The Schama–Gove Curriculum Project and the Political Uses of History in a Period of Capitalist Crisis

A Curriculum for a Crisis

The Schama–Gove curriculum project was not born out of educational innovation or academic discussion. Instead, it originated from the political motives of a ruling class facing one of the most severe capitalist crises since the 1930s. As one commentator noted, “What has been identified in the Schama-Gove curriculum project is a concentrated expression of the historical method and political program of a ruling class that senses the ground shifting beneath its feet.”

The 2008 crash undermined the core beliefs of British capitalism. The ruling class encountered widespread unemployment, declining living conditions, and increasing frustration among youth. In this environment, history—how society perceives its past—turned into a key arena of struggle. The curriculum was restructured not to inform but to weaken critical understanding.

The WSWS reported the bourgeoisie’s concern about social upheaval. Chris Marsden pointed out that European media openly warned of “global social unrest” amid worsening austerity. Simon Schama also described in the Financial Times a “sulphur in the air” and the onset of an “age of rage.” This fear influenced educational policy. A generation capable of critical historical thinking would naturally ask: Who caused the crisis? Who benefited? Who is bearing the costs? What forces shape social change? What is the significance of class struggle in history? Such questions were unacceptable. The curriculum had to be redesigned to suppress them.

Simon Schama holds a unique place in modern British intellectual society: a historian whose public image aligns closely with the ideological agenda of the ruling elite during times of crisis. His work across prestigious universities, prominent media outlets, and government-backed cultural initiatives illustrates how historians have become political tools—serving as guardians of national myths at a time when the legitimacy of the nation-state faces exceptional challenges.

Schama was born in 1945 into a middle-class Jewish family in London. He came of age during Britain’s postwar consensus. Educated at Haberdashers’ Aske’s and later at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became part of the elite academic pipeline that has historically provided the British state with its ideological figures. At Cambridge, Schama learned the dominant liberal-Whig historical narrative — emphasising gradual constitutional progress, national continuity, and the civilising role of empire. Though the social upheavals of the 1960s already challenged this tradition, Schama’s talent as a stylist helped breathe new cultural life into it.

His early academic work, such as Patriots and Liberators (1977) and Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel (1978), showcased two key traits that would shape his later career: a fascination with elite figures and political leaders, and a tendency to view social conflict as rooted in personality, culture, and moral character rather than material factors. These focus areas were intentional, reflecting the worldview of a historian influenced by the ideological frameworks of the British bourgeoisie.

Schama’s relocation to the United States to teach at Harvard and Columbia occurred during the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s and 1980s. His significant work from this era, Citizens (1989), offers a broad account of the French Revolution and reflects the prevailing ideological atmosphere. The book rejects the Marxist view of the Revolution, depicting the sans-culottes not as a revolutionary force but as a frenzied mob motivated by irrational passions. Consequently, the Revolution is portrayed as a tragedy of excess, serving as a cautionary tale against mass politics and supporting liberal moderation.

This was more than just an academic stance; it served as a political move amid Thatcherism and Reaganism, during which ruling elites aimed to undermine the concept of revolutionary change. Schama’s opposition to class analysis—his focus on culture, emotion, and narrative as primary drivers of history instead of material interests—made him an important ideological figure in a time when Marxism still held considerable intellectual sway.

Schama’s shift from academic historian to media figure started in the 1990s, reaching a peak with the BBC series A History of Britain (2000–2002). More than just a TV project, it acted as a state-endorsed reaffirmation of national identity during the early Blair years, as Britain’s imperial history was being reclaimed as a source of national pride. His emotive, anecdotal, and visually engaging storytelling served a political agenda by making history personal and breaking down structural forces into individual narratives. It depicted Britain’s history as a collective national experience, downplaying class conflicts, and portrayed the empire as a morally complex story rather than merely a system of exploitation. This was history as national therapy: a comforting story for a society entering the turbulence of globalisation, deindustrialisation, and imperial decline.

Schama’s discussion on the American Revolution, as examined in Tom Mackaman’s WSWS critique, exposes the fundamental political stance underlying his approach. By depicting the British Empire as a “progressive force” during the Revolution, Schama plays a significant ideological role: he sanitises the slave trade, omits colonial exploitation, and reinterprets imperial control as a civilising effort. This is not merely an academic oversight; it is an attempt to rehabilitate imperialism, especially as Britain’s current military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya require historical context. Schama’s portrayal of empire isn’t about actual oppression like famine, forced labour, or military violence. Instead, it presents an aestheticised version of empire, a backdrop for moral conflicts. This act of aestheticising is itself a form of political expression.

Schama’s political influence peaked with his partnership with Michael Gove during the 2010–2013 curriculum reform efforts. In this context, Schama’s storytelling approach became official policy. Jordan Shilton’s WSWS analysis clarifies the implications: “An important component of this ‘fact-based’ approach in history is an attempt to prevent critical thinking… by moving away from the teaching of historiography.” Schama’s postmodern relativism—“A history, not the history”—offered an epistemological justification, while Gove provided the coercive authority of the state. Their combined efforts resulted in a curriculum aimed at replacing critical analysis with rote memorisation, eliminating historiography, reaffirming national mythology, and stopping young people from viewing history as a reflection of class struggle. This was more than educational reform; it was an ideological offensive. 

The defenders of Schama’s curriculum used a superficial form of postmodern relativism to avoid taking responsibility for the political implications of their narrative. As noted, “Grayson mobilises a debased postmodernism… a refusal to make truth claims precisely at the moment when truth claims become politically explosive.” This relativism is biased; it is only used against Marxism and never against the ruling class’s own narratives. When the bourgeoisie needs to enforce its version of history, it abandons the postmodern pretence. The state then asserts its authority, making “A history” the official, unquestioned, and compulsory version of history. This is not about epistemology but about ideology.

British Narrative History and National Mythology as Class Weapon

Michael Gove’s call to revive 'British narrative history” essentially advocates for promoting a form of national mythology. The WSWS has consistently highlighted how these stories serve to merge class conflicts into a unified national identity, linking workers and capitalists, colonisers and the colonised, into a collective “we.' The primary aim is to erase class divisions through national unity. This mythologising process actively suppresses the acknowledgement of the slave trade, colonial plunder, imperial violence, the struggles of the working class, and the international aspects of social progress.

Tom Mackaman criticises Schama’s portrayal of the American Revolution, emphasising its practical implications. Schama calls the British Empire a “progressive force,” overlooking its significant role in slavery and colonial exploitation. He points out that "Historians like Schama… must systematically suppress the Empire’s central role in the slave trade." This is more than an academic error; it’s a political strategy. Eliminating certain historical narratives equates to silencing critical thought.

The WSWS highlighted how Gove's policies led to the deskilling of teachers. Eliminating university qualification requirements was more than just an administrative adjustment; it was part of a broader ideological campaign. Teachers were expected to serve as conveyors of state-approved content rather than independent thinkers capable of critically analysing history. This demonstrates that ideology is reinforced not only through the curriculum but also via the teaching process itself.

The WSWS has repeatedly demonstrated that Labour holds the same nationalist views as the Conservatives. Consequently, it did not provide any genuine opposition to the curriculum. The unions' responses were limited to symbolic acts—such as 'no-confidence votes' and one-day strikes—deliberately steering clear of challenging the ideological roots of the reforms. "The Labour Party offered no principled opposition… The teaching unions… avoided any mobilization that might challenge the political foundations of the curriculum itself.”

History as a Weapon

The Schama–Gove curriculum initiative was a politically driven effort to influence how history is perceived, primarily serving the interests of the British ruling class during a time of crisis. It exploited postmodern relativism, promoted empire rehabilitation, suppressed class struggle, undermined teachers' skills, and promoted a nationalist mythology to prevent young people from gaining a critical view of history. Labour and the unions supported this effort. In contrast, it is important to struggle for a scientific Marxist approach to history, considering it the only path toward truly emancipatory historical understanding.