British higher education and history studies: An interview with Professor Peter Mandler

n March 24th, 2015, we were honored to welcome visiting scholar Professor Peter Mandler to the Songjiang Campus of SISU and invite him to give a lecture on British higher education.

Prof. Mandler was born in the United States in 1958, educated at Oxford and Harvard, and has taught in Britain since 1991 and in Cambridge since 2001, where he is now Professor of Modern Cultural History at the University of Cambridge and Bailey College Lecturer in History at Gonville and Caius College. Currently as the president of Royal History Society in Britain, he has published a lot of books and played an active role in both the academic and practical sphere of history studies.

Before the lecture started, we had a 40-minite interview with Prof. Mandler, during which time he talked about a range of issues concerning British higher education and the importance of history studies. The interview is recorded and summarized as follows.

More communication between science and humanity subjects

Question: How do you think of the conflict between sciences and the humanities pointed out by C.W. Snow in his speech The Two Cultures? How do you evaluate the significance of Humanistic education?

Prof. Mandler: C.W. Snow made his lecture The Two Cultures in my own university Cambridge in the late 1950. It was the course of cold war and the period of rapid development outside the EU. He was a scientist. I think his true message was the need for science in the modern world. But the message that he claimed to be fending was that science and humanity should talk to each other. There were 2 different stories going on in at the same time, one was the argument for science, another was the argument simply for interaction between science and humanities. The second argument is something I think we can all sympathetic with. Science needs to know about the humanities, and people in humanities need to know about science. The first argument, I don’t feel so sympathetic with, because I think it’s not true that science is the only key to unlocking the modern world. In my lecture this evening I will show how, in the British at least students in Britain chose to study humanities instead of science event though people like C.W. Snow told them to study science.

Question: As far as I know, I came across with a lot of scholars in humanities; many of them had a background of science. For example, they may have an undergraduate degree of chemistry, biography but then shift to literature. Do you think that science may contribute to their career even if they are not doing relevant things?

Prof. Mandler: I have to say I can think of very many scholars in humanities that I know who started out of science. I think we all been learning a wide variety of subjects. The debate is about how to organize undergraduate education. Whether you follow the American model where you don’t specialize, do a wide range of subjects until the very end of your undergraduate years. Whether you follow the British model, you specialize early, even before you go to the university. Usually the British students at 16 have to choose art or science. Each of the system has advantages. The board American education exposes you to wide ranges of subjects, it brings together the two cultures, and leads open until later the choice about what kind of person you want to be. But the British system allows you to have a very intense, high level understanding of one subject that I believe develop the power of mind. I’m American by origin but my children grew up in Britain, when they were coming up to the university, I gave them the choice, you can go to America and do the board education and you can go to Britain and do one subject. They both chose the Britain way and do one subject. But if they had gone the other way I would’ve been equally happy. You can’t have both ways.

Criteria for a real modern university

Question: In his article The Idea of a University, London, J.H. Newman expressed the philosophy of higher education in Britain. In your opinion, what is your idea of a real modern university?

Prof. Mandler: There are different kinds of university, you don’t want to have just one model, but for me, the ideal university is one which covers all the humanities, social sciences and all subjects, has a good balance between research and teaching, the main purpose of the university is to develop understanding, deep and board understanding; and to equip young people with independent minds, and help them find their own special strength and weakness, to help them develop the chosen being. That’s not very different from what JH Newman said 150 years ago, except for Newman it was for the glory of god, because he was a Catholic. And in the modern university, generally speaking, universities function not for god or even for country, but for knowledge.

History’s place in today’s Britain

Question: As is known to all, British people attach much importance to the study of its history. The government often organizes large-scale shows in which a great number of actors will replay historic events. Could you tell us about the importance of history education in Humanistic education?

Prof. Manler: I think that because Britain is an old country like China, and because it has conserved a lot of historical buildings, it has a monarchy, an ancient parliament; I think that people assumed that British have a special relationship to their history. I’m not sure if that is true. I mean, history is a popular subject but not overwhelmingly popular. I don’t think the government cares much about history, I think the government, like your government, is constantly preaching the virtues of science and technology, and its principally concern is economic growth and science competition. In the year 2000, in London, as a tourist attraction, to symbolize the new millennium, they put into it all sort of exhibitions to represent modern Britain. That expressed how politicians actually feel about Britain. The kind of history the politician cares about is their own history, they like the history of the parliament, their own political parties, but not really interested in the wider horizon, the academic range of the history. I think history is in a healthy state in Britain, but not because of politicians.

Question: So you mean that British people are more interested into the study of history compared with the government?

Prof. Mandler: I think so, but not overwhelmingly. I think history plays its role better in having a balanced presence in its culture. So I think as I said before, there is a myth that lots people outside Britain have, which is that British have unique attachment to their history. The Americans think that the British think nothing except for their history. That is because the Americans are very conscious that they have a very short history, they don’t have a monarchy, their legislatures are only 200 years old, so when they come in at look at the history, they think it is everywhere. But if you live in Britain, it’s all around you and you may not pay much attention to it. So I think it has its place, but I don’t think there is anything particularly special about Britain and its history. When people say Oh British is an old country, every country is old; people have lived in every parts of the world for millions of years now, it’s just for certain reasons having to do with being an island, with little more history around, something have been preserved, but again in recent times the 1970s, there was a spirit in Shanghai of putting up new buildings, these things change from generations to generations.

“History is important, but it cannot be used to predict the future”

Prof. Mandler: I’m not a patriot for history, I don’t think history is the most important subject; it’s one of the humanistic subjects, it happens to be the one that a lot of young people are attracted to because it’s romantic, because they choose something they can’t get from daily life, sometimes because it gives them the sense of identity, sometimes I think misguidingly they think that if they study the past they’ll predict the future. I don’t think it works that way. For me there are many ways to understand what it is to be human, my parents were psychologists, the study the working of the mind, that’s one way, there are many great achievement of humanity, literature, art, religion, you can study those in literature studies, art history, religion studies, and history is just another one of those ways of working out how humans can be, and it gives more alternatives of how humans can be because you have hold the past. I said something more patriotic about history; I do think all the humanity principles are important; I wouldn’t want to say one against another. It’s not a competition.

Question: I think no matter what you are doing, learning history is always important, like there in SISU, we have the Centre for British Studies, we do country and area studies. What do you think is the relationship between history studies and the country/area studies?

Prof. Mandler: I certainly agree with you. The history can enhance the study of any other subject. History and literature work very well together, socialology and economy work very well. So I do think history will play a central role in any area studies. Again, if you try to work out what makes a society function, you don’t want to look at the way it is now, you want to see how it is been many periods of the past. I think the danger has been that people turn to history to find out some origins, some points which everything begins and out of which everything boomed. But I don’t think history works that way. I think humans are much more changeable. They started out one way and end up another way. You learn about the difference, not just a single line of development.

Question: So you don’t believe in linear development, like what Social Darwinism says?

Prof. Mandler: I don’t believe in linear development. It’s very interesting that you mentioned that, because of course even Darwin didn’t believe in social Darwinism. Darwin had an idea that human development is branching, but Social Darwinism misinterpreted Darwin that competition entorted one inevitable development. Darwin himself was horrified by that. If you look at his writings, he actually has sketches, showing the development in a tree like structure. There are people now who study evolutionary biology, their history in the 20^th century. When I was young, when you went to the museum, you saw the development of mankind, from monkey to human, and there was a line. And the development of the horse, the monkey, the elephant, that’s the way development was taught in the 20^th century, always ending up to what we are today, one line, you become more horselike, more human, but that’s not the way the biology works. You get all sorts of the line, some of them dying, some of them live. I think history is the same way.

Growing interest in the history of higher education

Question: It came to our notice that you have always been interest in the history of education, especially the interdynamic factor between British higher education and the society since Victorian times. Could you tell us why you are so interested?

Prof. Mandler said he had only been interested in it in the last 5 years or so, for he began to play more of a role in educational policy when he becomes active in the Royal History Society (RHS): “About 15 years ago I was secretary and 7 years ago I was vice-president, and my job as vice-president was responsible for educational policy. I spent a lot of time interacting with government and funding bodies, media and other historical bodies. I thought it would be interesting to bring my own research and my policy to work together. Education history has been a weak spot in British history in general. But recently people are coming to realize that education has been an extremely important part of especially 21 century history.”

RHS: an active role to play in educational and social policy making.

Question: As the president of the Royal Historical Society, what have you done to give an impetus to history studies?

Prof. Mandler: “We’ve done a lot. We have been working very close with the government on school curriculums to make it represent the latest thinking in historical studies, and also to broaden and globalize it.” According to Prof. Mandler, curriculum in British school had been very narrowly focused on British history and history of the 20th century. “Last 10 years, if you were English history student between the age of 11 and 18, you could study nothing but Stalin, Mao and Hitler. That seems to us a very narrow history. We want to expose young people to the history of the whole world, including China.” In its effort to do so, the RHS have been encouraging the government to offer more pre-modern history, going back as far as middle-age or even ancient world, by doing which they can make history more representative, and more interesting to more people. “We are also encouraging young people to study history in the University and post-graduate level.”

In practice, the RHS make their voice heard by talking to MPs, ministers and other civil servants. They send written submissions to consultative exercise set up by government commission. “We also intervene on issues relating to the preservation of archives, freedom of information, more open access of the scholarly world to the general public for free, which is an important movement now. Besides, we often advice on the preservation of historical buildings. ”

History studies: educating people and training the brain

What is the benefit of history studies? Prof. Mandler gives his opinion on social and individual levels. For society as a whole, his thinks that history is educational. “It tells you what human beings can be and what they have been. And it gives you a richer and deeper understanding of the world that we’ve made.” However, he doesn’t believe that history has to teach lessons. “…there’s no long-term logic. You can’t say here we were in 1800s, here we were in 1900s and here we were in 2000, and that’s what we will be in 2100s. It doesn’t work that way. If the history tells you one thing, it’s the humans are very changeable. It’s very hard to predict the future. You can learn as best as you can about the past to reveal the best clues about what is going to happen next. But I wouldn’t go beyond that. Of course policy makers would not like to hear that. They want certainty about what exactly is going to happen.”

For individual development, Prof. Mandler recognizes the cultivating of imagination and comprehensive thinking: “One of the great things about studying the past is that the evidence is always incomplete. It requires the act of imagination to put the fragmentary materials we have to make the most possible story. And you rely on your evidence. You have to go and find the evidence to show that you have some reason for your interpretation. It’s a nice balance between evidence and imagination, which is really good for the brains. That’s why I think people with historical training are very successful at all sorts of careers. Because they got the imagination that they can apply it in almost any subject.”

Great thinkers: “We need both philosophy and empiricism”

Question: There are some scholars criticizing the Anglo-American higher education as focusing more on analysis and pragmatic approach, but paying less attention to synthesis and grand subject studies, just like the Anglo-American philosophy. They say that’s why great thinkers are rarely seen in the British and American academia. What’s your opinion on this opinon?

When this is asked, Prof. Mandler calls for the need to clarify the definition of “great thinkers”. If “great tinkers” refers to those well-known philosophers, he admits that Anglo-American tradition is less philosophical than the French or German. However, he doesn’t agree that British and American cultures produce no great thinkers. “I think the grandest sympathy, like Marx, Freud and Adam Smith (British) tend to fall into that trap that we were discussing earlier, isolating one or two factors and saying they are the things that are really important and determine everything else. It might be sex, class struggle or individual economic achievement. Sometimes that helps us think, but I wouldn’t say those are the only qualifications for great thinkers. And I would say the followers of those great thinkers tend to be overwhelmed by the power of that one idea, and they apply it very mechanically, rather foolishly and lead humanity on false path. What you need are people who can see the many sides of humanity. And I think the Anglo-American tradition is good at that.

Current trends in the study of world history

Question: What are the latest trends in the current studies of the world history? How does the Faculty of History at Cambridge adapt to this development?

Prof. Mandler: “This is hard to answer because history is diverse. But there is a growing interest in the history of the world. I do not mean global history. Global history assumes that the world is one subject. Where I think we should be going is understanding the different parts of the world separately, and then how they interact. Another trend, according to him, is trans-national history, which means interaction between parts of the world, like intellectual and commercial exchanges. There’s also a lot of interest in international history, meaning the growth of international structures like in the 19^th century the peace movement, and in the 20^th century the League of Nations or the United Nations. “it’s important to know how people in different countries make structure to learn from each other and to communicate with each other.”

At Cambridge, Prof. Mandler says they are particularly interested in the material culture—objects and things. “There’s a much closer involvement between historians and museums, between historians and archeologists. It’s really important to get an understanding of objects themselves and bring that into the historical structure.”

Advice to young people in China: follow your nose and develop the power of mind

In the end of the interview, we ask Prof. Mandler to say something to the new generation of Chinese young students. “Follow your interests!” he said without hesitation. “Don’t let other people tell you what you should be interested in. I don’t just mean the government. I mean your parents and your teachers. You got to work out what really motivates you and where your own imagination is best. Be exposed and go very deeply into the things that interest you the most and get a really full understanding of them. Don’t worry too much about what it is or whether you will make money in the future, because if you develop your powers of mind you can do lots of different things. That is a lesson that make sense in Britain and American. I don’t know whether it can equally make sense in China. But from my perspective that’s the most important thing--follow your own nose.”