Every now and again the question is raised whether or not a post-modern and post-structuralist approach to teaching history can occupy a meaningful and legitimate position within our schools. Some scholars have made reservations regarding this (cf. Seixas 2000) while others have claimed its relevance considering the variety of power-relations at play in a wide range of educational contexts (Segall 2006; Parkes 2013). However, in this discussion the question is rarely asked to what degree post-structuralism might uphold an equally meaningful position within history didactics as a particular field of research. This implies that questions of a certain epistemological character have been neglected. For instance, inquiries regarding the extent to which post-structuralism may provide adequate analytical tools for understanding practices of teaching history, its subject content and students’ identity formation have been sidelined. Moreover, questions considering what these tools might consist of and what sort of knowledge we may gain by the use of them is also left unaddressed.

These are the very questions with which this paper is concerned. The main purpose of the paper is therefore to discuss a so called logics-approach rooted in Political Discourse Theory and its potential in generating insights regarding those classroom practices that intertwine the present with the past and the future. Consequently, I argue the relevance of this post-structuralist methodology based on its emphasis of joint praxis as an object of inquiry rather than merely the mental operations of individuals.

This paper takes as its starting point a critical understanding of the theoretical framework outlined by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (1985/2014). The analytical approach under suggestion thus consists of a particular understanding of the concept of logic as those conditions and rules of grammar which renders any given practice possible, stable and yet open to changes (Glynos & Howarth 2007). Subsequently, three different but interconnected types of logics are distinguished through which it is possible to shed light on the practices of teaching history as they occur in the classroom.

To begin with, the concept of social logics offers a possibility to map those aspects of a subject content which are being taken for granted within said teaching practices. Simply put, I argue that it offers the possibility to characterize what counts as legitimate history in the classroom. By contrast, the concept of political logics allows the researcher to emphasize the many “hows’” by which certain parts of the subject content come to be naturalized into social logics while others are contested, negotiated and politicized by both students and teachers. Finally, the concept of fantasmatic logics offers the means to explain why individual subjects (in this case, students and teachers) identify with specific practices and thus rendering them complicit in either change or preservation of what counts as meaningful history (Glynos & Howarth 2007). Using this analytical framework I ascertain that a historical narrative is to be regarded as a particular fantasmatic logic whose function bears strong ideological connotations (Glynos 2008; Scott 2011).

The claims made in this paper are done against the background of a European research context where a hermeneutical framework surrounding the concept of historical consciousness is predominantly used (Laville 2004; Ahonen 2005). Closely associated with this framework is the notion of historical narratives and students’ interpretations of them. Since narratives are regarded as the principal form through which humans establish historical identities, narrative analysis has been positioned as a primary analytical approach (Rüsen 2004; 2005). Although acknowledging this tradition and its many accomplishments this paper offers a methodological alternative that moves beyond the hermeneutical framework and its emphasis on interpretation, narration and historical consciousness.

 Ahonen, Sirkka (2005) “Historical Consciousness: a Viable Paradigm for History Education?” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37(6), p 697-707.  Creswell, John (2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.  Glynos, Jason (2008) “Ideological Fantasy at Work” Journal of Political Ideologies 13(3), p 275-296.  Glynos, Jason & Howarth, David (2007) Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. New York: Routledge.  Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal (1985/2014) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London/New York: Verso.  Laville, Christian (2004) “Historical Consciousness and Historical Education: What to Expect from the First to the Second” in Peter Seixas (ed.) Theorizing Historical Consciousness. Toronto/London: University of Toronto Press.  Parkes, Robert John (2013) “Postmodernism, Historical Denial and History Education: What Frank Ankersmit can Offer to History Didactics” Nordidactica – Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education 3(2), p 20-37.  Patton, Michael Quinn (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.  Rüsen, Jörn (2004) “Historical Consciousness: Narrative Structure, Moral Function, and Ontogenetic Development” in Peter Seixas (ed.) Theorizing Historical Consciousness. Toronto/London: University of Toronto Press.  Rüsen, Jörn (2005) History: Narration, Interpretation, Orientation. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.  Scott, Joan Wallach (2011) The Fantasy of Feminist History. Durham/London: Duke University Press.  Segall, Avner (2006) “What’s the Purpose of Teaching a Discipline, Anyway? The Case of History” in Avner Segall, Elizabeth E. Heilman & Cleo H. Cherryholmes (eds.): Social Studies – The Next Generation. New York: Peter Lang.  Seixas, Peter (2000) “Schweigen! die Kinder! or, Does Postmodern History Have a Place in the Schools?” in Peter Stearns, Peter Seixas & Sam Wineburg (eds.): Knowing, Teaching & Learning History. New York/London: New York University Press.