Policy Futures in Education

Volume 12 Number 3 2014

www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE

Selective Critical Thinking:

a textbook analysis of education for
critical thinking in Norwegian social studies

KJETIL BØRHAUG
Department of Administration and Organizational Science,
University of Bergen, Norway

ABSTRACT Current Norwegian curricular guidelines oblige schools to educate citizens with a critical
perspective on society. From a discourse theoretical perspective, this obligation implies that various
school subjects, and in particular social studies, offer discourses on social issues that allow for different
points of view and critical evaluation. Educational systems have a strong tendency towards legitimising
the existing social and political order. It is therefore important to examine whether critical perspectives
are articulated at all, and exactly what students are encouraged to criticise. Globalisation processes are
assumed to affect the extent and form of critical assessment. In this article, the textbooks used in
Norwegian lower secondary schools in social studies are examined. It is found that critical perspectives
are articulated, but systematically directed at issues that do not challenge core political and legal
institutions, such as economic policy, non-voters, non-democratic regimes far away, and racists.
Political and legal institutions, the United Nations, and Norwegian multiculturalism are above any type
of critical assessment. It can be concluded that critical assessments are encouraged, albeit being guided
in some directions and not others.

Introduction
In most cases, political systems that are founded on democratic ideals will engage in what March
and Olsen have labelled ‘democratic governance’, i.e. a governance aimed at including citizens in
democratic processes (March & Olsen, 1995). Educational systems have played a significant role in
this respect in most Western countries (Green, 1997; March & Olsen, 2000). In recent years, we
have witnessed a renewed interest in how schools may contribute to the development of a
democratic citizenry (Hughes & Sears, 2008). Both the Council of Europe and the European Union
(EU) have promoted citizenship education (Birzea, 2004). Social studies, or equivalent subjects that
focus on current political and social issues, play a specific role in democratic citizenship education,
with the contribution of social studies in this regard being the main topic of this article.
Educational activities in general, not least citizenship education, are caught in a tension
between an ambition to support and sustain key values and institutions in society on the one hand,
and an ambition to educate each new generation to be critical and change oriented on the other
(Apple et al, 2009). Historically, the emphasis has been on legitimising the social and political order
(Hellinger & Judd, 1991). In fact, the need to legitimise has often been a main motive for
establishing compulsory schooling in the first place (Eikeland, 1989; Green, 1997; Lorentzen, 2005).
Some writers even apply the term ‘moralism’ to help designate this type of citizenship education
(Audigier, 1999; Leung & Wai Wa Yuen, 2012). A strong wish to discipline and integrate young
people into the existing order is a key motive behind recent citizenship education initiatives in
many countries (Davis et al, 2005).

431 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.431
Kjetil Børhaug

Since the early 1970s, the Norwegian national curricula for social studies have explicitly
challenged this rather paternalistic tradition, which has also been strong in Norway (Eikeland, 1989;
Lorentzen, 2005). In the current curriculum, it is stated that students should be trained to think
freely, critically, tolerantly and from various perspectives (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education,
2006, pp. 117-124).[1] It is also demanded that students discuss social problems and conflicts in
society, that they discuss principles of democracy, justice and tolerance, and that they compare
different societies. An emphasis on such critical thinking in citizenship education seems justified for
several reasons: increased levels of education, reflexivity and post-material values make it
increasingly difficult to engage young people in citizenship education without a large space for
critique and reflexion (Giddens, 1997; Sørbom, 2002). Furthermore, citizenship education is
supposed to serve democratic principles, and most conceptions of democracy imply critical and
independent citizens (Held, 1996). Political developments in Europe during the last financial crisis
also warrant a citizenry that is capable of informed critical assessments of both policies and of
political institutions and processes.
Norwegian research on the teaching of critical thinking in social studies primarily dates from
the 1970s, and suggests that at first the tradition of legitimising prevailed in spite of curricular
obligations to the opposite (Koritzinsky, 1972; Haavelsrud, 1979a; Børhaug & Christophersen,
2012). However, it is plausible to expect that after 40 years of a repeated curricular emphasis of
social studies as being focused on social and political critique, it would make an impact on how the
subject is being taught. However, as pointed out by Davies et al (2005), declining voter turnout
among young people may urge the school system to press harder for traditional civic virtues.
Moreover, as the nation state is increasingly challenged by globalisation processes, the wish to
consolidate political institutions will be stronger (Reid et al, 2010). As a result, there are strong
pressures for both critical approaches and for legitimising. How do schools balance these? The
research question that arises is therefore: To what extent are Norwegian students trained to think
critically about social and political issues in social studies?
The easy way to encourage critical thinking is to invite students to discuss and state their own
views, though unless the subject matter itself engages in or invites critical assessments, critical
thinking can only be a privatised appendix to an otherwise indisputable school subject. What we
will examine here is whether social studies contents provide resources for critical analysis and
discussion, with the attention limited to social studies in lower secondary education and the
method of research applied being one of textbook analysis. In this article, we will first argue that
critical thinking is important in most conceptions of democratic citizenship, and we will define
critical approaches. It will be explained why textbook analysis is chosen as the method of research,
and the results will show to what extent various types of problematisation are to be found in
textbooks. It will be argued that critical perspectives are articulated, but systematically directed at
issues that do not challenge core political and legal institutions, such as economic policy, non-
voters, non-democratic regimes far away, and racists. Political and legal institutions, the United
Nations (UN), and Norwegian multiculturalism are above any type of critical assessment. It can be
concluded that critical assessments are encouraged, albeit being guided in some directions and not
others.

Critical Thinking in Citizenship Education

Citizenship education is a very broad concept, and here we are concerned with those aspects of it
that relate citizens to political authorities (Gross & Dynneson, 1991; Woyach, 1991). Such political
education is a narrower concept than citizenship education, which includes relations to society at
large. In political education, we may distinguish between educating citizens to be able to
participate on the one hand, and educating citizens to form political opinions on the other (Delli
Carpini & Keeter, 1996). In this article, we will focus on the latter, as critical thinking is a key
component in the formation of political opinions in a democratic system.
Most theories of democracy imply a capacity among citizens to make critical judgements
about political issues, as well as about the functioning of political institutions themselves. In a
representative democracy, citizens have the right to decide who will be their governors
(Schumpeter, 1976; Held, 1996), which requires a critical assessment of the performance of the

432
Selective Critical Thinking

incumbents of key offices regarding both issues of policy and whether appropriate procedures have
been adhered to. The ideals of a direct, participatory democracy imply that people should be
involved in actual decision making (Pateman, 1970), thus raising stronger claims to making critical
assessments about issues that are to be decided. A deliberative democracy makes even stronger
demands on citizens’ capability to make critical judgements about basic values, policy options and
strategies, as well as institutional devices and appropriate procedures (Eriksen, 1995; Held, 1996).
This is what public deliberations are about. Thus, even if democratic citizenship can be based on
different notions of democracy, they all imply a capacity to problematise current social conditions
and raise alternatives. Deliberative and participatory democracy seem to require more than
representative democracy with concern to the scope of critical assessments; in particular, a
deliberative democracy implies that the very basic values and institutions in a political community
must be matters for democratic deliberation.

Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a complex concept. In an epistemological perspective, one’s attention is directed
to whether an argument is logically valid or whether there is empirical, factual support for
statements and assertions (Kolstø, 2001). Even if this type of critical thinking is important for the
formation of political opinions, it misses core elements of political opinion formation and political
debate. Critical political debate is most crucial when logics and facts do not provide an answer,
when values and norms are involved and when differing world views meet. Consequently,
education for critical citizenship has to introduce students to a political world where values and
world views are pitted against each other. A discourse theoretical perspective is therefore a more
useful framework for discussing different forms of critical thinking.
Discourse theory underscores that the social world is grasped and understood by means of
discourses, and that it is difficult to discover objective social realities (Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999).
We only know discourses about the world; we do not have objective and completely true
descriptions of it. Jørgensen and Phillips define this position as social constructivism:
understandings of reality are always socially constructed. This position does not necessarily entail
ontological relativism, as reality may well exist objectively, but our only way to grasp it is through
discourses (Burr, 1995).
The building blocks of discourses are signs, most often words or more precise concepts.
Meaning is attributed to such concepts by linking additional words and concepts to the first one.
Some concepts have a more superior and organising function in the discourse; they are nodal
points or nodal concepts, and discourses are built around them.
Some concepts are disputed, i.e. there are opposing views on what meaning they have and
how they relate to other concepts. They are floating signifiers, and various meanings compete to
define them. In some cases, this may take the discursive form of competing discourses that reject
each other, such as competing political ideologies in times of polarisation. Jørgensen and Phillips
label a set of competing discourses as a discursive field (1999), while in other cases it takes the form
of discourses that organise basic tensions, such as the discourse about the Norwegian party system,
which organises the parties along cleavages. Discourses are nested, and whether a certain concept
and its meaning is seen as a discourse or as an element in a larger discourse is a matter of what
serves the analytical task at hand. Where articulated discourses oppose each other, or where a
single discourse is organised around some competing ideas, a political space for judgement, choice
and the formation of political opinions is established. When there is agreement as to what reality
looks like and how one should deal with various problems, there is hardly any space for political
choice, critique and discussion.
It is difficult to imagine a textbook that first presents one truth and in the next section rejects
the truth that it first established, i.e. truly competing discourses will hardly be found in the same
textbook. It is more likely that textbooks may present discourses about various social fields that
include some of the most important tensions and contradictions that mark the field.
Discursive tensions and contradictions can take many forms, with some types seeming to be
particularly relevant in the case of social studies textbooks. First, discourses may display tensions
between normative standards and accounts of reality, e.g. actual non-voting can be confronted

433
Kjetil Børhaug

with norms of civic duties. Christine Leleux and Carsten Schnack have both argued for the
importance of elevating student discussions to a level where their debates relate to general
principles and standards (Schnack, 1995; Leleux, 1997). Falk Pingel also points to the importance of
explicit normative criteria for critical assessment. He writes that, since the 1970s, UNESCO has
recommended freedom and human rights as such normative criteria for critical assessments. Pingel
has also stressed the distinction between texts that contain multiple perspectives and those that do
not, as well as between monocausal and multicausal texts (1999). Referring to the works of
Herman Giesecke, Rolf Tønnesen also argues that what is controversial in a scientific field must
also be articulated in the school subject (Tønnesen, 1992). For instance, the UN is seen by some as
an arena for peaceful conflict resolution and the promotion of human rights, and by others as an
arena which institutionalises great power dominance. Pingel further points out the potential for
comparing conditions in different countries (1999), as such comparisons will show that there are
different ways of solving social problems and securing key functions, thus opening a space for the
choice and development of alternative political ideas. Lastly, social and political issues can be
problematised by showing that they are not self-evident, but are the result of reform and
governance (Koritzinsky, 1972; Haavelsrud, 1979b). The welfare state can be portrayed like this –
or as the result of a natural development that came with modernity.
In accordance with the above theoretical perspective, this article will ask whether the
discourses of social studies articulate tensions and contradictions in the form of competing
perspectives and understandings of social issues, whether comparisons show that different political
solutions are possible, whether principles and criteria for normative judgements are confronted
with accounts about social reality, and whether it is shown that social and political circumstances
result from political reform and choice. Where none of these appear, the subject matter discourses
will tend to present social and political issues as doxa, as beyond assessment and critique, and as
self-evident and natural.

Methods of Research
Textbooks are chosen as an empirical indicator for subject matter contents in social studies. This
choice does not imply an assumption that textbooks determine teaching. Textbooks can be used by
teachers as they see fit, and professional teachers combine textbooks with other resources (Dale,
1993). However, due to work overload, reform pressure, students with special needs, and scarce
subject matter knowledge, a teacher’s capacity to make such judgements is limited, so
consequently the textbook guides teaching contents and methods more than what the ideals of
teacher professionalism suggest (Christophersen et al, 2003; Skjelbred & Aamotsbakken, 2003;
Selander & Skjelbred, 2004). Regrettable as that may be, it offers methodological advantages since
textbooks stand out as convenient indicators of the main tendencies in school subjects.
We ask whether differing understandings of issues are explicated, whether there are
comparisons and explanations of how governance and reform have changed or may change social
processes and structures, and finally, whether norms that may be used for critical assessments are
being presented and whether they are being used for such critical purposes. The data materials are
the textbooks which were introduced after a curriculum revision in 2006. Four of the textbooks
have three volumes each, one for each school year in lower secondary education, while the fifth
textbook only has one volume.[2]
The textbooks cover many issues that critical citizens could be expected to have political
opinions about, and in this article the focus is on those presented at the macro level. What is left
out are primarily issues that are introduced as guidance aimed at helping young people to manage
their private lives, which includes personal economics and consumption, how to relate to mass
media and pressure towards consumerism, how to set up your own business, romantic
relationships and sexuality, personal relationships, drugs and alcohol. These are issues that could
have been framed as social issues to be politically regulated, and students could have been invited
to offer political opinions about this. But this is not how these issues are framed, as they are located
in the private sphere. The analysis will focus on issues that are presented as macro issues, e.g.
democratic principles, the political system, the legal system, international politics, the Norwegian
economy in a global context, and Norwegian culture, all of which represent some 50% of the

434
Selective Critical Thinking

learning targets in the national curriculum. The textbooks vary in length, from 250-270 pages to
340-350 pages, and in some, 50% of the pages are illustrations, although that goes down to 20% in
others.
The actual analysis took the form of searching for nodal concepts in the textbooks, as all
textbooks are organised around some main concepts and topics such as the legal system or
democracy (i.e. the macro issues mentioned in the above section). These most general concepts are
the nodal concepts. For each of these, we examined how a discourse was structured around them,
i.e. how more specific concepts, facts, images and causal relations were linked to nodal concepts,
thus elaborating their meaning. Hence, in this analysis we have termed the meaning attached to
each such nodal concept as a discourse.[3] It could have been argued that the entire textbook
content is one discourse. But the textbooks hardly relate the nodal concepts to each other. They are
not explicitly linked together in one discourse, so it makes more sense to see the textbooks as a
collection of loosely coupled discourses.
Because we first identified how the textbooks were organised into such main discourses, the
next step was to examine each discourse in order to see whether they included normative, critical
judgements from explicit criteria, whether there were comparisons between Norwegian conditions
and similar conditions elsewhere, whether they contained different perspectives and
understandings of any given social phenomenon, and whether they contained explicit references to
political reforms or proposed reforms concerning the issue at hand.

Results
The textbooks articulate discourses on the political system, culture, the legal system, and the
Norwegian economy in a global context, which are fairly similar in all textbooks. Different
discourses are only found concerning international relations, democratic principles, and to some
extent, the national economy.
We find two different discourses about democratic principles. The first, which is found in two
books, elaborates on the meaning of democracy by pointing out a brief historical development in
which democracy came from the ancient Greeks and finally reached Norway and the makers of the
Norwegian Constitution in 1814. Furthermore, it is understood as representative democracy,
which rests on human rights. In some countries, these principles are more respected than in others,
and Norway is an example of a democratic system without any reservations. The other discourse,
which is found in three books, contains the same meaning as the first, but adds that there is an
alternative to representative democracy, i.e. that of direct participation. These books show that
democratic systems can have different organisational solutions, such as different electoral systems.
With the exception of one, these three textbooks are sceptical to direct participation, with one of
them arguing that direct democracy would be: ‘Difficult to administer, perhaps impossible, in our
modern world. Even small states have so many citizens that there would not be enough places for
all in a square or a marketplace’ (Helland, 2008, p. 15).
The political system is another discourse found in all of the books, and is the same in all of
them. We treat it as being separate from the discourse on democracy because the national
curriculum makes this distinction and because the textbooks also make democratic ideas a separate
issue even if there are some links between them, i.e. that the political system is democratic without
reservation. The nodal concept of the political system is elaborated on and given meaning in all
books by adding the parliamentary chain from elections to parliament and the parliamentary
system of government. There are also brief descriptions of the main components in the local
governmental system. The elections are thoroughly examined, including the parties. Other types of
political participation, such as protests and interest groups, are also included, but more briefly. All
books stress that young people without the right to vote can also participate, i.e. by direct action
(which is not consistent with the scepticism against direct democracy). Moreover, all books
elaborate on what makes political participation worthwhile for young people by offering different
reasons.
There are two different discourses on international politics, including one discourse about
international cooperation for a peaceful world that stresses human rights as a universal normative
regime administered by the UN, which is found in all books. One book, however, goes much

435
Kjetil Børhaug

deeper into the matter and presents other international organisations as well in a less idealistic
approach, emphasising international cooperation as rational problem solving.
In all the textbooks, the same discourse about the legal system is articulated, which is
explained with the formal organisation of the courts at all levels, the formal procedures of trial and
appeal, the evolvement of young people’s rights and duties, the main types of crime and
punishment, and lastly the principles of the Rechtsstaat (principles of legality). One could have
expected that the legal system would have been related to the political system or the economic
system, but it is not.
Norwegian culture is a main issue in the textbooks, and here we also encounter one and the
same discourse in all. All of the textbooks explain cultural variations in Norway, and relate it to
immigration. Present day immigration is justified by pointing out that, 100 years ago, Norwegians
emigrated to the United States of America (USA) for the same reason people come to Norway
today. This brings progress, as stated in one of the book:
People coming to Norway from other countries bring different religions, customs, music,
clothing and traditions. Norwegians should respect and appreciate this. It makes Norway more
exciting and diverse when everyone is not the same. (Strand & Strand, 2006, p. 80)
It is explained that today’s Norwegian culture is this mixture of traditions and that Norwegian
culture has always been influenced from abroad in a good way. Old-fashioned assimilation policies
are now being supplanted by integration policies that respect diversity.
The Norwegian economy in a global context is presented in more diverse ways that cannot
easily be sorted in different discourses. With quite a bit of variation from book to book, the
commonalities are that all textbooks present the economy in terms of production and how
resources are used to meet the needs of society, with all but one textbook showing the economy in
terms of productive sectors, particularly in relation to the oil sector. They all explain different
elements of governmental economic policy. i.e. budgeting, fighting inflation and unemployment,
while four of them also explain a market economy in contrast to a planning economy, including
international trade.
Our research questions are to what extent do we find elements of critical thinking in these
discourses? The findings are summarised in Table I, with the first column indicating the main
discourses as outlined above using capital letters. Under each column are listed the more specific
concepts and notions linked to each of them (see above section). In the next columns are
indications as to whether we found each of the four types of critical assessment (+) or not (-).
Where there is ‘( )’ around the ‘+’ or the ‘-’ in the table, the main finding is somewhat modified.
The reason for this is indicated in a brief comment.

Nodal concept Comparisons Competing Politicised Normative

perspectives evaluations
DEMOCRACY (2). - - - -
Representative democracy,
Norway as perfect democracy.

DEMOCRACY (3). + + + (+) Are other

Representative vs direct countries
democracy, democracy as democratic?
criteria for normative
judgements, Norway as perfect
democracy.

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM (5). + - + (-) critique of

Formal set-up of the those who do
representative institutions, not vote
interest groups, adolescents as
participants, motivations for
political participation, local
government, the political
parties.

436
Selective Critical Thinking

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS - - (+) UN was (-) Some other

(5). United Nation’s work for a political countries do not
peace, human rights. Idealist project respect human
perspective. rights

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (-) different - - -

(1). Like above, added UN, EU organisations
and other international
organisations as rational
problem-solving cooperation in
an interdependent world.

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM (5). - (-) Competing - -

Formal structure of courts, explanations
formal aspects of court for criminal
proceedings, legal rights and activity
duties for adolescents, crime,
types of punishment, Norway as
Rechtsstaat.

NORWEGIAN CULTURE (5). (-) Immigration to - + (-) Critical to

Culture as concept, cultural USA historically those who are
pluralism in Norway, migration, compared with sceptical to
integration instead of immigration to immigrants
assimilation, being Norwegian . Norway

NORWEGIAN ECONOMY (5). (-). Comparions on - + +

Macro-economics (5), how to dispose oil
productive sectors (2), economic resources, poor and
policy (5), international rich countries
economic relations (5).

Table I. Elements of critical thinking.

Competing Understandings of Social and Political Issues

In most social science fields, there are competing notions of how social and political phenomena
are to be understood. For instance, there are differing theories about how the political system
works, what characterises the party system, and how power is distributed. Some would argue that
power resides in bureaucracy and expert networks, whereas others think it resides in Parliament
and the cabinet. There are conflicting views on how the legal system works and what causes crime,
and there are also very different ways of understanding the workings of national economies and the
links to transnational processes. Of course, it does not make much sense to present such theories in
textbooks for lower secondary education, though even quite elementary presentations for this age
group will most often convey one theory or notion and not another. Even very basic presentations
of the political system will be biased and based on some theories of power and not others. Insofar
as students are told that there are differing views on how to deal with criminals and how to
understand Norwegian culture, they are invited into a political space in which it makes sense to
have opinions because social conditions are not self-evident. One question is to what extent are
such controversies visible in the textbooks?
In the discourses on democratic principles, all textbooks have a main message that democratic
ideals equal representative democracy. In some of the books, this is the only notion of democracy.
In others, representative democracy is contrasted with direct democracy, which is rejected.
However, two different notions are included this way. Only one book presents these as two
approaches to democracy that are both valuable, thereby making it worthwhile to discuss
democracy, as it is not undisputed in terms of what it is.
There is only one discourse to be found about the political system, and within it only one
understanding of the system is articulated: the political system is a flawless representative

437
Kjetil Børhaug

democracy. Furthermore, representative institutions are supplemented by interest groups in a

pluralist fashion (Dahl, 1956; Lindblom, 1977), with a special emphasis placed on adolescents in the
pluralist interest group participation, as well as on political parties, which are presented in terms of
traditional social cleavages (Rokkan, 1987). Local governments are primarily introduced as
providers of welfare services, and there are no competing discourses about the political system, e.g.
about globalisation, patriarchy, bureaucratisation, or self-serving elites. A prominent point in this
discourse is that political participation, particularly voting, makes sense, which is addressed to
young people, whom one fears will abstain from joining political life as voters. Quite an amount of
different ideas are presented as to what makes voting meaningful, such as the individual pursuit of
interests or civic duty, although not as opposing ideas; instead, various ideas are a long list of
arguments for the assertion that voting makes sense.
The discourse on international politics is quite brief since this is not a main issue according to
the national curriculum. Nevertheless, in all but one book we find a discourse about international
work for human rights in which the UN is a core component, although there are no conflicting
views on international relations in general or on the UN. In only one book do we find this idealistic
UN model of international affairs juxtaposed with an outlining of different organisations that
cooperate because it is a rational way to solve problems.
The legal system is also a topic with only one discourse articulated in all the books, which
focuses on the layer of courts from local courts to the high court. The upwards process in this
system is explained, and the gradual introduction of legal rights and duties for teenagers is outlined.
There is also an explanation in this discourse as to why crime occurs and how it is punished, but
there are no opposing ideas, except when it comes to reasons for criminal behaviour. At this point,
different explanations are contrasted, i.e. societal versus individual explanations. Multicultural
Norway is quite extensively presented in one dominant discourse that demonstrates how
immigration has led to a new multicultural Norwegian culture, which is good, and that there is a
problem with those who do not agree that this is a good development. There are no tensions
between different understandings of the judiciary processes or cultural developments, and if
students are to discuss these subjects, they have to formulate disagreements with the textbook,
which says how things are, and which has the authority of the educational system at its back.
The chapters on the Norwegian economy are complex in the sense that there are many
elements in this discourse, and here the books vary more than on the other main themes. Some of
the books focus more on macro-economic concepts and on how production, unemployment,
inflation and macro-economic policies are related to each other, while other books focus more on
the key production activities taking place in Norway. But in neither case are there any openings for
competing notions about how the economy works, which is also the case when it comes to how
the Norwegian economy is integrated into the world economy.
In short, the discourses articulated in the textbooks about important social and political issues
are biased and tend to present only one understanding of the issue at hand. The image of reality
that is presented is uniform, with the exceptions being the reasons for criminal activity and to some
extent democratic ideals. Consequently, the textbooks authorise these understandings quite
systematically.

Critical Assessment
The most direct form of introducing students to critical thinking is of course that based on explicit
criteria, the textbooks may themselves offer critical analyses of various issues, with democracy,
equal rights and sustainable development all being examples of such normative frameworks that
offer a platform for critical evaluation. On the other hand, the textbooks may offer normative
discourses and invite the students to apply these themselves in a confrontation with political and
social issues they are familiar with.
The discourse about democratic values is a discursive resource for critical assessments, and
some of the textbooks also exemplify how such analyses may be done by evaluating whether other
countries have political systems that adhere to these norms and ideals. However, democratic ideals
are not applied in order to make critical assessments of the Norwegian political system. To the
contrary, there is no critique of it at all, and the textbooks insist without any reservations that the

438
Selective Critical Thinking

Norwegian system is fully democratic, sometimes labelling the political system ‘our democracy’.
Those who are being criticised are those who do not endorse the Norwegian political system, i.e.
those who do not vote. Likewise, there are no critical discussions of international organisations; in
particular, the UN is above any criticism. Nonetheless, some books point out that the EU is
controversial. In relation to the discourses about international affairs focused on the UN, human
rights are outlined in quite some detail, and the textbooks use these in assessments of how well
human rights are respected by various regimes elsewhere in the world.
The textbooks offer no critical judgements of the workings of the Norwegian legal system,
but most of them do introduce Rechtsstaat principles, such as the right to a fair trial and the rule of
law. These are powerful tools for critical judgements, though with very few exceptions, such
critiques are not developed. In contrast, the textbooks explicitly state that these principles are fully
respected in Norway, just as with democratic principles.
In the discourse about the emerging pluralist Norwegian culture, there are no critical
assessments, with the exception of a critical approach to those who oppose this development. In
the discourse on economics, there are more extensive critical evaluations. Economic policies and
activities are critically assessed in light of the principles of sustainability and the right to work, and
there are also introductions to the principles of market economy versus state controlled economy
as two different ideologies about how the economic system should be organised.
In total, the discourses found do include normative principles that are applied to assess social
and political issues to quite a degree. However, the critical analysis is more often directed to
conditions abroad and to politically marginal groups, such as non-voters and those opposed to
multiculturalism, though economic policy is also seen in a critical perspective.

Comparisons
Comparisons among different places and points in time serve the purpose of problematising social
and political conditions by showing that there are different solutions, in addition to showing that
alternative solutions are feasible. In the textbooks, there are comparisons between democratic
regimes in the West and non-democratic regimes, e.g. Iran, but of course such comparisons do not
serve as a stimulus to problematise Norwegian conditions. However, there are also comparisons of
constitutional set-ups and electoral systems among liberal, Western democracies in some of the
books when they present different political systems.
With only one exception, in which one book juxtaposes various international organisations,
the textbooks do not compare different types of international cooperation, nor the different ways
countries relate to the international level. In the discourse about the legal system, there are very
few comparisons, except for brief references to different policies concerning death sentences.
Norwegian multiculturalism and integration policies are not compared with other countries;
however, in this discourse, the current immigration to Norway is compared with Norwegians
migrating to the USA in the nineteenth century. The argument here is that migration is normal,
and that both migrants and the host country have benefitted from it historically. This comparison
serves to legitimise the current situation. There are not many comparisons in the discourses about
economics, with the exception of some comparisons with poor countries such as India, China and
the Congo. There are also comparisons in some books about how to distribute incomes from oil
exploitation. Nigeria and Norway have had different approaches, but of course this is a comparison
that problematises Nigerian policies, and not Norwegian ones.

Politicisation
If textbooks explicitly point out that certain conditions result from governance and reform, or that
there are possibilities for changing society by proposed reforms, then students are invited into a
political space in which it makes sense to have opinions about how things should be. For instance,
the legal system is developed by governance and can be redesigned.
Concerning the discourses on democratic ideals and the political system, there are discussions
about different electoral systems in some of the books, and it is therefore made explicit that such
systems may be redesigned. It has been debated for quite some time in Norway as to whether one

439
Kjetil Børhaug

should abandon or drastically reduce the regional level in the governmental structure, and several
of the textbooks refer to this debate as well. The presentations of the party system and various
other forms of political participation also point to some room for political choice. As for democratic
ideals, several books have a short historical background which shows how democracy has
historically spread. In some of these accounts, it is made clear that democracy was fought for by
intellectuals and the bourgeoisie, thus making democracy a chosen form of governance. In most
cases, the textbooks are brief on international politics, but to some extent, it is made clear that the
UN was a political project born in the aftermath of World War II.
The legal system is not treated as a system that has been designed or that may be redesigned
again. Of particular importance here is that there is very little mention of the role of law in the
courts and how laws are constantly changed. The politicising element concerning Norwegian
culture is that it is explained that the policy used to be assimilation, but that it is now integration. In
other words, there are governmental choices to be made.
The discourse on the economy distinguishes itself by discussing policy issues more
extensively than the other discourses. Readers are introduced to Keynes and to opposing views
regarding the role of the state in the economy. Moreover, policy problems concerning the disposal
of oil revenues, the balance between economic growth and sustainable development, as well as
trade political dilemmas, are all discussed.

Discussion
The analysis shows fairly similar discourses that are only very loosely interlinked. Within these
discourses, different views about what the world looks like and how it can be understood are very
rare. The social world is presented in terms of discourses that are uniform, with different reasons
for crime being an important exception. There are quite a number of comparisons in which
Norwegian conditions are compared to conditions elsewhere. However, these comparisons are
primarily applied not in order to shed a critical light on Norwegian society, but rather to show that
the Norwegian way is better.
The textbooks mainly invite critical thinking and the formation of political opinions by
politicising and by presenting normative standards – and to some extent by applying these
standards. These applications also have a tendency to be directed towards other countries, but
normative, critical approaches are after all introduced. Human rights, democracy, environmental
considerations, the rule of law and peaceful cooperation among nations are all quite explicitly
introduced as normative standards. Insofar as critical assessments are directed towards Norwegian
society, the national political and legal institutions are not involved. These core power holding
institutions are above critical assessment in Norwegian classrooms. The textbooks are more critical
of those who do not vote, those who oppose multiculturalism, and those who do not take
environmental considerations into account. There are no discussions about how democratic
various aspects of Norwegian politics are. To the contrary, in many books the political system is
made synonymous with democracy, and is labelled as ‘our democracy’. There are no critical
perspectives on the political parties or political leaders, and no critical debate on what role elections
actually play in the end. Likewise, the UN is above critical discussion. The textbooks thus still seem
to be focused on system legitimacy. However, within the framework of flawless institutions,
students are invited to have opinions on policy issues, in particular with concern to economic
policies, and the textbooks do come close to critical assessments of the market, which is also a
powerful social institution.
In total, system legitimacy is not the only objective. In the tension between legitimising the
existing order and educating critical citizens, social studies carefully attempts to do both. There are
elements of at least one of the types of critical approach in all of the main themes in social studies
examined here. It can therefore not be concluded that social studies does not invite critical
thinking, but rather that critical thinking is selective and guided in some directions and not others:
away from Norwegian power centres, and to a surprising extent, towards conditions in other
countries and to less powerful groups in Norwegian society. We could label this as education for
selective critical thinking. In terms of democratic theory, the notion of selectively critical citizens

440
Selective Critical Thinking

who should care about policy issues and not criticize the political and legal system comes close to
representative democracy. It is too narrow to suit the requirements of deliberative democracy.
Whether this means there is sufficient critical analysis in social studies is another matter.
Some would perhaps argue that one should be careful with too much problematisation, as this will
be too difficult for students. It is not easy to teach a subject matter with several truths, although
progressive educational perspectives would argue that debating and examining matters freely
should be the normal mode of teaching (Arneberg, 1994; Gutmann, 1999). Late modernity theory
points out that students will increasingly be exposed to conflicting discourses and will increasingly
need to find their way in a landscape of different truths and values (Giddens, 1997; Sørbom, 2002;
Krange & Øia, 2005). Schools must prepare for this. Social studies with a sharper critical edge could
also prove to be more motivating for students.
From a discourse theoretical perspective, Neuman (2001) argues that we should study the
universes of meaning that form the basis for human action, and which render some choices and
actions meaningful and others not. The educational system can be understood as an
institutionalisation of very basic discourses in society. Such institutionalisation is reflected in the
finding that the discourses in the textbooks are the same, though with some exceptions. We see the
contours of an institutionalised mode of presenting society to new generations of citizens, as
textbook writers primarily write within the same framework. These discourses are frames for
students’ thinking and will manifest themselves in what students are able or unable to conceive of.
Therefore, discourses are power, and in our case they facilitate some types of critical thinking and
not others. They also help facilitate critical assessments of many types, but not of the powerful
institutions, with a partial exception for the market economy.
The school subject, as it can be studied in textbooks, must be seen as one of numerous
discursive resources available to students, who might also be exposed to other discourses from
peers, family, interest groups, organisations, political parties, traditional mass media, and digital
sources (Dekker, 1994). Textbooks distinguish themselves from others because they, as well as the
school in general, have the status of being approved and authorised (Selander & Skjelbred, 2004).
Nevertheless, the educational system functions in a complex interplay with other discursive
sources. To what extent do students encounter more critical discourses elsewhere? Furthermore,
such discourses can be found in many places, but are they to be found where young people go? We
cannot assume that they are; thus critical thinking at school is all the more important.

Conclusion
Democratic citizenship implies a capacity for the critical assessment of current social conditions and
discussions of alternatives. In this article, the question was raised as to whether Norwegian social
studies explicitly offers discourses about society that open up for and illustrate critical discussion. A
distinction was made among competing accounts of social and political life, comparisons with
other countries, politicisation, and critique based on general normative notions. These are four
important types of critical approaches in subject matter content allowing for critical discussion and
assessment. It was found that in all of the main themes examined, we found at least one type of
critical thinking to be encouraged, particularly in relation to politicisation and normative critique. It
must therefore be concluded that critical assessments are encouraged by this school subject,
although the criticism is selective and never directed towards important political and legal
institutions. The legitimacy of the political system hence remains a key consideration.

Notes
[1] In the Norwegian educational system, social studies, history and geography are lumped together into
one school subject at the primary and lower secondary levels. The name of this subject might be
translated as ‘society subjects’. In this article, we are only concerned with the social studies
component that deals with policies and current social and economic issues.
[2] The books are:
MATRIKS
Andresen, G., Horne, T. & Hylland Eriksen, T. (2008) Matriks 10. Samfunn. Oslo: Aschehoug.

441
Kjetil Børhaug

Andresen, G., Horne, T., Nicolaysen, H. & Skurdal, M. (2007) Matriks 9. Samfunn. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Andresen, G., Olsen, T., Nicolaysen, H. & Skurdal, M. (2006) Matriks 8. Samfunn.
Oslo: Aschehoug.
MONITOR
Berner, E.S. & Borge, T. (2006) Monitor 1. Oslo: Cappelen.
Berner, E.S., Borge, T. & Olsen, T.H. (2007) Monitor 2. Oslo: Cappelen.
Berner, E.S., Borge, T. & Olsen, T.H. (2008) Monitor 3. Oslo: Cappelen.
MAKT OG MENNESKE
Helland, T. & Aarre, T. (2006) Makt og menneske. Samfunnskunnskap 8. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Helland, T. (2007) Makt og menneske. Samfunnskunnskap 9. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Helland, T. (2008) Makt og menneske. Samfunnskunnskap 10. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
UNDERVEGS
Strand, M.M.& Strand, T. (2006) Undervegs. Samfunnskunnskap 8-10. Oslo: Gyldendal.
KOSMOS
Nomdal, J.H. (2006) Kosmos 8. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Nomedal, J.H. & Bråthen, S. (2008a) Kosmos 9. Bergen: Forlaget fag og kultur.
Nomedal, J.H. & Bråthen, S. (2008b) Kosmos 10. Bergen: Forlaget fag og kultur.
[3] The analysis is done by the author, except for the analysis of economics which was conducted by
Jonas Christophersen at Bergen University College. A more detailed analysis is available in
Norwegian (Børhaug & Christophersen, 2012).

References
Apple, M., Au, W. & Ganding, L.A. (2009) Mapping Critical Education, in M. Apple, W. Au, & L.A. Gandin
(Eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education. New York: Routledge.
Arneberg, P. (1994) Kan skolen oppdra til demokrati? Oslo: Ad Notam – Gyldendal.
Audigier, F. (1999) L’education a la citoyennete. Paris: Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique.
Birzea, C. (2004) EDC policis in Europe – a synthesis, in Council of Europe (Ed.) All European Study on
Education for Democratic Citizenship Policies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Børhaug, K. & Christophersen, J. (2012) Autoriserte samfunnsbilder. Kritisk tenkning i samfunnskunnskap. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
Burr, V. (1995) Social Constructivism. London: Routledge.
Christophersen, J., Lotsberg, D.Ø., Børhaug, K., Knutsen, K. & Dolve, K. (2003) Evaluering av samfunnsfag i
Reform 97. Bergen: Høgskolen i Bergen.
Dahl, R. (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dale, E.L. (1993) Den profesjonelle skole. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Davis, I., Evans, M. & Reid, A. (2005) Globalizing Citizenship Education? A Critique of Global Education and
Citizenship Education, British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66-89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00284.x
Dekker, H. (1994) Socialization and Education of Young People for Democratic Citizenship. Theory and
Research, in L. Edwards, P. Munn & K. Fogelmann (Eds) Education for Democratic Citizenship in Europe –
new challenges for secondary education. Hamburg: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Eikeland, H. (1989) Fortid, nåtid, framtid. En fagdidaktisk innføring om undervisning i o-fag og samfunnsfag. Oslo:
TANO.
Eriksen, E.O. (1995) Deliberativ politikk. Oslo: TANO.
Giddens, A. (1997) Modernitet og selvidentitet. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Green, A. (1997) Education, Globalization and the Nation State. London: Macmillan.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230371132
Gross, R.E. & Dynneson, T.L. (1991) The Educational Perspective, in R.E. Gross, & T.L. Dynneson (Eds)
Social Science Perspectives on Citizenship Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gutmann, A. (1999) Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haavelsrud, M. (1979a) Indoctrination or Politicization through Text Book Content, International Journal of
Political Education, 3, 67-84.

442
Selective Critical Thinking

Haavelsrud, M. (1979b) Indoktrinering eller politisering? Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.

Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Helland, T. (2008) Makt og menneske. Samfunnskunnskap 10. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Hellinger, D. & Judd, D. (1991) The Democratic Facade. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hughes, A.S. & Sears, A. (2008) The Struggle for Citizenship Education in Canada: the centre cannot hold, in
J. Arthur, I. Davies & C. Hahn (Eds) Education for Citizenship and Democracy. Los Angeles: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200486.n11
Jørgensen, M.W. & Phillips, L. (1999) Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Fredriksberg: Roskilde
Universitetsforlag.
Kolstø, S.D. (2001) Science Education for Citizenship: thoughtful decision-making about science-related social issues,
vol. 1. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
Koritzinsky, T. (1972) Samfunnsfag og påvirkning. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Krange, O. & Øia, T. (2005) Den nye moderniteten. Ungdom, individualisering og mening. Oslo: Cappelen.
Leleux, C. (1997) Repenser l’éducation civique. Paris: CERF.
Leung, Y.W. & Wai Wa Yuen, T. (2012) Competition between Politicized and Depoliticized Versions of
Civic Education Curricula: the case of Hong Kong, Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 11(1),
45-56.
Lindblom, C. (1977) Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.
Lorentzen, S. (2005) Ja, vil elsker ... Skolebøker i den norske nasjonsbyggingsprosessen, 1814-2000. Oslo: Abstrakt
forlag.
March, J. & Olsen, J.P. (1995) Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.
March, J. & Olsen, J.P. (2000) Democracy and Schooling: an institutional perspective, in L. Mc Donnell,
P.M. Timpane, & R. Benjamin (Eds) Rediscovering the Democratic Purpose of Education. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Neuman, I. (2001) Mening, makt og materialitet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pingel, F. (1999) UNESCO Guidebook on Textbook Research and Textbook Revision. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche
Buchhandlung.
Reid, A., Gill, J. & Sears, A. (2010) The Forming of Citizens in a Globalizing World, in A. Reid, J. Gill, &
A. Sears (Eds) Globalisation, the Nation State and the Citizen. London: Routledge.
Rokkan, S. (1987) Stat, nasjon, klasse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Royal Norwegian Ministry of Knowledge (2006) Kunnskapsløftet. Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry of
Knowledge.
Schnack, K. (1995) Democratization, Citizenship and Action Competence, in K. Jensen, O.B. Larsen &
S. Walker (Eds) Democracy in Schools, Citizenship and Global Concern, vol. 18. København: Royal Danish
School of Educational Studies.
Schumpeter, J. (1976) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 5th edn. London: Routledge.
Selander, S. & Skjelbred, D. (2004) Pedagogiske tekster for kommunikasjon og læring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Skjelbred, D. & Aamotsbakken, B. (2003) Det flerkulturelle perspektivet i lærebøker og andre læremidler.
Sluttrapport. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i Vestfold.
Sørbom, A. (2002) Vart tar politiken vegen? Om individualisering, reflexivitet och gørbarhet i det politiska
engagementet. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Strand, M.M. & Strand, T. (2006) Undervegs. Samfunnskunnskap 8-10. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Tønnesen, R. (1992) Demokratisk dannelse i tysk perspektiv. 20 års diskusjon om Herman Gieseckes syn på den
politiske oppdragelsen. Trondheim: Universitetet i Trondheim. Den allmennvitenskapelige høgskolen.
Woyach, R.B. (1991) The Political Perspective. Civic Participation and the Public Good, in R.E. Gross &
T.L. Dynneson (Eds) Social Science Perspectives on Citizenship Education. New York: Teachers College
Press.

443
Kjetil Børhaug

KJETIL BØRHAUG is a political scientist and professor at the University of Bergen, Faculty of
Social Science, Norway. His main research area is political socialisation and education. He has
published on social studies and civic education and on the possibilities for democratic participation
at school. He has also worked with school and pre-school management and pre-school education
public policy. Correspondence: kjetil.borhaug@aorg.uib.no

444