"To change Armenian history textbooks according to the new reality?" - Observations and thoughts about a recent panel discussion

For those of us Facebook users, we receive notification in our newsfeed about events where individuals in our network of friends expressed interest in attending an event.  Not surprisingly this event appeared in my newsfeed as many of my friends have interest in research on or related to history textbooks or perhaps it was because one of the panel discussants is a Facebook friend.  Either way, the title caught my attention as a necessary discussion to attend and hear firsthand.




Media Center hosts events such as this event on various topics and later individuals can go back and watch the recordings.  As an ethnographer, I felt the need to be present in the moment, to understand the environment and atmosphere in which the discussion would take place.

There were five panel discussants - one arrived late.  Two were historians, one a classroom teacher, and the other a representative from the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sport.

The title of the event to me appeared a bit confusing - I was not sure what they meant by "new reality".  Comments within the event posting included individuals who were adamant for changes.  But what changes - what new reality?  As someone who has participated in previous textbook analyses - including that of Armenian history textbooks - I had my own impression and understanding of what types of changes I'd like to see in the textbooks.  Clearly this discussion was not meant for that.  Instead this discussion appeared to me as an opportunity to share with the public the current status of the history textbook changes.  A committee of experts was appointed by the MoESCS to review the history textbooks and provide their analysis and evaluations of the content.   Based on the discussion, it seemed that the "new reality" which needed to be adjusted was in regards to content on the Velvet Revolution and the March 1st, 2008 events.

Each panelist was given the opportunity to present about their impressions of the evaluations and the history textbooks.  Then the "audience" was given the opportunity to ask questions.  In the room there were more cameras and empty chairs than there actually were audience members.  Instead, the audience consisted of a few news reporters.  These news reporters attacked the MoESCS representative with questions and often times interrupted her mid-sentence.  In my observation, the reporters rarely if ever interrupt the historians or experts.  I assumed this aggressiveness against the MoESCS may have been in part due to her gender and/or role as the MoESCS representative.  As I took a step back, I realized there was another layer that provoked this aggressive attitude towards the MoESCS.

 






For so long, the Armenian society relied upon the Government of the Republic of Armenia (RoA) - be it Soviet or post-Soviet - to determine how to behave or think.  This was apparent in the discussion when one of the news reporters asked about the status of the textbooks - if they would be ready by September 1st for the new school year - as well as the issues in which the committee disagreed upon in their evaluations.  The historians claimed they needed the RoA Government to resolve the facts or "truth" about the Velvet Revolution and the March 1st events in order to accurately depict this information within the textbooks.  The MoESCS representative presented a very professional demeanor throughout the discussion - she never presented her opinions on behalf of the MoESCS.  The MoESCS representative more importantly deferred to the expert historians to resolve the content for the textbooks - the MoESCS relied upon the committee to be able to develop the appropriate content and texts that allowed students to be aware of these events and allow students to make their own opinions.   One of the historians claimed it would be an embarrassment to publish the wrong facts and therefore, relied upon the RoA Government.  The historian also claimed it was necessary for a longer period of time to pass in order for those events to be considered history.  Within this discussion point the historian brought up how or what do we choose to define as history in order to avoid the embarrassment of inaccurately presenting history.

In this instance, the post-Velvet Armenian Government provided space and trusted the historian experts to conduct the evaluations accordingly.  I was surprised that the historian experts did not own their (new) freedoms - why can't the historians develop appropriate content on their own?  Why do they refuse to take ownership and responsibility?  If the historian experts will not fulfill their responsibility, then there is a need to bring in experts who will take ownership and develop appropriate content.  But we also know there is currently a monopoly of textbook authorship.  Despite efforts by international agencies - World Bank, Open Society, and UNDP - for liberalization of textbook publishing (Silova 2010; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008), when looking back at the list of authors over the last three decades, the same (Soviet) historians have been selected or invited repeatedly. How can Armenian history education move away from reproducing the same "schools of thought" or approaches to evaluating history when clearly there is a monopoly on history textbooks?

In my mind, I wanted to learn more about how history textbooks may be changed to reflect the following concerns:
(1) How can Armenian history textbooks be written in a way that is accessible to students?
(2) What alternative methodological approaches can be applied to history textbooks to promote critical thinking skills but also make the content relevant to Armenian lives today?
(3) How are teachers prepared to manage discussions on these topics - without imposing their political beliefs on students?