The idea behind multiperspectivity in history is that including multiple points of view into historical analysis should reduce tensions in multicultural societies and enable various and contradicting perspectives to coexist simultaneously, thus leading to a more coherent society. However, although multiperspectivity has been introduced into the history curricula of the majority of the European countries, its reception has not been successful, considering that recent studies show an increase of the national approach in history education.
In times of rapid social changes and uncertainty – stability is what society strives for. Compared to multiperspectivity, with its roots in the complicated idea of unity in diversity, constructing a strong national identity is seen as a more effective way of achieving this stability.
In my paper I will analyse the integrational patterns of these two approaches in order to clarify why is multiperspectivity promoted over national narratives in educational politics as a more effective way for establishing social unity. My research is based on Jörn Rüsen’s ideas of historical thinking and Jury Lotman’s semiotics of the cultural self-description. I will focus on the collision points between the Estonian national narrative and the historical consciousness of the Russian minority in Estonia questioning how could multiperspectivity lead to a society where historical diversity does not entail conflict, but can instead initiate a dialogue.
