Abstract
This article examines how the Danish history curriculum encourages students to understand history and develop a sense of temporal orientation, and how this orientation can be linked to the fostering of democratic consciousness. This syllabus is analysed through critical discourse analysis (CDA). Historical consciousness is described as rooted in history, while also empowering individuals to act. The primary finding regarding democracy suggests a vision where 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 portrayed as a daily practice aimed at enhancing one's own life or the community. However, interconnecting historical and democratic consciousness to understand the purpose of history education raises questions about the interpretation of historical guidance. Should it be viewed as a framework that restricts citizens’ ability to act independently or as a tool that offers opportunities for change?
Introduction
Politics in Denmark operate under a framework established by the Constitution of Denmark, first written in 1849. The Constitution defines Denmark as a sovereign state with a constitutional monarchy and a representative parliamentary system. Women gained the right to vote and stand for election in 1915, and today Denmark enjoys universal suffrage. Elections are considered free and fair. The judiciary is independent from the executive, and the legal system is highly secure with robust control mechanisms. Denmark ranks well in assessments by international organizations that protect the rule of law. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of Danish society, allowing individuals to freely and openly criticize state authorities without fear of reprisals. Restrictions are only imposed if statements are considered incitement against an ethnic group or slander (Kaufmann and Kraay, 2023).
The overall objective of schools has always been to prepare children to become good citizens in future societies (Gjerløff, 2019). One of the primary subjects contributing to this objective is history. Over time, history teaching has been used to create patriots, teach students to be peace-loving individuals, promote anti-racism, and to help them find their own identity within their local community (Alvén, 2017). After the Second World War and the terrible atrocities against humanity, history education in many European countries was tasked with strengthening both national and international democratic structures and fostering a passion for democracy among citizens (Nygren, 2011). This also applies to Denmark, which was occupied by Nazi Germany from 1940 to 1945.
Debate about the purpose and design of Danish schools (Folkeskolen) in the decades following the Second World War led to both educational reforms and the introduction of democratic education (demokratisk dannelse) as an explicit school objective. For instance, in 1960, the primary school's purpose was stated as follows: It is the school's purpose to prepare children to go out into society and professional life, well suited to fulfill the demands that can reasonably be expected. However, first and foremost, it is the school's task to promote all opportunities for the children to grow up as harmonious, happy, and good people. (Betænkning nr. 253 1958/1960) Folkeskolen shall prepare pupils for participation, co-responsibility, rights and duties in a society with freedom and democracy. The school's activities shall therefore be characterised by freedom of thought, equality and democracy. (Bekendtgørelse af lov om folkeskolen, kap 1, §1 stk 3)
Democracy can be understood in different ways (Dahl, 2000), and history can consequently be taught in various ways to support different kinds of democracy and democratic citizens. However, substantiated reasons about what kind of democratic citizens are desirable, and through what kind of history teaching, are seldom found in the history syllabuses.
Previous research suggests very different interpretations and ways of decoding the discourses in the Danish curriculum in relation to the formal political intentions. For example, one study argues that the history canon points in the syllabus are an expression of national conservative identity politics, thus implying that history education is about renationalization (Hass, 2018). Another study views the syllabus’ focus on knowledge and skills as an expression of competitive state thinking (Nielsen, 2015). In both cases, the curriculum is seen as unambiguously politicizing the history subject. However, according to Lytje (2022), it is problematic to interpret the curriculum, including democratic education, in this way alone. Democratic education, as expressed in the curriculum, should first and foremost be understood as transmitting “the powerful knowledge students need to think about democracy in substantial terms [… and] focus on societal forces at play” (Lytje, 2022, p. 79). A study from 2023 states that the subject booklet (Faghæftet) is composed of several texts that not only condition history teaching differently in practice but also express intentions for historical consciousness as a formative educational (dannelse) ideal differently. The subject purpose of history (fagformål) contains a much thinner ideal of historical consciousness compared to the teaching guide (undervisningsvejledning) (Eskelund Knudsen, 2023). To discuss the relationship between historical consciousness and democratic consciousness, one must look at the texts in the subject booklet (Faghæftet) as a whole, despite its complexity.
As a state policy document, the Danish history curriculum must be understood in light of the German didactic tradition's definition of Lehrplan: History teaching is based on the teacher's reflective professional work within, but not directed by, the framework provided by the state curriculum (Westbury, 2000, p. 27). Nevertheless, the history teacher's mission is described in the curriculum. To understand how the Danish authorities aim for history education to strengthen democracy by cultivating students’ historical understanding, one must interpret the subject booklet (Faghæftet) as a whole. This is the intention of this study. The analysis is based on the following research questions:
How can temporal orientation and historical consciousness be understood as interconnected with the objective of cultivating a democratic consciousness? What type of historical consciousness is advocated for in the Danish history curriculum? What type of democratic consciousness is advocated for in the Danish history curriculum? What are the implications of interlinking the objective to foster democratic consciousness with the objective of developing students’ 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. Developmental democratic consciousness and genetic historical consciousness. Interruptive democratic consciousness and critical historical consciousness.
Method and Empirical Data
The document analysed in this study is the Danish subject booklet in history (Faghæftet for Historie) for compulsory education, implemented in 2019. The subject booklet comprises 86 pages and is organized into five main chapters: Introduction, Purpose and Essential Parts of the Danish Education Act (Folkeskolens formål), Common Objectives (Fælles mål), Basis for Teaching (Læseplan), and Teaching Guide (Undervisningsvejledning) (Faghæftet for Historie, 2019). To comprehend the various sections of the subject booklet, it is essential to recognize its hierarchical structure. In this context, the “Purpose” (Folkeskolens formål) holds a high position in the hierarchy (Nielsen, 2012). The overall purpose, as stated in the introduction, aims at fundamental and enduring qualities deemed important from a societal perspective at a given time. The school's overall purpose, the education it aims to provide for student development and the specific purpose of the school subject (Folkeskolens formål) are directly linked (Nielsen, 2012). The inclusion of historical consciousness in several parts of the subject booklet underscores the concept's central role in articulating the subject's contribution to the school's overarching purpose (Eskelund Knudsen, 2023).
The subject booklet in history (Faghæfte for Historie, 2019) begins with relevant sections of the Education Act and its purpose (Folkeskolens formål). The Common Objectives (Fælles Mål) are outlined for the 4th, 6th, and 9th school years, structured around key disciplinary competence areas: chronology and coherence, sourcing and use of history, together with a list of reference knowledge composed of central bullet-pointed historical contents (historiekanon). The interpretation of the Common Objectives is detailed under the section Basis for Teaching (Læseplan), and their practical application in the classroom is described in the Teaching Guide (Undervisningsvejledning). As a comprehensive document, the subject booklet's individual sections hold varying degrees of significance for practical history teaching. The aforementioned components of the Common Objectives – including the subject's purpose, competence areas (kompetenceområder), and areas for disciplinary knowledge and skills (færdigheds- og vidensområder), as well as the historical canon list – are all mandatory for history instruction. However, the objective formulations within the areas for disciplinary knowledge and skills (færdigheds- og vidensmålsformuleringer) and the Teaching Guide are advisory and non-mandatory. The interpretation of the curriculum texts to understand the interconnections between democratic and historical consciousness assigns different functions to the individual parts of the curriculum. However, this study focuses on uncovering an implicit but constitutive discourse rather than understanding the intended function in policy documents, thus rendering the hierarchy between the texts less relevant.
In this analysis, we conceptualize the formal curriculum as a discourse in itself, making it an object of study (Gill, 2000). The language within the curriculum must be understood as constitutive, meaning that both historical consciousness and democratic consciousness are created within the text, either implicitly or explicitly. The practical analysis employs a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach, which helps uncover meaning-making by highlighting dominant norms that rest on certain perspectives, and thereby exclude others (Pennycook, 1994). Understanding the formal curriculum in relation to theories of historical and democratic consciousness provides insights into what to look for during analysis (Wodak, 2015). This involves examining the subsequent meaning of statements within the text to uncover underlying discourses (Philips and Hardy, 2002). Initially, each concept is analysed separately through an immediate text-internal process, followed by an analysis of the interdiscursive relationship between the two concepts (Wodak, 2015).
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) Primary and lower secondary education should equip students for active participation, shared responsibility, and the exercise of their rights and duties within a society founded on freedom and democracy. Consequently, the school's activities must embody the principles of freedom of thought, equality, and democracy. (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).
Discussion
Effectively framing a discourse in the Danish history syllabus around an interlinked democratic and historical consciousness cannot be done. The interplay of these concepts is fraught with contradictions and paradoxes, which complicates a clear description – an occurrence not uncommon in discourse analysis.
Understanding historical consciousness through Rüsen's (2004) categories – traditional, exemplary, critical and genetic – the Danish syllabus predominantly advocates for a genetic perspective. This approach emphasizes comprehending time as a continuum of change and continuity. While we can and should strive for a better society, it is important to recognize that time does not permit abrupt changes. Therefore, working towards a better society necessitates respecting the historical context in which we live.
Analysing the Danish syllabus's mission to foster democratic citizens through the three concepts of protective, developmental and interruptive democracy reveals a pendulum swing between developmental and interruptive understandings. Democracy is fundamentally grounded in its citizens, who are guaranteed freedom of thought and participation in democratic actions. If we interpret the past as framing possible actions, it aligns more with a developmental democracy. Conversely, if we understand the past as providing tools to effectively advance one's own agenda, it aligns more with an interruptive democracy. Both interpretations are, as we can see, valid.
Interlinking the two concepts to understand the democratic mission results in one coherent and one more sprawling and illogical approach to fostering democratic citizens through history education. The coherent approach involves understanding genetic historical consciousness in conjunction with developmental democracy – a liberal democracy that relies on a social contract where certain democratic principles are rooted in the past, yet within this framework, opportunities for democratic change are provided. The disparate approach would be to foster genetic historical consciousness alongside an interruptive democracy. However, the interruptive approach would undermine the respect that genetic historical consciousness has for the past. Moreover, genetic historical consciousness would pose an obstacle to an interruptive democratic consciousness that seeks abrupt changes while navigating an unjust world that calls for significant social transformations.
What primarily complicates the understanding of the democratic mission in the Danish curriculum is the question of how we should perceive and engage with the past: Does the past demand responsibility and reverence towards the state of Denmark and its constitution, implying that abrupt changes are unwelcome? Or does knowledge of the past provide essential tools for effective and credible action in the present, even if such actions are abrupt?
Regarding the latter case, it should be noted that without an understanding of a culture that has evolved from its past, navigating change becomes challenging, as individuals may be perceived as anomalies. Arendt (2018) posits that individual initiatives must be embraced by others to become actions, as one cannot be active in isolation. In other words, utilizing knowledge of the past can underpin a successful critical orientation in time by demonstrating what is feasible and how to make this acceptable to its perceivers.
Overall, the Danish history syllabus advocates for active citizenship, encouraging participation in democratic processes to create a better future. The central question is how radical one can be in relation to time while still being considered part of the collective democratic endeavour, according to the curriculum.
Finally, we would like to highlight some additional ambiguities. The curriculum describes both individuals and communities as the foundation of democracy. This presents a potential contradiction between the notion of fully emancipated individuals and communities that require loyalty to the group. By equating communities with individuals, the curriculum makes it challenging to determine whether protecting the individual or the community's capacity to shape history is more crucial. There exists an emancipatory tension between individuals and collectives, as communities must be understood as subject actors (Alvén, 2017). An individual can feel imprisoned within a community that demands loyalty to a collective past and a common agenda, even if the community itself is emancipated in relation to the state or majority power. A community may maintain an inward traditional orientation for its members while adopting a critical stance in its outward relations with authorities or the majority culture. In this context, who should be emancipated via history education? To understand who is supposed to be emancipated with the help of the past, we need a hierarchical understanding of the relationship between the individual and the community.
Another question pertains to representation. The curriculum emphasizes individuals and communities as active subjects within democracy. While this ostensibly includes everyone, certain groups are not explicitly mentioned as deserving of empowerment within Danish society. What platforms do marginalized communities have to act in a democracy where communities are considered fundamental in shaping their own living conditions? What opportunities will they have in what Mill (1865) referred to as the free market of ideas?
The 2024 annual citizenship survey (Medborgerskabsundersøgelsen) conducted among marginalized social groups and individuals with at least three years’ residence in Denmark shows that 61% of respondents with a non-Western background report being politically active, for example in voluntary associations such as residents’ associations, sports associations, trade unions, etc. On the other hand, the proportion of the same group who have been a member of a political party or participated in a political meeting in the past year with the aim of changing conditions in society is only 5%, and similar figures apply to participation in the democratic debate or in legal political demonstrations (Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet, 2024, p. 5). It is not possible to conclude whether knowledge of Denmark's historical tradition of democratic participation through voluntary associations is important for the 61%, nor whether the low percentage figures represent a lack of knowledge of the tradition of liberal democracy. However, for marginalized groups in the Danish society, understanding how the past frames the syllabus becomes crucial. If the past is to change only incrementally, marginalized groups face a prolonged struggle for emancipation. Conversely, if the past provides tools for significant and rapid change, emancipation could be imminent.
Footnotes
Author Note
The article is part of the Special issue “Intersections of Historical and Democratic Consciousness in History Curriculums/Syllabuses: A Comparative Study Across Eleven Countries,” submitted to the journal Citizenship, Social and Economics Education.
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 funded by the Swedish Research Council.
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,
