Thread by @An_Koer

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress Thanks, this discussion fits into one we have off and on about "knowledge". Increasingly, I come to see knowledge (and therefore also results of research) to be possible as relational, as not to be isolated from perspectives, from what @ArthurJChapman referred to as .../2

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress 1/... "knowING" (if I am understanding him correctly). The perspectives can (and need to be) broadened, but they are inseparatibly (spelling?) linked to the position of the knowing one, even, nay, especially in propositional form. If I share such a proposition by s/o, is it .../3

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress 2/... simply identical - or do I consent from my point of view/experience/research etc., ADDING that nothing from here contradicts is, thus not merely putting it onto the heap of independent propositions, but enhancing its quality, offering others another facet to it to be .../4

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress 3/... integrated into their "web of knowing" and tightening some shared "web of knowing", which is not material, but latent, consisting of the interrelations of our "knowings"?
For any time being, these different "knowings" may be so identical that the outer form of the .../5

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress 4/... proposition indeed is identical and shared, suggesting that it has some independent existence and can be just added, but every now and then, some part of it (a word, a context, a concept within it) comes to be questioned, and the seemingly independent, context-free .../6

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress 5/... "knowledge" shows its character as a knot in several and psotly diferent "webs of knowing". (and to know that others have ever so slightly different perspectives on and understandings of it also enhances and interweaves deeper into MY web).

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress argghhh. The new keyboard seems not to be well adjusted. Sorry forthe typos. "possibly different", of course...

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress To follow up on my own post, prompted by a recent article by Robert Thorp (Uppsala) and Anders Persson (Dalarna) who cite @WilschutArie (2012), stating that the discipline of history was developed from the notion of "the past" being "qualitatively different and distinct .../2

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 1/... from the present" (Thorp/Persson's words), causing epistemological concerns about how to konw the past, with the disciplinary reflected methodology as the solution, so that we "can come to know it" (Thorp/Persson 2020; 891).
While I agree to this relation of what .../3

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 2/... commonly is considered the challenge and reaction which brought about the discipline of history, its methodological approach, and the concept of "historical thinking" in History Education, there are some interesting premises in it which, if not dismissed, can be .../4

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 3/... questioned - especially with regard to the concept of historical thinking (Thorp/Persson's main concern) and knowing (ours in this discussion).
The first question for me is whether the conceptualisation of the discipline's main epistemological challenge is correctly .../5

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 4/... based on a notion of the past being "qualitatively different and distinct from the present" (this Thorp/Persson 2020, 891). Is that so? Methinks that this notion of the past being different (and not only gradually but qualitatively) which also is underlying, say, .../6

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 5/... Lowenthal's statement of the past as a foreign country, and - in the end - most modern concepts of history. based on notions of change, can in itself only be a RESULT of historical thinking, not its presupposition, its premise.
To my view, then, the basic .../7

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 6/... (or should I say original, initial) epistemological challenge of historical thinking both as an anthropological basic and the foundation of the discipline as a form of specalization on it, is not the past being "different", but inaccessible by other means than .../8

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 7/... specific forms of thinking (not necessarily, but at best: critical), because of its quality to be "gone".

As a concequence, then, the result(s) of historical thinking also can not be to know "the past" as an entity (as Thorp/Persson cite Wilschut, but almost all .../9

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 8/... others could be cited, too). There is no entity "the past". To be "past" is a quality, not an entity. If "the past" were an entity, it needed to contain not only all times from "the beginning" (TM) to the moment just before "now" (TM), but also each of these moments .../10

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 9/... in all their multidimensionality, complexity, including all spectrums of perspectival notions, perceptions from each singular moment/aspect - and their temporal interrelations. No, there is no knowing "the past".
But even if we concede that talking of "the past" .../11

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 10/... always refers to some part, section, etc. of it, it does not hold. We cannot know "it", but we can create notions ON it, statements ABOUT it, etc., - each from different perspectives which are present.
So no knowledge about "the past" is knowledge of it as an .../12

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 11/... which could be separted from our perspectives.
The challenge of Historical thinking and researching, then, is not about knoweing something which is different. It is also applied when we come to conclusions of similarity or even identity. The "insight" that "some .../13

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 12/... things never change" is a result of historical thinking, as is the insight/result, that some things are indeed different. Not the difference initiates historical thinking, but the perceptions that there man (or even must) have been some differences between now and .../14

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 13/... conditions in our same world which we cannot just pull up and compare, but which require specific forms of thinking and its reflection.
(Also) in this sense, historical knowledge is relational at its very core, and thus always bound to some point in a net of .../15

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 14/... temporal, moral, societal, ... relations.

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @threadreaderapp unroll

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie Here is the full reference: Thorp, Robert; Persson, Anders (2020): On historical thinking and the history educational challenge. In: Educational Philosophy and Theory 52 (8), S. 891–901. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1712550.

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress cf Thorp/Persson (2020, 896): "Insted of vieweing knowledge as an object existing by itself ..."

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie Leaving the concrete subject of knowledge/knowing here and turning to Thorp/Persson's more immediate concern: The problem of the concept of Historical Thinking in History Education as modelled from the expertise and practice of historians functioning rather as as an .../2

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie 1/... heteronomous model for their own thinking and learning, rendering it an application of pre-defined insights, concepts (such as @PeterSeixas1 /Morton's 2013 Big Six) and methods, rather than a guidance for their own relating to things past from their respective .../3

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 2/... (societally situated, but still also individual) perspectives, questions, etc. I think their description of how these second order (Seixas/Morton) can prove objectifying what would need to be guiding subjective thinking, is very valuable.
Just to add to the underlying .../4

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 3/... conceptualiuzation (p. 892-894) from my view. Thorp/Persson focus on the development of #HistoricalThinking as a concept from the disciplinary expertise of professional historians, which results in rendering it is as the distant model referred to above. I think there .../5

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 4/... is a differentiation necessary:
I. it is true, that professionally developed concepts and methods have been at the outset of the development of historical thinking concepts.
II. There are, however, differences in HOW these have been used in the process. I'd like to .../6

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 5/... tentatively distinguish three different logics:
1. The first model is that of @SamWineburg who rather directly uses experts' operations in dealing with questions of HT as models FOR students. (Exp => Stud), aiming at endowing the latter with (elementarised) versions .../7

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg 6/... of the former, after having identified their lack in this kind of expertise by measuring them against them.
2. The second form is that of @PeterSeixas1 and Morton: They do not use concrete historians' expertise, but develop their #BigSix second order concepts as .../8

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg 7/... generalized and abstracted versions of principles underlying experts' work. On their basis, school students are not to expected to apply THEM in some preliminary, elementarised form, half mimicking historians, but rather to gain insight in these principles as offering .../9

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg 8/... a sound basis of their own (more individual) historical thinking. I think @s_lvesque 's work is along the same line in general, but it also uses the third approach:
3. Jörn Rüsen, in Germany, also developed his "disciplinay matrix" from professional expertise (by .../10

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg @s_lvesque 9/... theoretical reflection, mostly). But this is not presented as a role model FOR historiacl thinking of others, but rather as a descriptive reflection OF how it works in terms "ideally". Furthermore, Rüsen and some researchers going along this line (me included) take .../11

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg @s_lvesque 10/... this description of professional historians' operations as also applicable to historical thinking by other instances, in the broader history culture, by laymen. It is not a specific, but a generic discription. If done this way, both the actual work of professionals .../12

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg @s_lvesque 11/... and historical thinking by others (laymen, students) can be taken as different manifestations of a common basic model underlying them all, w/o the professional version as the concrete benchmark for others, incl. learners. (professionals <=> generic Model <=> students). /13

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg @s_lvesque 12/ In this sense, we developed the FUER model as a generic model which does not prescribe the professional form as the ultimate yardstick, hoping that it can serve to identify in what (different) forms and on what different levels of expertise the individual facets of .../14

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @PeterSeixas1 @samwineburg @s_lvesque 13/... historical competencies can be perceived in quite different (societal, cultural, individual) forms of historical thinking - academic, everyday, medial, etc.

@JMKuukkanen @ArthurJChapman @heirnet @histassoc @1972SHP @HTENUK @RichardEvans36 @UCLpress @WilschutArie @threadreaderapp unroll