"…one does not step in the same stream twice…"
—Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE)
What the ancient Greek philosopher meant, of course, is something like this: a stream, by its nature, is a complex system that exists as a state of change. Everything exists as a state of change.
Each day, history is a bit different. How can that be? You can't change the past. No, you can't change the past, but what someone, what a people know and understands about the past changes. And no, this is not just a semantics debate.
Discovery and study is an evolutionary process. What you learned about American history even a few years ago probably means something different to you now than it did then—in time, it may mean something else. You will experience many changes in your understanding of history this year.
Why not also take a moment to pose and answer the rhetorical question why study history at all?
Of course there are the well-worn cliche answers such as 'those without knowledge of history are doomed to repeat it'; but there are also more personal answers and larger societal issues to consider. The following definition of social studies is broadly accepted among educators, and one that I personally find very good. The definition was constructed by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS):
Social studies is the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.
To help both students and educators explore questions like "why learn history", education specialist Rodney Allen (Massialas & Allen, 1996) suggests identifying a "purpose" for social studies education and discusses three possible "orientations". First, they say, we could look to social studies curricula for "citizenship transmission" (which contains the general notions of patriotism, cultural heritage and cardinal values such as integrity, hard work, and liberty). Second, we could design a social studies curriculum as a study of "social science" where students master conceptualizations of our society, learn generalization theories (what I would call '–isms'), and learn methods of inquiry to promote citizenship and social improvement (quantitative and qualitative social sciences research). Or, third, we could design a social studies curriculum as an exercise in "reflective inquiry" featuring an in-depth analysis of enduring social issues (such as the role of government, gender issues, relationships among social classes) with a point of view that stresses democratic regard for others and promotion of the common good. In addition, however, cautions another education specialist, Jack Nelson, "…[a]cademic freedom is an especially significant concern for social studies teachers because...it is the subject most directly connected with the basic ideas of democratic society…and the subject most vulnerable to political restraint and censorship." (p. 388). As a result, the textbooks that we rely upon are subject to self-editing, a watering-down of the historical record to ignore "troublesome facts" and make into one-dimensional heroes the complex, all too human characters from our past. (Loewen, 1995, p.34-35).
Taken together, our study of United States history this year will be about memorizing facts, yes, but also about constructing perspectives, knowing how those perspectives have changed over time, and the forces behind the shifts from one to another.