Accusations of bias are often thrown around when there is a perception of a difference of opinion. Throughout the election period, I was quite often met with some very scathing remarks and accusations of being a “raging leftie” or similar if I stated any disagreement with the conservative Coalition’s policies, even where my own views would be moderate, or not stating an alternative, but merely that I didn’t think it was ideal.
One such example was with the self-education expenses issue: a friend who is a medical professional stated that they did not wish for the self-education expense amount that can be claimed to be capped. I saw it as an interesting point, and asked who he believed should pay for their continuing education in an already high-income position as being a doctor (rhetorically, as obviously if not the self, then the taxpayer pays)? I also acknowledged that if the taxpayer did not pay there, then doctors were more likely to increase their fees to compensate for the “loss” of funds, and either way the affordability of health care and/ or gap between rich and poor was likely to take a hit, unless the Medicare rebate was increased.
I got ripped apart by respondents, who inferred that I was implying that a medical practitioner had no right to make a living, that everyone should be paid the same regardless of skills, and that I was an advocate for a communist society.
I pointed out that requesting a government rebate for education, rather than self-funding under a true capitalist fee-for-education model, was also a communist style approach, and asked how it was any different to the points I raised; I was met with a deafening silence.
“Even when we confess to (say) a Conservative or an economic bias we don’t mean that we think it a bias; we only mean that a supposed norm of social opinion might consider it a deviation from its orthodoxy, or that our hearer or hearers (constituting our immediate social milieu) might consider it as such.”(1)
Possible conclusions:
1- People are not receptive to open debate about issues, but will more likely perceive any difference of opinion as an affront to their beliefs
2- People do not have a great level of awareness of their own biases.
Around the time of the election, there was also talk by the Coalition of changing the national history curriculum in schools as they perceived it to be too “left-leaning”, and that it needed "to give appropriate weight to our western and judeo-Christian heritage as a nation" (2)
I write this not to *wait while the Coalition supporters take a deep inhalation, preparing themselves to berate this hippy as I undoubtedly must be about to spew forth some left-leaning diatribe about how wonderous the history curriculum is* talk about the success or failure of whatever content is in the system of education, but to consider the rationale behind its development, and how we learn to apply it.
History is often referred to as being written by the victors- ie those who either survive it or hold power at the time write information imparting their own biases on it, or version of events from their perspective. Take the Vietnam war as much of the world call it, for example, or the American war, as it is thought of in Vietnam- who initiated the conflict? Do you perceive initiation as instigation or provocative actions? Intolerance of human rights violations as a justifiable means to send in the troops?
A more recent example perhaps: the war in Iraq. Was America within its rights or even its moral obligations to enter into that conflict? What of Australia’s place in it- did we have an obligation to support our ally, USA? Some would say yes (although as you may have guessed, I am not one of them), and yet Canada chose not to do so in the same position. All of these circumstances require the application of a set of values, influenced by culture, positioning in time, and other influences, such as the political desire to persuade others of a certain “truth”.
Considering "party x said *something provocative* about party b, who responded by firing rockets on the Nth day of J-tober 19whatever" - and regurgitating a string of dates from rote memory proves only that someone has the capacity to remember certain chunks of information, not how they are able to apply this information to their life and how it informs their future decisions. Adding value statements such as "x bombed y... and it was good for everyone." does not promote much further thought, but subtly institutes layer on layer of bias which, as I gave an example of earlier, does not promote open debate and the assessment of all merits or drawbacks.
I suggest that we should not be teaching people WHAT to think, but HOW to think.
"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte
No comments:
Post a Comment