When Did We Decide History Is Not Critical?

• In Event: Whose Knowledge Is Valued in Public? Taking a Critical Intersectional Approach to Youth Civic Reasoning

Abstract

Objectives
History education scholars carve out niches for discussing race/ethnicity, as if it is not central to history education. These scholars are acutely aware that race/ethnicity is fundamental to U.S. history; yet often distinguish their work from historical inquiry, creating other approaches such as racial pedagogical knowledge (King & Chandler, 2016), anti-essentialist historical content (Santiago, 2019), and critical historical inquiry (Salinas, Blevins, & Sullivan, 2012). Alternatively, scholars justify the teaching of race/ethnicity under the umbrella term “controversial issues”(King, Vickery, & Caffrey, 2018; Shear, Tschida, & Bellows, 2018). This theoretical paper argues that the need to classify the teaching of race/ethnicity as something distinct from historical inquiry stems from a false tension between racial and historical literacy.

Theoretical Framework
To understand the purpose of history education, I analyzed what historians and early history education scholars say about the purpose of history and history education. Both fields largely agree that history serves a societal purpose. History provides a moral understanding of the world (Stearns, 1998), prepares students to participate in a pluralistic democracy (Barton & Levstik, 2004), develops informed citizens (Wineburg, 2016), and encourages thinking critically about the world (Salinas, Blevins, & Sullivan, 2012). From the theoretical standpoint that history aims to create a more just society, I explore how inquiry can be used to dismantle racial/ethnic injustice.

Methods/Sources
Guiding my analysis is the question, when did historical inquiry become not critical? At its core, historical inquiry is the act of “doing” history. Historical inquiry engages students in a historical problem, a question they attempt to answer through the analysis of primary and secondary sources (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Reisman, 2012; Reisman & Wineburg, 2008; Wineburg, 2001). I compare these works to that of Salinas, Blevins, and Sullivan (2012) who coined the term “critical historical inquiry.” They see historical thinking as an opportunity to expose and challenge the curricular narratives that reinforce the narrative of progress. Lastly, I turn to scholars who consider the teaching and learning of race/ethnicity in relation to historical inquiry (Dozono, 2018; Santiago, 2019).

Conclusions
Reclassifying historical inquiry work that focuses on race/ethnicity as something other than historical inquiry normalizes the idea that historical thinking is not critical. This creates two problems. First, it gives researchers and teachers a pass to engage in historical inquiry work without any commitment to challenging school curriculum that excludes people of color. Second, it marginalizes the labor of scholars and teachers who do engage in historical inquiry work for justice and liberatory purposes. This work is not incongruent with the purposes of history education, but it is often seen as such because inquiry has been standardized as a cognitive act with no societal purpose.

Significance
Historical inquiry is critical by nature, and therefore not in opposition, but in service to the teaching of race/ethnicity. As such, the burden should not be on civic-minded scholars to justify racial/ethnic historical inquiry in classrooms. It is instead the responsibility of the field to realign the purposes of inquiry with history education.

Author

• Maribel Santiago, University of Washington - Seattle