This article is a critique of the “History Education for Democratic Citizenship Education” argument that has been actively debated in history education circles in recent years. The main focus of the review is on several papers related to history teaching in the book 〈Theory and Practice of History Education for Democratic Citizenship Education〉(2017), which was published as a result of a collaborative study involving Kim Hanjong and ten other researchers. The criticism focuses on two points. The first is the premise that “history [historical writing] is interpretation,” which appears in many of the texts in the book, and the second is that the pursuit of the values of democratic citizenship education is disconnected from its historical context.
Most of author in this book are based on the premise that “history [historical writing] is interpretation.” This premise overlooks the process of demonstration that historians use to explore historical facts. The historian’s perspective that operates in the process of historical research comes from an intense awareness of reality, and the “historical knowledge” that is constructed through the historical research process is the historian"s practice of reality. The historical facts explored by historical researchers and the construction of historical narratives or historical narratives based on them are “historical knowledge” about the past. This historical knowledge is the result of the historical researcher’s rigorous practice, starting from the perception of reality. historical knowledge is not an interpretation, and historical education should consist of historical knowledge.
As a result of the pursuit of the values of democratic citizenship education, most of the history lessons in this book materialize history or are disconnected from their historical context. The reason for this is that the universal values of democratic civic education are being taught through history rather than through historical knowledge. If it is disconnected from the historical context, it cannot be considered history education.
Despite these problems, I would like to draw attention to the background of history education as a democratic civic education. In the absence of a new alternative historical narrative, the search for a new transformation of history education has revealed its limitations, and in the end, it has turned to the path of history education that aims at the values of democratic civic education. I would like to criticize this as a result of not only neglecting solidarity with the historical community, but also choosing a way to avoid challenging the basics of history education.