to you? (see p. 267, Appendix l). In relation to the question,

data for analysis was extracted from my coding of responses linked with

‘ANGLOCENT’ (see p. 268-271, Appendix l) denoting ‘‘Whiteness’ as a racialized discourse and the ‘cultural reproduction of White-British history’ and in relation to my exploration and review of the literature in Chapter Three:

To me ‘British History’ means significant/key events which took place in Britain. It is to me, the series of events which built Britain to what it is today. I associate the term to the Normans (1066), middle ages (1154), Tudors (1485), Civil War and revolution (1603), Empire (1714), The Slave Trade, Victorians (1837) WW1 (1914), WW2 (1944) and then the transition and focus of modern Britain. To me, it’s about how Britain’s nations have shaped the empire (Dawn, p.269, Appendix l).

About how we built our British Empire through Saxons, Romans, Vikings, etc. Also means learning about historical figures that have shaped British history (Victoria, Appendix l, p.264). To me, this term means history such as Monarchy, significant events such as World War II (James p.270, Appendix l).

The development, creation and changes of the British Empire and its impact on the

modern day (Tom, p.270, Appendix l).

The responses above from Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James suggest a centrality in their thinking about the British Empire and the British Monarchy in association with what British history means for them. In particularly the comments on British Empire: ‘it’s about how Britain’s nations have shaped the empire’; ‘how we built our British empire’ and ‘the British Empire and its impact on the modern day’ can be deduced as their sense in the development of ‘culture’ and ‘nationhood’ in Britain over the ages. From my Chapter Two discussions of Hague’s (2011) theories, I also stated that this study would test for how trainee-teachers interpret and orientate themselves with the notion of ‘nationhood’ and how that view may be influenced by their

backgrounds i.e. their interpretations and understandings of ‘culture’ shaping their positioning for knowing Britain in the past, present and future for the sense of nationhood. The comments from Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James suggest a

139

positioning with public discourses on history education (Phillips, 1999). This sees the function of history as being to prioritise teaching and learning through an in-depth acquisition of the historical record based upon core knowledge and certainty for learning and knowing about the past through stated facts which offer closure and stricture (Phillips, 1999). It is a way of seeing British history that can be associated with the chronological ‘master narrative’ Our Island Story (2005). As discussed in Chapter Three, it is a book which presents a chronology of stories which are considered as central to the myth and legend of British history (Nichol and Harnett 2011a). The historical thinking and positioning of Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James can be positioned with Rüsen’s ‘Exemplary Type’ of historical consciousness. That is where teaching and learning about British history via the British Empire sees

‘Tradition’ moving ‘within a rather narrow frame of empirical reference’ and ‘viewed as a past recollected with message or lesson for the present, as didactic’ (2006, p.73). Furthermore, their associations with teaching and learning British history via the story of the British Monarchy islinked with Rüsen’s ‘Traditional Type’ of historical thinking, for maintenance and reproduction of culture and the status quo and where ‘historical identity is constituted by one’s assuming the regularity of cultural and life patterns’ (Rüsen, 2006, p.74). Such ‘Traditional’ and Exemplary’ orientations of historical thinking in trainee-teachers are argued as being framed by dominant influences, thinking and choices influenced by their backgrounds and socialisation discussed by Guyver and Phillips (2004, p.1) as ‘the students prior experience of both learning and being taught history’. Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James all generally cited their ‘family’ as being influential on their learning and historical thinking. It could also be suggested that their orientations for historical thinking stem from significant teaching and learning influences at their majority mono-ethnic White-British primary

140

schools. That includes the Key Stage 2 national curriculum which they would have encountered in their own learning when they were younger. The age range of Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James is generally of 18-25. Their learning of Key Stage 2 history would more than likely have come for selected episodes of British history i.e. ‘the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings; Britain and the wider world in Tudor times; and either Victorian Britain’ (DfEE, 1999, p.106). They are all the very phases of British history articulated as of most importance by Dawn, Tom, Victoria and James above. However, one must acknowledge what was considered in Chapter Four about the constraints of questionnaires in developing a respondent’s line of thought (Warwick and Chaplain, 2013). Still, I consider their thinking and positioning as able to provide some insights into a finding that the study aimed to test for, that is an apparent doxic relationship between the thinking of trainee-teachers and policymakers of the Key Stage 2 history curriculum for reproduction of shared cultural values on what is meant by British history.

I developed my enquiries further with Diana, Anne and Catherine, where my semi- structured interview asked the question: ‘What topic/themes might you teach which tell the story of British history’ (see p. 282, Appendix n). In relation to the question, data was coded as ‘WWI & II’ (see p. 285, 298 and 305, Appendices o, q and r) for my analysis of the semi-structured interview responses linked with World War I and World War II as themes for thinking about British history. A similar code ‘BRIMONS’ (see p. 285, 298, 305 and 317, Appendices o, q, r and t) was applied to data, to indicate where their discussions of the ‘British Monarchy’ as being central to teaching and learning about British history can be observed. Those codes were applied to represent themes for potential analysis in the semi-structured interviews,

141

because trainee-teachers in the semi-structured questionnaire such as Dawn and James above also expressed that British history is most meaningful when learning through stories about World Wars or the most privileged of people in society i.e. British Monarchs. Anne in her semi-structured interview reinforces that particular stance:

Well what springs to mind only because I am doing it for my history at the moment is World War One […] So I think obviously the World Wars did have a big impact on

how this country is. So were important. You could do the Royal Family… that’s

quite… interesting. Erm, when it comes to migration and stuff I remember learning

about the potato famine and all the Irish going to England and America. But I don’t know if that would be… like I said you would need to try and see who was in your

class and maybe try and make it relevant to them; or their community if they have got a community; if they have got lots of Polish then maybe you could try and do something to link with that (p. 294-295, Appendix q, lines 82-97).

I see that the responses given by Anne concerning her thoughts for teaching British history through migration and the ‘potato famine’ in Ireland are significant to the study. In Chapter Three, I stated that the study would test for whether White-British majoritarian stories and traditions had the potential to be reproduced in schools and in classrooms as statutory educational policy without the thought of critical

examination by trainee-teachers in reproducing and maintaining cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; 2012). Anne, reflects briefly on her own learning and knowledge which is fed by her ethnic and cultural backgrounds of being White/Irish. It indicates that her background and socialisation has some influence on her initial dispositions for thinking about British history and potentially from a White/Irish perspective. However, she questions that thinking and pauses: ‘But I don’t know if that would be…’ She reconsiders the value of teaching and learning about the ‘potato famine’ in relation to British history saying that it would only be relevant to who/whom was in the classroom for telling that story of British history: ‘like I said you would need to try and see who was in your class and maybe try and make it relevant to them’. It shows Anne denying her initial dispositions to instead affirm a higher status and relevance

142

of British history being taught via the British Monarchy and World Wars. Anne’s thinking reinforces the ‘doxa’ of what is widely considered to be the most important accounts of British history i.e. World Wars and the British Monarchy (Bourdieu, 1977). Her positioning and thinking is indicative of a ‘doxic’ relationship with policymakers of the Key Stage 2 history curriculum, through their sharing of

dominant cultural ideas concerning what is most meaningful in the representation of British history.

Further Anglocentric themes of British history were extracted from the semi-

structured interview data, for analysis and through codes such as ‘ANG-SAX’ (see p. 285 and 305, Appendices o and r) representing discussion of Anglo-Saxons. That and the code ‘BRIMONS’ (see p.285, 296 and p.308, Appendices o, q and r) provided further evidence to indicate primary importance given to the story of British history through the lives of White European minority-ethnic groups of the past and the British monarchy. For example:

Catherine: The first thing I think of is like Anglo Saxons and Romans, like the roads;

the baths. Settlements, like the first people to settle came from somewhere else and that’s how Britain came about kind of thing.

Me: Are there any other themes?

Catherine: Probably like.... British history… I think it’s important for children to learn about

monarchs and key eras say like the Victorian era, erm… like Henry the Eighth;

Queen Victoria, stuff like that. Henry the Eighth sticks out because… he was quite an interesting one to learn about (p.308, Appendix r, lines 74-81).

In summarising this section, my examination of the trainee-teacher responses indicates that their Anglocentric thinking about British history emerges from the influence of their backgrounds and socialisation i.e. family and education influences. It frames their views on what is most meaningful in representation of British history. There is an apparent doxic relationship between the thinking of some trainee-

143

teachers with majority mono-ethnic White-British backgrounds and the policymakers of the Key Stage 2 history curriculum. It is a relationship that can allow for the potential reproduction and maintenance of cultural hegemony via the teaching and learning of British history (Gramsci, 1971, 2012).