Preliminary Programme

Teaching history is by nature an exercise in ‘standing at the intersection’ of the past, present and the
future. In a post-colonial globalized world, narratives, remembrances and acknowledgement of the
different perspective are not without importance. The perspectives and narratives of the descendants
of indigenous people generates heated debates in and outside the classroom. The heated debates are
in our view engaged debates as the affect is playing a role in this debates. Although some initiatives
have been taken to integrate multi-perspective approach, to include a variety of narratives and
historical sources, still the content is homogeneous ‘European’. Part of this issue has been overcome
by the Flemish governments’ new learning outcome framework for higher secondary education
(February 2021). This framework includes sixteen Key Competences, two are of interest here,
Citizenship Education, including ‘peaceful coexistence’ (7), Historical Consciousness (8). These key
competences include a limited list of historical content wise concepts, second order historical
concepts, historical skills as historical thinking and attitunale competences. The broad formulated
framework offers opportunities to take account and to bring in a variety of ‘narratives’. It allows to
relate the past and the present in a meaningful way, integrate a variety of histories, and (re-)write
history together. Hence, history teachers need validated qualitative didactical tools to engage
meaningfully with students’ different perspectives on history, moreover the past. Our experiences
entail an affective component which allow us (or not) to ‘connect’. In that sense, historical empathy
becomes increasingly important as our societies become more diverse and polarised. Being aware as
a teacher of this, is crucial when heated and mediated debates ‘outside’ the school occur ‘into’ the
classroom. The teacher has to prepare qualitative in-depth questions (emotional and cognitive), critical
reflection exercises (oral or written), stimulate an open authentic reciprocal discussion between pupils,
and above all, create a safe space. The core questions are: How can we skill the novice teachers to take
a multiperspective view when teaching history? Which teaching methods are adequate to teach
controversial history? How can teachers bring the variety of historical ‘narratives’ of students fruitfully
into class discussion? To answer the RQ ‘How do history teachers deal with controversial and sensitive
historical topics?’, we conducted semi-structured interviews (Flemish history teachers, N=25). We use
NVivo to analyse the semi-structured interviews. We observe that Flemish history teachers are
conscious of the importance of taking to account the variety of perspectives present in history classes
when discussing controversial and sensitive topics. Hence, the Flemish history teachers brought
forward that their teacher training did not pay (enough) attention to historical controversial and
sensitive topics, and on how to deal with diversity in history classes. Still, they believe history classes
can be fruitful learning contexts wherein pupils integrate skills and attitudes needed for a mutual
understanding of one’s history through open class discussions and constructive exchange of
perspectives. These findings inform us to develop a teacher training trajectory with particular attention
for competences which are essential to deal with controversial and sensitive topics in history
education. By an activating and engaging trajectory we aim to strengthen the competences which
allow history teachers to deal with controversial issues and practice multi-perspectivity while
considering the historical narratives of pupils in the current super-diverse classroom setting. (Show less)

In 1770, the government of Danish conglomerate state abolished censorship and adopted freedom of press. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the intellectual elite of the twin kingdom of Denmark-Norway was centered in Copenhagen. Under the influence of ideas of enlightenment, topics such as patriotism and what it meant to be a good citizen was discussed. When censorship was abolished, not only did these debates become available for a larger number of people, but it also became possible to include themes such as religion that had previously been too sensitive to discuss openly in the debates about civic identification.
Historiography on the formation of civic identification in Denmark-Norway in late eighteenth century has typically focused on patriotism as formative for the construction of civic identification. While patriotism is an important aspect, the important role played by religion in this process has been largely overlooked. This is despite a general tendency to include religion as an important aspect in recent historiography on eighteenth century political culture. The lack of studies that systematically examines the connection between civic identification and religion limits our understanding of the how the concept of citizenship was formed in a formative part of its history. In this paper, I investigate the role played by religion in the process of constructing a civic identification. Furthermore, I argue that discussions of ideas that pointed towards the development of modern citizenship was contained in this process.
Drawing on inspiration from discourse analysis and conceptual history, I analyze a specific debate from the Danish official Bolle W. Luxdorphs (1716–1788) collection of writings from the period of freedom of press (1770–1773). In December 1770, a pamphlet was published, in which the anonymous author criticized three aspects of society: the economic situation, the juridical system and finally the income of the clergy. The last of these criticisms started a long debate that ended out in principled discussions on which role religion should have within society. This principled discussion was also connected to the virtues of the good citizen.
Religion was not perceived as a stable category in the debate that showed both criticism and defense of religion’s role in society. It shows the importance of including religion in the study of the formation of civic identification. I will suggest that the formation of a civic identification is best understood as a negotiation between different discourses and positions. Furthermore, I argue that it is necessary to study religion as a part of this process of negotiation to properly understand the ideals of citizenship that were formed in the late eighteenth century, and that constitutes the roots of modern citizenship. (Show less)

On 23 August 1939 Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union concluded an agreement on non-aggression and cooperation called the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact that greatly contributed to the outbreak of WWII and the division of Eastern Europe into the German and Soviet sphere of influence. It resulted in both German and Soviet aggression on Poland on September 1 and 17 1939 respectively followed by an almost 2-year-period of brutal Soviet occupation of Poland, then in 1940 the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and also parts of Romania (Bukovina and Bessarabia) which brought about sweeping socio-political transformations.
That occupation constituted not only successful restoration of the old Russian and Soviet imperial projects but also construction of political, social, economic and cultural life on the rubble of the old regimes and socio-cultural traditions. That transition was carried out along the lines of the communist ideology in a Stalinist version mainly by means of ruthless violence, extermination and mass repressions.
The reactions of the inhabitants of the areas to those policies were mainly growing anti-Soviet moods and interethnic tensions that turned into profound animosities and sharp conflicts. They came to the fore in summer 1941 when – after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war on June 22 1941 – a wave of ethnic, mainly anti-Jewish, violence occured leading to hundreds of pogroms, massacres and lynches. The question on reasons for those atrocities has remained unanswered.
To explain this phenomenon at least two working hypothesis can be proposed:
1. That ethnic clash was the result of popularity of nationalist ideology among most of the nations inhabiting this region of Europe (Byelarussians, Jews, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians and others) which pursued their own interests to the detriment of others. Besides, strong traditions of antisemitism led them to perceiving all actions of Jews aimed at obtaining an equal social status under Soviet rule as acts of treachery.
2. Social life under Soviet occupation was rebuilt under conditions of a totalitarian dictatorship in which all citizens were left alone vis a vis the totalitarian state, deprived of any human or civic rights. Their attitudes and survival strategies - based mostly upon accommodation to the socio-political system imposed by the Soviets - can be explained by the concept of totalitarian deprivation in terms of bitter rivalry among members of various social groups for resources and social prestige. In this struggle ethnic or national bonds were the only type of identification that ensured social cohesiveness at the grass-root level.
The latter theory based upon the output of social history seems to propose most convincing explanation to those processes. To prove it social science’s theories should be used namely those of totalitarian state, ethnicity and social deprivation. Moreover, the use of comparative analysis, as well as the perspective of everyday life and microhistorical approach seems to be necessary. Thus, we may escape from excessive focus on ethnicity and ideological issues that always encourage nationalist interpretations. (Show less)