As the Marxist-Leninist school textbooks had to be replaced in Czechoslovakia after 1989, it seemed sensible to textbook authors to pick up the thread which national historiography had abandoned before the beginning of World War II. This had certain consequences as far as content is concerned. Even to the benevolent observer, these textbooks seemed outdated in style. The focus on national history in textbooks was obviously not only “out of date”, but also rather questionable. Some critical observers were quite harsh in their observations. In 1995, the young political scientist David Čanĕk put it thus: “Czech school textbooks propagate xenophobic, or even racist attitudes, offer little space for pluralism, and raise the subject of ‘totality’ onto the throne. They are megaphones of a 19th century nationalism.” (Bohemia, vol. 1, 1998, page 67) This feeling of unease was the reason for making the topic of “the nation-state in school textbooks” one of the central aspects of German-Czech cooperation.

The underlying idea of this approach was to strip nationalist thinking of its seeming naturalness and timelessness. In order to achieve this goal, attention was drawn to medieval “nationes” on the one side, and to contemporary attitudes of neighboring countries and regions toward nation-states, on the other. Some of these attitudes couldn’t be more diverse, as comparisons between Belarus, Bavaria, Austria, France, and Slovakia have proven. It became clear that there is neither continuity nor anything to be taken for granted in this field. Groups of people can decide to form a nation-state, but there are also many good reasons to decide against this. Comparative analyses of school textbooks reveal the wide variety of affinities toward the national dimension. Belarusian school textbooks written after 1991 elevate the national dimension to the level of holiness. Austrian textbooks, in contrast, move nationalism close to racism and fascism.

In order to enable the comparison of research results, a catalogue of questions has been developed:

• How much space (pages, illustrations) is attributed to the topic of the nation-state in school textbooks or in curricula? How is the relation between national history and world history?
• Is the term “nation” theoretically defined and critically viewed?
• Are factors like language, ethnicity, and religion included as preconditions for the formation of nations? How far do they influence the definition of the nation?
• Is the concept of the nation historicized or retrospectively projected into the past?
• Are medieval nationes and modern nations distinguished?
• Are pre-national times thematized? At what point is a territory ethnically defined?
• Is the term “nationalism” treated separately; is it viewed as a “derailment” of nationalist thinking or as an innate tendency?
• Do the authors attempt to explain the historical achievements of the nation-state?
• Is the nation-state morally judged, demonized, or admired?
• Is nation-state building viewed in a European/international context?
• Is the formation of the nation-state seen as a development that follows a set pattern?
• Is the nation-state viewed in biological/naturalistic terms (in the sense of “natural processes”)?
• Is the contribution of the nation-state to world culture viewed in a legitimating manner (Darwinism!)?
• Are historical individuals subjugated under national self-definitions, although this would seem illegitimate under objective viewpoints?
• Are the excluding tendencies of the nation-state discussed? Are they seen as constitutive and central aspects or as avoidable and trivial?
• Are the opinions and viewpoints of minorities described? Are they explained?
• Is “ethnic cleansing” viewed as a (logical) consequence of the national idea?
• What sorts of auto-stereotypes and stereotypes of others are used?
• Is the nation associated with motives of victimization and martyrdom, and do messianic thoughts play a role?
• Can “sacred” tendencies be observed in the symbolism of the nation-state?
• Are memorials depicted in textbooks, and are they critically reflected upon?
• What is the iconography of the nation-state?
• Which myths are used?
• Are national heroes depicted?
• Are alternative forms of identification included, even if they are in conflict with the national model?
• Do the authors use pronouns such as “we” and “our” exclusively in a national sense?
• Are contemplations that transcend the nation-state included in the text?

The results and contributions of the two conferences dealing with the nation-state were published in two volumes:

• Robert Maier (ed.): Zwischen Zählebigkeit und Zerrinnen. Nationalgeschichte im Schulunterricht in Ostmitteleuropa, Hannover: Hahn 2004
• Robert Maier (ed.): Die Präsenz des Nationalen im (ost)mitteleuropäischen Geschichtsdiskurs, Hannover: Hahn 2002.

Official statement of the Joint German-Czech Textbook Commission

The Joint German-Czech Textbook Commission, which convened for the first time in Dresden on November 29-30, 2002, concluded that a comprehensive account should be made on how the topic of nation-state should be dealt with in history teaching and school textbooks. The following framework was already agreed upon, which will form the basis of future activities:

"Young people often experience the implications of their own nationality most intensively when abroad - regardless of whether the reactions are positive or negative. Since these emotional responses are mostly based on experiences or interpretations of history, it would be appropriate to consider in history teaching the way one's own national history is viewed by other nations. Learning to examine one's national history in a critical way will enable pupils to comprehend others' negative perceptions and to relativize positive reactions. With this goal in mind, the Joint German-Czech Textbook Commission came to the following conclusions:

• The concept of "nation" needs to be defined and discussed both in the context of history lessons and in the textbooks themselves. The significance of language, ethnicity and religion, as well as types of constitution and political systems should also be considered.
• The ethnicization of a specific territory should be transmitted as a historical process, and its 'legitimacy' should be questioned.
• History curricula must strive for a balance of regional, national and global history. These issues should best be taught in an integrated course, rather than in separate lessons.
• It is imperative to form the pupils' civic identity, which is a prerequisite for a 'national' identity. Educating young people in being a responsible citizen should be a priority in history teaching, to prevent uncritical obedience and unreflective identification with the nation-state. The question in history didactics should no longer be "how to convey a canon of (nationally defined) educational contents", but "how pupils can develop skills towards an autonomous, well-founded, critical assessment of history".
• The nation-state's historical achievements should not only be presented in a national, but in a multiperspectival historical perspective.
• Germans and Czechs perceive nation against the background of distinct historical experiences. These diverging viewpoints must be respected: they are by no means a deficit."

 

Dresden, November 30, 2002
The Joint German-Czech Textbook Commission

Komuniké Společné česko-německé komise pro učebnice dějepisu

"Společná česko-německá komise pro učebnice dějepisu se na svém ustavujícím zasedání v Drá ໸danech 29. a 30. listopadu 2002 usnesla, ໸e zpracuje podrobné vyjádření k otázce, jak ve výuce dějepisu a v dějepisných učebnicích zacházet s pojmem "národní stát". Zatím byly společně formulovány následující these, z nich໸ bude vycházet další práce:

"Zejména při zahraničních pobytech získávají mladiství zkušenost, ໸e je na ně s ohledem na jejich národní příslušnost pohlí ໸eno bud odmítavě nebo se sympatiemi. Vzhledem k tomu, ໸e tyto emoce jsou většinou zdůvodňovány historickými zkušenostmi nebo kontexty, mělo by se to pro výuku dějepisu stát podnětem pro to, aby bylo tematisováno vnímání vlastních národních dějin jinými národy. Správně zprostředkovaný kritický postoj vůči vlastním národním dějinám otevře ໸ákům mo໸nost, aby porozuměli negativnímu vnímání cizinců, resp. byli v případě potřeby schopni relativisovat positivní sebeinterpretaci. Společná česko-německá komise pro učebnice dějepisu se proto shodla na následujících bodech:

• Pojem "národa" by měl být ve výuce a v učebnicích dějepisu definován a problematisován. Měl by přitom být brán ohled na význam řeči, etnicity, náboženství, ale také ústavy a politického řádu.

• Etnifikace národního území by měla být ukázána jako historický proces a měla by se klást otázka po její "legitimitě".

• Curriculum výuky dějepisu by mělo usilovat o vyvá ໸ený vztah regionálních, národních a globálních dějin. Je třeba dát přednost integrovaněmu pojetí před separátní výukou.

• Je nutno dávat přednost formování občanské identity ໸ákovstva před utvářením jeho identity národní. Cílem dějepisně didaktického procesu je výchova samostatně uva໸ujících občanů a má zamezit nekritické a nereflektované identifikaci s národním státem. Otázka, před níž stojí didaktikové dějepisu, u໸ nemá znít: "Jak má být zprostředkován kánon (národně definovaných) vzdělávacích obsahů?", nýbrž: "Jak mů ໸e ໸áctvo rozvíjet svoji schopnost formulovat své vlastní", zdůvodněné historické soudy?"

• Historický výkon národních států nemá být ukazován výhradně na vlastních národních dějinách. Také zde platí po໸adavek multiperspektivity.

• Češi a Němci vycházejí ve vztahu k národu z rozdílných historických zkušeností. Tato diference historické zkušenosti musí být respektována, nikoliv podceňována.

 

Drá ໸dany 30. listopadu 2002
Společná česko-německá komise pro učebnice dějepisu