0

Geschichtsschreibung und kollektive Identitäten – gibt es einen ‚self-relfexive turn‘?

Stefan Berger – Wir alle wissen, daß der Aufstieg der Geschichtsschreibung im 19. Jahrhundert einhergeht mit einer Nationalisierung der historischen Perspektive. Der „methodische Nationalismus“ der Geschichtswissenschaft hatte viel zu tun mit ihrer Funktion als Legitimationswissenschaft. Konnten die professionellen Historiker auf Grund ihrer angeblichen methodischen Überlegenheit behaupten, die einzigen zu sein, die autoritativ über die Vergangenheit urteilen und diese interpretieren konnten, so waren sie für diejenigen, die in den Nationalstaaten Macht ausübten, überaus interessant und oftmals willfährige Werkzeuge der Herrschaftslegitimation. Aber auch oppositionelle Gruppierungen und soziale Bewegungen, etwa die Nationalbewegungen in denjenigen Territorien, in denen sich das nationalstaatliche Prinzip im 19. Jahrhundert noch nicht durchgesetzt hatte, bedienten sich gerne der Geschichtswissenschaft, um ihren Forderungen wissenschaftlichen Glanz und damit Nachdruck zu verleihen.

1

Why is there no “Progress” in Philosophy of History?

Frank Ankersmit – Let me begin this blog post with a little anecdote. In 1994 Hans Kellner and I conceived of the plan to publish a collection of essays on the state of philosophy of history at that time. We dressed up a list of philosophers of history we might invite to contribute to the collection. We asked these potential contributors whether they would be willing to write an essay on existing philosophy of history from their own point of view and, next, what expectations they had for its future development. We hoped, of course, that the then most influential philosophers would graciously accept our invitation. So Arthur Danto was at the top of our list: after all, what book has been more influential than Arthur Danto’s Analytical Philosophy of History of 1965 – with the possible exception of Hayden White’s notorious Metahistory of 1973?

0

Is There a Place for Monuments in the “New Historical Condition”?

Moira Pérez – In recent years, various authors of theory and philosophy of history have suggested we are experiencing a “new historical condition”, which Zoltán Boldizsár Simon and Marek Tamm have characterized as driven by the “anthropocenic and technoscientific transformations of our lifeworlds”. The existence of such a condition has been widely debated, as have its challenges and ramifications in relation to long-standing conceptions of temporality and time scale, the human and the non-human, the natural and the artificial, among others. Many of these works are tinted by a feeling of uncertainty, of exploring and analysing something while we are not really sure what it is or what will emerge from it.

0

And If History Were to Turn Its Back on the Future? A Thought-provoking Interjection

Lisa Regazzoni – “How do we want to write history in the future?” Invited to a roundtable to provide input in response to this apparently straightforward question, I had a sense of unease and quite a few difficulties. Not because I have no vision of how I would like to write history or because I’m incapable of imagining how history could or should be written in the future, assuming history is still told or represented in written form. My unease comes from having to link ideas such as “want to”, “writing history” and “future” in the same sentence.

Knowledge Design Meets Media Design: Multimodal Communication of Knowledge Structures

Christian Wachter – “Design is making sense of things.” Klaus Krippendorff makes this statement to emphasize that designing communicative objects has far-reaching consequences. Design impacts on the messages, meanings, and knowledge to be communicated. It is Krippendorff’s interpretation of a basic position well-known in media and communication studies: ‘Design’ is primarily considered ‘expressive’ rather than ‘aesthetically appealing’.
Beitrag in Deutsch Post in English

Critical Marxism and the Theory of History: Antonio Labriola’s “Difference”

Davide Bondì – At the turn of the 20th century, Antonio Labriola developed a critical conception of Marxism that still merits consideration today. First and foremost, he rejected the teleological point of view – advanced by many communist scholars in the second half of the 19th century and by quite a few in the 20th – according to which it is possible to envisage or “foresee” future society. Instead of a grand narrative or a total vision capable of telling us what the future will or should be like, Labriola conceives of Marx’s historical dialectic as a “philosophy of praxis”.
Contributo in italiano Post in English

0

Postkoloniale Entwürfe einer dichtenden Klio

Christine Gerwin – Auf der Suche nach Alternativen zur „westlichen“ Geschichtsschreibung greifen manche Historiker*innen in Asien und Afrika auf Mythos und Dichtung zurück, um ihre jeweils eigenen Geschichtsbegriffe und Traditionen der Geschichtsschreibung einzufangen. Dichtung und Geschichtsschreibung? Inwiefern kann diese Verzahnung als kulturspezifisch bezeichnet werden und welche Rolle spielt Literarizität für diese Geschichtsschreibung?

0

Marxismo critico e teoria della storia: la “differenza” di Antonio Labriola

Davide Bondì – Alle soglie del Novecento, Antonio Labriola elabora una concezione critica del marxismo che merita attenzione ancora oggi. Anzitutto, egli rifiuta il punto di vista teleologico – avanzato da molti studiosi comunisti della seconda metà dell’Ottocento e da non pochi del Novecento – secondo cui è possibile prevedere o «antivedere» la società futura. In luogo di una grande narrazione o di una visione per totalità capaci di dirci come sarà o come deve essere l’avvenire, Labriola concepisce la dialettica storica di Marx come una «filosofia della praxis».
Contributo in italiano Post in English

Der Einbruch des Singulären. Arlette Farge und die Co-Autorschaft des Archivs

Timo Luks – Historiker*innen gehen ins Archiv und berichten von ihren Funden. Bei Arlette Farge steht die Archivalie für einen Einbruch des Singulären: eigensinnig, sperrig, eine Provokation für jeden Versuch allgemeiner Theoriebildung. Wie verändern sich Theoriearbeit und Schreibweisen, wenn wir – mit Farge – die Co-Autorschaft der Archivalie anerkennen?
Post in English Beitrag in Deutsch

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search