In recent years, a number of scholars (Granatstein, 1998; Osborne, 1996; Davis, 1995) have claimed that the 1990s were characterized by the "disappearance" of history/social studies or more generically citizenship education in Canadian schools. Some (Griffiths, 2000; Granatstein, 1998) have proposed to "resurrect" history by focusing on the inculcation of a common national history (i.e., heritage) to favor Canadian nationalism, identity, and citizenship. Influenced by a constructivist view of learning, others have instead suggested to make school history/social studies more in tune with the academic world. Peter Lee, for example, claimed in the winter, 1998 issue of this journal that we need to "free" history education from its political and civic purposes by focusing on the critical, disciplinary history that students usually encounter at the university level.

"History education," he argues, "cannot guarantee democrats, patriots, or even anti-racists, because the past is complex and does not sanctify any particular social or personal position above another" (p. 53). For him, the goal of "historical consciousness" is to help teachers and students enhance their historical thinking skills, that is, to think critically about the past or to be familiar with the nature of history as an academic discipline, its methods and findings. Such an approach to school history/social studies, proponents of historical consciousness argue, is necessary in order for students both to move away from passive rote learning and develop their own social, political, and historical orientations (Seixas, 1997). In other words, it is necessary to persuade students that they are not only "free to read their history but to make it as well," to use Fernand Dumont's famous phrase.

I believe this latter approach has merits in Canadian citizenship education. Peter Seixas has found that teachers not adequately trained in their disciplines tend to teach history/social studies as "fixed knowledge" not open to conflicting interpretations and analysis. The result is that students are likely to receive it passively, often through traditional lectures, and subsequently develop negative attitudes toward history or social studies in general. More importantly, students taught this way could withdraw from civil society convinced they do not possess the necessary competencies to participate actively in public matters.

Christian Laville and Robert Martineau (1998) have argued that historical consciousness does contribute to no less than nine different civic competencies for democracy which are not necessarily developed in other disciplines. Among these is a sense of perspective. The analysis of past accounts that helps students understand that democracy in Canada is not a given but the result of a long, complex, and often tumultuous history. Democracy can be taken for granted neither as an ideal nor as a practical concept. Second, historical consciousness favors empathy, that is, the capacity to comprehend the world from a perspective not our own. Empathy encourages students to avoid the errors of "presentism" and also to respect a wide range of point of views as found in our multi- ethnic and multinational society. In other words, by teaching students to distance themselves from beliefs they take for granted, historical consciousness favors open- mindedness and tolerance of others. Finally, the development of individual autonomy and identity helps students to reflect on, and potentially, revise their own conceptions of the good life, clarify their multiple and complex sense of belonging, and specify the socio- political space to which they belong. It also involves citizens' capacity to be critical of the political authorities who govern in their names and establish "official" accounts of the past.

If I am are correct, this approach will help students develop their own historical consciousness. School history/social studies can potentially contribute to the development of various civic competencies necessary for a liberal democracy to flourish. Yet, this new disciplinary approach to school history/social studies has not gone uncontested. Very few Canadian teachers would actually embrace it. Part of the problem, in my opinion, may come from the fact that proponents of historical consciousness do not fully recognize (or take into consideration) the civic justification of school disciplines in our public schools.

For André Chervel (1988), a school discipline is defined as a cohesive set of goals, content, methods, and practices. It takes into consideration four components: a shared/approved body of knowledge (or a vulgate), prescribed exercises, motivational procedures, and assessment devices. What this implies is that the gap between academic and school disciplines cannot be reduced to the adaptation of the former to a young, immature public that cannot fully understand all the implications of academic disciplines
(as understood in history, geography, etc.). School disciplines emerge from what parents, teachers, governments, and ultimately the society want the schools to teach. They change over times depending of the roles and influences of these actors, and the importance of certain value systems and political ideologies. As Chervel (1988) rightfully notes, school disciplines are periodically reformed to adapt new rationales or new publics.

The disciplines we find in school hardly operate in the ways academic disciples do. The programs selected and implemented by Ministries of Education, the standard exercises practiced by students in class, the motivation -- or lack of motivation -- of students to learn a particular subject, and finally, the constant use of approved examinations (such as Ministry examinations) all contribute to shape school disciplines in particular ways. I think the best example of this understanding of school discipline is the inherent implication of history in the shaping of a collective memory. As part of its civic and political goals to create citizens and favor social cohesion, school history has always been involved in a nation-building process. In his analysis of school history in Québec, Desmond Morton (2000), argues that teachers, parents, governments, or the public in general do not necessarily regard the influence of academic disciplines on school as "good news" because this would imply a move away from its civic and political purpose; something they legitimately reject.

Francois Audigier (1999) claims that instead of asking "what schools ought to teach" we should ask ourselves "why schools teach what they teach." This, he argues, would help us understand that "the institution of the school, in order to fulfill the missions assigned to it, shapes, that is, creates, the competencies it teaches" (Audigier, 1999, p. 98). If we accept that public education in democracy is a matter a public discussion, debate, and governance, then, we have to recognize that public education is also an education into what it means to belong to "a public." As Benjamin Barber (1992) puts it, "schooling [is] our sole public resource: the only place where, as a collective, self-conscious public pursuing common goods, we try to shape our children to live in a democratic world" (pp. 14-15). What this means is that school history and social studies have not only intellectual and critical goals but also civic and political ones. So far, proponents of historical consciousness have not addressed these tensions adequately suggesting that the problem resides with teachers who do not define themselves as true "historians." I believe that we urgently need a better articulated vision between those (divergent) educational goals if we want history and social studies education to adequately prepare democratic citizens. Otherwise, historical consciousness is likely to remain a discussion among scholars.

References

Audigier, F. "School disciplines, social representations, and the construction of the didactics of history, geography, and civics." Instructional Science, 27 (1999). 97-117.

Barber, B.R. An Aristocracy of Everyone: The Politics of Education and the Future of America. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992.

Chervel, A. "L'histoire des disciplines scolaires: réflexions sur un domaine de recherche." Histoire de l'éducation. 38 (1998, May). 59-119.

Davis, B. Whatever Happened to High School History? Toronto: James Lorimer, 1995.

Granatstein, J. L. Who killed Canadian History? Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998.

Griffiths, R. "Mistakes of the past." The Globe and Mail.September 18, 2000.

Lee, P. "Making Sense of Historical Accounts." Canadian Social Studies. 32, no. 2 (Winter, 1998). 52-54.

Martineau, R. and Laville, C. "Histoire: vole royale vets la citoyenneté?" Vie pedagogique. 109 (1998, November-December). 35-38.

Morton, D. "Teaching and Learning History in Canada." In Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History. P.N. Stearns, P. Seixas, and S. Wineburg, Eds. New York: New York University Press, 2000. 51-62

Osborne, K. "Education is the Best National Insurance: Citizenship Education in Canadian Schools, Past and Present." Canadian and International Education. 25, no. 2 (1996). 31-58.

Seixas, P. "The Place of History within Social Studies." In Trends and Issues in Canadian Social Studies. I. Wright and A. Sears, Eds. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press, 1997. 116-129.

Seixas, P. "Forces for Change in the Teaching and Learning of History: Introduction to a Special Issue of Canadian Studies." Canadian Social Studies. 32, no. 2 (Winter, 1998). 44, 68.

Historical Consciousness or Citizenship Education