Use of History: A Concept Relevant for the Field of History Education

• In Event: Historical Consciousness and Conflict: The Challenge of History Education in Diverse Democracies

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the use of history (Nordgren & Johansson, 2015) as a theoretical concept relevant for the field of history education. The concept stresses history as something that people actively use to describe, build and transform identities and societies. Use of history is a communicative process in which aspects of the historical culture are used to communicate meaning and action-oriented messages. Historical consciousness is the emotively and cognitively reflected conceptions of the relationship between past, present and future that both guides and is transformed by the uses of history that produce and reproduce the references that dominate the historical culture in a given context.
There is however a need to develop its theoretical grounding and ways of operationalization in educational, social, and political contexts. The purpose of this paper is to outline an analytical definition and to argue for the importance of use of history in history curricula.
The theoretical framework is inspired by German history education theory (Bergmann, 1979; Rüsen, 1987, 2002) and memory studies (Halbwachs, 1992; Nora, 1989). I argue that the concept use of history should be regarded as a (theoretically subordinated) link between the concepts of historical consciousness and historical culture (Aronsson, 2004; Karlsson, 1999). I combine theories of historical consciousness and theories of communication (Arendt, 1993; Butler, 1997; Habermas, 1984; Searle, 1979) in order to frame the chain of communication where the uses are constituted.
The use of history is a discursive practice. Therefore, we need to frame the chain of communication where the uses are constituted (Kansteiner, 2002). To manage that operation, a framework has to handle the communicative process on three levels: interaction between the sender of the message, the message that is transmitted and the receiver of the message; contextualization of the action performed; and analysis of the communication’s meaning.
A strong point of the argument is that use of history should be understood as a function of the communicative actions and not defined from the intentions of the particular actor or sender (e.g. Confino, 1997). For example, the reason to erect a war memorial may be strategic, but the communicative function cannot be reduced to the “sender’s” intentions. Depending on the level of conflict in society, the act may function as monumentally exhorting, as traditionally preserving, or as a critical settling of accounts with the past.
The advantage of elaborating use of history as clear-cut theoretical concept is that it can be used both to examine how history is used by different actors and to widen history teaching to incorporate the role history plays in the contemporary world as a tool to underpin ideas, build identities, and strengthen civic/political knowledge (Nordgren & Johansson, 2015). History education has developed second-order concepts to analyze sources and historical explanations. Tools are also needed to understand how history is used in everyday life. Such an understanding is important, since public uses of history is an essential dimension of any cultural practice.

Author

• Kenneth Nordgren, Karlstad University