CHAPTER 23

The Power of Story: Historical Narratives

and the Construction of Civic Identity

Helen Haste and Angela Bermudez

We are historical creatures. The past is present in how we define ourselves, in

how we understand our communities and our role in them, and in how we
imagine possible futures. Our sense of the past informs the direction of social
transformations we envision and in which we partake.
According to the concept of historical culture advanced in this handbook,
the past is necessarily present in a wide variety of relationships and transactions
constituent of our personal and collective identities. As Grever and Adriaansen
as well as Liakos and Bilalis explain in their respective chapters, historical cul-
ture comprises public uses of history, such as preserving and visiting historical
museums, producing and consuming historical literature and films, document-
ing the historical background of current debates, teaching history in schools
or doing historical research. The related concept of historical consciousness fur-
ther explains the social function of history that underlies the idea of historical
culture. As conscious beings, humans strive to understand the past in order to
orient themselves in the present and project their future (Rüsen, 2004; Seixas,
2004, 2017).
In this chapter, we build on these two concepts to examine the relationship
between history education and civic education, particularly regarding the role
of historical narratives in the construction of civic culture and identities that
we understand in the framework of New Civics. In the last decade, a host of
social, academic and pedagogical transformations have redefined civic educa-
tion, expanding the concept of civic action beyond conventional participation
in electoral politics. New Civics emphasizes that actual civic engagement takes

H. Haste (*)
Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
A. Bermudez
Center for Applied Ethics, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

© The Author(s) 2017 427

M. Carretero et al. (eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Research in Historical
Culture and Education, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52908-4_23
428 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

place in a variety of social scenarios, addressing multiple issues, and through

a range of different means. Grounded in sociocultural psychology, both civic
education and engagement are seen as processes situated in particular con-
texts in which participants establish social interactions and dialogue. The main
contribution of a sociocultural psychological approach to historical culture is
the consideration of an active subject, whether it be a student learning history
or an engaged citizen embedded in historical cultural practices. Narratives in
general, and historical narratives in particular, are prime cultural tools for these
interactions.
Civic actors use narratives to understand their contexts and experiences (past
and present), and their agency within them. Narratives carry and frame the
cultural stories we draw upon to make sense, to create identity and to define
boundaries and alliances. This is not surprising. History is interwoven with nar-
rative. Facts don’t exist in isolation; it is their context that gives them meaning.
Threaded in narratives, historical events gain rhetorical power because they
fit into a good story. A narrative implies explanations of causality and con-
sequences that justify the dominant social system, social practices and social
values—or suggest challenging or subversive alternatives.
The relationship between history and narrative has been the subject of
heated controversies. In historiography, long-standing debates have confronted
the merits and shortfalls of storied versus analytical forms in the examination,
representation and explanation of the past (Cronon, 1992; Munslow, 2007;
White, 1984). Is the task of historians to describe or to explain the past? Are
both tasks equally interpretive? Do storied accounts and analytic explanation
withstand equally well the rigors of a critical lens and methodological proce-
dures? Dovetailing these questions, history education too has discussed the
power of narrative to shape students’ understanding of the past, and of our
knowledge of it (Levesque, 2014; Shemilt, 2000).
The relationship between history and civics is equally controversial and the
two disputes are not unrelated. If history writing and teaching respond to
present social concerns, moral questions or identity matters, this may compro-
mise academic rigor and open the door for a political or ideological manipu-
lation of the past. Such concern is not unwarranted, but we cannot ease our
worry by simply assuming that academic rigor makes historiography politically
disinterested and ideologically neutral. Understanding history as a sociocul-
tural practice, the concepts of historical culture and historical consciousness
challenge a strict separation between academic and popular uses of history
(Grever & Adriaansen, 2017; Liakos & Bilalis, 2017). This does not negate the
­differences between them, but rather underscores their common foundations
and the many ways in which they interplay. Greater attention to the public
dimensions of historical practice has led to an increasing recognition of what
Seixas describes as the ‘porousness between contemporary interests and our
narrations of the past’ (Seixas, 2017). This recognition compels us to manage
the tension between rigor and relevance that is fundamental to establishing a
good connection between history and civic education.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 429

In turn, such connection brings us back to the narrative structure of histori-

cal consciousness (Ricoeur, 1999; Rüsen, 2004; Seixas & Morton, 2013). This
narrative structure affords (a) the flow between accounts of the past, expe-
riences in the present and imaginations of the future, (b) the emphasis on
individual and collective agency within the complex mechanisms of historical
causation and (c) the articulation of moral questions regarding the implica-
tions of past events and historical interpretations for our lives today. Historical
consciousness makes little sense if it is not for the sense of flow, agency and
ethical awareness that historical narratives provide. These affordances explain
how historical narratives frame our civic engagement, as they provide refer-
ence points for justifying, interrogating, challenging or resisting current social
arrangements and practices.

Reframing Civic Engagement: The Emergence of ‘New

Civics’
What do we need to know in order to understand civic identity and its ante-
cedents? What are the processes involved in an individual becoming, and being,
civically engaged or being disempowered or alienated? The rethinking of ‘New
Civics’ expands the definition of civic participation not only beyond the narrow
scope of voting-related behavior but also beyond the premise that the primary
route to civic action is knowledge of political institutions (Carretero, Haste &
Bermudez, 2016; Haste, 2004, 2010; Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan,
2010).
Partisanship or voting occupies only a part of civic responsibility which for
most people includes ongoing commitment to the community, to helping oth-
ers and in some cases to making one’s voice heard on social issues—local or
national. Young people are considerably more motivated by single issues than
by party politics and many are active in improving and sustaining their com-
munity for the benefit of the less privileged. The explosion of new technology
has radically transformed what civic action is possible for young people and
the less powerful of all ages (Allen & Light, 2015). Social movements, com-
munity engagement and unconventional action such as protest are increasingly
included in the purview of civic participation. What unites all these compo-
nents of civic participation is the capacity to feel, and take, responsibility for a
public purpose with the goal of effecting positive change. The agenda of New
Civics education is to empower young people to have a positive civic identity.
Civic engagement is about interpreting and evaluating a social or politi-
cal situation, in the context of beliefs and values (e.g., about social justice, or
social order) that stir moral concern. Further, it is about whom the individual
perceives as effective agents or channels for exercising that responsibility. Does
he or she have the skills, or connections, to take any action? Does he or she
feel a personal responsibility to take action, or just a conviction that ‘someone’
should do something?
430 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

The implication of this perspective is that civic engagement is contextual-

ized and cannot be explained solely as an individual process. It is a dynamic
transaction between individuals making sense within their own cognitive space,
negotiating and constructing meaning in face-to-face dialogue, and both these
processes drawing on cultural and historical narratives, which provide both
explanation and justification.
What are the context and origins of this redefinition of civic engagement?
Where did it come from? The narrow research and policy focus on mainstream
political activity in a stable society was profoundly challenged by the wave of
unconventional protest activity in the 1960s; increasingly, scholars and politi-
cians alike needed to take this as serious political activity. The massive geo-
political changes around 1990 also dented the idea of the universal nature of
democracy, as emergent states redefined this in terms of their own identity
and history rather than borrowing from Western European or US models.
The following period of social upheaval engaged large numbers of citizens,
especially the young, in constructing a new system and new or reconstructed
cultural stories (Andrews, 2007; Haste, 2004). In parallel came challenges
to the conventional Left-Right spectrum. As Anthony Giddens and others
have argued, many recent social movements including environmentalism and
feminism cross the traditional left and right boundaries and manifest differ-
ent narratives of ‘liberation’ or ‘emancipation’ (Adam, Beck, & van Loon,
2000; Giddens, 1994). Putnam further pushed the conventional boundaries
of the political by asserting that community involvement is both a source
of social capital, maintaining civic society, and as a locus for the practice of
civic engagement, it is an important route to deeper political commitment
(Putnam, 2000).

The Roles of History Education in Civic Education

Historical narratives play an important role representing different aspects of
civic engagement such as the role and agency of different individual and collec-
tive actors, the possibilities and obstacles to processes of social change, the ori-
gins and developments of public issues, and so on. But, how do some narratives
promote active citizenship while others promote alienation and impotence?
What enables people to feel that they can be effective agents in their particular
settings and communities? The roles of history education in civic education are
a complex matter.
Since its inception in school curricula in the late nineteenth century, his-
tory education was essential to the formation of new citizens (Carretero,
2011; Nakou & Barca, 2011). Carretero argues that a Romantic tradition has
recurrently positioned school history as a tool to create and sustain cohesive
national identities, establishing one account of the past that seeks to instill
in future citizens a positive view of dominant groups and of the country’s
political evolution (Carretero, 2011; Carretero & Bermudez, 2012). In sup-
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 431

port of these goals, historical narratives prioritize content that emphasizes a

common origin, focuses on the groups with which students should identify,
provides historic models of civic virtue and glorifies the country’s past (Barton
& Levstik, 2008).
However, the elitist and biased representations of the past often contained
in these romantic narratives have not gone uncontested, among other things
because they alienate students who do not feel represented, and hamper their
sense of agency (Barton, 2012; Den Heyer, 2003; Epstein, 2009; Harris &
Reynolds, 2014). Many scholars and educators advocate for teaching historical
accounts that are more inclusive, pluralist and critical representations of the
past, preparing students for the multicultural, complex and rapidly changing
societies in which most of them live (Nordgren & Johansson, 2015; Yogev,
2010). Carretero argues that this draws upon an Enlightened tradition in which
history education is primarily concerned with helping students understand the
complexities of their past (Carretero, 2011); critical understanding rather than
patriotic love is what defines the good citizen.
Different conceptions of how history education fosters a critical understand-
ing of the complexities of the past, and how such understanding prepares stu-
dents for their civic lives in the present, have different implications for the role
of historical narratives. Seixas (2016) claims that the historical consciousness
brought about by modernity heightened ‘the relativity of all values [and] the
historicity of all traditions’, leading to the conception that ‘the past was radi-
cally different from the present, and the future would therefore be different
from that which is currently known’. In these circumstances—he says—‘the
task of preparing the next generation was radically different from the task of a
culture in which tradition is preserved unchanged from one generation to the
next’ (Seixas, 2016: ….).
As Carretero and Bermudez (2012) note, developing a rational understand-
ing of the past was part of the progressive effort that since the first decades of
the twentieth century strove to ‘open the classroom to the pressing complexi-
ties of social life (industrialization, urbanization, and immigration at that time)’
(p. 635). In the late 1950s and 1960s, different programs for the teaching of
social studies and history in the United States echoed these ideas. Hunt and
Metcalf (1955) outlined a curriculum for a ‘rational inquiry on problematic
areas of culture’, and Massialas and Cox (1966) argued ‘the conditions of the
society made it imperative that the schools accept as its role the ‘progressive
reconstruction’ of the culture’ rather than affirm itself as ‘a conserving agent of
the past achievements of the culture’ (p. 21).
Recent research on how schools in different countries teach about the vio-
lent past underscores the contribution of history education to helping stu-
dents understand and deal with issues such as racism, inequality or violence.
Historical narratives spark conflicting and troubling collective memories, but
if carefully confronted, they open the possibility of learning about and from
historical traumas (Barton & McCully, 2005; Bekerman & Zembylas, 2012;
432 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

Cole, 2007). The connection between history education and civic education is
established through the content of what is taught and learned. Historical nar-
ratives foreground new issues and advance alternative explanations that inter-
rogate social practices which have been taken for granted, shed new light on
the roots of current problems, or give voice to individual and collective actors
previously marginalized.
Another argument is that history education develops in students the capac-
ity to engage in rigorous inquiry about the past, which in turn will serve
‘for thinking about the human world in time’ (Lee & Ashby, 2000: 216).
Research on the development of historical thinking (Dickinson, Gordon, &
Lee, 2001; Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000; Shemilt, 1980) shows that
students can learn to deal with the intricacies of historical evidence, the
layered webs of historical multicausality, the multidimensional processes of
change and continuity, and the contextual meaning of beliefs and practices
that appear foreign today. Allegedly, these capacities for historical inquiry can
translate to civic competence, fostering for instance the capacities to engage
in reflective controversy, form independent positions based on reasoned con-
siderations of evidence from multiple sources, trace the origins and evolution
of current issues, consider the value dimensions of public issues, and consider
and coordinate the differing perspectives of people (Barton & Levstik, 2008;
Barton & McCully, 2007). In this case, the connection between history and
civic education is not established through the content of historical narra-
tives but rather through a set of tools derived from epistemological concepts
and procedures of historical inquiry that serve the student (and the citizen)
to critically examine and interrogate claims passed on to them, as well as to
develop their own.
Three decades of constructivist research on the development of historical
thinking provides ample psychological evidence to challenge the Romantic
idea of a passive consumer of social narratives. Students can learn to use the
tools of critical historical inquiry to interrogate cultural and historical narra-
tives and develop a sophisticated understanding of them (Bermudez, 2015).
In turn, scholarship informed by sociocultural theory (Wertsch, 1997, 2002)
has redefined how to approach the role of identity, moral values and emo-
tions in historical understanding, three elements that many regarded as the
landmarks of the Romantic tradition. Carretero and Bermudez (2012) note
that the current sociocultural perspective differs from the Romantic tradition
in at least four important ways: (1) it portrays historical narratives as cultural
artifacts rather than as essential distillation of national character, (2) because
of that, it recognizes different and often contentious views of the past rather
than positing the existence of one shared narrative, (3) it claims an active
rather than a passive role for the individual in the process of consuming and
constructing historical narratives, and locates this process in its sociocultural
context and (4) because of that, it examines the interplay of rationality, val-
ues and emotions, rather than dismissing the importance of any of these
elements.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 433

A Sociocultural Framework
In a sociocultural vein, we now present an explanatory model that locates the
individual within a cultural, social and dialogic context (Haste, 2014). We
argue that this model provides a useful framework to understand the teaching
and learning of history as a transactional and dynamic interaction between
the individual (including the cognitive processes involved in understanding
history), the immediate social and institutional environment (including inter-
personal dialogue and classroom practice), and the wider social and cultural
context and processes (including the production, circulation and consumption
of historical narratives). The framework is also useful to organize what we have
learned from the different strands of inquiry in history teaching and learning,
and to orient further research that investigates these dynamic interactions as
the basis for a fruitful collaboration between history and civic education.
This model (see Fig. 23.1) conceives the individual as an active agent, itera-
tively negotiating meaning, identity and relationships within many social con-
texts. This takes place in three domains: (a) the domain of available cultural,
societal and historical discourses, narratives and explanations; (b) the domain
of dialogic interaction through conversation, persuasion, argumentation and
also scaffolding; and (c) the domain of individual cognitive processes, identities
and subjectivity.
This model is not hierarchical nor are the domains nested; all three operate
in concert and the relationship between each of the three points of the triangle
is iterative and bidirectional. The individual derives meaning actively from dia-
logue and from cultural resources but also contributes through ­dialogue to the
negotiation of meaning. The individual accesses culture directly through media,
institutional practices and literature, through familiar narratives and metaphors
that take for granted, and convey, normative explanations and assumptions
(Billig, 1995; Haste & Abrahams, 2008). In dialogue with others, the individ-

Fig. 23.1 Sociocultural model

434 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

ual simultaneously draws on his or her own constructs and alludes to presumed
common cultural ground. The purpose of the dialogue may be finding consen-
sus, acquiring new knowledge or understanding, or serving individual goals of
persuading, defending or establishing one’s authority, credibility and alliances.
It is a constantly iterative process of managing feedback loops and being alert
to alternative ways forward.
Each of these domains is important in nurturing and shaping civic engage-
ment and historical understanding; we argue that it is the interaction between
them that explains the strong ties between history and civic education. Each of
them is addressed in more detail in the following.

The Domain of Available Cultural, Societal

and Historical Discourses, Narratives and Explanations

Culture is not a static backdrop to thought and dialogue but is dynamically

interwoven with every linguistic action and indeed with the frames within
which cognition happens. The metaphor of the human being as tool-user helps
to understand this dynamic conception of culture. This metaphor comes from
the Vygotskian perspective that meaning derives from utilizing tools or sym-
bols as mediators with the environment (Gillespie & Zittoun, 2010; Haste,
2014; Tappan, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). The tool-user draws upon culturally
available and culturally legitimized tools and resources, including narratives,
in order to make sense and to orient action. In the context of civic engage-
ment, these ‘tools’ include narratives and discourses, as well as specific routes
to action such as voting, petitioning or blogging (a new tool). These tools rep-
resent and shape our understanding of the workings of the political system, the
mechanisms and possibilities of change, the sources of power and the nature of
prevailing power relations.
For instance, a nation’s schools often mirror the dominant narratives of civic
structure. In the US, for example, school life and leadership rely heavily on
popularity and gaining the trust of peers; arguably, this reflects many aspects of
US populist democracy. In many contemporary Chinese schools, class moni-
tors and a small committee of students serve as the class management body
for minor organizational and disciplinary functions, paralleling local practices
within the Chinese political system. The Western emphasis on the ‘democratic
classroom’ as fostering civic awareness and civic skills reflects belief both in the
power of practice and that a democratic school environment is a microcosm of
a democratic society (Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010).
Likewise, school history often mirrors dominant narratives about the past
that lay the foundations of students’ national identities. Ferro’s pioneering
study (1984; 2003) on how the past is taught to children around the world
revealed that historical events are framed in different and often contradictory
ways by the official narratives of the Nation-State and the counternarratives
of minority, marginalized, alternative or foreign groups. Most national narra-
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 435

tives are organized around values and concepts such as progress and freedom,
with important implications for the meaning of historical events and their civic
relevance. For instance, current American history textbooks frame the forced
migration of Indian Nations in the nineteenth century within narratives of
nation building and the rise of mass democracy. Such framing renders the resis-
tance of Native Americans as futile attempts to resist progress, and normalizes
the violence inflicted on indigenous people as collateral damage, a sad but
inevitable price to be paid in exchange for greater progress and improvements
(Bermudez & Stoskopf, 2015).
Contrasting texts in history education have important implications for both
the construction and understanding of civic culture and identity. This is evi-
dent, for instance, in how different Israeli and Palestinian narratives of history
and of place play out in the construction of meaning and identity that are sus-
tained in day-to-day dialogue (Adwan, Baron, & Naveh, 2011; Bartal, 2000;
Hammack, 2011).

The Domain of Dialogic Interaction and Scaffolding

School texts reproduce cultural narratives. However, the proposed interactive
model stresses that how we learn from cultural and historical narratives depends
on how we engage with them, hence the importance of dialogic interactions.
These dialogic interactions include practices essential to civic life such as ordi-
nary conversation, persuasion, argumentation or scaffolding. Meaning making
progresses through feedback and a series of iterative loops, for example, in the
position vis-à-vis others in dialogue, and between several versions of speakers’
own positions. Billig’s work on ideologies, and especially on how people talk
about the British royal family, demonstrates that people move easily, even in
the same utterance, between different discourses. This may be deliberatively to
counter others’ contributions, drawing on arguments based on a variety of dif-
ferent premises. Or they may make explicit the coexisting positions within their
internal dialogue: ‘Maybe I think X, but also I can see that Y is a valid position’
(Billig, 1995, 1998).
Dialogue is also the crucible for social and cultural change. Culture is sus-
tained, normalized, reproduced and disseminated through ordinary conversa-
tion. In times of change, new discourses and narratives are generated through
dialogue. Consider, for example, the recent transition in the cultural mean-
ing, and valence, of homosexuality, from pathological deviance sustained by
‘expert’ discourse, through Gay Rights activism and an emerging discourse of
sexual and lifestyle freedom of choice, to scientific evidence for genetics which
supports a rights discourse based on diversity.
Social change happens when grassroots dialogue reframes power relation-
ships and questions their legitimacy. Empowerment requires a challenge first
to the ‘expert’ discourses that sustain norms and institutions. For example,
feminist scholars 40 years ago explicitly attacked the ‘scientific’ explanations
of differential ability that justified sex discrimination, so challenging the domi-
436 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

nant cultural stories of gender. The women’s movement also, like other rights
movements, saw the need for new cultural discourses to raise awareness of, and
resist, tacit discrimination in everyday life (Haste, 1994; Henderson & Jeydel,
2010). In many social movements, such dialogic interactions, in ‘cells’ or
‘consciousness-­raising groups’, serve as the fount of both reframed discourses
and personal empowerment through redefining identity.
Another example is Green awareness. Barely 40 years ago, environmental
concern was marginalized. Yet for two decades, care of the environment has
been a major government platform and a central topic of social awareness edu-
cation. How did this happen? The initial impetus, many argue, came from an
individual’s contribution to cultural narrative; Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring
was published in 1962. This stimulated conversation and reframing among
people already sensitive to ecological issues. A narrative developed of ‘save
the planet’, of stewardship and therefore individual moral responsibility. Over
the following years emerged, in parallel, pressure on governments to change
energy policies, and exploration of how everyday practice could reduce energy
use (Harré, Brockmeier, & Mühlhäusler, 1999). New cultural narratives of
responsibility empowered recycling programs, first initiated by enthusiasts and
then institutionalized through laws. The concrete images of degradation of the
world’s beauty and the loss of species made it easy to comprehend, and rapidly
even young children could grasp both the consequences of the loss of rain for-
est and the connection with their parents’ shopping habits. Citizens, even very
small ones, owned their newfound narratives and were empowered by them.
Students engage actively with historical narratives. Adopting rhetorical
stances of endorsement, resistance or challenge, they put what they are taught
in school in dialogue with what they learn from family, community or interest
groups. In some cases, they distort the past in order to preserve dogmatic and
sectarian perspectives (Barton & McCully, 2005). In other cases, the cultural
narratives brought to school empower minority students to resist or challenge
values and explanations of the past that are taken for granted in dominant nar-
ratives. Bermudez’ (2012) study of an online discussion about the causes of
the 1992 Los Angeles race riots illustrates this. A group of Latino and African-­
American students invoked a ‘narrative of continuity’ to assert that the riots
were a breaking point in a long process of racism and discrimination rooted
in slavery. Thus, they challenge the dominant ‘narrative of discontinuity’ put
forth by White-American students who contended that the riots were simply a
matter of unruly behavior and that seeking causal connections with the past was
an inappropriate strategy to justify violence. Through this discussion, students
negotiated two very different types of identity. On one hand, a ‘fluid iden-
tity’ that blends the individual self (I) and the collective self (We), is primarily
defined by collective categories such as race, and sees the past as an indelible
heritage that lives on in persons. On the other hand, a ‘discrete identity’ that
makes a sharp distinction between the individual self (I) and the collective self
(We), is primarily defined by individual categories such as merit or effort, and
sees the past as a burden of which you must let go.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 437

Classroom practice and pedagogical scaffolding are dialogic. Teachers who

facilitate controversial conversations that challenge students to interrogate their
cultural narratives and listen to others can transform polarized debates into
reflective dialogue (Barton & McCully, 2007; Hess, 2010; Hess & McAvoy,
2015). This is especially important considering the increased diversity of the
student body globally, which makes issues of class, ethnicity or gender more
salient in defining what and how different students learn in the history class-
rooms (Grever, Pelzer, & Haydn, 2011; Seixas, 2017).

The Domain of Individual Cognitive Processes,

Identities and Subjectivity
To engage effectively with historical thinking, students need the capacity for
disciplined inquiry, developing more sophisticated ideas about the epistemol-
ogy of history (or how we construct and evaluate historical accounts) and skills
to use them in learning about the past. Research focused on individual cogni-
tive processes has generated progression models of how students develop an
increasingly sophisticated capacity for the analysis of evidence, the reconstruc-
tion of causal relationships, the analysis of change and continuity, or the recon-
struction of different perspectives in their own context. These concepts and
procedures of historical inquiry provide a valuable tool kit to support reflec-
tive civic engagement, including the critical examination of contested historical
narratives (Bermudez, 2015).
However, research on historical thinking does not typically consider how
identity and context matter when learning about the past. Bermudez (2012)
argues that this limitation derives from the tendency in research on histori-
cal understanding to treating students as individual thinkers, rather than as
thinkers-in-relation-to-others. Her research shows that when students argue
about contending historical narratives, they consciously or unconsciously select
from among the capacities they have developed, serving intellectual purposes
of advancing understanding as well as discursive purposes of negotiating iden-
tity and relationships. Carretero and Bermudez (2012) argue that a focus on
learning concepts and procedures of historical inquiry separates the process of
reasoning from the context in which the individual reasons, and in doing so,
it overlooks the sociocultural dynamics of meaning-making. The model pro-
posed in this chapter attempts to address this limitation.

The Core Processes of Meaning-Making and Civic

Identity Construction
We asked earlier, what do we need to know in order to understand civic identity
and its antecedents? What are the social and psychological processes involved
in an individual becoming, and being, civically engaged or being disempow-
ered or alienated? We identify four core processes involved in civic engage-
438 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

ment: identity, narrative, positioning and efficacy (Haste, 2004, 2010). In any
specific situation, all are operating, in parallel and in concert. They are mani-
fested in the interplay between the individual, dialogic and cultural domains
just discussed.
Identity can be defined as a self-organizing open system, in which a ‘self’
that is distinct from the social context while in continual dialogue with it, is
actively negotiated (Cresswell & Baerveldt, 2011; Haste, 2014; Hermans &
Gieser, 2012). Identity includes personal agency and maintaining a sense of
self-integrity, matching up one’s self-image against perceived expectations and
feedback. How one defines oneself includes a core sense of ‘I am the kind of
person who believes such and such’. We have a range of core beliefs, but they
are differently salient in different contexts so there is fluidity in how they are
forefronted in our deliberation and in dialogue. Subjective experience, and
the values and beliefs that trigger affective responses are evoked in dialogue
and argumentation. Core beliefs are in constant iterative dialogue and negotia-
tion with others, whether face to face, remembered or imagined. Identity is
therefore group-dependent though not group-determined; we negotiate relevant
information about and from our salient groups, we choose which beliefs to
invoke in argument or which in-group and out-group status we reference at
any point.
Identity is not defined by a unitary set of beliefs and actions but by manag-
ing a portfolio of possible selves, according to the context. This takes place
within the culturally available repertoire of narratives, explanations and dis-
courses that inform what individuals perceive as civic responsibility, what values
and beliefs they see as salient to their sense of self, what groups and categories
of person they perceive as defining both their in-group and out-group, and the
extent to which they feel that they personally have the abilities and skills to take
any civic action.
Efficacy is the sense that one can pursue one’s values and goals. Civic
engagement requires empowerment, the belief that one can, or one’s social
group can, participate effectively in the civic process. Widening the scope of
the civic domain broadens the potential for action and also the likely precon-
ditions that foster empowerment, for these may differ for different kinds of
engagement. Individual efficacy derives from the sense of having the necessary
skills. However, empowerment (and its absence) also comes from identifying
with social groups who are perceived to have (or to lack) power, who are part
of the institutions of power or who are prevented institutionally from having
power. One of the first steps in the enfranchisement and empowerment of
disadvantaged groups is to change their self-perception through narrative and
dialogue, and to provide them with avenues through which power becomes
possible. Our sense of efficacy also depends on our understanding of the social
system and how vulnerable or resistant it is to change. If this is represented
as impenetrable or immovable, individuals may become pessimistic about the
likelihood of being effective despite their own skills and responsibility.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 439

As we have argued above, narratives are a cultural resource of information

and explanations that may justify, legitimize or undermine current conditions.
They give coherence: a causal relationship between past and present and a
projection of possible futures that may either perpetuate or change those con-
ditions. They support, or not, the empowerment of groups or categories of
people so in times of social change, such narratives are powerful; they facilitate
a new order and new entitlements. The narratives that sustain identity and effi-
cacy valorize the qualities required of those who will be the future empowerers.
Heroes model versions of past figures but are recast to meet the demands of the
current world (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001).
Further, narratives frame what is credible; there is always more than one
narrative about the past and the present, but how many are deemed legiti-
mate? The dominant social group writes the authoritative histories which enter
into the canon (Carretero, 2011). Subordinate groups have their own sto-
ries that retell past events and redescribe institutions, explain and legitimate
changes (Adwan et al., 2011; Bartal, 2000; Hammack, 2011). Under periods
of oppression, marginalized groups maintain a parallel and hidden narrative of
their history (and of their future liberation) which is passed informally through
generations and becomes salient when change is possible (Wertsch, 1998).
Narratives are a source of positioning. Positioning is a discursive process by
which an individual manipulates power relations and entitlement between self
and other, in direct dialogue or in reported speech (Davies & Harré, 1990;
Harré & van Langenhove, 1991). For example, direct positioning may occur
when A requests that B do something; in doing so, A is positioning herself in
a relationship of power, or entitlement, vis-a-vis B. B, however, may resist the
request and therefore the positioning, and in resisting, repositions A as not
entitled to that power, or as bullying or insensitive.
Positioning also can be indirect and, for example, establish in-group and
out-group parameters. B may give an account of the above incident to C, in
which B is positioning himself as the righteous victim in the account, and A as
the ‘villain’. Telling this account positions C as presumed to share B’s values;
if C acquiesces to B’s interpretation, this validates it as a shared or normative
discourse. Cultural narratives and stereotypes provide the resources for posi-
tioning individuals and groups as insiders or outsiders, or having positive or
negative attributes that define them as ‘we’ or ‘they’ (Hall, 1997). Locating
‘we’ and ‘they’ in the dialogue, positioning groups or belief systems as ‘ours’
or ‘other,’ legitimates or delegitimizes, and so affirms the identities of the
interlocutors.

Civic Engagement as a Cultural Process: An Example

An extended example illustrates how the three proposed domains interact with
each other in the processes involved in reconstructing cultural and historical
narratives in a period of rapid social change, and how individual civic identity
and efficacy are sustained by narratives, and positioning.
440 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

In 1994 at the time Mandela become South Africa’s President, Salie Abrahams
interviewed a number of young people in a township in South Africa who were
voting for the first time (Abrahams, 1995; Haste & Abrahams, 2008). They
were all, according to Apartheid criteria, ‘black’ or ‘colored’ and their families
were disenfranchised prior to that point. The interviews are full of hope about
their own futures and also of new-found civic efficacy. They expressed very
similar versions of a new cultural narrative which echoed Mandela’s message
but which also translated into their own new identities. Here, extracts from
the interview with JJ, an 18-year-old boy from a Sotho family, are discussed.
First, we will consider the cultural narratives explaining the history behind
Apartheid, the collective historical identity that he himself shares, the future
agenda for his own group and the discourses around unity for the future. Then,
we will consider how these extracts reflect two other civic identity processes,
efficacy and positioning. JJ’s interview shows how his identity was framed by
historical narratives about apartheid and how the new cultural stories gave him
a renewed sense of self with new moral responsibilities.
We divide the material into four extracts. First, we will consider the narra-
tives evident in each extract:

JJ 1: Jan Van Riebeeck [founder of Cape Town] came here and took everything he
could take, they had no respect for us. They wanted everything that he saw, the land,
the diamonds, the rivers, the mountain and the sea. They were gluttons and wanted
to (eat up) everything. They not only took everything but they broke us up into splin-
ters and made us powerless, because if we had remained one, we would have defeated
them ….
They were extremely greedy but also extremely clever in a bad way. That is why
they divided us up from the start, that was so … shrewd.

Here, we see two narratives: one emphasizes the personal vices of the colonists
and the other is a narrative of imperialist practice: divide and rule.

JJ 2: Apartheid was a big tragedy. We lost our land and lost our lives. We even lost
our dignity and I even hated myself and my skin, why am I black, why did I have
to suffer like this, why must I feel like a piece of dirt walking around here, we got
nothing and they got everything. But, as I grew up, I learnt that I was somebody, I
could be proud of myself. I am black and I know we will rule this land. That made
me walk tall and feel proud.

In this extract, we see the new narrative of pride defined by the contrast with
the preexisting narrative of shared identity of oppression.

JJ 3: [White people did] nothing, and then a few of them would [say] sorry, but just
a few of them. We don’t want their sorry, we want justice….Why did they not stand
up when we were hurting? We can do the same to the whites if we want to. We can
also make them suffer. But no, we must show them that we are better and that we are
just and we need unity and that we see them also as people, human beings and not
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 441

like dogs, like the way they saw us. That is what we have to teach these whites, that we
are all human beings, all equal.
SA: You must teach them?
JJ: Yes, that is our duty.

In this extract, there are four interwoven narratives. One reiterates past oppres-
sion. A second distinguishes those white people who did not endorse Apartheid
but failed to stand up for the oppressed groups, so their moral failure is lack
of courage. A third narrative is about unity and humanity, which transcends
race and prescribes equality. A fourth is a significant new narrative, reflecting
Mandela’s influence, that empowers the former oppressed groups by position-
ing them as having the moral responsibility to educate the whites in humanity.

SA: You talk about whites…what do you see yourself as?

JJ 4: The answer is South African! If I say I am black then the other person will
say he is white and then we start racism again and all the divisions and then we have
apartheid. That is why I say that I am a human being and a South African to stop
that racism. Black and white was started by apartheid and that will keep us apart.
But if we want to unite then we must get rid of that colored, white and black. …
We are all human beings, all equal. We can’t start that again, it will be too
cruel for the blacks to do it, we have suffered too much to do that to someone else. I
sometimes think we should oppress them, but that will not fix anything, we have had
too much anger in South Africa.

This extract elaborates the narrative of humanity and unity through both the
transcendence of race under the category ‘human’ and the argument that label-
ing per se is divisive and undermines this. It also elaborates the narrative of
moral responsibility for reeducation.
The example shows multiple narratives in interaction. They connect rep-
resentations of past experiences, present situation and challenges, and future
possibilities. The different narratives are part of a cultural repertoire available
to JJ. However, what narratives he invokes and the meaning he makes of them
evidence that JJ is engaged in a dialogic construction of his personal identity
and agency. That is, cultural narratives are appropriated into individual identity,
and different courses of civic action follow from this appropriation. This is a
clear example of the interplay between the understanding of history and the
sense of self, moral responsibility and civic agency.
We will now consider how these extracts demonstrate positioning; we
see several examples. First, JJ positions the founders of the Cape Colony as
morally egregious and by so doing, he positions the nonwhite population as
victims of an immoral tradition. This positioning is developed through argu-
ing that in consequence the victims are deprived of dignity. However, this
is presented as a counterpoint to the repositioning of identity through the
recent social changes. In the third extract, JJ differentiates those whites who
are pro-Apartheid from those who are apologetic, but then further positions
these latter as lacking in commitment. He then engages in the interesting
442 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

argumentation, whether nonwhites should position whites now as victims,

in retribution, or whether to position nonwhites as morally superior because
they can take a comprehensively humanistic view. Finally in this extract he
extends the positioning of moral superiority to moral obligation; nonwhites
must teach the whites to be humanistic—elegantly positioning the whites not
only as morally deficient but also as less powerful because they are placed in
the role of students.
In the fourth extract, JJ repeats some of the argumentation about retribu-
tion, but also positions himself as a ‘human being’ and ‘South African’ explic-
itly to counter the positioning that he sees in Apartheid, which arose from the
labels. These extracts are a quite transparent representation of the processes
involved in reconstructing cultural narratives in a period of rapid social change,
the appropriation of these into individual identity and developing the implica-
tions for action that follow from that appropriation.

 Conclusion
The theoretical model we have presented is grounded in cultural psychology. It
reflects a systemic picture of civic engagement that recognizes its dynamic and
transactional nature which enables us to appreciate the synergy between New
Civics and history education. New Civics focuses on preparing students for
active civic engagement, which is conceptualized as the capacity to understand,
feel and take responsibility for a public purpose with the goal of effecting posi-
tive change. Historical narratives provide accounts of how individual and col-
lective actors engage in a variety of processes that generate more or less social
transformation over time.
We consider that these intersections pose five sets of questions that may
guide future research but also can be the foundations for critical civic and his-
tory education:

• Historical narratives position some people as part of ‘us’ and some people as
part of ‘them’. What do these boundaries (us/them, we/others) imply for
the construction of the notion of ‘public’? Who is recognized as part of
the ‘we’ and what is defined as ‘ours’, must inform the sense of who is
entitled to and responsible for the ‘public’ goods?
• Historical narratives describe and explain processes of transformation and
continuity. So, how is ‘social change’ represented in them? Is it rare and
marginal? Is it inevitable and unstoppable? Is it episodic, slowly incremen-
tal or revolutionary? Is it linear, multidirectional or cyclical? Is change
always for the better (equivalent to progress)? Is it regressive?
• Historical narratives tell stories about individual and collective agency. The
representation of agents and agency in historical explanations informs
students’ understanding and capacity for civic decision-making. How do
historical narratives characterize the role of individual agency in social
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 443

change? What capacity do individuals and groups have to generate change?

How do personal motivation, choice, commitment and organized action
fare in relation to structural forces?
• Historical narratives characterize individuals and groups and attri-
bute identities to them. What kind of people and what social groups are
positioned as significant social actors of these change processes? Who is
empowered, weak, dependent and leading? How homogeneous or diverse
are the societies represented? How consensual or conflictive?
• Historical narratives establish connections between past–present–future, as
well as between individual-community. How do these connections inform
a sense of transcendence, purpose and responsibility of individual action
(impact to others, consequences for the future). How do they explain the
historicity of current civic issues?

The theoretical model of both sociocultural processes and civic identity

elements has educational implications. Designing civic education needs to
include students’ access to the narratives and discourses around their own
history and sociopolitical systems and how these compare with other nations
(and periods). Most importantly, it should facilitate a critical perspective on
all of these which enables them to recognize how and why narratives and
discourses were constructed and the functions they serve in the present.
Students need to understand how positioning can be the basis for inequal-
ity, both in interpersonal interaction and through justification by narratives,
as well as be able to deliberatively alter their own and others’ positioning
behavior. They need to be critically aware of how repositioning can empower
(or disempower) and recognize how this has been done historically in times
of sociopolitical change; they need to know how to do this in the context
of their own experience. Through this process, they also need to become
aware that there are numerous possible, open-ended outcomes, not only one
solution. In other words, they need support to escape from linear ways of
thinking.

References
Abrahams, S. (1995). Moral Reasoning in Context: The Construction of the Adolescent
Moral World Under Apartheid. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard
Graduate School of Education.
Adam, B., Beck, U., & van Loon, J. (Eds.). (2000). The Risk Society: Critical Issues for
Social Theory. London: Sage.
Adwan, S., Baron, D., & Naveh, E. (2011). Side By Side: Parallel Histories of Israel-­
Palestine. New York, NY: The New Press.
Allen, D., & Light, J. S. (Eds.). (2015). From Voice to Influence: Understanding
Citizenship in a Digital Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Andrews, M. (2007). Shaping History: Narratives of Social Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
444 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared Beliefs in a Society. London: Sage.

Barton, K. C. (2012). Agency, Choice and Historical Action: How History Teaching
Can Help Students Think About Democratic Decision Making. Citizenship Teaching
and Learning, 7, 131–142.
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2005). History, Identity, and the School Curriculum
in Northern Ireland: an Empirical Study of Secondary Students’ Ideas and
Perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 85–116.
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2007). Teaching Controversial Issues … Where
Controversial Issues Really Matter. Teaching History, 127, 13–19.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2008). History. In J. Arthur, C. Hahn, & I. Davies
(Eds.), Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London: Sage.
Bekerman, Z., & Zembylas, M. (2012). Teaching Contested Narratives: Identity,
Memory, and Reconciliation in Peace Education and Beyond. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Bermudez, A. (2012). The Discursive Negotiation of Cultural Narratives and Social
Identities in Learning History. In M. Carretero, M. Rodriguez-Moneo, & M. Asensio
(Eds.), History Teaching and the Construction of National Identities. International
Review of History Education (Vol. 5) (pp. 203–219). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Bermudez, A. (2015). Four Tools for Critical Inquiry in History, Social Studies and
Civic Education. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 52, 102–118.
Bermudez, A., & Stoskopf, A. (2015). Examining Textbook Representations and
Teacher Understandings of Political Violence in National Histories: Interrogating
the Trail of Tears. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), Chicago, April 16–20, 2015.
Billig, M. (1995). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology
(Revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1998). Talking of the Royal Family (Second ed.). London: Routledge.
Carretero, M. (2011). Constructing Patriotism. Teaching History and Memories in
Global Worlds. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Carretero, M., & Bermudez, A. (2012). Constructing Histories. In J. Valsiner (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 625–646). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Carretero, M., Haste, H., & Bermudez, A. (2016). Civic Education. In L. Corno &
E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (Third ed.,
pp. 295–308). London, UK: Routledge.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Cole, E. (Ed.). (2007). Teaching the Violent Past: History Education and Reconciliation.
New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Cresswell, J., & Baerveldt, C. (2011). Bakhtin’s Realism and Embodiment: Towards a
Revision of the Dialogical Self. Culture & Psychology, 17(2), 263–277.
Cronon, W. (1992). A Place for Stories. Nature, History, and Narrative. The Journal of
American History, March, 1347–1376.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.
Den Heyer, K. (2003). Between Every “Now” and “Then”: A Role for the Study of
Historical Agency in History and Citizenship Education. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 31(4), 411–434.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 445

Dickinson, A., Gordon, P., & Lee, P. (Eds.). (2001). Raising Standards in History
Education. International Review of History Education (Vol. 3). London, UK:
Woburn Press.
Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting National History: Race, Identity, and Pedagogy in
Classrooms and Communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferro, M. (1984). The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past is Taught to Children.
London, UK: Routledge (Revised version 2003).
Grever, M., Pelzer, B., & Haydn, T. (2011). High School Students’ Views on History.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 207–229.
Grever, M., & Adriaansen, R. J. (2017). Historical Culture: A Concept Revisited. In
M. Carretero, S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Historical
Culture and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2010). Using Resources: Conceptualizing the Mediation
and Reflective Use of Tools and Signs. Culture & Psychology, 16(1), 37–62.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.
London: Sage.
Hammack, P. (2011). Narrative and the Politics of Identity: The Cultural Psychology of
Israeli and Palestinian Youth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of Positioning. Journal for the Theory
of Social Behavior, 21(4), 393–407.
Harré, R., Brockmeier, J., & Mühlhäusler, P. (1999). Greenspeak: A Study of
Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, R., & Reynolds, R. (2014). The History Curriculum and Its Connection to
Students from Minority Ethnic Backgrounds. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4),
464–486.
Haste, H. (1994). The Sexual Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haste, H. (2004). Constructing the Citizen. Political Psychology, 25(3), 413–440.
Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship Education: A Critical Look at a Contested Field. In
L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Civic
Engagement in Youth (pp. 161–192). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Haste, H. (2014). Culture, Tools and Subjectivity: The (Re) Construction of Self. In
T. Magioglou (Ed.), Culture and Political Psychology (pp. 27–48). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Haste, H., & Abrahams, S. (2008). Morality, Culture and the Dialogic Self: Taking
Cultural Pluralism Seriously. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 357–374.
Henderson, S., & Jeydel, A. (2010). Women and Politics in a Global World (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hermans, H., & Gieser, G. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hess, D. (2010). Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hess, D., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in
Democratic Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hunt, M. P., & Metcalf, L. E. (1955). Rational Inquiry on Society’s Closed Areas. In
W. C. Parker (Ed.), Educating the Democratic Mind (pp. 145–170). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
446 H. HASTE AND A. BERMUDEZ

Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in Historical Understanding Among Students
Ages 7–14. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, Teaching, and
Learning History: National and International Perspectives (pp. 199–222). New York,
NY: New York University Press.
Levesque, S. (2014). Why tell stories? On the Importance of Teaching Narrative
Thinking. Canadian Issues, Fall, 5–11.
Liakos, A., & Bilalis, M. (2016). The Jurassic Park of Historical Culture. In M. Carretero,
S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Historical Culture and
Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Massialas, B. G., & Cox, C. B. (1966). Inquiry in Social Studies. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Munslow, A. (2007). Narrative and History. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nakou, I., & Barca, I. (Eds.). (2011). Contemporary Public Debates Over History
Education, International Review of History Education (Vol. 6). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Nordgren, K., & Johansson, M. (2015). Intercultural Historical Learning: A Conceptual
Framework. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(1), 1–25.
Ricoeur, P. (1999). Memory and Forgetting. In M. Dooley & R. Kearney (Eds.),
Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Continental Philosophy (pp. 5–12).
London, UK: Routledge.
Rüsen, J. (2004). Historical Consciousness: Narrative Structure, Moral Function, and
Ontogenetic Development. In P. Seixas (Ed.), Theorizing Historical Consciousness
(pp. 63–85). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and
Mobilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seixas, P. (Ed.). (2004). Theorizing Historical Consciousness. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Seixas, P. (2016). Historical Consciousness and Historical Thinking. In M. Carretero,
S. Berger, & M. Grever (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook of Historical Culture and
Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts. Toronto:
Nelson Education.
Shemilt, D. (1980). History 13–16 Evaluation Study. Edinburgh, UK: Holmes
McDougall.
Shemilt, D. (2000). The Caliph’s Coin: The Currency of Narrative Frameworks in
History Teaching. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing,
Teaching, and Learning History: National and International Perspectives
(pp. 83–101). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Sherrod, L., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Research on
Civic Engagement in Youth. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Stearns, P., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, Teaching, and Learning
History: National and International Perspectives. New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Tappan, M. (2006). Moral Functioning as Mediated Action. Journal of Moral Education,
35(1), 1–18.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 THE POWER OF STORY: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND THE CONSTRUCTION... 447

Wertsch, J. (1997). Narrative Tools of History and Identity. Culture and Psychology,
3(1), 5–20.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
White, H. (1984). The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory.
History and Theory, 23(1), 1–33.
Yogev, E. (2010). A Crossroads: History Textbooks and Curricula in Israel. Journal of
Peace Education, 7(1), 1–14.