What are historians for? Notes on the possibilities and limits of disciplinary history
Institutes and Faculties
Main page \ Research and Innovations \ Publications \ Publishing activities of KFU \ Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta \ Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki \ Archive

What are historians for? Notes on the possibilities and limits of disciplinary history

Z.A. Chekantseva

Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119334 Russia

E-mail: zinaidachekantseva@gmail.com

Received March 9, 2022


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Full text PDF

DOI: 10.26907/2541-7738.2022.3.9-28

For citation: Chekantseva Z.A. What are historians for? Notes on the possibilities and limits of disciplinary history. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2022, vol. 164, no. 3, pp. 9–28. doi: 10.26907/2541-7738.2022.3.9-28. (In Russian)

Abstract

The image of history that emerged during the age of modernity has become a problem both in intellectual culture and in the everyday life of the 21st century. Our turbulent world and numerous texts convince us that history is no longer what it used to be. Nevertheless, historians work primarily within the settings of normative history, which foundations were shaped in the 19th century. Researchers have long discussed the changes taking place. However, along with a critique of the established protocols of historical research in line with the reflexive turn in knowledge (“epistemological and historiographical at a time” as François Hartog argues), another historical optic and a new ethos of history are now being sought and formed in the transdisciplinary space. In this theoretical discourse, the understanding of disciplinary history and its future relates to the state of knowledge in a broad sense. The article discusses several aspects of this vast topic based on the texts of historians, philosophers, sociologists, and anthropologists: the status of history in the contemporary world and its relationship with the past; temporal issues of historical culture; and the new ethos of history and the historian's identity. Among the numerous challenges faced by humanity at the dawn of the third millennium, the following two stand out: transdisciplinarity and the Anthropocene.

Keywords: history, transdisciplinarity, Anthropocene, historical time, ethos of history, historian's identity

References

  1. Assmann А. Conclusion: A creed that has lost its believers? Reconfiguring the concepts of time and history. In: Tamm M., Olivier L. (Eds.) Rethinking Historical Time. New Approaches to Presentism. London, New York, Bloomsbury Acad., 2019, pp. 269–284. doi: 10.5040/9781350065116.0007.
  2. Hartog F. Croire en l'histoire. Paris, Flammarion. 2013. 310 р. (In French)
  3. Chekantseva Z.A. Anthropology of historiography and the historian's identity in the 21st century. Istoriya, 2018, vol. 9, no. 8. doi: 10.18254/S0002438-0-1. (In Russian)
  4. Gorman J. Historical Judgement: The Limits of Historiographical Choice. Montreal, Kingston, Ithaca, McGill Queen's Univ. Press, 2008. 258 р.
  5. Noël P.M. Épistémologie, histoire et historiens: considérations conceptuelles, méthodologiques et empiriques autour du discours que les historiens tiennent sur leur savoir. Thèse de doctorat: Histoire. Québec, 2014. 401 р. (In French)
  6. Rockhill G. Interventions in Сontemporary Tought. History, Politics, Aesthetics. Edinburgh, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2016. 277 р.
  7. Gumbrecht H.U. The cold embrace of “science”, or why the humanities better be “humanities and arts”. Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2006, no. 5, pp. 7–17. (In Russian)
  8. Bourdieu P. For rationalist historicism. In: Sotsio-Logos postmodernizma'97: Al'manakh Rossiisko-frantsuzskogo tsentra sotsiol. issledovanii In-ta sotsiologii RAN [Socio-Logos of Postmodernism'97: Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociology. Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences]. Moscow, Inst. Eksp. Sotsiol., 1996, pp. 9–29 (In Russian)
  9. Quenet G. L'Anthropocène et le temps des historiens. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 2017, T. 72, F. 2, pp. 267–299. doi: 10.1017/S0395264917000543. (In French)
  10. Delanty G., Mota A. Governing the Anthropocene: Agency, governance, knowledge. European Journal of Social Theory, 2017, vol. 20, no 1, pp. 9–38. doi: 10.1177/1368431016668535.
  11. Bonnueul Ch., Fressor J-B. L'événement Anthropocène. La Terre, l'histoire et nous. Paris, Ed. Seuil, 2016. 320 р. (In French)
  12. Domanska E. The new age of the Anthropocene. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2014, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 96–101. doi: 10.1558/jca.v1i1.96.
  13. Charbonnier P. Généalogie de l'Antropocène. La fin du risque et des limites. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 2017, T. 72, F. 2, pp. 301–328. doi: 10.1017/S0395264917000555. (In French)
  14. Lavlok D. Revenge of the Gaia. Santa Barbara (Calif.), Allen Lane, Basic Books, 2006. 192 р.
  15. Chakrabarty D. The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 2009, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 197–222. doi: 10.1086/596640.
  16. Anthropocène. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 2018, T. 72, F. 2, pp. 263–265. doi: 10.1017/S039526491800001X. (In French)
  17. Pisarev A., Gavrilenko S. In search of an evanescent object: Science and its history. Logos, 2020, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–28. (In Russian)
  18. Daston L. The history of science and the history of knowledge. Logos, 2020, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 63–89. (In Russian)
  19. Monteil L., Romerio A. From disciplines to “studies”. Knowledge, trajectories, policies. Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 2017, T. 11, F.?3, pp. a–m. doi: 10.3917/rac.036.a.
  20. Pomian K. L'histoire de la science et l'histoire de l'histoire. Annales. Economies, Sociétès, Civilisations, 1975, T. 30, F. 5, pp. 935–952. doi: 10.3406/ahess.1975.293657. (In French)
  21. Daston L., Galison P. Objectivity. New York, Zone Books, 2007. 504 р.
  22. Galison P. Ten problems in history and philosophy of science. Isis, 2008, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 111–124. doi: 10.1086/587536.
  23. Simon Z.B. The role of history in an anthropocenic knowledge regime. Public History Weekly, 2021, Feb. 11. Available at: https://public-history-weekly.degruyter.com/9-2021-1/anthropocene-knowledge-regime/.
  24. Osborne P. Problematizing disciplinarity, transdisciplinary problematics. Theory, Culture & Society, 2015, vol. 32, nos. 5–6, pp. 3–35. doi: 10.1177/0263276415592245.
  25. Popova T.N. Distsiplinarnyi obraz nauki. Podkhody i ponyatiya [The Disciplinary Image of Science. Approaches and Concepts]. Odessa, Bondarenko M.A., 2019. 392 p. (In Russian)
  26. Ramos A. da S. Ethan Kleinberg: Theory of history as hauntology. História da Historiografia, 2017, vol. 10, no. 25, pp. 212–228. doi: 10.15848/hh.v0i25.1263.
  27. Simon Z.B. History in Times of Unprecedented Change: A Theory for the 21st Century. London, Bloomsbury Acad., 2019. 224 р.
  28. Domanska E. Unbinding from humanity: Nandipha Mntambo's Europa and the limits of history and identity. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 2020, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 310–336. doi: 10.1163/18722636-12341452.
  29. Nora P. Présentation. Le Débat, 2013, T. 177, F. 5, pp. 3–5. (In French)
  30. Huyssen A. Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press, 2003. 177 р.
  31. Langlois Ch.-V., Seignobog Ch. Introduction aux études historiques. Paris, Hachette, 1898. 308 p. (In French)
  32. Poltavtseva N. Poltavtseva N. Is history historical? Voprosy Literatury, 1997, no. 2, pp. 59–65. (In Russian)
  33. Morsel J. Traces? Quelles traces? Réflexions pour une histoire non passéiste. Revue historique, 2016, T. 680, F. 4, pp. 813–868. doi: 10.3917/rhis.164.0813. (In French)
  34. White H. The Practical Past. Evanston, Northwestern Univ. Press, 2014. XVI, 118 p.
  35. Khmelevskaya Yu.Yu. Historians and the “useful past”: On disciplinary limitations and disciplining functions of history in contemporary society. Vestnik Permskogo Univrsiteta. Istoriya, 2016, no. 1, pp. 62–173. (In Russian)
  36. Runia E. Presence. History and Theory, 2006, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2006.00346.x.
  37. Runia E., Tamm M. The past is not a foreign country: A conversation. Rethinking History, 2019, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 403–433. doi: 10.1080/13642529.2019.1587250.
  38. Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya [Being and Time]. Kharkiv, Folio, 2003. 503 p. (In Russian)
  39. Elias N. Du Temps. Paris, Fayard, 1997. 226 р. (In French)
  40. Boucheron P., Casanova V. L'histoire pour espacer le temps. Entretien avec Patrick Boucheron. Écrire l'histoire: Histoire, Littérature, Esthétique, 2013, F. 11, pp. 75–86. doi: 10.4000/elh.300. (In French)
  41. Lorenz С. Out of time? Some critical reflections on François Hartog's presentism. In: Tamm M., Olivier L. (Eds.) Rethinking Historical Time: New Approaches to Presentism. London, New York, Bloomsbury Acad., 2019, pp. 23–42.
  42. Garcia P. Histoire du temps présent. In: Delacroix Ch., Dosse F., Garcia P., Offenstadt N. (Eds.) Historiographies: concepts et debats. T. 1. Paris, Gallimard. 2010, pp. 282–294. (In French)
  43. Tamm M. Beyond history and memory: New perspectives in memory studies. History Compass, 2013, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 458–473. doi: 10.1002/HIC3.12050.
  44. White H. The burden of history. History and Theory, 1966, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 111–134. doi: 10.2307/2504510.
  45. Oleinikov A. Hayden White as a public historian. Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2019, no. 1, pp. 95–105. (In Russian)
  46. Meschonnic H. Critique du rythme, Anthropologie historique du langage. Lagrasse, Verdier, 1982. 730 p. (In French)
  47. Domanska E. Hayden White and liberation historiography. Rethinking History, 2015, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 640–650. doi: 10.1080/13642529.2014.959361.
  48. Chekantseva Z.A. History on the threshold of the third millennium: Between epistemology and social control. In: Z.A. Chekantseva (Ed.) Istoriki v poiskakh novykh perspektiv [Historians in Search of New Perspectives]. Moscow, Akvilon, 2019. 416 p. (In Russian)
  49. Domanska E. Beyond anthropocentrism in historical studies. Historein, 2010, vol. 10, pp. 118–130. doi: 10.12681/historein.11.
  50. Le Goff J. Le changement dans la continuité. Espaces Temps., 1986, F. 34–35: Braudel dans tous ses états. La vie quotidienne des sciences sociales sous l'empire de l'histoire. Dosse F. (Ed. Intellect.), pp. 20–22. (In French)
  51. Koselleck R. Le futur passé: contribution à la sémantique des temps historiques. Paris, Ed. de l'EHESS, 1990. 334 р. (In French)
  52. Chekantseva Z.A. The historian's time. In: Repina L.P. (Ed.) Obrazy vremeni i istoricheskie predstavleniya. Rossiya – Vostok – Zapad [Images of Time and Historical Views. Russia – East – West]. Moscow, Krug, 2010, pp. 66–78. (In Russian)
  53. Breaking Up Time: Negotiating the Borders between Present, Past and Future. Lorenz C., Bevernage B. (Eds.). Göttingen, Bristol, Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 2013. 274 p. doi: 10.13109/9783666310461.7.
  54. Chakrabarty D. Anthropocene time. History and Theory, 2018, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 5–32. doi: 10.1111/hith.12044.
  55. Tanaka S. History without Chronology. Amherst, Lever Press, 2019. 278 p.
  56. Rethinking Historical Time. New Approaches to Presentism. Tamm M., Olivier L. (Eds.). London, New York, Bloomsbury Acad., 2019. XIV, 226 p.
  57. Bevernage B. Transitional justice and historiography: Challenges, dilemmas and possibilities. Macquarie Law Journal, 2014, vol. 13, pp. 7–24.
  58. Historicités. Delacroix Ch., Dosse F., Garcia P. (Ed.). Paris, La Découverte, 2009. 304 р. (In French)
  59. Trüper H. The flatness of historicity. History and Theory, 2019, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 23–49. doi: 10.1111/hith.12098.
  60. Bevernage B. From philosophy of history to philosophy of historicities: Some ideas on a potential future of historical theory. BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review, 2012, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 113–120. doi: 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.8231.
  61. Tamm M., Simon Z.B. More-than-human history. Philosophy of history at the time of the Anthropocene. In: Kuukkanen J.-M. (Ed.) Philosophy of History: Twenty-First-Century Perspectives. London, Bloomsbury Acad., 2021, pp. 198–215. doi: 10.5040/9781350111875.0018.
  62. Riot-Sarcey M. Temps et histoire en débat. “Tout s'oublie” et “rien ne passe”. Revue d'histoire du XIXe siècle, 2002, T. 25, F. 2, pp. 7–13. (In French)
  63. Duclert V. L'avenir dе l'histoire. Paris, Armand Colin, 2010. 230 p. (In French)
  64. Tamm M. How to reinvent the future? History and Theory, 2020, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 448–458. doi: 10.1111/hith.12173.
  65. Helgesson St., Svenungsson J. The Ethos of History: Time and Responsibility. New York, Berghahn Books, 2018. 230 p.
  66. Simon Z.B. Domesticating the future through history. Time & Society, 2021, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 494–516. doi: 10.1177/0961463X211014804.
  67. Chekantseva Z.A. Path dependence, politics of time and metamorphosis of history. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Istoriya, 2020, no. 3, pp. 5–16. doi: 10.17072/2219-3111-2020-3-5-16. (In Russian)


The content is available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Вход в личный кабинет
Ваш логин
Ваш пароль
Забыли пароль? Регистрация