Call for Papers: Political Theory in the Historical Sciences and Historical Theory in Political Science – an Interdisciplinary Encounter
A joint Call for Papers by the blogs Theory of History at Work and theorieblog.
Theory of History at Work and theorieblog.de are blog platforms designed to address basic theoretical questions of their disciplines (history and political science) for a wider audience. Time to start working together!
We want to explore how and with what implications historical theory assumptions, historicity concepts and historical narratives have come about in political theory, and conversely ask what political and social-theoretical premises can be identified in academic historiography. Why do they emerge there and to what effect? What are the implicit or explicit ideas about the past in political theories and how much history is involved? What historical (master) narratives and development concepts do political theories refer to in formulating and justifying their arguments? And, conversely, what political positions or social theories are inscribed in the historical narratives and heuristics employed by modern historiography? What assumptions about society—such as ideas of social and political justice, democracy and participation—does historical writing invoke, at least implicitly, and what are the political objectives pursued consciously or unconsciously in the process? More generally: to what extent are social-theoretical elements unavoidable in historical arguments and what historical legitimations and reconstructions are indispensable for political and social-theoretical reasoning? Do the two theoretical domains therefore necessarily (and implicitly) refer to one another?
These and other related questions lie at the heart of the experimental and open-end dialogue we wish to engage in with the two blogs. Exchanges proceed from the assumption that political theory, insofar as it takes up, rewrites or reconfigures historical conceptions, is almost always a form of historiography. Likewise, writing of any kind about history is a political act—even if it does not explicitly articulate a political goal. Moreover, political theory is always situated within a specific historicity. Hence, any recourse to the past, any reliance on development narratives or ideal goals, takes place within the framework of one’s own positionality and entanglement in intellectual history. Conversely, historical writing is always embedded in social and political discourses and exists in continuous response to political positions and social-theoretical models and assumptions.
Through interdisciplinary cross-analysis, reciprocal reading and joint reflection, both blogs aim to shed light on certain elements of political thinking, historical research and historiography that, although implicit, unconscious or poorly reflected upon, exert considerable influence. Through this two-way observation, we hope to render disciplinary blind spots more visible, on the one hand, and use insights gained productively, on the other, both within and across disciplines.
Our interest in dialogue of this kind is based on several observations. Firstly, reflecting on temporality, on societal and epoch-specific conceptions of time, and how best to theorize these methodologically is a core concern of historical theory within the historical sciences, particularly in terms of the reconstruction and representation of historical events, structures and processes. Inevitably, however, this work relies on socially preconfigured variables and social-theoretical categories, the universal validity of which cannot be taken for granted. From a political theory perspective, these categories can often be read as anthropological assumptions, culturally specific norms open to deconstruction, or ideological constructions.
Secondly, political theory—understood here as political theory and the history of ideas—likewise operates with conceptions of historicity. It frequently argues with linear historical references that, from the historical sciences viewpoint, may appear overly superficial or be treated with greater nuance—whether at the macro level (e.g., concepts of progress and civilization, political utopias), at the institutional level (e.g., deliberative procedures), or in pedagogical contexts (e.g., processes of learning from the past).
Thirdly, there are shared challenges. In light of recent political developments, many areas of the humanities and social sciences have been exposed to polemical attacks whenever they confront contemporary problems with historically grounded normative evaluations and comparisons. At the same time, as a result of recent developments in science policy and academic organization, both disciplines have come under increasing pressure to justify their research publicly in terms of evidence, applicability and concrete benefits. In this context, historical, comparative and genealogical topics and methods are particularly susceptible to instrumentalization, as they are encouraged to demonstrate their relevance by highlighting or even overstating more or less plausible links to the present. In doing so, historical, political, epistemic, and cultural differences between the object of research and the present are at risk of being flattened in order to meet popular and/or funding-oriented expectations. The growing tendency to prioritize research that promises swift economic benefits or an immediate relevance to the present threatens to trivialize history and render it indistinguishable from the present.
We welcome contributions that actively seek to establish a link between the two disciplines (including those of a tense or conflictual nature) or those that examine from a disciplinary perspective the texts, discourses and theories of the other discipline with regard to their underlying assumptions. Possible guiding questions include the following thematic complexes:
What forms of temporality and constructions of time are at work? To what extent can specific constructions of time be instrumentalized? For what purpose, to what end?
What forms of malleability are attributed to past, present and future? Are they imagined as open or rather as conditioning, preconfigured or predetermined? To what extent do concepts such as reparation, restitution, prognosis, or future scenarios convey ontological assumptions of openness or closure?
What role does normative content—ethical, moral and/or political—play in constructions of past, present and future? Is a utopian or prescriptive potential required? Do such prescriptions operate in emancipatory ways or can they also produce forms of closure?
What historical interpretations have become authoritative and seemingly unassailable truths by means of sustained repetition and function as unquestioned premises in the construction of one’s own arguments?
How do collective and individual-subjective levels relate to one another? How do they interact, and what importance is attributed to the level of action? Who acts, and how? And who is even considered a viable subject?
To what extent are theorists and historians acting politically when they grant visibility to a collective defined by race, class or gender as “Us” or to non-anthropocentric groups? What forms of substantialization are at play to give these collectives a certain trajectory and temporal stability? How are collectives constituted—despite constant change—as subjects of one and the same history or social theory?
What is the role of materiality when it comes to reflectingon temporality? On what timescales are preservation practices, accessibility strategies, digitization plans, and archival policies conceived? Conversely, what notions of material permanence, i.e., of archives, libraries and cultural heritage, tend to resonate subconsciously in one’s own scholarly referencing practices, for instance in literature, on websites, or in archival sources?
Contributions of up to 1,800 words in German or English should be submitted by 12 April 2026. Please note that English contributions will be published exclusively on Theory of History at Work.
We welcome and look forward to your submissions.
For further enquiries, please contact the editorial team of Theory of History at Work (gtw[at]uni-bielefeld.de) or the editorial team of theorieblog (team[at]theorieblog.de).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The text only may be used may be used under licence Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 4.0 International. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Editorial Board (January 13, 2026). Call for Papers: Political Theory in the Historical Sciences and Historical Theory in Political Science – an Interdisciplinary Encounter. Geschichtstheorie am Werk. Retrieved February 5, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/15hnv

