PERSPECTIVES ON PERSPECTIVES
This article is an attempt to clarify perspectives because when taught well, they give depth to any study
within Social Studies. They are also a tool to aid values exploration. The ideas for this article arose out
of a discussion on Social Studies on-line’s discussion site. The errors and omissions are mine if I have
not represented some entries correctly. I have used the words of those who have contributed and have
acknowledged the writers where I have been able to. I would welcome dialogue on this issue. I have
made my comments in bold.
Emma Beale from Tangaroa College saw Perspectives as the “viewpoints”, “world view” or “values” of
individuals and/or groups. For example, in examining a treaty claim case study, Bicultural Perspectives
might involve looking at:
1. the viewpoint/values of the iwi/hapu (Maori) making the claim .
2. the viewpoint/values of the council/local farmers (Pakeha),
3. viewpoint/values of another group of Pakeha or Maori not directly involved in the claim, but likely to
have a perspective on the claim and surrounding issues.
This is a very interesting
view because once we
realise that there is often
more
than
one
Maori
perspective, we get quite a
different spin on Bi-cultural
perspectives. In this case
the viewpoint/values of an
iwi/hapu disputing the claim
is also valid. Similarly with
Multi-cultural perspectives if
we are looking for an Islamic
view there will certainly be
three or four different
shades within the Islamic
perspective. Look at the
Iranian election or USA in
Iraq. We are really talking
about
perspectives
on
perspectives and that is
what will give depth to any
study.
Back cover Mona Lisas by Mary Rose Storey, Harry N. Abrams. Inc 1980
History and Geography seem to have slightly different ways of handling perspectives from Social
Studies. Geography has defined them as bodies of thought, however in Social Studies we deal with
Perspectives on current issues rather than interpreting current issues as an actual perspective.
The other perspectives: Bi/Multi/Gender/Future, are used as the tool to critique the current
issues along with other devices mentioned later
In History a perspective is a frame of reference for viewing and interpreting experiences, actions, points
of view, attitudes and beliefs.
Phillipa Hunter from the School of education at Waikato University, argued that Perspectives can lead
to actions, just as actions reflect perspectives. Multiple perspectives could be considered within a
historical context, eg culture, gender, status, age, socio-economic position, ethnicity. Thus we would
ask: “What was the perspective of Rosa Parkes when she refused to get out of her seat in 1955?”. We
would also ask for an understanding of the perspective of the bus driver or the policeman who arrested
her. We are looking for some understanding or empathy from the perspective of the participants. That
is not the sense that perspectives is used in Social Studies. However it could fit into Social Studies. .
If we were studying the Montgomery Bus Boycott in a Social Studies lesson we could use the
historical understanding of a bi-cultural perspective and gender perspectives as a way to
unpack perspectives on perspectives. There is Rosa Parkes’ perspective as an Afro-American
woman in 1955 (she was known as a ‘Black’ as well as several derogatory terms). There are
other ‘Black’ perspectives of the NAACP leaders, the Church leaders and the wealthy AfroAmericans within the community who did not support a boycott. There are, as well, the
perspectives of a range of different white people—the bus driver, the policeman, the KKK and
the other passengers and so on.
The trick is to ensure that in the process of demonstrating empathy as part of the perspective
on an historical event such as the Montgomery bus Boycott or the Easter Rising or the Treaty
of Versailles that students don't apply a 21st century anachronistic perspective to those
historical contexts because their perspective and their understanding of empathy is then wrong.
We have to insist upon evidence to support a particular perspective. The reasons why Germans
were upset about the Treaty of Versailles is clearly evidenced in German reactions at the time.
That is a crucial point because there is a lot evidence about German perspectives subsequent
to the Treaty – in the 1930s and even the 1940s, once Hitler got on a roll. That means that the
knowledge of a historical perspective must be taken within its historical context. It must not be
evidence drawn from a later context. This skewed (I would say wrong) perspective happens
when we try to teach a topic that we do not fully know. I see this with discussions about what
happened at Parihaka. The same dangers can occur with the inquiry process where teachers
praise the process but do not adequately judge the content. It is a trap that we can avoid if we
have a secure knowledge base. That is being addressed through the aspects of learning that
unpack each achievement objective in the Exemplars.
Magritta Lisa, 1974 Terry Pastor in Mona Lisas by Mary Rose Storey, Harry N. Abrams. Inc 1980, Page 23
Paul Keown from the School of Education at Waikato Universiry argues that the four key social science
and humanities subjects that operate in secondary schools may have some differences in the emphasis
from subject to subject but this should not be such that what we mean by the perspectives is totally
different.
Paul argues further that Perspectives operate at two different levels. Firstly we have what could be
called the common sense meaning of the world perspective - which is "how things seem from where I
stand". This can differ markedly from individual to individual and from group to group. This is pretty
much a personal or group view point. It is my/our perspective on this.
I would argue that students see perspectives this way unless you teach them about the five
perspectives. For clarity, I tend to use ‘viewpoints’ rather than perspectives for this type of
individual perspective. My research indicated that many students have difficulty recognising
that values underpin viewpoints and perspectives unless we first teach them about values. Too
often I see viewpoints substituting for values in a values exploration exercise. But that is another
article.
Keown goes on to say that the other meaning of the term perspective is "an established body of
knowledge about the way the world is or should be". In this case we are talking about what Frances
Slater calls ideologies or "bundles of beliefs, opinions, attitudes, values and preferences that a large
group of people hold together." They are not merely personal or small group viewpoints but a substantial
and well recognized 'theory' about the way things are or should be. They have a substantial body of
thought and writing that spell out what the perspective, or ideology or theoretical position is.
Paul Keown would argue that all but one of the SS perspectives is like this. There are substantial
literatures and bodies of knowledge and writing on the bicultural (both Maori and Western European
perspectives are included in this), multicultural, gender, and futures perspectives. We can look at what
these bodies of thinking say and use them as a distinctive perspective on society and use them to help
us understand society better. The one exception is the current issues perspective. It is really not a
perspective at all in either sense. Hopefully this whole area will be looked at in the current NZ Curriculum
Project review. It would be good to get this issue clarified and sorted across the Social Sciences and
Humanities area.
If we accept this understanding of perspectives then we also have to accept that there are
divergent views within bi-cultural, multi-cultural, gender and future perspectives. There are
‘established bodies of knowledge’ about the divergent views within a perspective not just
between perspectives. This is what is meant by perspectives on perspectives. If we look at the
concept of rangatiratanga, Ngapuhi have a different view from Ngati Tuwharetoa. If you ask who
is a rangatira in Ngapuhi up to fifty people will put their hand up, but if you ask Tuwharetoa there
will be one acknowledged by all as the rangatira. By arguing for a ‘one size fits all’ type of
rangatiratanga we are underselling the concept and the perspective. Unless we recognize it we
will continue to use perspectives superficially.
The perspectives discussion is the thin end of a bigger wedge. Unless the teacher is clear in
his/her mind about perspectives, you are not going to get a consistent understanding.
Emma Beale treats perspectives as a "tool", not a body of knowledge/fact, much like the processes. In
using the processes and perspectives she hopes her students are able to CRITICALLY examine issues
and events (past, present and future), and the impacts/consequences for society and individuals.
Alex Gracewood from Tamaki College added a useful explanation to the discussion. She argued that it
should be remembered that it is "perspectives on current issues", not "current perspectives". This is an
entirely different emphasis. In discussion with John Allpress, when he was the Social Studies advisor
at Team Solutions, he offered the following guidance for our senior programme: Perspectives on
Current Issues can be identified by the acronym S.P.E.E.C.H.. These are: Social Perspectives; Political
Perspectives; Economic Perspectives; Environmental Perspectives; Cultural Perspectives; and
Historical Perspectives. Therefore, any Current Issue could be studied using any of the above
perspectives.
This approach certainly allows for the variety of perspectives within the nominated "Perspective" that is
expected by the examiner, a range of them being useful to any issue that is found to date. In relation to
the issues facing current day South Africa (economic situation, social issues such as crime,
unemployment, social division and poverty), an historical perspective (looking at the current situation
as the result of decades of apartheid policies and resistance to these); social perspective (impact on
the population of policies); economic perspective (breakdown of the economy, loss of skilled workers
and the results of these); cultural perspectives of different cultural groups in South Africa to the issues
facing them.
Finally Jane Abbiss offered the contribution that what the discussion on perspectives says to her is that
it is important that when we talk about "perspectives" that we unpack the term and explain what we
expect of students and the approach we are taking. To talk about "perspectives" is to invite potentially
different perspectives (excuse the term!) or ways of approaching an issue or debate. There seem to be
three ways of interpreting or using "perspectives".
1. As points of view, opinions or stances taken by different individuals or groups. The emphasis here
is on differences.
2. As world views or ways of looking at an issue e.g. Maori, feminist, technocratic, ethnocentric,
ecocentric etc. The emphasis is on similarities and common or shared values.
3. As the social studies perspectives. That is, the discreet categories defined in the curriculum.
When we use the term perspectives we could be talking about one or more of these things. I think it is
important that we are clear about the interpretation we are using, and that perhaps using terminology
like "points of view" or "opinions" and "world views" may help to clarify what we mean when we talk
about perspectives with students.
I would add that for the third category, I would include ‘perspectives on perspectives’ when
studying with the Senior Social Studies classes.
John Pipe, June 2005