Subject didactics has contact points to (1) other educational sciences such as pedagogy, pedagogical work, general didactics and education studies, (2) the school subject / subject area, and (3) practical teaching (Sjöström, 2018a). This model is only one of several different ways to understand subject didactics as a knowledge field (Cramer & Schreiber, 2018). Comparative studies of different areas of subject didactics are usually referred to as "comparative subject didactics" (e.g., Ligozat & Almqvist, 2018). I am interested in such studies as well as in what unites different subject didacts, i.e. what can be called "general subject didactics" (see e.g. Hopmann, 2007; Kansanen, 2009; Sjöström, 2018a). Wolfgang Klafki’s (2000/1958) five question areas about the subject matter and teaching are applicable on all subject areas. They deal with the structure and relevance of the content and implications for teaching and learning in and about the subject. Generally, I would argue that there are two main types of subject didactics, splitting all subject-specific didactic areas. The first type is empirical-analytical and is emphasizing the scientific side (in a quite narrow sense). The other type is humanistic-aesthetic and is – in addition to empirical-analytical aspects – also emphasizing philosophical-ethical and practical-aesthetic aspects of didactics. I would claim that Klafki’s Bildung-oriented didactics belongs to this second type. At the conference I will present a general model for humanistic subject didactics. It is helpful as a tool when reflecting about different aspects of subject didactics from humanistic perspectives for a specific subject area. The model consists of three reflection levels/areas as well as both socio-cultural-historical perspectives and worldview perspectives in a broad sense. An integrative worldview is especially interesting from a sustainability perspective (Hedlund-de Witt, 2014), and also an eco-reflexive approach (Sjöström, 2018b).