via Novecento.org (Italian)

As a member of the Observatory on History Teaching in Europe, can you tell us something about how and when this institution came into being? Who initiated it and why at this time? What are its objectives?

The Observatory (OHTE) is still a 'young' body and at the same time a new concept - if for no other reason than the area on which it focuses: a characteristic prerogative of national governments, and I would also say political traditions. It is the result of an initiative that originated within the Council of Europe (CoE) and we can divide its genesis into two stages. At an informal meeting in Paris in 2019, twenty-three ministers of education of the states represented at the CoE recommended the drafting of an 'enlarged partial agreement' (a technical designation for an initiative that does not bind the CoE as an institution, and is open to the accession of non-European countries) aimed at monitoring the teaching of history in Europe. At the origin of the idea lies a proposal made by the French government during its rotating presidency of the Council of Europe. The launch took place in November 2020, with the ratification of the agreement itself, and the birth of the Observatory. This currently brings together sixteen states (the Russian Federation was excluded a few days before this interview) and one external observer, Hungary, which was accepted in recent months.

The structure comprises a Governing Board made up of a representative from each state party to the agreement; a permanent secretariat, located at the headquarters of the CoE in Strasbourg; and the Scientific Advisory Committee, of which I am a member following a selection process open to scholars and experts, without criteria of nationality or institutional background.  My biography - education in Bologna, studies in Paris leading to a seminar on the comparison of history teaching practices, employment at an EU institution in Brussels - probably explains the acceptance of my candidature, which is somewhat atypical in that Italy, my country of origin, is not a member of the Observatory for the time being.

The objective pursued by the OHTE is to promote and encourage the role of history teaching on the basis of the constituent values of the CoE and to contribute to the exchange of 'good practices' among the member states. The initiative must be understood in its context. One can discern, in its background, a twofold concern - highlighted in several public speeches by the Observatory's current Governing Board Chair, former French Minister and MEP Mr Alain Lamassoure.  On the one hand, the growing nationalist and chauvinist use of ethnocentric narratives that, in parallel with the consolidation of authoritarian political regimes, has become a direct weapon against the rule of law and an inclusive vision of citizenship. Poland's controversial 2018 legislation on the prerogatives of the 'Institute of National Memory' is one example among many.

Another motivation is linked to a concern that has also made itself felt in Italy and is supported by empirical studies that the French government subsidised during the OHTE's gestation phase - aided by the efforts of its diplomatic representations in Europe. The picture that emerged is a general tendency towards a regression in the role attributed to the teaching of history in the curricula. When it is not subject to pressure or censorship by the authorities of certain countries, the subject sees its role devalued - with the most varied reasons, and often tacitly. The fear that this tendency fuels the dissemination of counter-truths, or the pursuit of mythological references in the public debate, turning into a factor of instability, has allowed the traditional disinterest of policy-makers in humanities education to be undermined.  Specific shortcomings - such as the silence of curricula on the motives and dynamics of the European integration process - are almost the norm in Europe and raise legitimate questions even from the perspective of a much-needed education for citizenship - national and European.

A further motivation (which has a direct connection to my scientific field of interest) stems from the perceived absence from the public debate of well-founded knowledge about the state of history teaching at home - and even more so with regard to its European neighbours. History 'of others', or told by others. As much as it is customary to affirm - by way of 'mantra' - the importance of the study of history, the amount of data and empirical analyses on the state of the discipline in schools appears, in many realities, to be lacking, or dated.  Even in the academic sphere.

The initiative does not come about in a vacuum, but builds on several decades of commitment by the Council of Europe in promoting multi-perspective forms of teaching, attentive to the role of minorities and multi-voice reflections on controversial historical issues. The first conference on the topic of the 'idea of Europe' in history teaching (and the first programme to evaluate the content of textbooks) dates back to 1953! The ambition of these projects experienced an extraordinary impetus after 1989 and intensified further in the past decade, resulting in a veritable acquis consisting of conference proceedings, publications and thematic fact sheets. Several CoE resolutions have confirmed the importance of these efforts. One raison d'être of the OHTE lies precisely in the desire to ensure a follow-up to recommendations already made. Without overlapping with intergovernmental projects on history education (in which 46 countries already participate) and citizenship education, the OHTE co-operates with the respective expert groups, while retaining organisational and political autonomy. The structure and activities of the Observatory can be followed through its website and Twitter account.

Its specific mandate - according to a 'cahier des charges' valid for the first three years of activity - consists of the search for information, which will result in regular reports, as well as the promotion of thematic studies - on particular and 'critical' aspects of the teaching of history, from a comparative perspective.  This was the condition to allow the debate, at a global level and in individual countries, on the objectives and the current state of the teaching of the discipline, to be based on real data and not - as sometimes happens - on impressions, urban legends (I am thinking of the classic controversies over textbooks, accused of ideological distortions of all kinds) or simple ignorance.

Something must be said about the members of this body, which do not coincide with the members of the European Union, but neither with those of the Council of Europe. Which countries are members and what is the profile of the people called upon to represent them? Italy is conspicuous by its absence, but so is Germany. How can this be explained and is it conceivable that there might also be a presence from them soon?

To answer the first question, a distinction must be made between the Observatory's Governing Board, which guides its strategies and is made up of representatives designated by the governments of the states adhering to the 'partial agreement', and the Scientific Advisory Committee, an advisory body independent of both the states and the political management of the Observatory, composed of historians specialised in the teaching of history and comparative analyses of national memory policies.  The Chair, Ms Chara Makriyianni, is Cypriot: an expert on intercultural dialogue in the only EU country whose very borders have been the subject of an international dispute with deep historical and cultural roots for half a century.

The Observatory’s statute provides for the possibility of 'external' countries joining - provided that the Council of Ministers validates it.  This criterion applies, all the more so, to the Scientific Advisory Committee: the selection procedure saw participants from different continents, and the current line-up includes, to give an idea, a colleague from Australia.

The structure of the body is dynamic: its political objectives naturally drive it to expand to all CoE member states.  Chair Mr Alain Lamassoure is extremely active in this area. The reasons for the absence of a number of important states are varied: they relate to the 'diplomatic' nature of the exercise, and to the different view that prevails of the relationship between education systems, local autonomy (this is the apparent reason for Germany's refusal, as a federal state, to join) and transnational organisations.  Although they were among the first to imagine - in the period between the two world wars - international exercises to compare the content of textbooks, and although they are at the forefront of benchmarking initiatives, such as the PISA project, the Northern European countries do not seem interested in including the area of social studies and humanities in this type of comparison. As a matter of fact, the Observatory mainly includes countries from the Mediterranean basin, including France, the Balkan area, a few Central and Eastern European countries (Hungary was added as an observer, as I said) and the Caucasus.  As well as (before the latest dramatic developments) the Russian Federation.... We could add another aspect, which is in itself quite interesting: the enhancement of historical culture in public policies is an integral part of the identity constructions of some state formations (France, but also Italy, Greece or Eastern Europe), while other realities (Sweden, Norway, Holland) have placed decisive emphasis - since 1945 - on civic education, in a presentist perspective.  The ambition to 'strengthen the teaching of history' may therefore, to some extent, undermine certain ideological premises, or in any case appear specious.  But throwing a stone into the pond of this debate seems, in itself, extremely stimulating.

What initiatives has the Observatory already organised or is it launching?

I would first mention the launch - with a call followed by the funding of a series of projects - of the production of two reports: a thematic report on a topical issue ‘Pandemics and Natural Disasters as Reflected in History Teaching' and a regular report - thus destined for constant updates - on the state of history teaching. The first report is due to be published in 2022, the second in 2023.

The Scientific Advisory Committee is involved in these sites in various roles: preparing the 'call' and evaluating the applications of experts or groups of experts, assisting the participants and screening the results.  In addition, the first three-year programme includes three annual conferences, the first of which took place in Strasbourg in December 2021 - with the participation of partner organisations (in particular EuroClio and the International Society for the Didactics of History), public figures (ministers of education and representatives of international organisations, starting with the European Commission) and invited speakers.  The conference was webstreamed in its entirety and proved to be a success.

One point seems crucial to me: the formal exclusion of any ambition to 'harmonise' history curricula on a transnational level. It is not a question of pointing the finger at national 'bad examples', or of prescribing ex cathedra the observance of certain values or methodological canons.  The more modest aim is to create a platform conducive to the exchange of best practices and to improve knowledge about the actual state of the discipline: herein lies also the, in my view stimulating, role of an independent scientific committee with no political mandate. The further step is to help initiate debates at local level, which comparison with other national realities can only stimulate. By its very vocation, the Council of Europe is not a 'federal' body, but a body for collaboration, particularly with regard to culture, respect for local identities and human rights. States adhere to it on the basis of their cultural-historical identity, and the teaching of the humanities, as we well know, is an object of strong susceptibilities, not to say exacerbated passions: few would be willing to set them aside to submit to rigid, monolithic supranational objectives.

In 2019, Undersecretary for Education Azzolina had publicly expressed Italy's intention to join the Observatory. Why, in your opinion, has this intention not been followed up? Is there a connection, in your opinion, with the way politics considers the place of history in Italian schools'?

A difficult and challenging question - also because the case of Italy can be considered 'atypical', both on a substantial level (it is, according to an analysis confirmed by the Observatory's initiator, Alain Lamassoure, one of the countries in which the position of history in the school system appears most stable - both in terms of hours available and the scientific quality of the programmes) and on a formal level. As rightly recalled, as early as 2019, Italy took a position - even with a pronouncement - in favour of the creation of the Observatory, but did not actually join it.  However, since then - on the occasion of contacts established by the Observatory (in which, however, I did not personally participate) and in public meetings, such as the conference in December 2021 - the Italian government's sympathy for the aims of our body has been reaffirmed.

I see no reason to prevent formal adhesion, not least because Italy (despite the controversy) remains in comparative terms a country where the position of history in teaching is solidly rooted, legitimate, and publicly supported. Certainly, there are signs of disquiet towards a crisis of legitimacy in the subject: Italy does not live in a vacuum, and the Segre/Giardina appeal in 2019 was an expression of this, rightly emphasised by the media.  But what I notice above all - and the trend seems to me to have deepened over the last twenty years - is a 'distraction' of the intelligentsia and politics towards the state of history.  Wanting to indulge in polemics, the same delay in the decision on joining the Observatory can be seen as a sign of relative disinterest.  However, I prefer to be optimistic, because I do not see any real obstacles - to this absence of Italy.

On the occasion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we witnessed a new case of the instrumental use of historical narrative for political, in this case military, purposes. Putin provided his interpretation of the history of Ukraine and its relations with Russia. The school was also involved in this intervention of national pedagogy. Russia is represented in this European observatory. Was there any opportunity to discuss these issues?

Among the starting points of my relations with the Observatory was an international seminar that I have been co-directing for four years in Paris. There we had received the work of a Russian colleague (with French nationality), a specialist in the school teaching of history in present-day Russia. Her research results show, quite convincingly, how the message (after a brief phase of liberalisation) has closed in on a self-satisfied, sentimental and nationalist narrative - which leaves no room for contradiction (not even between the, as we know, dramatically contrasting stages of Russian national history in the 19th and 20th centuries).

We can say that, if they do not prepare for war, they show the climate in which a war is possible.  I must say, unfortunately, that this is not limited to Russian history curricula: a process of (explicit and systematic) 'renationalisation' has now borne fruit in Eastern Europe, and a mimetic effect can also be seen in the West.  There is a need (largely expressed by the social) to cling to clear roots - on which the murkiest political projects can be grafted.

On the Observatory's relations with Russia, we are clearly talking about a clear break between a 'before' and a 'now'.  Russia's withdrawal from the CoE and its related institutions - such as the European Court of Human Rights! - has also led to a break in relations with the Observatory, at the initiative of the very countries promoting the agreement. The grounds for the divorce are allegations of violation of fundamental rights.

It is a very sad outcome, but one that is part of the current climate. In the past, relations had led to some progress: a Russian historian (Alexander Chubaryan) had been welcomed into the Scientific Advisory Council, and a World Congress of History Teachers (organised without the Observatory's involvement, but with its participation) had been held in Moscow in October 2021.  In this type of partnership, with countries where the ideological use of teaching is a given, the risk of political instrumentalisation is taken somewhat for granted. But the Council of Europe has always had its strength in fearlessly engaging in dialogue between politically divergent realities: there is no need for synthesis at all costs, for a unanimous vote, which often limits the activity of the European Union.  For the time being, in any case, the reference to co-operation with Russia should be put in the past tense...

25 years ago, the results of the European Youth and History survey on the historical consciousness of young people in Europe were published. Would it make sense today to propose such a survey again? Do we have data on how young people's relationship with history has changed in the last few decades?

I would say that it is precisely the scarcity of such data that makes the idea of updating the survey valuable. Comparative studies have been launched in the meantime in the field of civic education on the initiative of international bodies (the IEA, the OECD, and more recently the European Commission itself), while the last two decades have marked an exceptional development of comparisons in education. Since the launch of PISA in 2000, quantitative and numerical comparisons ('International Large Scale Assessments') have become a real field of study for the sociology of education and public policy.  This stimulated exchanges of good practice and triggered methodological reflections, but at the same time provoked criticism for the 'normalising' implications of such an approach[1]; criticism that I partly share.  However, I would also point out another, indirect and 'perverse' effect: the concentration of comparison on scientific disciplines or those related to citizenship education promotes the idea that history is one of the 'useless' subjects.  Countering this trend is one of the objectives that the Observatory, with its regular reports, would like to achieve.

'Youth and History' was born from a different, more academic perspective: but it still exerted a considerable impact on the public debate, giving rise to a more exact understanding of the national specificities of teaching, and in some cases influencing the teaching knowledge itself.  If a new edition of the project were to take shape, it would be desirable for the Observatory to support it.

At a recent conference you organised in Bologna, you spoke about the Swedish case, putting in the title of your paper the question of whether history at school is a discipline at risk of extinction. Would it be so because it is completely marginalised or because it is flanked and gradually replaced by a whole series of 'educations' (in citizenship, democracy, European, civics...) that have little to do with the historical discipline in the strict sense? Do you agree that history is being loaded with a series of excessive tasks and responsibilities that do not belong to it? And that all this, paradoxically, risks making it disappear, replaced by something else?

The expression was extracted from an appeal by a group of Swedish historians, published at the beginning of 2000 in the country's largest daily newspaper. On that occasion, it was pointed out that the majority of secondary school pupils were now attending courses of study in which history was completely absent, while the place of history in compulsory education was being stifled by the insistence on interdisciplinary, purposive, and in any case 'presentist' education.   Emphasis was also placed on the fact that - in Sweden as in other European countries - the teaching of history is increasingly entrusted to teachers whose specific university training is lacking if not absent.

The subject has interested me for a long time - since the early 1990s to be precise.  I dedicated my doctoral thesis precisely to the fate of history teaching in Sweden, at a time when its curricula and regulations were being redefined in a neo-liberal sense.  My interest in what is happening in Europe stemmed from the hypothesis - which also inspired the creator of the Observatory, Lamassoure - that this negative 'trend' is by no means confined to Northern Europe, and that its causes need to be better investigated.

I agree with your thesis: there is a fundamental misunderstanding, which concerns not only the place of history as a subject (which tends, at least in Western Europe, to recede - like the humanities in a broader sense), but also the distorted way in which even the idea 'let's give history a place!' is asserted.  Often with the best of intentions - but that does not curb the crisis of cultural legitimacy: in the name of history, very often, something else is done and new goals are served.

The biggest misunderstanding concerns memory policies: confusing awareness-raising with consciousness-raising.  It is true that history is 'also' memory: national canons themselves are the expression of a common consciousness, and change in parallel with common sense.  But that the discipline has its own method, its own epistemology, is a starting point that should not be forgotten.  However, I also see the opposite risk - particularly acute for historians concerned with protecting the scientific identity of the subject: closing oneself up in an ivory tower and defending it on a simple corporate basis, abstracting it from the social questions of the moment, rejecting to the sender any questioning of its civil and social 'usefulness'. To give up thinking about the political role of history is, in my opinion, to misrepresent the terms of the question, to place oneself outside of reality: curricula themselves are a political product.  The decades-long experience of 'Parri' itself is a confirmation of the often fruitful link between these different dimensions: civil dialogue, reflection on memory and historical awareness, and the teaching of history.  We must therefore come to think of the place of history in a civic project - but on condition that it is included in 'its' conditions, and not as a tool for the sentimental conditioning of consciences, or as a pastime.

That said, is there a 'natural' and healthy connection between history teaching and democracy education?

That's a bit of what I was saying.  I agree with the adjective 'healthy' - although it needs to be substantiated. Historical education, the method of historical research, naturally contribute to the democratic maturity of a society for the simple reason that the individual unaware of history is childish, manipulable, lost in the most naive and fallacious experience of the world around him.   "Historiam nescire hoc est semper puerum esse": Cicero's admonition retains all its relevance, even if - naturally - we tend to think not only in terms of the 'quantity' of notions, but of the acquisition of critical methods.  And in an individualistic age - I would say that the loss of history is a flaw in the perspective of both personality formation and civic education.  But to take this argument seriously, one must also accept that one does not see history as a 'guarantee', as an insurance policy.

I have always been struck by the story of the Nazi occupation of Rome in October 1943: integrated into the group of genocide experts sent from Berlin, under the leadership of Theodor Dannecker, was an expert on Oriental religions, who examined the collections of the synagogue museum in Rome, and then organised its looting.  It is therefore perfectly possible to conceive of genocide while cultivating a 'scientific' interest in history and the cultures that express themselves in it.   Our discipline is most likely an aid to the human condition, not a therapy.  It leads to reflection on the ills of the world - but is not in itself the 'cure'.

Sometimes misunderstanding (if I may permit myself a politically incorrect comment) also reigns in the discourse of international institutions.  The CoE considers history to be part of the 'competency framework for a democratic society' launched a few years ago, and proposed for the attention of governments: one must, in my opinion, be careful that this does not mean instrumentalising history for edifying purposes.   "Multi-perspectivity" (a concept recommended by the CoE in the field of history teaching since the early 2000s) does not amount to a form of moralism, nor to forced sympathy for otherness.  Instead, it means showing the relativity of all knowledge, the need to transcend commonplaces: getting used to a culture of argumentation and rational confrontation, and empathy in the broadest sense. Understanding that history 'concerns' you, urging the pupil to be part of it, is more essential - in my opinion - than any forced approach in terms of 'good' and 'bad'.  An approach that is not only a bad introduction to the epistemology of history, but even a mediocre form of ethical education!

A significant piece of the historical culture of adults and young people now passes through the new media, primarily the web. An enormous container of content, often partial, erroneous, manipulative. But precisely because of its character and pervasiveness, it is a world with which it is inevitable to come to terms, even at school. Are the internet and technology just competitors to be resisted, or, on the contrary, an opportunity to be exploited?

The old adage applies here too: 'if you cannot defeat your enemies, make allies of them'.  Especially since it is not a question, in this case, of enemies, or even competitors.   Instead, it is - in the best case - an opportunity for insights, of which www.novecento.org (to cite the virtual place from which we are ... speaking) is a veritable mine.  In the worst case, one can actually see in digital culture a tendency towards quick exploitation, towards impressionism: which must be countered.

Cultivating concentration and long periods, critical reading, reasoning, are a valid solution in a general sense: but in this, history education must make a specific contribution.  Not being an expert, I must limit myself to a common-sense recommendation: it is not just a matter of educating to a conscious use of the Internet, multiplying workshops, taking the pupil away from passive enjoyment.  The indirect educational impact should not be forgotten: teaching a demanding source work, a method - it necessarily leads towards a 'better' use of existing information sources.  With all due respect for didactics directed against confusion, for conscious use - I believe one must give them confidence, and bombard them with common sense and rationality.

Let me conclude by thanking you for this interview. As the only Italian to be a member of the OHTE's Scientific Advisory Council (the committee of experts in charge of supervising the scientific quality of its work), it seems crucial to me to consolidate relations with the Italian research environment, and in particular with subjects, such as the 'Parri' institute, traditionally engaged in reflection on the challenges of the didactics of history.  I hope that we will be able to continue along this path, and that it will be possible to build bridges between the Italian and international dimensions of such an essential issue.

The original article above is available in Italian only on Novecento.org. For your convenience, OHTE provides the English and French translation of the article, done via ‘machine translation’. While reasonable efforts are made to provide an accurate translation, portions may be incorrect. No liability is assumed by the Observatory or the Council of Europe for any errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the translations provided above.