We have, then, the emergence of the second condition of possibility to the constitution of the linguistic turn, more properly epistemological. From the radical acceleration of time, typical of modernity, arises the questioning ofhistory represented and, yet, the possibility of a radical questioning of its function, a process that will be vigorously reedited within the linguistic turn, and, more, it will be crucial to the emergence of the philosophies ofhistoryand historicisms, which, on their turn, will end up enabling (and liberating) the significant questioning of each and every privileged relationship between language and reality, which is a primary problem within the traditions converging in the linguistic turn. From the philosophies ofhistory, we have a first answer that has not been absorbed by ‘History’, which guided historicists in developing their reflections and methodologies. Historicists suggested that the problem of philosophies ofhistory was not their diagnosis of ‘History’, but actually the way or form proposed, which was profoundly arbitrary and ‘subjective’. They would not have been able to thematize with due attention and care the basic position of men in general, including men of science, their positioning within a transcendental and, therefore, determinant world. In other words, historicists evidenced (and liberated) a radical problem - the relationship of intimacy between enunciations, including historiographical ones, and the worlds from which they became possible. For such, there would be the possibility of constituting a set of methods and protocols able to open up a controlled access to historical reality, thus ensuring the possibility of evidencing senses proper to the necessary realization of ‘History’ as reality-process, granting humanity the appropriate conditions to progress and to diminish suffering.
Century (MENDIOLA 2003). There, it can be seen how, in a society governed by a secondary oral culture – where the oral forms of communication coexist with the calligraphic written forms – the classical rhetoric manuals were adapted to reinforce and ensure the communicative interchanges established predominantly on the edge of orality. In this way, the resource of art of the old rhetoric allowed to give a certain temporary depth to social relationships branded by presentism and ensure new communicative links. But above all, rhetoric fulfilled the role of strengthening the possibility of obtaining the acceptance or recognition between an alter and an ego during this period. Besides, the use of rhetoric – supported on the incipient development of printing – coincided with the first outbreaks of the “methodical” revolt against the same rhetoric. It was a moment when the mandate of observation of nature with our own eyes, as a reaction to the growing multiplication and circulation of printed books, began imposing itself. Thus, the coming up problem, which belongs to the structuring of the scientific field, is related to the type of mechanisms that an increasingly literate society had to develop to solve the problem of distant communication implied in the growing production of printed matter. What kind of mechanisms were implanted in the substitution process of rhetoric to ensure the acceptance of non- -allegoric empirical enunciates? The answer could be found in the emergence and development of the “symbolically generalized media”, central notion in Luhmann’s theoryof society, to which I shall refer in the next section.
no doubt important; yet, he keeps silent about changes in systematic structures, the main concern of post-structuralists such as Derrida, Foucault, Barthes and Lacan. Structuralism and post-structuralism would thus complement each other. On the other hand, the author associates structuralism with the superstructure of market economy, which dictates the choices individuals make and at once leads them to think they are truly free. Here an important role is played by Jean-Paul Sartre’s existencialism along with the Marxist view ofhistoryand society. White remembers that Roland Barthes once made him turn his attention to the theoryof discourse and narrative and then to its tropological aspect; narrative discourse is adequate in some contexts but not in others. During the course of the interview, he thanks the interviewer for establishing a date for one of his writings, since he has changed his mind several times over the fifty years he has been writing. White also declares his predilection for modernism in literature due to its experimental work, thus questioning aesthetics of taste. As he points out, modernism results from the realization that the world we live in has no real essence or substance. Aristotelian substance theory is dead. Which implies the end of metaphysics and religion. Things are what they appear to be, there is no such things as an essence. In short, the interview seems to point to a self-examination of sorts: Hayden White’s formalist stance on the fundamental issue of the oppositions “event vs. structure” and “determinism vs. free will” no longer suffice to account for them, as he once defended in Metahistory, hence the importance of “mediations”. 13
The article section in this first issue opens with the publication of a text on one of the keywords in the debate about historiography over the last four decades: “meta-history”, a concept created by Hayden White and here discussed by Herman Paul. Next, Ansgar Schaefer discusses the relation between visual and verbal representations of the past, analyzing the TV documentary series A Guerra [The War], pro- duced by the journalist Joaquim Furtado, which shows the colonial wars that led the African countries under Portuguese imperial rule to independence. The image is also the focus of a third article, by Mariana Pinto dos Santos, which discusses and analyses the work and legacy of José-Augusto França in art history writing, contributing to a critical historyofhistoriography in Portugal. Then, Mikko Toivanen analyses the latest developments in Comparative Historyand Global History, using the state of the art on the Historyof China as its object. Closing this section – and matching our intent that the journal’s self-reflexive purpose would open up a space for the historyof humanities and social sciences – there is an article where Bernardo Pinto da Cruz and Diogo Ramada Curto examine the figure of the “detribalized”, an analysis especially sensitive to the juridical and sociological codifications and conceptualization of this category in the recent historyof the Portu- guese empire.
34 No original: I shall hold that even in those cases in which it is the aim of the historian to construct an historical account in which the precise sequence of occurences does provide an essential framework for his account, he is not engaging in an activity which is best represented by the model of telling a story. Typically, the person who tells a story may be inventing what he tells us, or he may be recounting what he already knows, or he may be inventing what he does not know about matters which he is recounting; but he is not in any case engaged in an inquiry which aims to establish what did in fact occur. However, it is surely the historian's task to discover facts and relationships which are not already known to him, and which are not invented by him. We expect historians to engage in research, to weigh alternative possibilities, and to marshal evidence in favor of one rather than another of these possibilities. As a consequence, in judging the merits of historiographical works we use standards other than the standards of interest and intelligibility which are, according to recent discussions ofhistoriography, the primary bases on which we evaluate stories.”
The traditional elements of so-called university criticism have, in turn, been significantly altered. Among the disciplines mapped on to national literatures, Brazilian literature has retained its lead position, whereas Portuguese literature has declined significantly, and Lusophone African literatures are on the rise, although their status within the curriculum is still incipient at university level. The same is true of comparative literature, which is primarily taught at post-graduate level. Unlike in previous times, the literary works that constitute these literary disciplines are no longer treated just as components of a system that aims to assert national character, or as rich, self-referential written artefacts. They are also frequently studied in relation to other discursive material – not necessarily of a literary nature –, and this shift in approach reveals a change in conceptual paradigms: instead of principles provided by literary historyandtheory, the point of reference is now an expanded idea of literature, which embraces previously excluded elements. As a result, literature is losing the features that, from a 19 th - and 20 th -century perspective, endowed it with a particular, distinctive quality.
So, my modest intention is to intervene in the writing of major histories, creating a critical space where colonial, global and national histories are destabilised, reading anew the old tropes of power, resis- tance, nationalism, and also the newer ones of, for instance, govern- mentality. My own work on colonial Sri Lanka has been haunted by the need to explore political imaginaries outside given frameworks of religion, nation, state or empire, both in the colonial period and in the post-colonial period. I always felt that devoting separate chapters, as it were, for minority histories, and in so doing reconfirming the val- ue of marginality, is less transformative than inserting these histories between the seams of the mainstream narrative. So, subalternity ap- pears more as a contingent historical experience rather than bestowed with perennial and virtuous ontological status. I tried to do this in a modest way when I wrote a historyof Sri Lanka called Sri Lanka in a Modern Age. 6 In this book, I wrote a historyof communities andof the political that, in many ways, subverted the mainstream narrative without explicitly stating my position, allowing minority histories, to use Hélène Cixous’ term, to insinuate themselves in the text. I’m very pleased actually that this book is now adopted as the main text in most Sri Lankan departments that teach modern Sri Lankan history as well as in some universities that teach South Asian history with a Sri Lankan component without them actually realising that it is a kind of subversion of the mainstream. So, that’s the first point I really wanted to make, which is really what we can do and what role minority his- tories can do, as either separate or inserted in mainstream histories. I think Dipesh Chakrabarty means that when he speaks about [Eric] Hobsbawm and various histories.
In his exploration of the concept of collective memory, Halbwachs dealt predominantly with smaller groups, such as families and other as- sociations in their interwoven social frameworks. In the context of con- temporary mass societies in our increasingly globalized world, however, all such smaller groups presuppose the existence of a public realm in the context of mass social existence. The concept of collective memory, 18 Halbwachs writes in this vein: “If the necessary condition for memory is the remembering subject, who, whether as individual or group, feels that it remembers in a continuous move- ment, how could history be a memory, since there is a dissolution of continuity between the so- ciety that reads a historyand the witnessing groups or agents who, at another time, participat- ed in it?”; Ibid., p. 130-131. Halbwachs’ distinction has been sharply contested in recent years, for example in the influential essay by Peter Burke, “History as Social Memory”. In affirming Burke’s position, Aleida and Jan Assmann have asserted that not only living memory and the historical past, but the whole of a cultural heritage that is collectively retained and serves to define group identities comprises collective memory in the broad sense they accord to it. From their standpoint, collective memory assumes two different forms, first as “communicative memory” shared by living generations over a period roughly spanning eighty to one hundred years, which more or less corresponds to Halbwachs’ conception of collective memory; second, as “cultural memory”, encompassing not only the historical past but legends, rites, myths, liter- ary creations, and all manner of fictive narratives that the past has bequeathed. In spite of the great interest of their attempts at conceptual clarification of the concept of collective memory, I am defending the position that the conflation of collective memory and the realm ofhistory, which assumes the commensurability of memory andhistory, risks obscuring the finite reach of collective memory and thus unwittingly falls back on assumptions inherited from Hegel. See Peter Burke, “History as Social Memory,” Memory, ed. Thomas Butler (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), p. 98-99; Aleida and Jan Assmann, “Schrift, Tradition und Kultur,” Wolfgang Raible, ed., Zwischen Festtag und Alltag. Zehn Beiträge zu Thema ‚Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit‘ (Tübingen: Narr, 1988), p. 28-29; Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung
Globalisation of musicology and music history aims to fuse the divisions created during Western music’s acme, and is referred to as “post-European historical thinking”. Therefore, “post” and “pre” European historical thinking have much in common. One aspect of this process of fragmentation was that music history was separated from theoryand that Western Music Histories succeeded General Music Histories (a development described in some detail in the article). Connecting global music history with “post-European” historical thinking is one among numerous indications of Western awareness that European culture has reached some sort of a terminal phase. Concurrently, countries that have been developing by following Western Europe as a prototype, are leading today some past phase of Western development, which, with the ideas of cultural relativism prevailing, are not considered inferior. Keywords
Apparently, Menger attributes certain importance to the role of economic his- tory in the general system of economic sciences, although not to the same degree to which he values economic theory. In general the Mengerian approach towards eco- nomic history is characterized by two main dimensions: (i) the historical laws cannot be a basis for prediction of economic development because they are relative; (ii) eco- nomic history is an important empirical source for the economic theory. These two dimensions are at odds with one another to some extent. On the basis of the first one Ludwig von Mises built his a priorism and the notion that empirical validation (espe- cially historical) of economic theories is useless. Partly grounding on the second one modern neoclassical economic historyand its fascination with markets, prices, wages etc. were built. The modern economic history is almost totally dominated by the second approach, while the first is widely neglected outside the Austrian school. The fact is that the pure neoclassical economic history has serious drawbacks. The most serious of them is that often the main function of economic history is to “legitimize the law”, i.e. the “discovery” of economic laws and trends that have long been known. Perhaps a kind of Neo-Mengerian synthesis of approaches towards economic history will open new and interesting research field for economic history.
In the transition from Ancient Régime history served as the argument for decision making, the interruption and reform of processes, movements and trends. History was the condition to distinguish the old from the modern. The status ofhistory varied and took on different configurations: tradition, grounds for change, reform. Nearer the legal process, it was common to use historiographic ordering to update polemics and prepare the ground for the decision. Reinitiated and reviewed in different historical cycles, the opposition between the Old and the Modern was evident in the transition from Ancient Régime, whereby the methodical combination of analysis, deduction and induction, undertaken on the genealogy, enabled the distinction between tradition and antiquity. The tradition and the Old, although part of the same hemisphere, were now characterised and viewed in different ways. Tradition focused on what was prolonged over time in a continuous and uniform way. On the other hand, the discourse and the evolution of the Old were firmly referenced in specific periods. Submitted to a chronological deduction, very often periods were dealt with whose evolution resulted in decadence or depression in contrast to expectations and to the background in which these expectations had been legitimate. It was in view of the Old and not to go against tradition that, throughout the course of Modernity, the Modern define and arrange themselves as the bearers of change. Underlying the change was the updating of tradition, but not its disappearance.
Another challenge stemmed from the way by which ethics review processes were carried out. All projects funded by the program were required to undergo ethics review in the institution or country where the work was to be done and not necessarily in Canada, since the vast majority of the research was conducted in LMICs. However, all Canadian participants were required by their institutions to obtain ethics approval from their own institutions’ ethics review boards regardless of whether or not those same projects had already been reviewed and accepted by LMIC ethics review boards. This served to undermine fully accredited LMIC ethics review boards as well as the equity orientation that the program promoted. While on the outside, project administration might not seem as a determinant of health equity, the fact that powerful Northern institutions were able to dictate their positions on the weaker LMIC institutions featured significantly throughout the Teasdale-Corti program and in many instances prevented the development of truly ega- litarian partnerships as initially envisioned by the program.
This article approaches the relations between historyandhistory teaching in the constructions of memories about the civil-military dictatorships of National Security in Brazil and Argentina, highlighting its potential to the understand the present and plan for the future supported by the studies of Reinhart Koselleck and Jörn Rüsen. Both countries have been through similar experiences at the same time - National Security Dictatorships’, state terrorism and the disappearing practice -, and the way how this past is assumed to public policy interferes in the relationship that is established with it. To understand this process, it was consider the analysis of educational laws, curriculum guidelines and education practices of the last three decades, to observe the memory framing processes and the surrounding culture. Finally , are emphasized the relations between memory, education and historical consciousness in the approaching of the dictatorships and its dialogues with the contemporary.
Historiography is a discipline ofhistory that proceeds to the critical study of historical production, effecting the evaluation and classification of historical, schooling or acade- mic knowledge, allowing to assess, in particular, the delays or historiography advances respecting to others. The study of historiographical currents, the professionalization wor- king levels (degrees of scholarship, specialization, knowledge and distinction), as well as the greater or lesser political and ideological tendencies of historical constructions. His- toriographic studies, within the branches ofHistory, demonstrated the specific canons of interpretation, distinctive conventions of writing, the historiographical currents and perspectives of approach, relating them with personal projects, but also, and above all, with political and cultural projects connected with an academic and statehood function disseminated in different historical contexts. In this sense, it can be deduced that all histo- rical production depends on different ways of conceiving history, and can, from a critical analysis, define intellectual (cultural) profiles, nowadays known as paradigms (models). What we want to emphasize is the distinctive ideas, currents and ideology uttered in the authors’ discourse, relating it to the way in which they construct the historical plot on the First World War. In this sense, this article, therefore, contains an attempt to underlying our main subject emphasizing the main tendencies in the Portuguese syntheses regarding the historic context analysis of First World War and reviewing the Portuguese historian’s contributions that writes about it. So, the scope of the article includes a look at the main synthesis and a state of art of the twentieth century in Portugal considering the raise of trends in historiography that began when it became a new discipline in universities in the nineteenth century. That means it’s important to address this issue to the historiographyof war and historiographical interpretations of the phenomenon, by confronting the diffe-
happy (read here as superficial and non-transcendental ) visual stimuli of the external world. Although the principal aim of Worringer s book was to question the hegemonic classifications that surrounded abstraction and realism (or what he calls empathetic art , he essentially articulated and helped to establish as doctrine a number of the foundational principles of German expressionist painting, including the supremacy of inner vision over mere opticality that surrounded the critical rhetoric of this style in the early twentieth century. Worringer s denunciation of the visible surface of things furthermore allowed him to develop a theoryof (German) expressionism that opposed French impressionism and the latter s reliance on optical vision and natural beauty. For Worringer, this visible surface, or sichtbare Oberfläche – which could equally imply the superficiality of corporeal sight – had to be destroyed, abandoned, transcended, or at the very least, challenged, in order to move beyond realism s non-instinctive approach to painting. By contrast, the importance given to psychological images in Kokoschka s Austrian model did not seek to overshadow the significance placed on the semblance of things in
Markova, 2005 – Markova M.A. Pervichnye documenty po uchetu naseleniya Sankt- Peterburgskoi gubernii v XVIII – pervoi polovine XIX v. kak istoricheskii istochnik: Metricheskie knigi, ispovednye rospisi, revizskie skazki [Parish register books, confession notes and poll-tax registers as sources for St. Peterburg province population estimation in 18 th and 2nd half of 19 th
To recapitulate: the historyof the body, analogously to cultural history in broad terms, cannot be reduced to a national discourse or an isolated discipline. Sociology, anthropology and gender studies all have had a hand in shaping the way the field is studied today. But there is another thing that the historyof the body has in common with cultural history: just as “culture” is hard to define, so too is the “body”. Most people think they know what a body is, but you will hardly find two who agree on the details. Long discussions are possible on whether hair is actually part of the body, whether the body can be seen separately from clothing or if one should rather speak of the clothed body, and whether what Mauss termed bodily techniques should not rather be viewed as communication or interaction. These are questions that cannot be answered rightly or wrongly; the answers depend on the perspective one chooses. Such questions, however, highlight a major problem with the historyof the body. Carolyn Bynum once wrote that “the body” is not really an independent subject: 27 either the body is