Chris McGovern, in a radio interview, gave
the example of a question, 'You are a German U-boat captain, whose U-boat is
sinking'; describe your feelings' to criticise the idea of empathy in history
teaching. The historian Jonathan Clark claimed in a media interview that
empathy questions were essentially about 'supporting the underdog' and had a
seditious political motivation. I can remember exam questions such as 'You are
the American pilot who has just dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, describe your
feelings', and have encountered quite a lot of 'Imagine you are a soldier at
the Battle of X' exercises. Does this mean that empathy is really about
imaginative and descriptive writing, and is properly the domain of the English
Department, or is it a case of seizing on weak examples to rubbish the whole
Some critical comments:
"One trial paper reads 'Write a speech to
be made by a representative of the PLO. This speech will justify the actions:
the hijacking of an aircraft to Jordan in 1970, the shootings at Tel Aviv
airport, and the attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games'
This sounds like a very sick party game." (Sir Rhodes Boyson M.P. TES,
"The appeal in our last newsletter for
details of the teaching of empathy and the Hitler Youth has been successful.
The Teachers' Resource Book for The Modern World.... offers horrific
stereotypes for empathy exercises. This from those who teach the avoidance of
stereotypes and bias! Great play is made of the proportional representation
system of elections and 'factual recall questions should be awarded 1 mark!
Interesting questions offered for pupils include 'Would you like to live in a
society where the rich and hard working get better rewards, more pay and more
privileges than the working class?', 'Would you dislike to live in a society
where everyone is equal?', 'Would you object to industry being run by workers'
committees?', 'Would you object if rich capitalists were imprisoned?', 'Do you
hate Communists?'The implications are clear. New history is not about knowledge
or content, but changing attitudes and values. Hardly real education as we
would understand it!"
(From Campaign for Real Education
Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1989)
"History teachers are undermining
children's knowledge and respect for our heritage, it is claimed. Knowledge of
historical events and their significance is being replaced by the 'bogus'
skills of empathy learning, according to educationalist Stewart Deuchar. Mr
Deuchar, of the Campaign for Real Education, a right wing parents' pressure
group, believes children are being indoctrinated into assessing the past along
left wing lines. This means playing down the facts and undervaluing Britain's
achievements. Instead of understanding the significance of the Battle of
Agincourt, they are being told to imagine how English troops felt about taking
part in it, he complains. Not surprisingly, pupils give the sort of answers
which could have applied in any battle down the ages.
('History teachers who tamper with the past',
Stephen Bates, Daily Mail, 3 January 1989)
Back to Empathy
Back to PGCE