History is critical: Addressing the false dichotomy between historical inquiry and criticality

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article discusses the false dichotomy between criticality and historical inquiry. We argue that adding “critical” to “historical inquiry” can be interpreted as something distinct, instead of integral, to historical inquiry. It can normalize the idea that historical thinking is not critical, which, in turn, upholds the illusion that historical inquiry research is not inherently ideological or political. It inadvertently reifies a false dichotomy that silos historical inquiry scholarship into two camps: one that is deemed political because it directly engages in criticality and another that is deemed apolitical because it claims objectivity. We make three assertions: historical inquiry is already critical; history education research and critical scholarship share common commitments; and historical thinking should embrace the tension and other forms of knowledge as necessary to developing as a field. We conceptualize this tension as a space of possibility that repairs the marginalization of and centers Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian American knowledge.