Introduction
As a student, I understood the dichotomy between Communism and Democracy, and how such ideological divide set the basis for the Cold War. However, my understanding of this dichotomy was being challenged subsequently because stating their differences is not sufficient in accounting for the Cold War which lasted almost half a century: it was the tensions from the ideological difference between the USA and the USSR which manifested itself in different aspects which led to the deterioration of relations between both superpowers. Eventually, my own specialisation in intellectual history – the study of ideas across time and space – during my university years prompted me to further re-visit the historical concepts which I encountered during my schooling years. This has been especially useful because I would be teaching these concepts in the history classroom and given the benefit of hindsight, I have started to think about ways in which the teaching of these concepts could be enhanced. If I were to think about one key idea from my university days which could be brought into the teaching of history in classrooms, it would be that ideas assume varying meanings across time and space, and that it would be worthwhile to track these changes.
My own teaching experience also led me to contend the possibility of linking my university experience in exploring the enduring understandings behind intellectual history to the teaching of historical concepts in the classroom. I had to teach the concept of détente to a Secondary Four history class once, and the class’s initial confusion about the concept and its implication on their understanding of the Cold War struck a discordant note with me for two reasons. Firstly, their confusion about the détente appeared to reflect their overly simplistic understanding of the Cold War as a monolithic struggle between the USA and the USSR. Secondly, their understanding of the various stand-offs between both superpowers in the Cold War has also hindered their understanding of the moments during the Cold War in which both superpowers co-operated. In other words, their approach towards understanding the Cold War did not differ from the way in which they conceived the two World Wars and did not deviate from the thinking that “wars” in general entailed total hostility and military standoffs. It is perhaps such misconceptions about the nature of the ideological tensions and bi-polarity during the Cold War which have prompted me to think about the way in which we approach the teaching of the Cold War in general, and our treatment of the concept of bi-polarity in the history classroom specifically. Moreover, such misconceptions have also led me to further examine the way in which knowledge about the Cold War was constructed within the syllabus before analysing the ways in which the concept of bi-polarity can further developed.
Owing to the construct of and constraints within the syllabus, the students’ knowledge of the Cold War is constructed around key developments. Such approach is both rewarding and challenging for the teaching and learning of the Cold War – while students are able to study in-depth the key developments which broadly shaped the political trajectory of both the USSR and the United States after the Second World War, certain developments such as détente and the Sino-Soviet split which could have allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the Cold War were thus accorded less attention. This, however, does not mean that the syllabus has neglected these developments, because students still gain an awareness of these events through the timeline and brief description of developments in the 1970s bridging the intermediary time gap between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the end of the Cold War provided in the coursebook.
suhaimi.afandi@nie.edu.sg
