Abstract
This article focuses on analysing the relations between expressions of historical consciousness and democracy as featured in the 2020 Norwegian Curriculum for Social Studies. In compulsory school in Norway, History is no longer a subject with a specific syllabus. However, there is a fundamental historical perspective running through the curriculum, intended to support students’ understanding of society in the present and of varying conditions at different times. Historical knowledge and competencies are viewed as tools to understand and to influence society. Students are described as the main agents and the curriculum for Social Studies presents an ideal description of future citizens as participating, engaged and critical members of society. Democracy is expressed as three main themes: a participatory and developing perspective; a perspective expressing knowledge about Democracy; and a perspective stating Democracy as an arena as well as a desired result. Democracy is also underpinned with the citizens’ responsible participation and with societal values such as human rights, equality, and freedom. The analysis problematizes that in the Norwegian curriculum students are presented as a collective, whilst the prescribed and desired perceptions and competencies are mainly individual. This indicates a contradictory and interesting tension between who and what is desired in terms of democracy and citizenship.
Introduction
In Robert Hughes’ The Making of Citizens: A Study in Comparative Education (1902), school is described as a machinery to produce citizens to serve the progress of the State − an approach still evident across many nation States. The focus throughout the twentieth century and today has increasingly focused on enabling young people to develop their skills as active and responsible citizens. The sliding change – from educational systems established in the nineteenth century, aiming at promoting and legitimizing the nation-states through constructing patriotism – is evident in the late twentieth century when social history and academic historiography became influential (Lopez Facal and Schugurency, 2023; 13). From this rise in historiography, perspectives on citizenship and skills for participating in a democratic society has grown in influence in school curriculum and is now central in many countries (Bosio, 2021).
Several disciplines and subjects at school include democracy and democratic perspectives within the aims and objectives of the syllabus and curriculum documents; but it is the school subject of History that has traditionally been regarded as being the appropriate subject to house teaching and democracy and democratic ideals. In this subject, students can learn from concrete examples of different forms of government to showcase the importance of democracy in a healthy functioning society. History classroom and History teaching is an arena to develop knowledge about concepts, processes, past events and current situations (Nokes, 2019: 5–7). History education has the potential to interpret what contexts and concepts mean and how and why they are important. By studying historical processes which impact individuals, groups and nations, History teaching is more than just passively reading about events of the past – it encourages and provides the platform for students to delve deeply into issues and problems and to interpret them for current times. The kind of knowledge, skills, and values taught in the History classroom are central dimensions to educate students for citizenship (Malin et al., 2014: 9).
In the latest Norwegian curriculum (Læreplanverket Kunnskapsløftet 2020, LK20) skills and competencies are given prominence at the expence of historical content knowledge. These ideals are based on a historical tradition, and also influenced by an international trend towards generic skills and measurable learning outcomes popularised through proponents of outcomes based education. A fundamental political, cultural, and educational issue for Norway in the latter part of the nineteenth century throughout the nation building era, was the struggle to leave the two unions that framed the country – the political union with Sweden and the cultural union with Denmark. When parliamentarism was introduced in 1884 elementary school was changed accordingly as Tröhler demonstrates with his theses of close correlation between constitutional and educational reforms in nation building processes: Within five years of a constitutional reform, educational reforms followed (Tröhler, 2016). Parliamentarism of 1884 was followed by the Primary School Acts of 1889 (Folkeskolelovene av 1889). The new Folkeskole (children of all social classes in the same primary school) was considered and functioned as the main nation building vehicle (Hovland, 2016: 75). The ideals of democracy and producing citizens of tomorrow, has for more than a hundred years been intertwined with education and scholarly training in schools. The school subject of History was introduced as a crucial component of nation building, and the master narrative institutionalized through textbooks in this era, was deeply engraved with a contemporary oppositional and political union-experience. This historical master narrative legitimized an ongoing political nation building focusing union resolution(s) as the central future national vision.
From this point of departure, this article focuses on the Norwegian Curriculum for Social Studies from 2020 and the main aim is to analyse the relationship between historical perspectives and democracy as a concept and an ideal. It does this through analysing: 1) how historical perspectives are expressed; 2) how these identified historical perspectives and expressions of historical consciousness relate to democracy; 3) what theories of democracy are evident in the curriculum; and 4) how future society and future citizens are envisioned. This study is important because of the explicit political fostering as a central part of history teaching in Norway since the nineteenth century. In present time democracy is the most present concept in the Curriculum for Social Studies and this article could provide knowledge about what conceptualizations of democracy that is stipulated in schools in Norway today. The study is a contribution to the international comparative study of the intersections of historical and democratic consciousness expressed in curricula/syllabi focusing on the history subject in a number of countries (See the Introduction article of this Special issue, Edling et al., 2025).
A potted historical overview of the history curriculum in Norway
The primary school act of 1889 (Folkeskolelovene) introduced the 7-year oneschool-for all-vision, and repealed as a new legitimizing master narrative of bildung in a popular cultural revival and the political fight for political autonomy. In 1884, the Prime Minister Johan Sverdrup announced education system reform as the most prioritized societal objective of and for democracy. Sverdrup contended that every child, regardless of economic and social background, should have the same opportunity to attend university (Hovland, 2016). This social reformatory idea required reform of every school and tertiary level. The School Act of 1889 can be understood in this broader context, as the first level of a one-school-for-all-project that continued on in committees from 1911, economic decisions and reforms throughout the inter war period (New School Acts in the 1930s and curricula of 1939, N39).
The folkeskole (compulsory school from 1889) was established to provide “common education, which should be common to all members of society” (School Act of 1889, Chapter 1, §1), The most used textbook, Ole Jensen's Norges historie I fortællinger for skolen og hjemmet (1889) expressed the idea that narratives of national heroes should convey historical understanding and love of the nation (Lorentzen, 2005). Jensen's pedagogical aim to create an “historical sense” in pupils as future citizens was criticized by historians. Jensen's ideas of educating for nationhood highlighted the narrative approach, children's cognitive capacity and notions of the emotional national identity (Hovland, 2016: 126–129). Later, the curriculum released in 1939 (Normalplanen av 1939 N39) was a carrier of the progressivist wave in education. The new transdisciplinary school subject Heimstadlære (home geography/heimatkunde) bridged and prepared students for disciplinary school subjects such as history. The school subject of History had a focus on content, especially content of relevance to the Norwegian people, and had an aim of supporting students to understand the society in which they live.
The Norwegian system of governance and democracy was introduced to students in the 7th grade (aged approximately 12–13 years old). The change of context, nationally as well as internationally on both political and pedagogical levels, strongly influenced and highlighted elementary history and citizenship education as a key to societal change towards sustainable peace. The resolution of the union with Sweden in 1905 reversed the Norwegian international position, while the post conflict zeitgeist of WW1 and WW2 put a growing concern in mutual international history textbook revisions, focusing on international relations and peace building efforts (Åström Elmersjö, 2013; Hovland, 2023).
In the 1960s, Social Studies was introduced as a school subject, including Social Science, History and Geography. The overarching impetus was for this subject to be an introduction into society, create interest in social issues, and for students to feel responsible for the societal developments ( Grunnskoleloven av 1969 Primary School Act). The new framework curricula of 1974 (Mønsterplan av 1974, M74) conceptualised Social Studies and History (Orienteringsfag, O-fag) with a normative emphasize on child centeredness and individualism, explicitly avoiding theoretical institutionalization. Education in and for democracy was essential, and included introduction to systems of governance and an obligation for teachers to facilitate “open-minded, positive and committed attitudes” (M74, Mønsterplan av 1974 (Framework Curricula of 1974): 182. See also Engelsen, 2015: 38). The ideals of participation and responsibility were introduced in Social Studies 7–9 grade in M87, Mønsterplan av 1987 (Framework Curricula of 1987: 228), with the Syllabus stating: “A democratic society depends on active and responsible community members/citizens.”
The “Pisa Shock” (Bringeland, 2022; Haugsbakk, 2013) at the turn of the twenty-first century accelerated a conservative reemphasize of measurable learning outcomes (for individual students as well as schooling in the international reporting context). The knowledge promotion curricula 2006 (Læreplanen kunnskapsløftet, LK06) introduced competence goals/learning outcomes. The outcome highlighted the Social Studies aspects of the subject, subordinated History as a means to an end and the ultimate vision of democracy. In 2013 democracy and citizenship education was one of three new transdisciplinary topics (the other two being sustainable development and life skills), included in every school subject. LK20's overarching part, introduced five Basic Skills and three Transdisciplinary Themes; however Social Studies remained a core subject for the teaching of citizenship within this new curriculum.
History didactics in the Norwegian context
History teaching and its relationship to the development of research on History didactics has changed significantly over the past 50 years. With an aim to increase students’ critical thinking and methodological skills and to decrease a reliance on traditional textbook based education, in 1974 Social Studies was established (Koritzinsky, 2012). However, pedagogical approaches did not change with the new curriculum aims, and a traditional view on teaching remained. In the 2000s, perspectives expressing the continental philosophical historical consciousness tradition was introduced, but there were challenges and difficulties in applying this theoretical concept to concrete teaching and learning (Lund, 2020: 61–68). Historical consciousness is based on the idea that temporal orientation provides meaning-making contexts (Rüsen, 2004: 69–70) that inter-relate interpretations of the past, understandings of the present, and perspectives on the future (Jeismann, 1979; 42). This is a philosophical and existential view that might be difficult to implement as explicit or isolated moments in the classroom. In Norway, the shift towards this theoretical base, appears to have led to a change towards the ideal of knowing how (in terms of historical methods), in order to promote historical competencies (historical thinking) and contextual understanding (Kvande and Naastad, 2013). The ambition of the curriculum was to place the ideals of the historical thinking tradition of History didactics as a foundation, but history teaching in Norway was still based on conveying facts from textbooks (Johanson, 2015: 22). In the present societal context with students’ heterogenous national and cultural backgrounds, culture, historical references, individual as well as collective memory, and experiences that cannot be neglected by educators, history teaching must focus on more than historical methods (Dessingué, 2020). Temporal orientation and meaning making aspects are necessary and 2020, a historical consciousness perspective was introduced as a foundation for Social Studies.
The Theoretical Frame
Historical consciousness is a central concept in history didactic research and in History education since the 1980s. It connects humans and their experiences to encounters with history and encourages critical and reflective ways of studying connections and inter-connections between the past, the present, and future perspectives which can open students’ perceptions of processes. Meaning making interpretations are often catalyzed by identification and experiences related to nationality, gender and social class, to mention a few.
It is also important to understand the time boundness of ideals, values and events, which implicates that it is not possible to make linear and deterministic conclusions between layers of time. If people − out of their historical and present knowledge and contexts − can affect the future, the responsibility to participate and strive for a good society is desirable for individuals as well as for societies. By interpreting, comparing and analysing individuals and groups in past and present societies, history provides a basis for discussing democracy and societal values underpinning democracy (Bentrovato and Schulze, 2016). Wilschut argues that “democracy is a concept that − apart from its essential basic meaning of ‘rule by the people’ − carries with it a large number of connotations applying to democratic practices, democratic attitudes or democratic culture” (Wilschut, 2019: 832). History education can likely promote preparedness to participate in society (Traille, 2023) and historical consciousness has the function of a pedagogical device to educate responsible citizens with knowledge and competences (Friedrich, 2010: 659–660).
Reinhart Koselleck frames the different layers or dimensions of time as constantly present in people's perceptions. The space of experiences describes knowledge about the past, memories and experiences, while horizon of expectations represents ideas of the future (Koselleck, 2004: 165–177; Koselleck, 1979). However, perspectives on the future cannot be isolated as ‘guesses’ about the future. The perspectives exist in present time, based on and framed by historical contexts. It is important to underline that historical consciousness does not mean to ‘judge’ the past from a presentist point of view in an anachronistic way, but to try to interpret and understand different layers of time.
Expressions of democracy in the curriculum will be analysed in this paper in relation to democracy theories or types of democracy (for an elaborated discussion see Ammert et al., 2025). Different typologies of democracy in current research are mostly, but in different ways, based on David Held's influential Models of Democracy (1987). The book Models of Democracy discusses classical ideas about political philosophy and governmental systems. In Edda Sant's research focusing on democracy, and its relations to education and how it can influence teaching, learning and (as a result) students’ views of democracy, 377 scientific articles were analysed. In the empirical results Sant presents what types of democracy are conceptualized in educational scholarship (Sant, 2019.) In the Introduction article of this Special Issue an overview of theories of democracy is presented. Drawing on Dahl's work on democracy, Held's models and Sant's results of democracy are relevant for teaching and learning, a theoretical framework for the analyses of curricula is elaborated. Theories utilized for analysing curriculum are arranged in three overarching clusters: protective democracy, developmental democracy, and interruptive democracy. These clusters have an overall and sorting function for characterizing the main view of how democracy is presented and addressed and will also be used for a more detailed analysis of our selected curriculum texts.
A protective form of democracy stresses stability and law and order. The societal rules are accepted and must be protected against non-democratic ideas or groups. With Held's words liberal values are the foundation (Held, 2006) and democracy could be characterized as pluralism; the classic pluralism emphasizes citizens’ right to speak and to vote and the freedom of organization. There is a consensus of values and of the range of politics. Pluralism is dependent on the societal system being legitimized (Held, 2006: 165 and 173). The protective democracy could also be narrow or elitist regarding participation. Citizens have the right to vote, but elite groups formulate politics and citizens are mostly passive between elections. These forms of democracies are narrow in the sense that they are not outspoken regarding democratic values in everyday practice.
Developmental traditions of democracy implicate that democracy has the potential to develop and change society. Extending from the right to vote to participating in democratic activities based on the freedom to speak and the right to organization express the pluralist values (Held, 2006:165 and 173). Just like in some protective forms of democracy, there is a non-outspoken societal contract securing democratic activities for citizens taking responsibility for democracy and defending the rights in open societies. Developmental democracy implies established theories as Participatory Democracy, which focuses the idea of free and equal individuals. A responsible concern for collective problems and considered contributions benefits the development of society (Held, 2006: 215). Another relevant democracy model is deliberative democracy. In this model discussions and arguments are the basic parts of a legitimate basis for decisions. The key objective is not just elections, but open and free dialogues and discussions for public decisions (Held, 2006: 237, 253). Deliberative democracy is often connected to different ideas of direct democracy. However, direct democracy makes it difficult to secure long-term and connected political programmes.
The third cluster of theories is labeled interruptive democracy. Interruptive democracy means to challenge the traditional societal contract and open for diversity and more perspectives. Norms and stereotypes are questioned and so are power structures and imbalances. Interruptive ideas in agonistic democracy could go beyond the agreement to develop society within a democratic system, but to cultivate resistance against structures deemed as unmoral, unjust, and/or unequal (Ammert et al., 2025). This means that a group of citizens might state that they have the right to act and to be more heard and more influential than other groups. During the last years, groups in western societies claim that for example ethnicity give some people the specific and unique right to speak in some issues, while another ethnic background or gender is disqualifying. Identity politics is promoted as a tool to give minority groups a voice (Heyes, 2020), but the outcome might be a polarized society.
Participant democracy is a model that describes the right and the possibilities to participate within a democratic system. Besides participant democracy, multicultural and agonistic models could be included in interruptive democracy. Agonistic democracy stresses the conflict in democracy, not only conflicting arguments in the parliament but conflict in society as an important part of discussing, developing and challenging ideas (Sant, 2019: 677–678). However, the boundaries between challenging democracy and acting outside the law is not often addressed in published research. Activist groups often break the law to promote their messages. That is not accepted in a Democratic society, and there are tensions with activist groups in many western countries.
The three clusters of democracy are also relevant to describe the historical consciousness perspectives, because they express temporal aspects. The protective democracy is based on the idea of defending the democratic system. From a historical point of view, the protective theories mean continuity and preserving the current society. It might be understood as static, but that is not necessarily correct, because the protective theories refer to the democratic system with freedom to speak, maintaining human rights and the universal suffrage in open and fair elections. The political decisions could change society in several ways despite it looking as though the democratic system is maintained and unchanging. The developmental theories express that development is the main idea with democracy. Discussing perspectives on a future society and different scenarios requires knowledge and experiences from the past. When considering the past, the present and ideas of a future, people use and express their historical consciousness. In the interruptive models of democracy, the temporal perspectives are necessary. When seeking conflict for a certain cause, the arguments are often based on historical perspectives, usually focusing inequalities or unjust norms and conditions for example regarding gender or ethnicity. What follows in this article is an analysis of the Norwegian curriculum within the theoretical frame presented above. The findings will be discussed in relation to the theoretical models continuously and interleaved.
Material and Method
Norway, a country of approximately 5.5 million people, is geographically positioned on the north-western rim of Europe and has been independent since 1905 when their union with Sweden ended. As is the case with many western European countries, Norway is constitutional monarchy. The King is formally the Head of State. The country is currently ranked 1, in The Economist's Democracy Index (2023: 9) with top scores regarding all the measured parameters of electoral process and pluralism, function of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties. It is evident from this Index, that democracy in Norway is robust in terms of the formal political system, the political culture, and citizen participation.
The Norwegian school curriculum is designed as a description of what competencies students are expected to develop during, or by, their studies in the subject Social Science. There are no explicit presentations of a historical canon and no (core) content of the subjects labelled as Social Science. This means that it is not evident exactly what content students will encounter in the classrooms or what perspectives the curriculum conveys. Neither people nor events in the past are present in the document, with a few telling exceptions being The Holocaust and the Sápmi 1 (the indigenous people in the Nordic countries). Instead, the curriculum prescribes what competencies students are expected to develop by studying the Social Studies.
Method
Based on the research questions regarding intersections between historical consciousness and democratic consciousness, the curriculum is analysed here with a focus on in what contexts and with what sense history, historical consciousness, democracy, and citizenship is used. The text (language) is analysed in a contextual sense regarding what it means and what it says to the reader of the curriculum. The method is inspired by Wodak (Wodak et al., 1999; Wodak, 1999, 2004) who has elaborated a model for text analysis (critical discourse analysis, CDA) linking history to the education field and taking interest in how citizenship is expressed. The critical understanding of how language is used to communicate with different audiences is important in discourse analysis. The lens of CDA is consequently used to gain insights into how language uses certain frames for understanding that is based on dominating norms that both includes and excludes a set of perspectives in ways that influence action and human conditions.
The analysis takes its starting point in the central concepts for this study: history, historical consciousness, democracy and (democratic) citizenship. Topics expressed through specific words and phrases surrounding the central concepts are identified and the focus of analysis is taken on those most frequently used. The passages with explicit or implicit expressions of the concepts are the object for a close reading analysis, where possible meaning, theoretical interpretations, messages and functions of the phrases are analysed. In the coming sections, quotes from the curriculum are analysed and discussed in the light of the theoretical framework of democracy presented in the Introduction article. Regarding democracy three main traditions or perspectives have been used; a protective perspective, a developmental perspective and an interruptive perspective.
Findings and Interpretations
In this section the presence of explicitly expressed concepts and the concepts implicitly referred to by, for example discussing societal values underpinning democracy is analysed. First, the aspects of history and historical consciousness are analysed to identify if historical perspectives have a function and, if so, what function and how it is related to democracy. Second, the views of democracy is analysed to explore what types of democracy and how they might relate to historical consciousness. Third, expressions of citizenship are explored to analyse how Social Studies describe the pupils’ expected competences.
History, historical perspectives and historical consciousness
There is a fundamental historical perspective threaded through the curriculum, despite History no longer being a stand alone subject. Aims that prescribe historical knowledge and competencies (Curriculum for Social Studies, 2020: 10) include: The pupils
2
shall learn about how geographic, historical and current conditions have laid and continue to lay the foundation for how people have cooperated and cooperate, organise and make decisions in different societies. The pupils shall gain an insight into the differences between countries when it comes to systems of government, protection of human rights and minorities. Furthermore, they shall understand how these differences have influenced and continue to influence people's lives and their motives for participating in society.
History has the function of a central perspective to support students’ understanding of society in the past as well as in the present and of different conditions at different times. Historical knowledge and competencies are tools to understand and to influence society. The curriculum describes differences regarding systems of government and how societal values such as human rights are specified. The knowledge-based perspective focusing knowledge about democracy is prominent. Regarding theories of democracy, this indicates stability and continuity in a protective democracy sense by describing how society works. However, the quote also states that pupils “shall” understand how different systems of government/governmental systems have influenced and still influence societal participation. In other words, knowledge about history is expected to have the function of a path to democratic activities.
In the following passage the historical perspective is even more evident. Pupils are expected to see the historic development, and to also analyse development and differences: They shall see how developments in the past were characterized by both upheaval and continuity and what contributed to changes and develop historical empathy. The pupils shall analyse how power and power relations have had and continue to have impact on various conditions in society. They shall evaluate knowledge, events and phenomena from different perspectives and reflect on why humankind has made, and makes, different choices.
Historical competencies
If the quote above is read carefully, the required skills are highly advanced. It takes deep knowledge and comprehensive skills to analyse power relations at different times and how they affect various conditions of society. The pupils must have historical content-knowledge, educational guidance and analytical skills practice to be able to analyse the advanced contexts. The latter part of the quote is even more challenging for pupils in primary or lower secondary school. It is a complex task to evaluate such wide and imprecise content as knowledge, events, and phenomena. Besides, it is expected to be conducted from different perspectives and with several reflections. The ambitions are high, hence likely hard for the pupils to achieve.
The required competences contain several abilities to be developed in Social Studies: The pupils shall be encouraged to be curious and actively search for and create knowledge, individually and with others, both inside and outside the classroom. The pupils shall also learn to collect and use information from various types of historical, geographic and social-science sources to shed light on relations within different societies, at different times and in their own lives. They shall also be able to critically assess whether the sources they find are reliable and relevant.
The historical perspective as temporal orientation and as a historical consciousness
In accordance with the preconditions that History is a central perspective in the curriculum, it has the function of a prescribed guidance for pupils to interpret and understand society.
Passages of history are included as ways to understand life in the past and in the present: The pupils shall learn to understand the connections between geographic, historical and current conditions and how these have individually and collectively had impact on and continue to have impact on people and society.
The interrelations between the past and the present time are clear and present in the curriculum. The characteristics of the curriculum describing pupils as future citizens involve perspectives on the future, related to interpretations of the past. This is an expression of a historical consciousness, often defined as the perception of interconnections between interpretations of the past, understanding of the present and perspectives on the future. In the Curriculum for Social Studies this perspective is fundamental and has several examples: They shall learn to understand why people seek to come together in society, and how the development of identity and belongingness is affected by geographic, historical and current conditions. This means having different perspectives on what may constitute a good life, where the pupils develop an awareness of history and competence in making decisions by understanding themselves in light of their past, present and future.
There is an even more specific passage reflecting the essence of the theoretical concept of Historical Consciousness: “The pupils shall learn that we are not only shaped by history, but that we also shape history.”
The Danish History Didactician Bernard Eric Jensen presented the sentence “shaped by the past and shaping the past” (Jensen, 1996) as a description of a historical consciousness. He stressed the central idea that humans act as they do because they are shaped by experiences and memories from, as well as perceptions of, the past. This affects the way people interpret and understand the past and the present in relation to the past (Simon and Tamm, 2023: 1–3). At the same time the questions people pose to and about the past and relations to the present and the future build, construct and frame the views of the past as understood in our perception of History.
Relevance for teaching and learning
Knowledge of the past and development over time are stressed as ways for pupils to understand society and how it has changed. In that way the historical perspective and knowledge about the past are foundations for understanding democracy. The curriculum also has a meta-purpose to convey democratic values and to “foster” pupils to accept and strive for democracy. In that way, historical consciousness is a prioritized path to democracy.
The inter-relational connections between historical perspectives and democracy in terms of democracy and societal values, for example human rights, freedom, justice, as inter-temporal interfaces are also evident. Meaning-making issues that make sense to human beings are related to different historical contexts and increase interest and understanding between and over layers of time (Ammert, 2010; Ammert et al. 2020). Accordingly, concepts and phenomena that are relevant for individuals trigger the strive to learn more and makes it easier to relate to the past – both in terms of similarities and differences.
Democracy
The concept democracy is the most frequently used concept in the Norwegian curriculum for Social Studies. It is often placed and used in relation to social values such as “[…] human rights, equality and the value of diversity” (Curriculum for Social Studies, 2020: 2). These societal values are implicit corner stones for democracy and the ideal of tolerance and societal participating is frequently present in the curriculum. Democracy is a main perspective in the central part (the core) of the Norwegian curriculum, as well as in the transdisciplinary themes regarding health (life skills and public health), democracy and citizenship education, and sustainable development.
However, the curriculum does not provide a definition of democracy and although the concept per se is mostly not explicit, the following three aspects of democracy have been identified:
The experience of participating in order to affect societal development (focus on experience and competencies); Knowledge about democracy, viewing democracy as a form of organizing and governing a society (focus on knowledge); and An expected connection between the development of democracy and forestalling and preventing extremism and terror (focus on results/effects for a desired society). The pupils shall thus gain experience of democracy in practice so they can influence and contribute to the development of society. The content of this core element shall be seen through various perspectives, from the local to the global, and through the perspectives of indigenous and minority communities, with an emphasis on the past, present and future.
The first aspect (a) expresses developmental and in several respects protective democracy. The views of democracy derive from a developmental, mainly liberal and in some regards from a classic, pluralist view of democracy focusing citizens’ rights, freedom of expression and freedom of organization (Held, 2006: 165–167). Experience of participating means that the pupils have practiced and applied free speech and the possibility to vote or to influence in some context, for example an election at school. In Sant's view of liberal democracy, human rights and responsibilities are goals, but also tools to secure individual freedom (Sant, 2019) which requires active citizens taking responsibility in their everyday lives. In this view, democracy provides the context whereby people respectfully interact with each other in order to develop an open society, built on the citizen's will. It is described as:
In the quote different perspectives in terms of local and global, minorities and historical perspectives of past, present and future, providing a foundation for democracy is presented. The different perspectives of global and local, and of indigenous communities represent interruptive democracy. Pupils are expected to gain insight into different views and perceptions of society and are also expected to develop competencies for participating in a democratic society, as in the following statement where concrete active competencies are described: Working in social studies, the pupils shall learn to think critically, consider different perspectives, deal with disagreements of opinion and demonstrate their active citizenship.
The expected skills identified here express a participatory democracy, based on procedural knowledge and also on responsible concern for common societal challenges and problems, focusing disagreements of opinion in a more deliberate understanding.
The second aspect (b) expresses a more traditional view of how democracy is used in educational contexts with content knowledge and facts on democracy, describing how a country is politically organized. In the competence aims for Year 10, pupils are expected to be able to: describe features of the political system and welfare state in Norway today and reflect on the key challenges.
This view of democracy is characterized as protective, narrow, and focuses knowledge on democracy (Sant 2019). The ideas also derive from the classic pluralism with its focus on political procedures and reflecting on the range of policy and the legitimate scope of politics (Held, 2006: 173). To participate in the democratic society in the future, citizens must know the institutions as well as the rule under law based on the will of the citizens.
Within the aspect of knowledge about democracy, counter perspectives are also discussed. Different countries with different systems of government illustrate how peoples’ lives are affected. The curriculum also relates the way of governing to conflicts and how they arise and are dealt with, per the following: The pupils shall gain an insight into the differences between countries when it comes to systems of government, protection of human rights and minorities. Furthermore, they shall understand how these differences have influenced and continue to influence people's lives and their motives for participating in society. They shall also learn to understand the reasons why conflicts have arisen and arise, and how they have been and are dealt with.
In the third aspect c) the functions of democracy are addressed. The perspectives are twofold – democracy as an arena (with free and participating citizens) and democracy as a result, in terms of a good society. Democracy, as based on desired societal values, is regarded as a tool to secure prosperous societies. The example expresses participatory democracy, pluralist and liberal democracy, but also deliberative democracy. The expectations that democracy has the function of a bulwark against extremism and terror is present in the curriculum: Social studies shall help the pupils to participate in and develop democracy and prevent extremist attitudes, extremist acts and terrorism. Learning about the terrorist attack in Norway on 22nd July 2011 shall be a part of this instruction.
Citizenship
When analyzing the Norwegian Curriculum for Social studies it is important to discuss the concept of citizenship. The Norwegian curriculum for Social Studies from 2020 takes its point of departure in an ideal perception of citizenship and citizens as participating, engaged and critical members of society. This is not unexpected given Norway's The Economist's Democracy Index (2023). Social Studies is expected to promote human and societal values, such as tolerance, equality and mutual respect. The curriculum states that knowledge, perspectives and methods shall help students developing active citizenship through democracy, environmental responsibility, human rights, equality and plurality (Curriculum for Social Studies, 2020: 2).
Multiple passages describe pupils as the learning subject, expected to develop competencies based on democratic values. Their abilities and experiences are the focal point in the curriculum, for example: Social studies is an important subject furnishing the pupils with the skills to be participating, engaged and deliberating members of society. […] Social studies shall thus help to strengthen the pupils’ understanding of themselves, of the society in which they live and the ways in which they can influence their own lives and the future. Social studies shall help the pupils’ to be engaged, critical, innovative and exploratory thinkers, and shall support such attitudes and values as tolerance, equality and respect. Using a social-studies approach and methodology, the pupils shall develop as active citizens based on knowledge of democracy, the environment, human rights, equality and the value of diversity.
To participate in society and to influence one's own situation is a future-oriented goal. The presentation of the ideal citizen is here loaded with an explicit description of desired and highly normative fundamental societal values. Democracy, human rights, equality and diversity points at a pluralistic and liberal democratic ideology that makes citizens’ participation possible and necessary. The curriculum makes the desired ideals even more explicit when they are discussed as tools to prevent ideologies described as opposites − exaggerated nationalism, extremism and terrorism. This means that the curriculum tries to balance, on one hand, a protective perspective of democracy defending society against non-democratic challenges. On the other hand, the curriculum promotes a developmental view of democracy in terms of the importance of citizens’ abilities and possibilities to participate meaningfully in society.
Who is mentioned and who is not?
The pupils are described as the acting agents, equipped with democratic competencies. Except that, there are no agents, subjects or objects present in the curriculum when it comes to core content. The exception is the Sami people, who are mentioned once, in terms of a majority and minority perspective (Curriculum p. 2). The agents (pupils) are not described or addressed as girls or boys, women or men. A gender dimension or perspective is not present. It is, de facto, a part of the concept of equality, but not explicitly mentioned. Another observation is that, regarding today's society, it would not have been unexpected if ethnic groups or immigrants were present or mentioned. The integration issue is likely an important challenge for the future in several European countries, so the absence here is interesting. This indicates that the curriculum does not refer to multicultural or agonistic ideals of democracy.
There is a palpable focus on pupils as a collective – the future citizenry that might be. At the same time the expected and desired activities and experiences are individual. An ability and a competence is necessarily individual and that is also the case when it comes to experiences. Collective experiences might exist, but they must derive from individual experiences. Collectives are certainly built up of individuals, but the references to experiences, skills, engagement, and perceptions supporting certain values are not collective. To support values is not something that can be conveyed in a linear and collective way, it must be reflected, challenged and practiced in meaningful contexts and in that sense the individual perspective seems to be necessary.
Although the discipline of history is not explicitly mentioned in the Curriculum for Social Studies, historical processes are included as tools to interpret the present. The document focuses on competencies and abilities instead of traditional content with associated events. When it comes to who is and who is not mentioned, the subject content is important. When studying History, individuals and collectives as subjects and objects are crucial. To understand processes, it is necessary to know who is acting and taking initiatives, but also who is opposing changes or who is the object. In the Curriculum for Social Studies there are no historical agents or historical characters, including neither leaders nor ordinary people in order to personalize and give a view of a changing society as something people strive and work towards.
Discussion and Summary
In the Norwegian Curriculum for Social Studies History is a central perspective that provides knowledge and skills as tools to study past and present societies and how people have handled different situations. In this sense, the historical perspective has the function of a conveyor of knowledge and interpretations between layers of time, as central in theories on historical consciousness. Pupils are expected to study History to interpret and understand previous societies and what that means for the present time. The pupils are described as intertwined in time – “shaped by the past and shaping the future” – a concrete expression of a historical consciousness. Perspectives running over time and between layers of time are at the same time understandable with how values have been regarded as a point of departure. The main theme in the curriculum is to educate citizens with desired democratic competencies. The expected competencies are based on experiences from and knowledge about history. Accordingly, there are relations and inter-relations between historical perspectives and democracy as a form of participation as well as certain values important for democractic societies to function well.
Democracy is described in relation to societal values that are considered corner stones to democracy. The pupils, and future citizens, will constitute and develop Democracy in the future. In the curriculum three main aspects of Democracy have been identified: First, a focus on experience and competencies expressing an overarching developmental view of Democracy including pluralist, liberal and participatory theories of Democracy. Second, a focus on knowledge about Democracy, which indicates a classic pluralism with its focus on political procedures, the range of politics and the legitimate scope of politics. This could be regarded as a protective perspective, but the overall context of the curriculum stresses pupils’ competencies as participating and active citizens. The third aspect has a focus on results and effects for a desired society. In this view Democracy is an arena (with free and participating citizens). Democracy is also prescribed as a good and preferred society, as a result of responsible participating. Democracy, as based on desired societal values, is regarded as a tool to secure prosperous societies.
When describing the main elements of Social Studies, the pupils (in present time) are presented as active, participating, engaged and critical citizens (Curriculum for Social Studies, 2020: 2). As informed and critical people the pupils will affect the future societal development. They are presented as a collective/a group – as the pupils – but a group cannot possibly understand, a group cannot “develop active citizenship, based on democratic consciousness, environmental perspectives, human rights, equality and pluralism” (Curriculum for Social Studies 2020: 2). To some extent, individuals act together as collectives, but it is not linear. Individuals go to school and individuals act as citizens, although they sometimes appear as groups or collectives. But it does not connect to focus responsible citizens, if they are addressed just as a collective. The competencies and human perceptions must emanate from individuals, but individuals are not expressed in the curriculum. The discrepancy between who is desired (collective) and what is desired (individual abilities and experiences) might make it difficult for pupils to understand how to try to take on the challenging responsibility as a citizen in a democratic society. There is a risk that a societal responsibility is perceived as collective and that individuals, accordingly, will not take responsibility. There is also a risk that individual competencies are difficult to apply when society is presented as an arena for collectives.
Despite non-individual or non-explicit individual freedom or responsibility, the curriculum document mainly indicates a pluralist, liberal democratic ideology. The interplay and mutual dependencies between geographical, historical, economic, and environmental conditions on one hand and on citizens and societal development on the other hand underlines human responsibility as well as possibilities to affect society and improve the conditions for life, but also responsibility of conflicts and catastrophes. The curriculum addresses pupils’ abilities to reflect on acts of terror and genocide and here the 22 July (the terror attack in Norway 2011) and the Holocaust are examples. The historical perspective is crucial − students are expected to reflect on how extremist attitudes and extremist actions/acts could be prevented (Curriculum for Social Studies, 2020: 10). The presentation of non-democratic attitudes and actions in opposition to human rights, equality and freedom indicates a democratic foundation in the curriculum.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Vetenskapsrådet, (grant number 2022-03227).
The article is part of the
The research network Democracy in the past, the present, and looking to the future: An international network focusing on historical, moral and democratic consciousness in history education, research and policy is
