Suchergebnisse

This review article provides an overview of important, recent approaches to conceptual history from scholarship on South Asia. While conceptual history is not a consolidated field in South Asia, the colonial encounter has greatly stimulated interest in conceptual inquiries. Recent scholarship questions the uniformity even of well-researched concepts such as liberalism. It is methodologically innovative in thinking about the influence of economic structures for the development of concepts. Rethinking religious and secular languages, scholars have furthermore stressed the importance of smaller communicative units such as genre or hermeneutical practices to shape ideas e.g. of the political. As part of global and imperial formations, scholars are well aware of the link between power and colonial temporalities. Lastly, they have suggested new sources for conceptual history, such as literature, film, and sound.

SUMMARY:
Х.-Г. Хаупт исходит из назревшей необходимости переосмыслить содержание, которое историки традиционно вкладывают в концепт "Европы". Он критически пересматривает "синтетический" метод написания европейской истории как механического объединения историй отдельных стран, входивших в достаточно субъективно определяемую "Европу". Хаупт подчеркивает, что любые попытки ограничить европейское пространство "римским наследием" или "христианским Западом" имеют спекулятивную сторону и призваны гомогенизировать историческое разнообразие. Вместо этого он призывает изучать контексты, в которых использовали те или иные определения Европы, а также их политическую направленность на включение или исключение тех или иных регионов. В конечном итоге европейское пространство должно предстать как результат и как проблема европейской истории.

Ключом к новому типу европейской истории автор считает компаративный метод, цель которого – не учет максимально большого количества исторических феноменов, но их осмысление в рамках общей теоретической модели и определение специфики каждого из анализируемых фактов. Сравнительный метод написания европейской истории может реализовываться как в области количественных исследований (сравнительная статистика), которые позволят определить "европейские" процессы и структуры, так и в области структурной компаративистики (выявление структурных особенностей европейского варианта развития). Воображаемая география Европы и история ее самоопределения и самоотмежевания может писаться одновременно в жанре интеллектуальной, политической истории или истории науки.

Транснациональная перспектива (например, изучение миграций на европейском континенте и между Европой и другими континентами), а также имперская компаративистика рассматриваются в статье как вполне легитимные и необходимые аспекты создания новой европейской истории.

This volume of essays is the result of the EU project «EHISTO», which dealt with the mediation of history in popular history magazines and explored how history in the commercialised mass media can be used in history teaching in order to develop the media literacy and the transcultural competences of young people. The volume offers articles which for the first time address the phenomenon of popular history magazines in Europe and their mediating strategies in a foundational way. The articles are intended as introductory material for teachers and student teachers. The topic also offers an innovative approach in terms of making possible a European cross-country comparison, in which results based on qualitative and quantitative methods are presented, related to the content focus areas profiled in the national magazines.

Labor history and public history have had a long relationship in the United States, as James Green argues in Taking History to Heart, dating back to Progressive-era historians like Mary Ritter and Charles A. Beard. Labor historians like Phillip Foner, who identified with the "Old Left," made labor history public history through ties to labor organizations and the Communist Party. Then, during the 1960s, historians identified with the "New Left" and inspired by E.P. Thompson, worked to extend social history and working-class history "from the bottom up" beyond the confines of the academy, even as they shifted their focus from the institutional histories of unions and political parties, to make the history of "ordinary people" and "everyday life" public history. The organization of history workshops and the proliferation of oral history projects reflect the ways in which historians of the working class made their practices public history in new ways during the 1960s and 1970s while expanding the sphere of both "the public" and "labor" to include histories of women, gender and patriarchy, and ethnic and racial minorities.

The first part of this essay examines the peculiar role European intellectual history played in coming to terms with the twentieth century as an 'Age of Extremes' and the different weight it was given for that task at different times and in different national contexts up to the 1970s. The second part looks at the contemporary history of politically focused intellectual history — and the possible impact of the latter on the writing of contemporary history in general: it will be asked how the three great innovative movements in the history of political thought which emerged in the last fifty years have related to the practice of contemporary history: the German school of conceptual history, the 'Cambridge School', and the 'linguistic turn'. The third part focuses on recent trends to understand processes of liberalization — as opposed to the older search for causes of political extremism. It is also in the third part that the so far rather Euro-centric perspective is left behind, as attempts to create an intellectual history of the more or less new enemies of the West are examined. Finally, the author pleads for a contemporary intellectual history that seeks novel ways of understanding the twentieth century and the 'newest history' since 1989 by combining tools from conceptual history and the Cambridge School.

Is history important in our day? Truthfully, following the nationalist conceptions that give a particular importance to history, and after it having become a weapon at the service of political conceptions of democratic openness and of opposition to lines of interpretation, or of ideology
and memory, defended by authoritarian regimes, and even after it had been confirmed as a greatly important science, as an interpretation of the past and of the present, in an interdisciplinary space, history has involved itself in the vast and poorly defined field that is the social sciences.
Consequently, it has at times lost its identity, more so to the extent to which it has become a narrative discourse of divulgation. This is the reflection that we seek to make, discovering whether – perhaps despite and because of the interdisciplinary nature of historiographical discourse
– history is a science that pursues complex and objective analysis and interpretation that is not wrapped up in concerns for ideology and 'opinion' that is characteristic of a period of cultural crisis.