I'm far from a history expert, but here's my first reaction.
One thing I notice is that all your categories are not necessarily what I would call lenses. A lens is something that influences how the subject sees the object but has no impact on the object itself. When you say "history as driven by economics," although certainly one can choose to take a perspective that places more or less emphasis on economics, one cannot overlook the fact that economics is almost always itself a motive force in history. Thus it cannot be a lens that one can put on or off: however one views history, if one does not consider economic issues, one will miss a (probably major) piece of the puzzle. Likewise for many of the other categories: to understand one of them, one must consider them all together. For example, to understand the French revolution, one needs to understand the economic downturn following the wars of Louis XIV, the lack of human rights experienced by many, and perhaps most crucially of all, the impact of the age of enlightenment on the thought of the people. That's war, economics, human rights and philosophy all in one! If a teacher wants to emphasize one aspect more than the others, the teacher should be sure to assign readings on the other topics so that the student gets all perspectives.
What I do consider a lens is the philosophy of the subject -- in this case, teacher and student. A moral relativist may have a very different take than a Kantian. Or, to to use a less abstract example, a person who places the socioeconomic advancement of the populace as a highest value may have a very different judgment and interpretation of history than a person who places the upholding of individual liberty in that position. Whether or not it would be a good idea to divide classes along these lines, I don't know. I would suspect not, as it would allow students to choose the lenses that are most comfortable, and part of education is learning to think from new and different perspectives.
One thing I notice is that all your categories are not necessarily what I would call lenses. A lens is something that influences how the subject sees the object but has no impact on the object itself. When you say "history as driven by economics," although certainly one can choose to take a perspective that places more or less emphasis on economics, one cannot overlook the fact that economics is almost always itself a motive force in history. Thus it cannot be a lens that one can put on or off: however one views history, if one does not consider economic issues, one will miss a (probably major) piece of the puzzle. Likewise for many of the other categories: to understand one of them, one must consider them all together. For example, to understand the French revolution, one needs to understand the economic downturn following the wars of Louis XIV, the lack of human rights experienced by many, and perhaps most crucially of all, the impact of the age of enlightenment on the thought of the people. That's war, economics, human rights and philosophy all in one! If a teacher wants to emphasize one aspect more than the others, the teacher should be sure to assign readings on the other topics so that the student gets all perspectives.
What I do consider a lens is the philosophy of the subject -- in this case, teacher and student. A moral relativist may have a very different take than a Kantian. Or, to to use a less abstract example, a person who places the socioeconomic advancement of the populace as a highest value may have a very different judgment and interpretation of history than a person who places the upholding of individual liberty in that position. Whether or not it would be a good idea to divide classes along these lines, I don't know. I would suspect not, as it would allow students to choose the lenses that are most comfortable, and part of education is learning to think from new and different perspectives.
Reply
Leave a comment