In this chapter, Elmersjö explores the epistemological issues faced in the context of the Norden Associations' attempts to reach agreement on historical narratives in relation to different genre positions of historical writing. The historians engaged in these attempts seem to have acknowledged the need for different narratives, with different protagonists and agents, as well as different interpretations of historical events in different national contexts. Instead of relating these insights to the epistemological issues they raise, however, a reconstructionist approach to historical truth and the embedded meaning of the past was never abandoned. Instead, an acknowledgement of the cultural reasons behind others' divergent, and basically contingent, conceptualization of history was put forward, but without the recognition of the cultural contingency of history itself.

Läromedel i historia blir ofta föremål för intensiva debatter, förmodligen på grund av att de är tänkta att kanalisera ett officiellt samhälleligt minne. Diskussionerna i sig själva påverkar också synen på det förflutna. Idag har vi läromedel i historia som fokuserar på helt andra saker än 1940-talets läroböcker.

I En av staten godkänd historia undersöker historikern Henrik Åström Elmersjö samhällelig förhandling om historia genom det nyckelhål som den statliga förhandsgranskningen av historieläromedel utgjorde. Dynamiken i åsiktsförskjutningarna kring vilken historia som var viktig framträder tydligt i just läromedelsgranskningen. De sakkunniga granskarna både hämmade och drev på läromedelsutvecklingen.

Elmersjö visar i sin studie hur diskussioner om historieläromedel på ett särskilt sätt bidrar till vår kunskap om hur historien förändras i relation till nya upplevelser om vad som är viktigt i den.

This article analyses the historical culture of the Swedish Social Democratic Worker’s Party (SAP) during its formation in the last decades of the 19th century. Utilising the theoretical concepts of myth and conceptual metaphor, the sense-making aspects of historical narration is studied, especially the way coherent stories are told in which the movement under formation is made part of a long history leading to a desirable future. The SAP utilised history both morally-defensively and tactically-offensively. The moral use of history depicts Jesus, Münster and the French Revolution, establishing the righteousness of revolt. The revolutions of 1848 and the Paris Commune, where the workers are seen as acting more independently, are depicted in a way which draws attention to tactical aspects; lessons are learned on how the workers should act in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown to be the case regarding national narratives, the sense-making mechanisms of historical narration also tends to appeal to issues of identity. The metaphorical conceptualisation of ideas and movements as individuals and families, further underlines these issues.

Between 1950 and 1958 the Swedish historian Sven Ulric Palme (1912–1977) was engaged in a vivid discussion on historical scholarship and history teaching in schools. This article utilizes these debates in an examination of the relationship between scholarship and teaching, by especially focusing on Palme’s criticism of history textbooks and his own textbook written for ages 10–12 and published in 1956. By focusing on a controversial historian, like Palme, who previously criticized the history textbooks used in Swedish schools, the aim is to shed light on how debates on the relationship between scholarship and teaching emphasizes different dimensions of historical cultures. The results of the study show how scholarship and teaching are dichotomized in the concepts historical science versus pedagogical issues or historical science versus ideological conceptions. In both cases the historical sciences are seen as objective and untouchable. However, the study also shows how this dichotomy is difficult to uphold, as historical scholarship, as well as historical culture in general, is always a matter of negotiation. The results of historical scholarship are part of a negotiation over what history is interesting and important for the cultural community that it is supposed to make sense of. History textbooks are part of the same negotiation and the content of them are not the result of historical scholarship trickling down, instead the negotiation continues as the example of Palme’s textbook shows.

Mellan 1950 och 1958 var den svenske historikern Sven Ulric Palme (1912-1977) engagerad i en livlig diskussion angående historisk vetenskap och historieundervisning i skolan. I den här artikeln utnyttjas dessa debatter för att belysa förhållandet mellan vetenskap och undervisning, med särskilt fokus på Palmes kritik av läroböcker i historia och hans egen lärobok skriven för folkskolans år 4-6, som publicerade 1956. Genom att fokusera på en kontroversiell historiker, som Palme, som tidigare kritiserat historieläroböcker som användes i svenska skolor, är syftet att belysa hur debatter om förhållandet mellan vetenskap och undervisning betonar olika dimensioner av historiekulturen. Resultaten av studien visar hur vetenskap och undervisning dikotomiserades i begreppen "den historiska vetenskapen" och "pedagogiska frågor" alternativt "den historiska vetenskapen" och "ideologiska föreställningar". I båda fallen sågs den historiska vetenskapen som objektiv och oantastlig. Men studien visar också hur denna dikotomi är svår att upprätthålla eftersom historisk vetenskap, liksom historiekultur i allmänhet, alltid är en fråga om förhandling. Resultaten av historisk vetenskap är en del av en förhandling angående på vilket sätt historia är intressant och viktigt för den kulturella gemenskap som det är tänkt för att förklara. Läroböcker i historia är en del av samma förhandling och innehållet i dem är inte ett resultatet av historievetenskap som sipprar ner, istället fortsätter förhandlingen också där.

Contested narratives and disputed histories have long been an important issue in history teaching all over the world, and has been described as "history" or "culture wars." In this book, authors from different parts of the world ponder the question "what can teachers do (and what are they doing) when there are conflicting narratives of the same past in circulation?" The volume presents a survey of approaches to dealing with rival histories in the classroom and it puts an epistemological issue at the center of discussion: what does it mean for the epistemology of history to teach more than one narrative? Divided into three sections that deal with historical cultures, multicultural societies and multiperspectivity, the chapters of the book showcase that how to deal with rival histories is very much contextually dependent. Diverse teaching traditions and societal debates makes for different contexts where the ability for teachers to engage in the teaching of rival narratives are very different.

Elmersjö, Clark, and Vinterek establish the framework of the book in this introductory chapter. They introduce the different approaches to teaching history introduced by Peter Seixas in 2000: the best story approach enhancing collective memory, the disciplinary approach, and the postmodern approach. By linking these approaches to different genre positions taken by historians and described by Keith Jenkins and Alun Munslow (the reconstructionist, constructionist, and deconstructionist positions), Elmersjö, Clark, and Vinterek frame the book’s general theme of teaching rival histories in an epistemological question regarding what history is and what it can be.