History lectures

I'm preparing my History lectures as I write this. They're coming along really...slowly. I've started work on the introductory lecture, which provides a broad overview of postcolonial Southeast Asian political history in accordance with the themes emphasised in the syllabus, but have decided to do more work on individual countries first before returning to it. Right now, the country I'm focusing on is Indonesia, whose post-independence history, particularly during the period 1956-1965, is far more complex than my initial, generalised readings (Tarling, Steinberg, SarDesai) suggested. What the readings, especially the biography of Sukarno by J. D. Legge that I'm pouring through, have driven home is the centrality of narrative in making sense of the past. There are no superior historiographical forms.

Alas, my lectures will not be in narrative form, because the MOE wants us to focus on themes and the exams require comparative analysis of these themes across countries in the region. Narrative is too old-fashioned for the presentist, cutting-edge new syllabus. For the political history of postcolonial Southeast Asia, the themes are 1) different forms of government (democracy vs. authoritarianism), 2) the role of the military, and 3) the role of the Communist parties. Indonesia is the first country I am discussing because all three of them manifest themselves fully in its history from Sukarno to Suharto. Unfortunately, the themes overlap, particularly during the period of Guided Democracy, which saw Sukarno play an ultimately fatal balancing act between the resurgent Communists and the military. I cannot, intellectually and therefore pedagogically, separate them; only a narrative adequately captures the fluidity of the period. But if I persist with a narrative framework, my students will accuse me of not directly addressing the requirements of the syllabus. Some compromise between the two will be necessary, and finding that compromise has been my burden over the past few days.

Which leads me to my next point: students. Or to be more specific -- since historians are always wary of over-generalising -- RJC History students in 2007. Whether or not they're more intelligent than my generation is irrelevant and ultimately unknowable. But they're certainly better off. I've sat in on their lectures and tutorials and seen their lecture notes, and still cannot believe how much better the teaching of History at RJC is these days. Students get proper lecture notes, for starters. Their assignments and exams come with actual post-mortems. Tutorials do more than just work out essay outlines. And the teachers certainly care much more about their students, as both their tutorials and the unbelievably detailed comments on students' essays suggest. I say all of this to underscore the enormity of the task that lies ahead. As much as I believe in teaching intellectual self-sufficiency -- something I partially learned while in JC -- it looks like I'll have to spoonfeed them more than I would like to, and perhaps more than the students deserve.

Ultimately, it'll be good for me though, given my future career plans. I already feel that I know Indonesian history under Sukarno better than anything since Prester John three years ago.

(By the way, I'd rather that this post, even if it is good enough, not be featured on the Intelligent Singaporean. Sooner or later students will find this blog of mine -- maybe they already have -- but until then, I'd rather it remain discreetly tucked away. If I do write something that I think the rest of the Singapore blogosphere should read, you can be sure that I'll say just that.)
Posted by kungfuzi at 11:45 pm |