Emancipated through the basis of cultural heritage? Intersections between democratic and historical consciousness in the Danish history curriculum

Theoretical starting points – interlinking historical and democratic consciousness

The theoretical foundations of this study are rooted in the concepts of historical consciousness and democratic consciousness. To conduct a discourse analysis aimed at understanding how history education is supposed to foster democratic consciousness, these concepts must be understood as interconnected (Wodak, 2010). When analysed together, they can yield different insights compared to examining them separately. Discourses are both constituted by and constitutive of social realities, and they prompt action through their language. By integrating these concepts, we aim to identify a discourse in which they collectively form a cohesive whole (Jørgensen and Philips, 1999/2008, p. 74). This integration can produce a synergistic effect, revealing novel insights and uncovering “inconsistencies, (self-) contradictions, paradoxes, and dilemmas” (Wodak, 2015, p. 3). The interconnected analysis is driven by the belief that our understanding of history and its orientation significantly influences our perception of democratic society and the opportunities it affords for action. This theoretical reflection is anchored in the framework presented in the introductory chapter (Table 1 in the introductory article)).

Rüsen (2017, p. 13) asserts that “everywhere and at all times human beings draw on the past to understand the present and to anticipate and plan for the future.” The concept of historical consciousness encapsulates this deeply human cognitive process of temporal orientation. Researchers employing historical consciousness as an analytical tool have described humans as both products of history or tradition and, simultaneously, as emancipated beings capable of orienting in new directions and breaking with cultural traditions (Jeismann, 1979; Levstik and Barton, 2011). From this perspective, humans are understood as both being and making history. Being history, or existing in time, appeals to humanity's historicity, while making history can be interpreted as the ability to recognize one's own temporal existence and act from a more reflective understanding (Gadamer, 2006; Ricoeur, 1988). Gadamer (2006) employs the concept of historically effected consciousness to emphasize that our understanding of the world and ourselves is deeply intertwined with the historical context in which we exist. This implies that our experiences, beliefs and interpretations are not isolated but are the product of a continuous interaction between our present consciousness and the accumulated layers of history within which we act and live. He argues that, rather than seeking to eliminate our historical conditioning, we should acknowledge and embrace it as an integral part of our understanding of the world. By doing so, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between past and present, thereby enabling us to understand ourselves from a distance and comprehend the interplay between being and making history. Thus, possessing a developed historically effected consciousness involves an awareness of our historical being, rooted in a specific culture, while simultaneously maintaining an openness to unexpected perspectives that can challenge our horizon of understanding and allow us to make history by interpreting the world in new ways.

Individuals’ understanding of their origins, identity and future trajectory constitutes their orienting historical consciousness. A more developed historical consciousness is characterized by the ability to integrate the three temporal dimensions – past, present and future – into a coherent framework oriented towards the future (Rüsen, 2004). By establishing a clear connection between these temporal layers, historical consciousness enables us to derive meaning from the passage of time (Ricoeur, 1988).

However, this connection between different temporal layers can emphasize them differently depending on the context and what is at stake. Rüsen (2006) has identified various ways of using history to orient oneself in time, delineating four different forms: traditional, exemplary, critical and genetic. The traditional orientation does not question the past; it views tradition as the foundation for understanding and navigating life, which is transmitted to new generations through cultural immersion. The exemplary orientation seeks lessons from past events, constructing general rules and value systems based on historical examples of good and bad events. The critical orientation challenges contemporary understandings and the notion of history as a repository of life lessons, using historical examples to critique and disrupt current moral authority. Finally, the genetic orientation perceives history as a continuum of change and continuity, allowing different perspectives to coexist within a framework of common development.

Considering our research questions, historical consciousness can be understood as a temporal orientation that arises from the dual process of being and making history. The way we engage with history determines the emphasis on different temporal dimensions. Utilizing history as a liberating critical force emphasizes the future and the act of making history. Viewing history as a continuum of change and continuity places emphasis on the present, thus encompassing both being and making history. Conversely, a desire to resurrect the past emphasizes the past and primarily stems from being history. These varying approaches provide insights into the intended temporal orientation: a passion for the past, a commitment to present causes, or a critical perspective on the past and present to shape a different future.

The concept of democratic consciousness is considerably less developed than that of historical consciousness and is employed in various ways. It ranges from a concept used to define how individuals perceive and understand democracy (Krauss, 1989; Zweig, 2002) to an understanding of democratic consciousness as a means of critical thinking and emancipation from implicit power structures (Schugurensky, 2013; Quaid, 2020). This latter more activist perspective of democratic consciousness is rooted in Freire's (1970) notion of consciousness, which describes the realization of individual agency through literacy, personal reflection and a willingness to engage in actions for social change. In this analysis, the different democratic traditions outlined in the introductory chapter are utilized to understand the type of democratic citizen envisioned in the Danish history syllabus. Exploring the interconnections between historical and democratic consciousness involves examining the following aspects derived from the definitions in the introductory chapter:

Protective democracy emphasizes order and stability, relying on the majority culture. Its primary mission is to preserve traditional systems, such as the market and capitalism, or to maintain the power of an elite group. This form of democracy aligns more closely with a traditional or exemplary historical consciousness.

Developmental democracy is based on a social contract between the state and its citizens, wherein citizens are guaranteed rights such as freedom, equality and participation in democratic processes. In return, citizens are expected to adhere to common liberal laws and values, thereby contributing to the common good. This framework supports the notion that changes can occur, provided they are not too abrupt or far removed from liberal democracy. This form of democracy aligns more closely with a genetic historical consciousness.

Interruptive democracy is multifaceted and challenging to define. However, it embraces abrupt changes and recognises the injustices and power imbalances in contemporary society. This form of democracy emphasizes marginalized groups or communities, often placing the individual in a more subordinate position. It aligns with a critical historical consciousness.

Following Rüsen's (2004) and Ricoeur's (1988) concepts of a developed historical consciousness, which entails the ability to create a coherent framework that integrates the three temporal dimensions – past, present and future – while establishing clear connections between them, we identify three coherent interconnections between democratic and historical consciousness:

Protective democratic consciousness and traditional/exemplary historical consciousness.

Historical consciousness in the Danish history curriculum

To understand the type of historical consciousness that the Danish subject booklet in history promotes, three questions have been employed to analyse the text: What kind of temporal orientation does the text encourage? Which temporal dimension – past, present or future – serves as the primary focus for this orientation? Does the concept of historical consciousness primarily aim to consolidate students’ sense of being history (closer to a traditional or exemplary historical consciousness), or does it seek to activate their engagement in making history (closer to a genetic or critical historical consciousness)?

The purpose of history education is articulated as follows:

Students should develop an understanding of historical context through interaction with a chronological framework and be able to apply this understanding in their daily and social lives. Additionally, students should become acquainted with Danish culture and history. (Faghaeftet for Historie/Fælles Mål, 2019, p. 7).

Is this forward-looking and action-oriented historical consciousness supported in the chapters Basis for Teaching and Teaching Guide in the subject booklet? In many ways, yes. History teaching should both strengthen students’ identities and their historical consciousness so they can “consider and act on possible future scenarios” (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 27). Two interesting statements arise: “to act on future scenarios” and “to act on possible future scenarios.” Clearly, the desired temporal orientation emphasizes the future. This future is also, to some extent, expressed as open, as the text uses “scenarios” in the plural. Such historical consciousness is required to navigate among different possible scenarios. By understanding the future as open to construction, it demands that the bearer of a historical consciousness takes a stand and acts intentionally towards the future, essentially making history.

However, the term “possible” before “futures” is also intriguing. What does it mean, and who decides what are possible future scenarios? The Teaching Guide states that history is an interpretative science, where different opinions may exist, but it also confirms that there are historical methods that disqualify some interpretations. However, can historical methods determine what futures are possible? Probably not, as many historical events have been based on narratives unrelated to historically accurate interpretations. Such a one-sided future orientation, grounded in historical methods, would also contradict the statement “The realization that they [the students] and their societies are history and that they themselves are doing history is at the heart of the concept of historical consciousness” (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 64). In the Teaching Guide, historical consciousness is also given a more existential definition: “It is a basic existential condition that we are history and do history. This applies both to memories and stories about the life we have lived and our ideas about how things could and should be in the future” (Faghæftet for Historie/Undervisningsvejledning, 2019, p. 54). Memories and stories appeal more to a collective memory than to objective historical accounts based on disciplinary methods. So, what in the past makes only some futures possible?

Summarizing the discourse of historical consciousness in the Danish syllabus based on the three initial questions, it becomes evident that the syllabus promotes a future-oriented and active historical consciousness. Students are encouraged to engage in making history. To achieve this, they should be emancipated and understand the ways in which they and others are part of history. However, not all future scenarios are deemed acceptable to pursue – only those considered possible. Understanding what renders a future scenario possible, and who determines this, cannot be discerned by analysing how the concept of historical consciousness is articulated in the subject booklet. Overall, the conceptualization of historical consciousness aligns predominantly with what Rüsen terms “genetic.” This perspective views time as a continuum of continuity and change, wherein historical consciousness perceives history and the potential for action as an ongoing process of both being and creating history.

Democratic consciousness in the Danish history curriculum

To comprehend the type of democratic consciousness promoted by the Danish history curriculum, three key questions have been utilized to analyse the text: What form of democracy does the text advocate: protective, developmental or interruptive? How emancipated is the citizen expected to be when participating in democracy? Are abrupt and transformative changes envisioned as part of the future?

In the initial section of the subject booklet, a quotation from the Education Act, which governs all primary school education in Denmark, delineates a clear participatory approach to democratic education. It emphasizes the importance of enhancing students’ self-perception and their capacity to engage and to take a stand in societal matters:

Schools must devise effective methodologies and establish an environment that fosters experience, immersion, and enthusiasm. This approach aims to enhance students’ cognitive and imaginative capacities, instill confidence in their abilities, and empower them to form opinions and take decisive actions. (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 4)

The introduction to the subject booklet asserts that democracy is fundamentally about individual participation in society, encompassing both rights and duties. In this context, democracy is perceived as existing beyond the state, government and political structures; democracy is the foundation upon which the entire society is built and something that everyone must actively engage with and support. This vision of democracy emphasizes active participation in daily life for the common good. For such a system to function effectively, individuals must be free and guaranteed the rights of freedom of thought and equality. This framework enables students to contribute their perspectives and knowledge to democratic processes. The introductory legal text outlines the expectations for the history subject to align with its common objectives (Fælles mål), the Basis for teaching (Læseplan) and the Teaching guide (Undervisningsvejledning).

When the concept of democracy is addressed in the subject booklet, it is presented as an element that permeates the entirety of society and the daily lives of individuals. For the individual, this implies that democracy is a way of living and functioning within society, thus necessitating that schools prepare students for a life characterized by and within democracy. Democracy is also understood as a dynamic entity, constantly evolving, with citizens themselves determining the direction of future societal development.

The history subject aims to help students comprehend that society has emerged from a historical context, which could have taken different paths, and that society has been in a state of continuous change. Within this democratic framework, there is space for individuals to act and make an impact. The participatory mission of history education, in the context of democratic education, is to prepare individuals by fostering a personal and critical approach to life (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, pp. 27–28).

Meanwhile, the subject of history anchors the democratic individual in the understanding that humans both shape and are shaped by history. This concept applies not only to individuals but also to society as a whole. The foundation of democracy lies in the understanding that both individuals and society are moulded by history. By recognizing this, students can influence the course of history in the future. It is through this understanding that students become “equipped to live in a democratic society” (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 27). Only by knowing the history of Denmark and the Danish state can one become a competent democratic citizen.

To empower individuals to take responsibility for participating in democracy, history education should encourage students to “work analytically and evaluatively with historical contexts and problems to develop their understanding of human life and living conditions over time and gain insight into both continuity and change” (Faghæftet for Historie/Læseplan, 2019, p. 29). This is strongly congruent with the idea of a genetic historical consciousness (Rüsen, 2006). Strengthening students’ historical identity and awareness is essential for their active participation in and contribution to democratic society.

The concept of community is frequently referenced throughout the formal curriculum, encompassing smaller units such as families, relatives, village communities, associations and similar groups. The premise, akin to that for individuals, is that communities are both products of history and agents in making history. The subject booklet positions communities as integral and active components of democracy; they are formed within a democratic society but also possess the capacity to influence and transform democracy (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 27; Faghæftet for Historie/Undervisningsvejledning, p. 54). These communities are depicted as highly participatory entities within society.

In addition to fostering active and participatory students, the subject booklet underscores the importance of familiarizing students with Danish culture and history. This foundation aims to enable them to become active participants in a dynamic democratic society, while simultaneously grounding them in a society that only upholds some credible future visions:

Students should gain familiarity with Danish culture and history as a prerequisite for active participation in a democratic society. This society is based on the understanding that both individuals and communities are historically created and are also agents of history. Both individually and collectively, we are shaped by our past, just as we shape the future. Therefore, the subject of history must strengthen students’ identity and historical consciousness, enabling them to reflect on and respond to potential future scenarios. (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019 p. 27)

Understanding historical content and chronology is presented as a tool for students to comprehend their society and effectively operate within it (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019, p. 27). Future scenarios are again mentioned, now as a layer for students to master to pursue their own agendas. This perspective shifts the view from the past setting the framework for what can be done to the past providing the framework for how it can be done. Rather than merely delineating what can be accomplished, historical knowledge can provide insights into how to advance one's own agenda. In this view, history becomes individual knowledge that aids in skilfully navigating society while working towards personal goals, that is more of an interruptive democratic consciousness.

One way to further help students understand processes of continuity and change, as well as the potential for change, is to consistently highlight aspects of power and power relations in both past and present societies. Students should learn about and be able to describe power dynamics and shifts in power over time (Faghæftet for Historie/Fælles mål, p. 11). The teaching should focus on the rights and duties of different groups within various societies, and how individuals with power have both acquired and utilized it. Such an understanding will enable students to recognize and comprehend contemporary power relations (Faghæftet for Historie/Læseplan, p. 35). This approach also advocates for a form of interruptive democracy, where power relations within democratic society are not only made visible but also actively challenged.

The perspective on power relations extends into the central historical events outlined in the subject booklet and informs how these events should be taught. For instance, when teaching about Tutankhamun, the lives of various social groups should also be examined. Similarly, when reviewing the Reformation, the power of the Church should be analysed alongside the lives of different social groups. When discussing the women's suffrage movement, contemporary gender equality should also be addressed (Faghæftet, pp. 68–73). By making students aware of historical power relations, they can “gain a basic understanding of contemporary power relations and social structures and contemplate the society of the future” (Faghæftet for Historie/Teaching plan, p. 35). This approach advocates for cultivating citizens who use history critically to effect societal change, even if such change is abrupt.

To summarize, the concept of democracy emphasized in the history subject booklet extends beyond political rules or governance. Democracy is portrayed as a way of life rooted in individual freedom and the active use of this freedom to participate in public life, thereby influencing the future direction of society. This perspective underscores the dependence of society on free and active citizens, making democracy and the free, participatory citizen almost synonymous. It calls for a developmental or interruptive democratic consciousness.

However, a significant challenge lies in making students aware how society can be transformed by its citizens, while also understanding the constraints and opportunities presented by the past. The curriculum can be interpreted in two different ways, and it is crucial to discern whether society should avoid abrupt changes from its historical trajectory or whether the past equips students with the tools necessary for changing society, including abrupt transformations. These represent two distinct approaches to fostering democratic consciousness, developmental and interruptive.

Interlinking historical and democratic consciousness to understand school's mission

The concept of time, as presented in the syllabus, predominantly revolves around the notion of change. However, these changes are not abrupt or inexplicable by past events. Instead, changes can invariably be traced back to their origins. The past consistently provides explanations for these changes, rendering them comprehensible. This is because individuals, communities and society at large are inherently tied to their histories: they embody and enact history. The continuity of time, therefore, is predicated on the idea that events do not occur randomly. This perception of time allows for certain future possibilities. Nevertheless, time is not depicted as a unidirectional deterministic force; it also offers opportunities in the present to influence the future. These opportunities, however, are grounded in a historical legacy, both from an individual and collective standpoint. Consequently, it becomes challenging to discern which tempos are emphasized within the advocated historical consciousness: the past that provides the framework, or the emancipatory potential to navigate towards a desired, yet feasible, future. Nevertheless, it must be understood as it is mainly a genetic historical consciousness that is urged for.

Incorporating the discourse on democracy from the subject booklet adds complexity to understand how history education and the development of historical consciousness are supposed to strengthen the democratic consciousness. Both individuals and smaller communities are not only granted but also expected to exercise their rights to participate in an ever-evolving society. Democracy is experienced daily, as individuals and communities strive to improve their own lives and their communities. In an active democratic life, which is advocated, communities and individuals endeavour to create a better future. However, they are not detached from the past, which sets the parameters for their future actions.

But which past are we referring to? Is it the individual's past, the community's past, or the historical context of the consolidation of the state of Denmark? Which past provides the foundation for actions towards potential futures? This question is crucial for understanding the nature of democratic activity being discussed. Does it help individuals understand their own temporal position and the tools available for change, thereby strengthening interruptive democracy. Or does it refer to a past that suggests Denmark, as a state, embodies a specific form of democracy that can evolve gradually, substantiating developmental democracy? The latter perspective implies that Danish democracy is a distinct entity worth preserving.

The framework for democratic actions diverges significantly depending on the chosen perspective on time. On one hand, there are searches for actions that seek to transform the present situation, even if abrupt changes are necessary. On the other hand, there are searches for actions rooted in a past that offers only potential futures aligned with a nationwide Danish understanding of society and democracy. Thus, the impetus for action may originate from a shared past or from an individual contemporary context.

Formulating substantiated and comprehensive conclusions about the discourse surrounding the desired interlinked democratic and historical consciousness in the Danish history subject booklet is complex. On one hand, as Lytje (2022) has already noted, it can be interpreted as an advocacy for democratic education, where future citizens are equipped with powerful knowledge to navigate within a democratic framework. On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret the history subject booklet as a call to venerate and appreciate Danish democracy, deeply rooted in the past (see: Nielsen, 2015; Hass, 2018).