Deutsche und norwegische Schulmedien im Vergleich

Being human in our world

What is the task of school education in general? And historical education in particular? Wilhelm von Humboldt answered this question in 1793, saying: The goal of education is to link our ego with the world.¹ (Humboldt 1793: 283) While Humboldt did not specifically refer to history, history didacticians would probably add to this idea: This link must overcome a temporal gap in history lessons – stretching from past to present and further into a yet undefined ←21 | 22→future. Teaching history is not merely about the adaptation of an individual to the world given to him and therefore not exclusively about solving specific problems in this current world. Instead, it is about a multifaceted confrontation “in which the individual can develop his or her own form of being human in this world – in other words, educate himself or herself” (Sander 2014: 11). It is about a self-reflexive approach as well as an attitude towards others and the world, whereby this reflectiveness is achieved through engagement with historical events and processes.

History textbooks – omnipresent or obsolescent?

In Germany, the perception of history textbooks concerning this educational goal is ambivalent. For a decade, scholars of history didactics have had discussions about the meaning of textbooks: Is the history textbook a deserved classic and, due to its omnipresence in the classroom, even a hidden curriculum shaping historical education in schools more profoundly than any other media used? Or is it an obsolescent model, a master narrative that is hard to justify in a competence-oriented teaching environment? (Schoenemann/Thuenemann 2010: 9)

Of course, this is provocative because even in 2010, when these questions were raised by Schoenemann, Thuenemann and other didacticians, most authors put the medium up for disposal primarily in its material form. They did not doubt the relevance and quality of history textbooks’ content. Only a few questioned how the past was told. But: There is no equal competitor. However, digital history textbooks seemed to be on the rise and further digital offerings supplemented and complemented printed books with usage options that printed books do not provide. The Covid-19 pandemic proved the discussion to be highly important.

In the spring of 2021, another challenge to the classic school history textbook was raised. In a digital journal, Public History Weekly, Peter Gautschi and Christian Bunnenberg wrote in an editorial:

“Influenced by the megatrends of the 21st century – for example, digitalization, nomadization, acceleration, knowledge expansion, value change, ecologization, economization – as well as current pedagogical concerns – e.g., competence, lifeworld, and present-world orientation, inclusion or differentiation – [schoolbooks] are currently undergoing a major change” (Gautschi/Bunnenberg 2021)

Here they do not argue for a decision between providing content in analog or digital medium, but raise an important contentional issue: what kind of knowledge should textbooks offer fulfilling the demands of a postmodern ←22 | 23→society? In this article I aim at offering an answer to this question on a theoretical level. I won’t look at “knowledge” as a portfolio of certain historical contents, but as a mode of representing the past in the present (and even future). I discuss two key concepts of history didactics and their linkage to textbooks: historical consciousness and historical culture.²

In terms of content, what has been characteristic since the first history textbooks were written in the 19th century is happening again: The textbook proves to be flexible by adapting to current challenges, convictions, and demands. With some delay, textbooks have become competence-oriented. They included multimedia-based offers and turned more extensively than before to historical culture – while still being historical culture themselves.

Historical culture – a key concept in history didactics

“Historical culture” is a specific history-didactics term. It competes with other terms – for example, “politics of history” and “memory culture”, which will be discussed later. Joern Ruesen is the “inventor” of this approach. In 1989 he defined “historical culture” in the following way:

“The term ‘historical culture’ is intended to systematically link the cognitive side of historical memory work cultivated in academia with the political and aesthetic side of the same work. Neither side can be thought without the other, indeed it is already a question of reason in the practical use of historical knowledge how they are each related to the other.” (Ruesen 1989: 10)

Memory work in this context is not only oriented towards the public staging of history worth remembering sensu stricto. It is not only commemorating jubilees, public anniversaries or other history-related milestones in exhibitions or through media contributions, for example. Rather, historical culture is tied to historical consciousness in a more general way.