Abstract:
South Africa’s inclusion in the geopolitical and economic power bloc BRICS has influenced its political and economic landscape both nationally and internationally. South Africa joined the BRICS bloc in 2010, just prior to the establishment of the then-new curriculum, Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). South African’s insertion into the BRICS bloc has secured South Africa’s international clout and as such, it has changed its global landscape as well as political allegiances. Given this important collaboration between the Global South and its fellow BRICS counterparts, it is important to discern then what South Africans learn of these countries within the programmatic curriculum. My research focused on the phenomenon of representation guided by two research questions: how are the BRICS countries represented within South Africa’s school history textbooks and why they are represented the way they are? It is important to understand, given South Africa’s important political and economic affiliations, how South Africa represents its key partners in its history textbooks. What is learned of these countries within the programmatic curriculum versus the political reality of South Africa. My study was guided by the conceptual framing of power and authority. Where does the power and authority lie within historical representation and who decides it?
I used qualitative content analysis to analyse my findings from each textbook. The methodological choice, underpinned by the interpretivist paradigm, worked for my study as it was necessary for the themes to emerge from the data as opposed to working with pre-established themes. A number of themes emerged from the extensive analysis and from that, several key findings emerged. The first key finding notes that Russian historical representation dwarfs the other BRICS partners. The focus on Russian is extremely heavy-handed and thus is in keeping with South Africa’s long and deeply historical relationship with Russia, especially as an anti-apartheid ally. This signifies that Russia’s history is the most important and therefore, considered powerful in that it reasserts the power and authority of the current government. Secondly, a golden thread that runs across the grades and textbooks is that of male leadership. The textbooks heavily foreground male historical leaders and women’s history and contributions are largely silenced. The male leaders represented are considered as powerful ‘big men’ and thus are represented as heroes and great movers of history. Lastly, it is evident that textbook historiography has remained largely unchanged despite new scholarship.
