History educators find themselves in the peculiar situation of wishing to introduce students to the history discipline while lacking a clear conception of the features intrinsic to historical inquiry across its various specialisations and subject matters. In affirming that no one methodological charter hangs in the corridors of academic history departments, we fail to provide an adequate justification for an education in history. The doctrine that history is an exercise in disciplined knowledge, a specific way of knowing, is weakened by (...) disciplinary disquietude and dissimilitude. Three features impress themselves upon all who inquire into the past. In the learning and teaching of history, these three features assume a distinct structural shape. First, colligation consists in grouping the events and concepts to be studied according to their shared purposes. Second, historical distance, intimately tied up with tradition and collective memory, provides the means for identifying a past separate from the present to be studied in its own right. Third, reconstruction describes the process of supplying individual content to the general categories illuminated by the earlier stages. To work knowingly in this structure of historical inquiry offers no solutions to the problems of historical thinking, it is to work productively within these problems. (shrink)

This paper considers the legacy of Kuhn and his Structure with regard to the current history and philosophy of science. Kuhn can be seen as a myth breaker, whose contribution is the way he connected historical and philosophical studies of science, questioning the cumulativist image and demanding historical responsibility of the views of science. I build on Kuhn’s legacy and outline a suggestion for theoretical and philosophical study of history (of science), which can be subdivided into three categories. The first (...) is the philosophical analysis of historical interpretation and its relation to the historical record. The second is ‘theoretical history’ in which one tries to infer philosophically relevant interpretations on the nature of science on the basis of historical evidence. The third is the conceptual reflection of the assumptions and implications of the contemporary historiography of science. At the end I suggest that theoretical and philosophical study of history offers a fresh way to make history and philosophy relevant to each other. (shrink)

This contribution responds to the ongoing discussion about the narrativity of history and looks at some differences between fictive and historical narrative. The objective of this contribution is to further elaborate on the ideas of narrative transformations developed by Wolf Schmid, focusing particularly on historical narratives. The authors see differences between both kinds of narrative, especially on the level of reference. The problem of fiction and reference is illustrated by Schmid's four tiered narratological model, especially on the level of happening. (...) In fiction, this tier is inferred backwards based on the presentation of the narration. This tier is positioned so the elements of the narrative can be selected. In historical narrative happening has a different status and precedes both the story and the text. Although the shape of the past is related to the presentation of the narrative, it is not determined by nor reduced to it. The authors of this contribution describe the specific character and aspects of narrative transformation in the writing process. (shrink)

Kompensation is the keyword for an influential answer to the problem of the function of the human sciences in the contemporary world. It emerged in the second half of the twentieth-century in the field of German philosophy, and its chief message is that the human sciences have the task of compensating modern societies and individuals for cultural losses generated within the course of modernization (for instance, by the spread social relations of a new, abstract, non-traditional kind; or by the accelerating (...) progress of technology). The compensation-theory can be stressed as one of the main ideational sets against which Jörn Rüsen developed his own theory of history. This paper focuses on the agonistic relationship between these two theories that attempt to elucidate what is the value and the use of historical studies. My interpretative bet is that by doing so we will better understand important aspects of Rüsen’s theoretical reflections on history and historiography that have not yet received sufficient attention. I will show that Rüsen rejects the compensation-theory not only because he disagrees with the scientific division of labor it entails – which ascribes to the human sciences the relatively modest role of attempting to preserve some of what modernity needs to destroy. I will try to explain how that rejection is also due to more fundamental differences between Rüsen and the compensation-theorists, more specifically their differing understandings of modernity, and their dissent regarding how should the complex interrelationship between knowledge, politics, and the future be configured. -/- “Compensação” é a palavra-chave que sintetiza uma influente resposta ao problema da função das ciências humanas no mundo contemporâneo. Originária do universo da filosofia alemã da segunda metade do século 20, tal resposta sustenta, em linhas gerais, que as ciências humanas servem como uma espécie de indenização espiritual por prejuízos culturais causados pela modernização a sociedades e indivíduos (no bojo, por exemplo, da disseminação de novas relações sociais abstratas e não-tradicionais, ou do acelerado progresso dos meios técnicos). A teoria da compensação pode ser apontada como um dos principais conjuntos de ideias a que se contrapõe a teoria da história de Jörn Rüsen. O presente texto enfoca a relação agonística entre essas duas teorias, no centro das quais está o problema do valor e da utilidade dos estudos históricos. Lançar luz sobre tal relação – esta é a minha aposta interpretativa – é uma maneira de compreender melhor aspectos importantes das reflexões de Rüsen sobre história e historiografia que até agora ainda não receberam a atenção que lhes é devida. Quero mostrar que Rüsen rejeita a teoria da compensação não só porque discorda da divisão do trabalho científico nela apregoada, a qual atribui às ciências humanas o papel relativamente modesto de tentar conservar alguma parte daquilo que a modernização ameaça destruir. Procurarei explicar como tal rejeição também se deve a diferenças mais fundamentais existentes entre Rüsen e os teóricos da compensação, mais especificamente, às suas divergências de entendimento quanto à natureza da modernidade e quanto ao modo de configurar a complexa inter-relação entre conhecimento, política e futuro. (shrink)

My purpose in the researching and the writing of this thesis has been to investigate, and to try to explain, Frank Ankersmit's curious shift from his well expressed and firmly held narrativist position of "Narrative Logic", to an arguably contradictory, yet passionately held counter belief in the plausibility of a form of direct historical experience - an authentic unmediated relationship with the past. I am, accordingly, presenting here what I believe to be the most adequate explanatory account of/for Ankersmit's intellectual (...) journey. A journey which, in essence, constituted a substitution of his earlier representational, language centred philosophy of history for what might be taken as a new and mystical non-representational theory. This alternative theory of Ankersmit' s, lacking cognitive foundations, works on the basis of sensations, moods, feelings and therefore a consciousness deemed to be received directly from the past itself, and therein - for this thesis - lies its fatal weakness as a historical theory. Belief in the mystical may be all right at some level, if this is what is wanted, but a mystical experience itself cannot produce a historical re-presentation which is the only way that the past can be presented historically. Thus, I argue that Ankersmit's journey from language to experience - the latter phenomenon being more appropriately situated within the field of sociology/social theory and memory studies - is, in the end, a lost historical cause. (shrink)

El objetivo del trabajo es mostrar que la revisión que los historiadores llevan a cabo en su disciplina se debe, en parte, porque se ha puesto en cuestión el presupuesto temporal sobre el que se construyó la historia como ciencia: el “pasado histórico”. En primer lugar, intento señalar de qué modo en Analytical Philosophy of History Danto expresa, en la estructura temporal de las oraciones narrativas, las características del “tiempo histórico” que subyace a la historiografía. La separación y distinción entre (...) pasado, presente y futuro; el tiempo como un flujo del futuro hacia el pasado; el privilegio epistémico del historiador por sobre el testigo constituyen algunos de los rasgos que, para Danto, distinguen a la historia de cualquier otro conocimiento. En segundo lugar, intentaré mostrar que estos presupuestos temporales se hacen visibles cuando, a partir de las catástrofes del siglo XX, la memoria es considerada como una forma privilegiada para acceder a ese pasado reciente. Es decir, el surgimiento de la memoria, a partir de los 80´s, pone en tela de juicio los presupuestos temporales que subyacen a la concepción del pasado histórico “a la Danto” y el rol que el testigo y el futuro tenían para el conocimiento histórico. (shrink)

El principal objetivo de este artículo es considerar el advenimiento de la filosofía de la historia de Hayden White como el resultado de un compromiso con cinco tesis que articulan la teoría como un todo. Ese compromiso permite inteligir buena parte del espacio ocupado por los críticos del narrativismo de White, pero más que suponer la necesidad de anular la teoría -en virtud de que uno u otro aspecto de alguna tesis es conceptualmente problemático-, me oriento en la dirección contraria. (...) El objetivo ulterior reside en mostrar a la luz de las cinco tesis cómo las eventuales inconsistencias de la teoría se resuelven atendiendo a las críticas eficaces con miras a radicalizar la teoría. Si ése fuera el caso, entonces resultaría que Metahistoria fue el punto de partida -y no de llegada- en la emergencia de otra filosofía de la historia. The primary objective of this article is to consider the advent of Hayden White's philosophy of history as the result of a commitment with five theses that articulate the theory as a whole. That commitment allows to understand much of the space occupied by narrativism critics, but in terms that instead of assuming the need for a dismissal of the theory , guide us in the opposite direction. The ultimate goal is to show, in the light of the five theses, how are resolved the eventual inconsistencies of the theory in response to effective criticism in order to radicalize theory. If that were the case, then Metahistory was the point of departure in the emergence of another philosophy of history. (shrink)