國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2 Literature Review
This chapter functions as a review of the literature relevant to this study. Section one explores the mythologization of national history. Section two, then, traces the backgrounds of history education in the ROC and USA. The final section of this chapter explicates Campbell’s (2004) theoretical framework, the monomyth, in three parts. Part one clarifies Campbell’s eight main character architypes, and part two covers the narrative stages, while part three highlights criticism that the monomyth has received.
2.1 Myth, Narrative, and National History
Among the numerous narratives in history-writing, national origin narratives tend to be especially mythologized, (Kramer, 1997). Carl Jung, one of the chief influencers of Campbell and his framework, identified among other contexts, how this phenomenon played out in the infamous propaganda of the Nazis, saying, “The energy of archetypes can be focused (through rituals and other appeals to mass emotion) to move people to collective action. The Nazis knew this, and used versions of Teutonic myths to help rally the country to their cause,” (Jung & Franz, 1964). This section examines the role of history education, especially textbooks and their narratives, in mythologizing national history and national origin narratives.
In his renown work, Imagined Communities, Anderson (1991) deeply examines the phenomenon of nationalism. He attempts to answer important questions about the nation, like: How are so many able to live, kill, and even die for their nation? He argues convincingly that the nation is something that exists entirely in the imagination, and yet commands tremendous loyalty and reverence. He explains how nations were constructed by people with shared languages, histories, and identities, and opens new doors in the study
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of nationalism and its place in modern society, (Anderson, 1991). Since his important book, many have continued seeking answers to these important questions about nations. One way that nations have, over the last two centuries, constructed themselves and encouraged the feelings discussed by Anderson and others is by coopting the study and writing of history, (Grever & Viles, 2017). The breadth of scholarship on the use of historical narratives in forming identities, constructing social groups, and promoting national agendas is staggering, (Manojlovic, 2018; Wertsch J. , 2017; Hammack, 2010; Hadley, 2010; Levstik, 2009). There has been a strong emphasis on constructing official national narratives out of empirical history at many different times in the past, and public support for them has been growing in recent years. “National newspapers, television programs and internet campaigns have accused school history of a fragmentary approach, teaching relativistic narratives and marginalizing national history,” (Grever & Viles, 2017). Despite research which illuminates the questionable integrity of many national origin narratives many still insist on their sanctity, and that they be taught as historical fact. Problematically these demands from political authorities and from public discourse are often at odds with the discipline of history, (Grever & Stuurman, 2007). Narrative is a useful tool for teaching and writing history, but many of the narratives that are a part of national cannons around the world are flimsy, if not utterly fabricated. National origin narratives are especially susceptible to mythologization, (Raphael, 2004). As the controllers of these narratives, states are responsible for the consequences that come in their wake which have the potential to be immense, (Grever & Viles, 2017).
Although the myths that are embedded into the cannon of national origins are typically based on some historical evidence, they are almost invariably embellished and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
revised. Anderson gives an example of how this happens in the United Kingdom, saying,
“The barons who imposed Magna Carta on John Plantagenet did not speak ‘English,’ and had no conception of themselves as ‘Englishmen,’ but they were firmly defined as early patriots in the classrooms of the United Kingdom 700 years later,” (Anderson, 1991). These myths are also propagated to illicit support for the national state at home and abroad.
Borislava Manojlovic addresses these and other issues in her recent book, Education for Sustainable Peace and Conflict Resilient Societies, saying, “Negative evaluation leads to the feeling of being threatened, which challenges the need of people to maintain a positive perception of their groups and collectives,” (Manojlovic, 2018). Mythology presents an irresponsible solution to these anxieties and aspirations. Campbell explains that, “…in myth the problems and solutions shown are directly valid for all mankind,” (Campbell, 2004) but when married to history, they are at odds with one of the primary goals of the discipline of history: a sober-minded conversation with the past.
The writing of history, however, is not so simple as an empirical list of facts, figures, and events. It is, rather, a “narrative-making exercise,” (Munslow, 2019). It is therefore useful to examine the process by which these narratives are structured, especially since history claims to be a source of meaning, identity, and continuity for human civilization. Narratives of history are instrumental in creating the identity which enables national consciousness. Just as memory is an essential part of an individual’s knowledge of who he or she is, history is essential in bringing into being a national self-knowledge.
“In particular, it is viewed as being a powerful instrument for shaping ideas and emotions that underlie the actions of a citizen of a nation-state, actions such as voting, going to war, or paying taxes,” (Wertsch J. V., 1997). Ironically, two historians can come to radically
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
different conclusions even when given the same set of data. Cronon (1992) conducted a study called, A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative, comparing two histories of the American Dust Bowl (a period of extreme drought and poverty in the American Midwest) written by different historians. While one was a heroic narrative about the triumph of the American communities over an unfortunate natural disaster, the other narrative condemned the farmers’ lack of foresight and mistreatment of the environment as the main cause of the episode. The power of the historian to dictate the terms by which history is remembered through his or her narrative is thus of paramount significance.
Nowhere has the cannon of national origin narratives been mythologized more systematically than in schools. According to Elson (1964), the national origin narratives of the USA have been mythologized since the nineteenth century, (Elson, 1964). In spite of the apparent fantasy that is portrayed in textbooks, the history in classrooms does indeed contribute to peoples’ identity, collective and individual. In his revised edition of Imagined Communities, Anderson (1991) writes of the growth of nationalism in former colonies, “…
their common experience, and amiably competitive comradeship of the classroom, gave the maps of the colony which they studied (always colored differently from British Malaya or the American Philippines) a territorially specific imagined reality which was every day confirmed by the accents and physiognomies of their classmates,” (Anderson, 1991). Thus, myth has shaped peoples’ perceptions of themselves and their nations all over the world.
The assertion that national origin narratives are mythologized is well studied and established.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學