Multiperspectivity (history)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiperspectivity is a principle of history didactics for planning and conducting history lessons . It is also used in other social sciences, such as in Teaching Politics or political formation , in the religion teaching or sports teaching .

Perspectivity

The principle is based on the basic historical theory belief that observer-independent knowledge of past reality ( "the past") is not possible, because any statement about an event, a date or a relationship only of a particular social, cultural or otherwise certain perspective from can be made (cf. the development of the doctrine of the “see point” by Johann Martin Chladenius ; 1710–1759). However, this applies not only to statements about a past, i.e. narrations in the historical-scientific sense, but also to statements made by contemporaries of the respective event to be considered - the sources are therefore fundamentally perspective .

History didactic postulates

From this insight, history didactics no longer made the imparting of a supposedly independent truth about history to the students the goal of history lessons, not even in the form of the respective state of research , but rather the ability to think independently about history and enable an independent one and responsible formation of a historical identity . As a result, it claims that

  • the insight into the fact of the irreversible perspective and thus selectivity of all historical statements itself is an important learning goal ,
  • the respective historical object (the event, the problem, the context) must not only be presented to the students through materials that represent only a single perspective, but that as many as possible, or at least several, relevant perspectives must appear ("multi-perspectives");
  • the pupils should thus be given the opportunity to reflect on the different points of view as plural offers for independent identification.

Multiperspectivity - controversy - plurality

The term "multiperspectivity" is used in a further and a narrower variant:

  • in the further variant it includes the demand for representation of all relevant perspectives on the object as a whole;
  • In the narrower version, "multiperspectivity" means the combination of sources from different perspectives, whereas when combining later interpretations from different perspectives of later times (i.e. in the compilation of literature) one speaks of " controversy " and keeping various references to the present open Orientations from the reflection of history is called “plurality”.

In the variant of “controversy” in particular, the demand for multiple perspectives comes into contact with the second principle of the Beutelsbach Consensus of Political Education .

Deficits in school practice and critical objections

Even if the principle of multiple perspectives is already required in many curricula , it does not yet play a dominant role in real history lessons. Good multi-perspective sources and (“controversial”) literature compilations are only gradually being used in history textbooks.

The following objections stand in the way of a broader use of the principle:

  • The development of several perspectives and their discussion cost more time in the classroom, which is hardly given under the conditions of the curriculum requirements and central exams.
  • In particular, low-performing students are overwhelmed because they do not have the motivation for the desired reflexive attitude.
  • Showing several evaluations could lead to an unreflective relativism , which would be pedagogically fatal, especially when dealing with dictatorships and violent crimes. One example of this is the discussion about evaluating the GDR as a dictatorship .
  • Dealing critically with controversy is an intellectual achievement that should rather be part of a university course. Anyone who works through the Fischer controversy with schoolchildren, for example, constantly comes up against the limits of the given text material and knowledge, so that an independent judgment is hardly possible.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ v. Borries, Bodo (2000; 2004): “Change of Perspective and Figures of Meaning in Dealing with History.” In: German-Czech Forum Der Frauen / Frauennetzwerk für Frieden eV (2000; Ed.): German and Czech women in civil society dialogue about design of future relationships. Bonn; Self-published n.d., pp. 8–27, here 15–20; Reprinted in: v. Borries, Bodo (2004): Living history learning. Building blocks for theory and pragmatics, empiricism and the question of norms. Schwalbach / Ts .: Wochenschau (Forum Historical Learning); Pp. 236-258, here 245-250.

literature

  • Klaus Bergmann: Multiperspectivity. Think history for yourself , newsreel Schwalbach / Ts. 2000 ISBN 3-87920-742-9 .
  • Michael Sauer: teaching history. An introduction to didactics and methodology , Kallmeyer, Seelze-Velber 2001, ISBN 3-7800-4925-2 , p. 69 ff
  • Tilman Grammes: Controversity , In: Wolfgang Sander (Hrsg.): Handbook of political education , bpb Bonn 2005, ISBN 3-89331-589-6 , pp. 126-145.
  • Jörn Rüsen: The Limits of Multiperspectivity - Relativism and Leitkultur , In: Public History Weekly 5 (2017) 33, doi : 10.1515 / phw-2017-10076 .