“They are the Priests”: The Role of the Moldovan Historian and its
Implications for Civic Education1
Dr. Elizabeth A. Anderson (Assistant Professor, International Education School of
Education, Teaching, and Health American University)
In Moldovan public schools, history classes and textbooks are expected to
transmit ideas about the nation and the state, and to create and maintain national
identity and citizenship. This is of little surprise because public schooling is often the
primary vehicle for the creation of national subjects (Bendix 1996; Gellner 1983;
Hobsbawm 1990) and the teaching of history and citizenship are often intertwined
(Hein and Selden 2000; Schissler and Soysal 2005; Stearns et al. 2000; Zimmerman
2002). In Moldova, however, an ongoing political competition between “the state”
and “historians” over Moldova’s history as a “nation” is hindering the development of
a history curriculum that can support the development of democracy.
In Post-Soviet Moldova, there are two general perspectives on the nature of
the Moldovan nation. One perspective distinguishes Moldovans from Romanians,
and thus justifies Moldova’s continued independence as a state from Romania. The
other perspective emphasizes the shared linguistic, historic, and cultural background
between Moldovans and Romanians.
Although the second perspective does not
necessarily justify the unification of the two countries, it is a threatening perspective
to those groups and individuals who fear such a possibility. These two perspectives
frame a recent debate over history textbooks and curricula in which the government
has attempted to replace the current History of Romanians (itself introduced after the
country gained independence) with alternatives that embody the first perspective,
clearly distinguishing the history of Moldova and its citizens from that of Romania.
In the past five years, the state has introduced two other textbooks, History of
Moldova and Integrated History, in efforts to build “Moldovan” national
consciousness and loyalty to Moldova instead of Romania. Professional historians
have protested vociferously in response.
While History of Moldova has been
1
2007 Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education,Volume 37, Issue 3, pp. 277-290. A version of
this article was presented at “Education and Identity Formation in Eastern Europe and Asia,” Institute
of Education, University of London, 8 June 2006. A special thanks to Jan Germen Janmaat, the
organizer of the conference, for his support, to Luke March for his helpful suggestions on earlier drafts,
and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful, instructive, and thoughtful critiques.
1
abandoned, Integrated History was instituted as the national curriculum in September
2006.
In the following article, I examine the extent to which a new history
curriculum can promote the development of democratic citizenship in Moldova, given
existing social relations between the government, professional historians, and
teachers. I argue that in addition to curriculum content – which the existing local
debate has highlighted – the social values attached to historical knowledge, as well as
actual practices of history writing, teaching, and learning, are crucial to the success of
civic education. While local historians (and teachers) are likely to view the state as
hindering the development of national identity, I draw attention to dynamics within
the history profession that also hinder the effectiveness of civic education. Drawing
from qualitative data, I argue that Moldovan historians have a unique role in society
as the gatekeepers of historical truth and knowledge, and as such they control the
creation and dissemination of the historical narrative. Their role creates an obstacle
for civic education in Moldovan classrooms because it creates an educational
hierarchy, which is not conducive to the development of those skills and virtues that
are considered essential for democratic life, such as critical thinking, dissent, and
discussion.
After reviewing my data and methods, I will begin with an overview of civic
education and the two major trends in Moldovan historiography. I will explore the
ways in which the state and historians use these trends to help to form Moldovans’
understandings of the nation and identity, and how these perceptions play out in
citizens’ everyday life and in the recent textbook debates. An examination of the role
of the historian as the arbitrator of truth and the perpetuation of an educational
hierarchy will follow. Lastly, I will conclude with a discussion of how the historians’
role affects the prospects for civic education in the classroom.
Data and methodology
This article draws from forty-seven semi-structured interviews with Moldovan
politicians, historians, education officials, and secondary school history teachers,
conducted in 2004. The interviewees include the following: fourteen historians, eight
of whom are also textbook authors; five education specialists (two former Ministry of
Education officials and three NGO representatives); five government officials (four
2
from the Ministry of Education and one from the Office of Minority Affairs); three
politicians representing three political parties; and twenty teachers. The historians
represent the following institutions: The Academy of Sciences; Moldova State
University in Chisinau and Cahul; State Pedagogical University; The School of
Business and Public Administration; a regional historical association; and a national
government office. All interviews conducted were semi-structured, meaning that
research instruments were designed with a standard list of questions for each
interview. In addition, I observed close to thirty hours of history classes and attended
a range of teacher workshops and academic conferences.
The four school sites for teacher interviews and classroom observation were
selected based on regional location (northern, southern, and central towns with a
population ranging from 20,000 to 50,000, and Chisinau, the capital city), school size
(approximately 1200 pupils), and the willingness of local authorities to grant research
permission.2 Teachers who teach at “minority schools” were excluded from the
study.3 Moldova is a multiethnic state but this study focuses on the majority ethnic
group, Moldovans, because it is their identity that remains contested and their schools
that are at the centre of the textbook debate. The interviews were conducted in
Romanian, audio recorded, and professionally transcribed. I translated the excerpts
for this article. All names have been changed.
Civic education past and present
There is a great range of scholarship from across disciplines that explores the
role and importance of civic education in democratization and democratic society (for
a small sampling, see Callen 1977; Gutmann 1999; Hahn 1998; Kamens 1988).
Loosely defined, civic education is the preparation of a nation’s youth for
participation in a democratic society and is the process of instilling democratic and
cooperative values in children (Dewey 1997 [1916]). Wil Kymlicka identifies four
“virtues” that should be the goals of civic education: public-spiritedness; a sense of
justice; civility and tolerance; a shared sense of solidarity or loyalty (2001, 296). To
2
Permission was not granted to interview teachers at schools located in Transnistria, the separatistcontrolled region of Moldova located between the Dnister River and the Ukrainian border.
3
Minority schools are those schools where the language of instruction is not Romanian, such as
“Russian,” “Gagauz,” “Ukrainian,” or “Bulgarian” schools.
3
this list of virtues I also add Amy Gutmann’s concept of deliberation: “the ability to
deliberate, and hence to participate in conscious social reproduction” (1999, 246).
Skills, such as “critical thinking, cooperation, initiative, communication, and rational
judgment skills” (Miller 1999, 30), are also paramount in civic education. For the
present study, civic education is defined as the striving of the state to instil democratic
virtues, knowledge, and skills in all its youth as a means to form adults who are
prepared to participate in a democratic society, and are knowledgeable of their
responsibilities as democratic citizens.
The subject of history in Moldovan schools has become de facto civic
education because currently there are no standardized civic education classes. 4 The
National History Curriculum, although not specifically labelled as such, includes
civic education among its goals: “to re-establish the national consciousness; to
contribute to the development of notions of identity, individual and collective”
(Ministerul Educatiei si Stiintei 1999, p. 14).
Government officials, historians,
education specialists, and teachers from this study consider history education to be a
cornerstone of societal development because it transmits ideas about the nation and
the state, as well as creates and maintains national identity and citizenship.5 Political
education was also evident in the Soviet education system. Scholars describe Soviet
education as ideological, controlled, and instrumental in forming a Soviet nation and
identity (Avis 1987; Grant 1979; Holmes et al. 1995; Suny 1998). Strictly controlled
from Moscow, the teaching of history was critical in legitimizing the Communist
party, socializing the Soviet youth, and creating loyal citizens (Heer 1971, 36).
Drawing from Marxist-Leninist dialecticism, this “science” was “an interpretation of
historical phenomena derived from class struggle” and the ultimate end to the
centuries of struggle was communism (Mazour 1975, 363). Throughout my study,
interviewees reported that Soviet education failed to create loyal citizens. Despite this
4
A Moldovan human rights organization, SEIDO published civic education textbooks and
implemented teacher-training programs from 1998 to 2001. Due to lack of funding, the books are no
longer being published and figures are not available as to how many schools continue to use the SEIDO
books.
5
A distinction must be made between the terms “nation” and “state.” For the purposes of this article,
the definition of nation is drawn from Anthony Smith, who refers to a nation as a group of people with
a shared ethnic core, heroes, myths, and a golden age (Smith 1986). This group of people forms an
“imagined community” of “deep horizontal comradeship” (Anderson 1991, 7) and one’s national
identity reflects belonging to such a community. “State” refers to the ruling government, its political
structures and institutions, or, drawing from Max Weber, a body that claims the monopoly of legitimate
force in a given territory (Miller 1995). The state is defined by the geopolitical borders of the Republic
of Moldova, and citizenship reflects belonging to the state.
4
failure, their belief in the power of public schooling, and specifically the teaching of a
national history to imbue a sense of national unity, has not diminished.
A shared sense of loyalty to the state and a shared national identity as citizens
are common threads throughout civic education scholarship from earlier literature
(such as Almond and Verba 1965 or Lipset 1960) to more recent literature (such as
Osler and Starkey 2005 or Schiffauer, et al. 2004). When applied to civic education in
Moldova, this sense of belonging becomes ambiguous because the Moldovan
historians, who write the history textbooks, are not concerned with loyalty to the state
but rather with loyalty to the nation – that is, an ethnic Romanian nation. In addition
and as it will be discussed throughout this article, Moldovans have yet to come to
consensus on their national identity and understanding of belonging. The historians’
emphasis on the ethnic nation is more in line with the mass schooling movements of
the 19th century that strove to create national subjects through a shared language or
ethnicity (for example, Anderson 1991; Ramirez and Boli 1987; Weber 1976), rather
than contemporary understanding of a civic education that forms national subjects
through civic belonging to the state. Disagreement over the Moldovan nation may not
need to be resolved for effective civic education. The historians and the government
can disagree over the definition of the Moldovan nation but agree on the way that
history and civic education is taught - that is, in a manner that fosters those skills
needed for democratic life.
Competing historiographies
The cleavage between the Moldovan state that governs the territory and the
academy6 that records the history of the territory is best understood through an
analysis of the groups’ differing historical interpretations, which are rooted in
competing historical paradigms known as Moldovanism and Romanianism. Within
the Romanianism framework, emphasis is placed on the Romanian nation and the
For the purposes of this research, the term “academy” is used as a general term to describe the elite
group of historians at the National Academy of Sciences and the State University. I do not wish to
imply that this group is a static block. There are disagreements and dissent within the group. In
particular, I discovered a generational shift between the older historians in capital city and the younger
and more moderate historians at universities outside the capital but they are not part of the elite group.
Also, the government supports a minority of Moldovanist historians who do not have posts at the
National Academy of Sciences or the State University.
6
5
ethnic Romanian nation. For some Romanianists, reunification with Romania is
imminent.
Romanianism is not a peripheral philosophy; in fact, it dominates
contemporary Moldovan intellectual life (Van Meurs 1994, 2003; King 1994, 2000;
Casu forthcoming). The title and content of the current national history textbook
series, History of the Romanians, reflects the academy’s Romanianism (Ihrig 2005;
Van Meurs 2003).
Moldovanism is generally associated with a Soviet perspective and is
reminiscent of Soviet state-building policies. With the creation of the Moldavian
Soviet Socialist Republic in 1944, Soviet historians and politicians claimed that
Moldovans had a distinct language, culture, and identity from Romanians (Bruchis
1996; Casu 2000; King 2000; Van Meurs 1994). In Moldovanist historiography,
Moldova has been a historically independent nation since 1359 when it was founded
as a medieval principality (Stati 2002; Levit 2003).
In contrast, Romanianist
historians claim that ties to greater Romania were cemented in this same medieval
period (Petrencu and Negrei 2003, 18-22).
Although Moldovanism and Romanianism are ideal types, representations of
these paradigms are found in policies that affect all Moldovans. In fact, Moldovanism
is used as a state-building ideology and mechanism, as exemplified by the Communist
Party’s political platform and legislation such as the National Policy of the Republic
of Moldova, which emphasizes the sovereignty of Moldovan statehood and the
consolidation of society (March 2005). The Romanianist perspective is found in the
current national history textbooks, History of the Romanians, 7 which focuses on the
ethnic Romanian majority of the country and largely excludes ethnic minorities (Ihrig
2005).
Both ideal types are problematic as a basis for national history and civic
education because they are absolute. There is little room in the academy’s or in the
government’s version of history for discussion or differing interpretations. As Iurie, a
Romanianist historian and textbook author of History of the Romanians, explained,
“History is a science. It is not a question of what part comes today or if another part
comes tomorrow […] the government has transformed history into a servant of
politics and this is not correct.” By “history,” Iurie was referring to the history that he
7
The titles History of the Romanians and Integrated History often cause confusion because they refer
to both the school subject and the textbook series. Although each grade level studies a different
historical period, all the textbooks are called History of the Romanians and subtitled for the particular
grade level.
6
writes. In contrast, Sergiu, a Moldovanist, proclaimed, “History of the Romanians is
not our history! It is an insult!”
Moldovanism and Romanianism in everyday life
The Moldovanism versus Romanianism debate is not helpful in describing
how many Moldovans define themselves.
There is disconnection between the
country’s dominant historians, its government, and its populace.
The leading
historians represent Romanianism, the state represents Moldovanism, and it has not
been conclusively shown what the majority of the Moldovan citizens support. Results
of the 2004 household census show that the population is over three-quarters
“Moldovan” (Biroul National de Statistica al Republicii Moldova 2005). Yet, this
census figure is problematic because it gives no scope for the dual identity, both
Romanian and Moldovan, that many Moldovans from this research appear to exhibit.
Although not directly asked, the majority of the teachers discussed identity
issues (sixteen out of twenty) and all but two identified themselves as Romanian and
belonging to a larger nation of Romanians.
However, these teachers do not
necessarily support reunification with Romania or view it as a future possibility. This
conclusion comes from the teachers’ explanations of what “Romanian” identity means
to them. All of the teachers talked about sharing a common language, culture, values,
ancestry, or traditions. Four of the “Romanian” teachers talked specifically about
Moldova and Romania as different states. One teacher, Alla, explained:
“The Romanian nation is not concentrated into a single state. There are two
Romanian states with the majority of the population being in Romania, but
they are two different states. I am Romanian from the state of Moldova. It
does not bother me that I speak Romanian in Moldova.”
Alla’s statement reflects Romanian ethnicity and the Moldovan state paradigm. For
individuals like Alla, Moldova is a state founded upon geographic and historical lines,
not ethnic lines. Alla and the other teachers do not see themselves as ethnically
different from their western neighbours. Two of the teachers identified themselves as
“Moldovan” and explained that they were Moldovan because they were “born on this
land” but share a similar language with their neighbours in Romania. Daniella from
7
southern Moldova explained that her language identity was similar to an American:
“Like in America, you speak English but you are not English.”
The textbook debates
The divide between Moldovanism and Romanianism is highlighted in debates
over the national history textbook series. Since being elected in 2001, the Communist
government has made proposals to replace the existing national history textbook,
History of the Romanians, with a new textbook: first, History of Moldova (proposed in
2002); then Integrated History (proposed in 2003).
The latter textbook would
collapse national history and world history into a single course, and was developed
under the direction and recommendations of the Council of Europe. The proposals
have been met with public opposition and scepticism, and fierce criticism and
resistance from the intellectual elite. Most notably, in 2002 tens of thousands of
Moldovans took to the streets to protest History of Moldova. Interviews from a
preliminary study in 2003 with these protestors revealed that they perceived the books
as attempted Russification on the part of the government and that the de-emphasis on
Romanian history in the title and content of the textbook was reminiscent of Soviet
era suppression of Romanian history and identity. The protests eventually forced
President Vladimir Voronin to suspend plans to implement the new textbook.
Reactions to the proposed Integrated History have been similar and official
organizations, such as the Association of Moldovan Historians, have condemned the
books.
Since conducting research for and writing this article, the Moldovan Ministry
of Education implemented the new Integrated History curriculum and textbooks on
September 1, 2006. Relying on online newspaper accounts, the action was met with
widespread protest from historians who claimed that the books are politically
motivated and anti-European, re-introduce Soviet era nationalism, deny Soviet
atrocities, and were developed in a secretive manner (Basiul 2006; Cojocaru 2006;
Paduraru 2006). As I have argued elsewhere (Anderson 2005), secondary school
teachers felt alienated from the government during earlier stages of the history
textbook reform (in 2003 and 2004) and were reluctant to implement the proposed
curriculum if it was not supported by the academy. Thus, the government may
8
implement new textbooks but it is uncertain as to how the teachers will interpret the
new narrative in the classroom.
The Moldovan historian
Despite the fissure between the state and the academy, historians are regarded
as the authorities of historical truth by history teachers, education specialists, and
politicians (although the government refers to a minority of Moldovanist historians
who are not part of the academic elite – that is, they do not have posts at the National
Academy of Sciences or the State University). In fact, the academy has become the
sole repository of historical truth, whereas history produced by the State has become
synonymous with propaganda (Anderson 2005). The Moldovan historians’ role in
society is demonstrated in three salient ways. First, they control what historical
narrative is created and distributed by writing history textbooks. Second, their selfperception enhances their role in society. Last, the way in which Moldovan historians
are perceived by educational specialists and history teachers reinforces and maintains
their role.
A select group of Moldovan historians writes the textbooks, organizes
conferences, and fills the ranks of the university. Nancy Heer argues that this was the
case for Soviet historians and refers to these cliques as “family circles” (1971, 50). In
Moldova today, these “family circles” are present. Although this may simply be the
consequence of being in a small country, the historians interviewed for this research
usually attended the State University together, work together, and collaborate on
textbooks and journals. A quick glance over the spines of history textbooks reveals
that the textbook authors are the same historians who teach at the State University.
Classroom observation and interviews revealed that the majority of the
teachers (sixteen) used the books as lesson outlines and/or they lectured directly from
the book. Apart from classroom maps and instructional aids that an individual teacher
may have created, teachers generally do not have supplementary teaching materials.
Andrei and Daniela, both teachers under thirty who live in the central and southern
regions, arrived to class with only a textbook in their hands. When asked if they
usually prepared additional lesson plans, they both responded that they had too many
classes to teach and had little or no time for additional preparations. Some teachers
view the textbooks as the instrumental component of education. Maria from central
9
Moldova stated, “I consider that the textbook is the children’s tool and schooling is
not possible without the textbook.” Whether they have heavy teaching schedules and
little time for extra preparation, or whether they view the textbooks as the primary
teaching tool, the majority of the teachers teach directly from the textbooks while
using traditional teaching methods, such as rote memorization and recitation. By
authoring the textbooks, the “family circle” controls the historical narrative presented
in Moldovan classrooms. If history education is a means to nurture citizenship and
identity, then the “family circle” has a direct influence on pupils’ socialization.
From the historians’ conversations about their role in writing textbooks, many
historians perceive themselves to be society’s authority for interpreting history. When
asked, the historians interviewed did not think that other parties, such as teachers or
government officials, should be involved in the writing of textbooks. In response to
what he thought of the new Integrated History, Iurie said, “The specialists from the
University faculty and the Institute of History have a vision, which is an opinion that
differs from [President] Voronin who is not a historian. He is a brute!” Viorel agreed
and added, “Integrated History is a version of history for the West, for Western
countries. It is absolutely normal for them to accept it. But whether we accept it here
or not depends on our decisions as specialists.” Lidia, a professor at the pedagogical
university, thought that teachers lack the “knowledge” to determine the content of the
textbooks.
Thus, the “academic community” should decide the content and the
teachers should decide the methodology. Tudor, a historian who is currently writing
textbooks for the Integrated History project, also thought that historians have the sole
authority to make decisions regarding the content of the books. Tudor remarked,
“The scholars, of course! They know the facts, they know the developments.”
In Moldova, some historians seem reluctant to accept an outside perspective.
This is exemplified in the discussions over Integrated History, which is a history
curriculum that combines world and national history into a single course and
textbook.
In interviews, officials from the Ministry of Education and Office of
Minority Affairs explained that the Integrated History course would help foster a
more cohesive and multicultural citizenry because it would de-emphasize Romanian
national identity present in History of the Romanians, which they argue does not
represent Moldova.
The proposal for Integrated History is one of many
recommendations made by The Council of Europe (CoE) and The European Standing
Conference of History Teachers’ Associations (EUROCLIO) to the Ministry of
10
Education in 2002 (van der Leeuw-Roord and Hiubert 2002). Yet, several of the
historians feel that the CoE does not understand their situation in Moldova and does
not have the authority to propose changes. The CoE advisors come from places such
as France, the Netherlands, or “other big countries that have a history” as Nicolae
commented. For Nicolae, these countries have an established history and identity,
which is more conducive to introducing an integrated course. Moldova, on the other
hand, is still in the throes of transition and these Western European ideas may be
considered inappropriate by some Moldovans. Nicolae explained, “Of course it is too
early in our conditions to go the way of the Integrated Course. We must demand that
pupils and teachers know national history more profoundly.” Nicolae, like Iurie, Ion,
and the other historians believe that Moldova must revive its ethnic Romanian identity
through a “national history” before forming a civic identity through a course such as
Integrated History.
The historians perceive of themselves as the historical authority and education
officials and teachers expressed attitudes that reinforce this role. When asked about
the new course, Marcella, a high ranking official at the Ministry of Education, replied
that she did not have an opinion because history is not her specialization. She
remarked, “Sincerely, to ask what is the truth, I cannot ask because I am a
mathematician.” Petru, a former Vice Minister of Education, commented that he was
not sure about the Integrated course because he was “not a historian.”
The teachers also reinforced the historians’ dominance in producing historical
truth and textbook writing. When asked why the school teachers look to historians
and intellectuals to establish textbook content, Alex, a young untenured history
professor, responded,
“Yeah, yeah it is because they are the priests. [Historians from the State
University] are all leaders. They are not traitors like politicians - they are the
gurus, they are saying the truth. I had a kind of discussion with some history
teachers from [a region in central Moldova] who were nationalists, very
nationalist. They were discussing History of Moldova versus History of the
Romanians and they were asked: “What do you think? What should be
taught?” and they replied “History of the Romanians” because they were sure
that the university professors would never approve History of Moldova.”
11
Alex’s observations about history teachers are also reflected in the teacher interviews.
When asked who should make the final decisions regarding the content of the
textbooks, over half of the teachers replied “historians,” “people at the academy,”
“history specialists,” “scholars,” and “university professors.” Oleg from northern
Moldova answered the question simply, “This is a question for the Academy of
Sciences. They must decide.” Vica, a young teacher from a rural area, said, “The
final decision of the history textbooks’ content must be from specialists in that
domain, the domain of the nation’s history – that is History of the Romanians.”
Ana, a teacher in central Moldova, described a revealing anecdote about the
relationship between the teachers and the historians. In the early stages of developing
Integrated History, the Council of Europe organized a workshop for selected teachers
and those historians who are textbook authors and/or teach at the State University.
The workshop’s morning session was devoted to explaining Integrated History and
introducing the advanced pedagogical techniques that will be included in the books.
According to Ana, the teachers enthusiastically supported the new books and teaching
methods. This attitude quickly dissipated, however, when the historians joined the
teachers for the workshop’s afternoon session. Upon learning about the teachers’
support for Integrated History, several historians called the teachers “traitors.” The
teachers immediately withdrew their support.
Out of the twenty teachers who were part of this study, three teachers had
alternative professional development opportunities both in Moldova and abroad.
These teachers had a different perspective on the role of the historians in society.
Cornel and Ludmila, two teachers who have taken part in many in-service training
seminars and worked as teacher trainers at a local educational NGO, treated the
textbooks as historical interpretations and encouraged their students to question the
texts. Ludmila, who teaches at a high school in Chisinau, openly encourages her
students to ask questions about the historical narrative presented in their textbooks
and to consider the potential bias of the author. From observing Ludmila’s classes,
she de-emphasizes rote memorization of dates and supports classroom discussion.
When asked about her thoughts on the writing of textbooks, she replied, “Every
author has the right to express his personal opinion but not on the pages of the
textbooks. [Opinions are] for a conference, a seminar, and so forth.” She was
concerned that traditional Moldovan teaching methods, such as rote memorization, do
not allow students to think independently. She added that if an author puts his
12
personal opinion in the textbooks, “the pupils believe that this and only this is the
truth.”
Lucia, one of the teachers taking part in the Integrated History pilot project in
2004, teaches in central Moldova. She won a scholarship to study at the George
Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research in Germany for one month. The
experience opened her eyes to new teaching methods, other educational systems, and
textbooks from around the world. She commented, “For one month, I saw many,
many history textbooks from around the world. And the authors for all the other
countries’ textbooks were school teachers. Only in our country are the books written
by university professors!”
From exposure to different methods and ideas, these
teachers have changed their relationship to the textbook and its authors and may prove
to be more successful at teaching democratic skills in their classroom.
Discussion: implications for civic education
Without a standardized civic education curriculum in Moldovan schools,
history classes have the dual purpose of teaching the national narrative and of creating
and maintaining national identity and citizenship. Moldovan government officials,
historians, education specialists, and teachers consider the subject of history to be a
necessary component of societal development. Yet, the special place of historians
creates a hierarchy that interferes with civic education - that is, the teaching of those
skills deemed necessary for participation in democratic society, such as critical
thinking and discussion. This educational hierarchy is two-fold.
First, there is a hierarchy within the production of historical knowledge. The
academy insists on a single and “true” national narrative that they produce. Their
Romanianist agenda is transmitted to Moldovan teachers and pupils because the
teachers rely on the textbooks for lesson plans and as the source for historical
knowledge. For many teachers, the textbook is their only tool in the classroom.
Although not all of the teachers subscribe to the Romanianist perspective, they are
reluctant to stray from these historical narratives because they view the historians as
“priests” or “scholars” who know best.
Second, this educational hierarchy is replicated in the classroom between the
teacher and students.
Just as the teachers unwaveringly support the historical
narrative, students are taught in a traditional manner that includes rote memorization
13
and limited, if any, critical thinking or discussion. An education for democratic
citizenship requires a democratic education – an education that not only teaches
democratic virtues but also embodies and models them. Of course, maintaining
school organization and student discipline while also employing democratic principles
can be challenging. Depending on the environment, schools may do a better or worse
job at modelling the democratic principles that they teach (Levin 1998). There is also
a range of ways in which schools teach and model democracy. Some nations, such as
France, maintain a highly centralized educational system, which may lean toward a
hierarchical structure of schooling, yet educators continue to foster democratic
principles in other ways.8 Other factors may interfere with civic education. For
example, scholars have argued that the needs of the capitalist economy supersede
democratic principles (Bowles and Gintis 1976; Carnoy and Levin 1986). In light of
these tensions and contradictions, it is difficult for schools to be completely
democratic, but they attempt to be so in fostering democracy. Moldovan teachers
conduct lessons in an authoritarian manner that echoes their country’s Soviet past
rather than its democratic present. Although the content of the lessons has changed
since the Soviet era, the delivery and style of teaching has not. Teachers usually stand
in front of the classroom and deliver their lesson with little time for discussion and
reflection on the students’ part. The student continues to serve as the empty vessel
that is filled with the teacher’s knowledge.
There are exceptional teachers as
discussed above. These teachers, who have received alternative teacher training,
allow for discussion, stray from the textbooks, and are respectful of their students’
voices and opinions. Yet the hierarchy in the majority of Moldovan classrooms is an
impediment to civic education because it is not conducive to developing those skills
associated with democratic life, such as critical thinking, dissent, and discussion.
Civic education is both a functional and essential component of the Moldova’s
democratization. Yet there is a perpetuation and continuity of Soviet academic
culture, in which history is viewed as “a science” not subject to a multiplicity of
interpretations, even though for outside researchers there are many differences in
interpretations between Romanianist and Moldovanist schools. These absolute
8
For example, French teachers promote democratic principles through independent student work and
equality in their classrooms despite a centralized national system and traditional teaching methods such
as recitation and dictation. See Kathryn M. Anderson-Levitt, Regine Sirota, and Martine Mazurier.
Elementary Education in France. The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 92, No. 1, Special Issue:
International Education (Sep., 1991), 79-95.
14
historical narratives hinder civic education both in the development of curriculum at
the national level and in the classroom at the local level. The historians and the
government disagree over Moldova’s history as a nation but both groups agree that
history (and thereby civic education) is vital to the country’s development.
By
emphasizing the learning of democratic skills such as deliberation and discussion, the
groups can refocus the debate from which history is taught to how history is taught,
thus creating a more conducive atmosphere for the development of civic education in
Moldova.
15
References
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1965) The civic culture, political attitudes, and democracy in
five nations (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Original edition,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined communities, revised edition (London: Verso).
Anderson, E.A. (2005) Backward, forward, or both? Moldovan teachers’ relationship to
the state and the nation, European Education, 37, (3), 53-67.
Avis, G. (1987) The making of the Soviet citizen (New York: Croom Helm).
Basiul, V. (2006) “Opinia profesorilor de istorie: manualele de „Istorie integrată” reînvie
„istoriografia sovietică” (The history professors’ opinion: “Integrated
History” revives Soviet historiography) Timpul: 12 September 2006, Nr.
480. Available online at:
http://www.timpul.md/Article.asp?idIssue=383&idRubric
=4153&idArticle=10033 (Accessed 15 September 2006).
Bendix, R. (1996) Nation-building & citizenship, enlarged edition (New Brunswick:
Transaction).
Biroul National de Statistica al Republicii Moldova (National Bureau of Statistics of the
Republic of Moldova). (2005) Available online at: http://www.statistica.md/
recensamint.php?lang=ro (accessed 30 July 2005).
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalist America (New York: Basic
Books).
Brubaker, R. (1996) Nationalism reframed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bruchis, M. (1996) Moldavian national history–ancient and modern–as presented in
Moldavian Soviet encyclopaedia, in: Donald Dyer (Ed) Studies in
Moldovan: the history, culture, language and contemporary politics of the
people of Moldova (Boulder: Eastern European Monographs, Columbia
University Press), 3-30.
Callen, E. (1997) Creating citizens: political education and liberal democracy. (New
York: Oxford University Press).
Carnoy, M. & Levin, H. M. (1985) Schooling and work in the democratic state
(Stanford: Stanford University).
Caşu, I. (2000) Politica nationala in Moldova Sovietica (1944-1989) (The Political
Nation in Soviet Moldova (1944-1989)) (Chisinau: Cartidact).
16
_________. (Forthcoming) Historiography on ‘recent history’ in the Republic of
Moldova, in: S. Antohi, P. Apor, & M. Kopecek (Eds) Pasts continuous:
writing recent history in post-communist Eastern Europe (Budapest: Central
European University Press).
Cojocaru, G. E. (2006) “Minister of Integrated History,” Moldova Azi: 31 July 2006.
Available online at http://www.azi.md/print/40332/En (accessed 15
September 2006)
Dewey, J. (1999) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of
education (New York: The Free Press. Original edition, New York:
Macmillan, 1916).
Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Grant, N. (1979) Soviet education, 4th ed. (New York: Penguin Books).
Gutmann, A. (1999) Democratic education (Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Original Edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).
Hahn, C. L. (1998) Becoming political: comparative perspectives on citizenship
education (Albany: Suny Press).
Hein, L. and Selden, S. (2000) Censoring history: citizenship and memory in Japan,
Germany, and the United States (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe).
Heer, N. (1971) Politics and history in the Soviet Union (Cambridge: MIT Press).
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1990) Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Holmes, B., Read, G. and Voskresenskaya, N. (1995) Russian education, tradition and
transition (New York: Garland).
Ihrig, S. (2005) Romanianism vs. Moldovanism–national identity as negotiated in history
teaching in Moldova, paper presented at Tenth annual meeting for the
Association for the Study of Nationalities (New York: Columbia University,
16 April 2005).
Kamens, D. H. (1988) Education and democracy, Sociology of Education, 61 (April),
114-127.
King, C. (1994) Moldovan identity and the politics of pan-Romanianism, Slavic Review
53, 2 (Summer), 345-68.
________. (2000) The Moldovans: Romania, Russian, and the politics of culture
(Stanford: Hoover Institution Press).
17
Kymlicka, W. (2001) Politics in the vernacular: nationalism, multiculturalism, and
citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lipset, S. M. (1960) Political man: the social bases of politics (New York: Doubleday
and Company).
Levin, B. (1998) The educational requirement for democracy, Curriculum Inquiry 28, 1
(Spring), 57-79.
Levit, I. (2003) Republica Moldoveneasca (noiembrie 1917- noiembrie 1918) (The
Moldovan Republic November 1917 – November 1918). Chisinau:
Universul.
March, L. (2005) The Moldovan communists: from Leninism to democracy?, Studies in
Public Policy (Journal of Centre of the Study of Public Policy, University of
Strathclyde) 405, 1-40.
Mazour, A. (1975) The writing of history in the Soviet Union (Stanford: Hoover
Institution Press).
Ministerul Educatiei si Stiintei (Ministry of Education and Sciences). (1999) Curriculum
National Programe pentru invatamintul liceal: stiinte Socio-umane
(National curriculum for high school humanities and social sciences)
(Chisinau: Cartier).
Miller, D. (1995) On nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Miller, C. L. (1999) Rethinking citizenship frameworks: education for citizenship
practice, not citizenship status, Education in Russia, the Independent States
and Eastern Europe, 17, 1 (Spring), 19-34.
Muckle, J. 1988. A guide to the soviet curriculum: what the Russian child is taught in
school (New York: Croom Helm).
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005) Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion in
education (New York: Open University Press).
Paduraru, P. “Potrivit noilor manuale de istorie,Raiul în R. Moldova a fost adus de către
comunişti,” Timpul: 13 September 2006, Nr. 481. Available online at
http://www.timpul.md/Article.asp?id Issue=384&id Rubric=4158&id
Article=10046 (Access 15 September 2006).
Petrencu, A. and Negrei, I. (2003) În apăraea istoriei şi demnitătii naţionale (In defence
of history and national dignity) (Chisinau: Cartdidact).
Ramirez, F. O. and Boli, J. (1987) The political construction of mass schooling: European
origins and worldwide institution. Sociology of Education 60 (January): 217.
18
Schiffauer, W., Baumann, G., Kastoryano, R. & Vertovec, S. (Eds). (2004) Civil
enculturation: nation-state, school, and ethnic difference in the Netherlands,
Britain, Germany, and France (New York: Berghahn Books).
Schissler, H. and Soysal, Y. (2005) The nation, Europe, and the world: textbooks and
curricula in transition (New York: Berghahn Books).
Smith, A. (1986) The ethnic origins of nations (Oxford: Blackwell).
Stati, V. (2002) Istoria Moldovei (History of Moldova) (Chisinau: Vivar).
Stearns, P., Sexias, P. and Wineburg, S. eds. (2000) Knowing, teaching, and learning
history: national and international perspectives (New York: New York
University Press).
Suny, R. G. (1998) The Soviet experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the successors states
(New York: Oxford University Press).
Stepanenko, V. (1999) The construction of identity and school policy in Ukraine
(Commack, New York: Nova Science Publishers).
van der Leeuw-Roord, J. and Hiubert, C. (2002). Raport si Recomandarile Asupra Vizitei
de Lucru in Moldova a Delegatiei Asociatiei Profesorilor de Istorie din
Europa (EUROCLIO) (Report and Recommendations from the Working
Visit to Moldova by the Delegation of the Association of European History
Teachers). The Hague : EUROCLIO.
Van Meurs, W. P. (1994) The Bessarabia question in communist historiography:
nationalist and communist politics in history writing (Boulder: Eastern
European Monographs, Columbia University Press).
_________. (2003) History textbooks in Moldova (CoE report DGIV/EDU/HIST).
(Strasbourg: Council of Europe).
Weber, E. (1976) Peasants into Frenchmen: the modernization of rural France, 18701914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Zimmerman, J. (2002) Whose America? culture wars in the public schools. (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press).
19