In historical research, the theory of history tends to be merely negotiated implicitly. Explicit exchanges about the quality, usefulness and pertinence of theory of history remain unspoken as a rule. Under the heading “Theory of History Polyphonic” we would therefore like to collect draft ideas on what theory of history can and should achieve. These drafts will form the polyphonic basis for rethinking theory of history on the blog. We would very much appreciate receiving your drafts, preferably in thesis form, outlined in a text of one to three pages. You may find the following questions a useful guideline:
- What does theory of history actually mean and what can it achieve?
- To what fields does theory of history offer added value? To history? To society? Or to other disciplines?
- What does it mean when we speak of “theory of history”? Shouldn’t we always be referring to “theories of history? Are we talking about theory(ies) of history as an object of research, as a representation of past events or as a research field after all?
- What is the relationship between theory of history and historical research?
- How does the theory of history differ from the philosophy of history?
- How relevant is the theory of history in your own academic culture?
- From an international perspective, does the theory of history have national or other distinctive characteristics? Can this be justified from a historical viewpoint?
