Reflections of an Intellectual Historian

The material covered here is what I wish I had studied years ago. Through forty years of teaching the History of Ideas, I have explored ideas as they emerged in different eras, but I often found myself wondering why particular individuals and groups were especially drawn to certain ideas and what unconscious needs and what hopes and fears and expectations—conscious and unconscious—influenced their decisions and actions.

Beisel’s course is a review of materials significant for any student of human history. The following topics seem to me especially important: the recognition of the unconscious and how it influences behavior; the life-long impact of childhood experiences, especially how children are treated in their earliest years; the impact of trauma on individuals and groups; the fact that individuals in groups may behave differently than they would if they were alone; the power of unconscious group fantasies; the strategies large groups use to escape from intolerable feelings; the relationship between group fantasies and the media; and the role of denial in human affairs.

As someone who never taught such a course, I was sorry Beisel did not include a list of the books and articles he assigns and some indication of the kinds of writing assignments he requires. It would also be useful to know the approximate number of students in his classes, whether most of his students are history majors, and whether students do classroom presentations, either separately or in teams.

Beisel’s inclusion of the psychological impact of the media in his discussion of group psychology seems to me to be particularly important. It’s not surprising that this material stimulates a great deal of debate among his students; they have grown up in a visual culture, and are more likely to see films and watch TV than to read books. It is certainly important for them to understand how they are influenced and even manipulated by the media. This unit alone seems to me rich enough to fill an entire semester. One would hope that much of this material is also taught in communications courses, but here they are able to see not only how TV and film affect individuals, but also how they both mirror and shape group fantasies and, sometimes, group behavior.

To his credit, Beisel acknowledges the common query about whether researchers aren’t simply projecting their own unconscious needs and assumptions as they interpret historical events. He stresses how hard all of us must work “to maintain awareness of our own biases,” attempt to discover “our own blind spots,” and allow “the documents to tell their own tales.” All of this is good advice, although easier said than done. But at least Beisel acknowledges the subjectivity of the social sciences. Perhaps we would not be so uncomfortable about this if we reminded students (and ourselves) that disagreements among experts in the “hard” sciences are not uncommon, either. Still, this is more of a problem, and a different kind of problem, in the social sciences where we are dealing with living human beings who cannot be dissected or put into test tubes, and who cannot be examined apart from their cultural contexts.

I was especially impressed with Beisel’s commitment to improving students’ critical thinking skills. He does not shy away from awkward questions about subjectivity and objectivity and tries to present different perspectives on at least some topics. That he presented critiques of a number of deMause’s theories is not surprising since his own research contradicted some of deMause’s findings. However, I wonder how often instructors

Page 219

are inclined to present critiques of interpretations that are consistent with their own. Of course, given the vast number of topics covered in the course, it would be impossible to present multiple perspectives along with critiques of each one. But at least Beisel tries to alert students to the fact that different scholars interpret these issues in different ways.

Beisel worries, as most of us do, that when students see a range of different experts’ opinions, they will leave the course confused, feeling that “all they’ve learned is that people disagree, which they already knew when they walked through the door on the first day of class.” However, we live in a world of ambiguity and uncertainty, and we can’t, and shouldn’t, protect students from this reality. In fact, it is part of our charge as educators to help students see that uncertainty, while often unavoidable, is not totally paralyzing.

Beisel himself seems to function as an excellent role model for his students. He acknowledges a multiplicity of perspectives; he has strategies that help him sort through complex material; he is able to develop some criteria by which he chooses one idea over another; and he takes responsibility for making informed decisions about which ideas seem, to him, most valid. I have no doubt that students understand that as he studies different perspectives, he is open to changing direction when he finds compelling evidence to do so. Thus Beisel appropriately presents himself as a knowledgeable person who is tolerant and open-minded, skeptical and questioning—and yet capable of making thoughtful decisions.

In his book, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years (1970), William G. Perry mapped the emotional and cognitive processes students go through as they encounter new and complex material. He was particularly sensitive, as is Beisel, to the confusion and disappointment students experience in higher education, especially those who believed that the quest for knowledge would lead to certainty. Perry’s work ignited a movement of Perry followers who continued his research and organized conferences to discuss strategies for dealing with the discomfort students feel when they realize that even the experts disagree and that there isn’t one right answer to complex realities. I have lost touch with this group, but I know that Lee Knefelkamp, who studied with Perry, continues his fine work at Columbia’s Teacher’s College, as do others here and abroad who are involved with “The Perry Network.”

I suspect the Perry researchers would question whether Beisel is attempting to cover more material in one semester than most students can possibly assimilate. I understand the desire to include all these fascinating topics. Still, I can feel, in his packed description, a kind of pressure and tension. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that, more often than we like to admit, less is more; we can’t teach, in one class, all our favorite ideas and insights. But even as I write this, I know how hard it is to decide what to leave out, and I know that I, too, usually plan more than is feasible in one semester. It must be very frustrating for Beisel not to be able to give two sequenced courses, with one building on the other. Nevertheless, it is obvious that this instructor loves this material, and I have no doubt that his excitement and enthusiasm contribute to his success as a teacher.

Page 220