This is the third of a three-part post focusing on what I term, following Caroline Coffin, the “language of history” and substantive concepts.
After the first post
set out a broad theoretical framework, and the second post proposed
approaches to foreign-language terms as substantive concepts, this post argues
that we should aim not just to teach students to use substantive concepts but
also to question and critique them.
I’ll be presenting on this
topic with colleagues at the upcoming Schools History Project (SHP) conference
in Leeds in July 2025, so this is also a first attempt to set out and develop a
broad methodological approach to this work.
Questions, comments, and
criticisms are very much welcome!
George Orwell once argued, “The worst thing one can do with words is to surrender to them.” If language is there "for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought, let the meaning choose the word, not the other way about." (Orwell, quoted by Brubaker and Cooper, 2000)
Accepting uncritically the words others give us is to surrender to them. It means us and our world being defined by others in their terms. Mastering and manipulating words to our own ends means we can define ourselves and our world in our own terms.
In that case, words in the classroom hold enormous power. They
give us, the teachers choosing the words and how to use them, power. They can
also give our students, if they can master those words for themselves, power.
In relation to substantive concepts – those weighty
conceptual terms we use to group together different phenomena the past – we
have a responsibility to not just teach our students concepts, but also to invite
them to question and critique those concepts.