Suchergebnisse

International audience ; The shadow cast by National Socialism in the academic world of the Federal Republic of Germany and Koselleck's close relations with the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt constitute a challenge for an historical inquiry of Reinhart Koselleck's historiography. In order to address this challenge, I propose a "close contextual reading" of an article published in 1965 ("Geschichtliche Prognose en Lorenz von Steins Schrift zur preussischen Verfassung") in which he expressed one of his leading diagnoses on how the conception of history had evolved since 1750. This article praises Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890), a German public administration scholar and hailes him as a model for the definition of a historian after the French Revolution. Fifteen years later, Koselleck showed how much he valued this article by taking it up in a collection of articles which he considered as an historiographic manifesto: Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (1979). To try to grasp the meaning and the historiographical, academic and political issues of this diagnosis in the then Federal Republic of Germany, I will contextualize starting from the text, from the portrait that Koselleck explicitly draws of the historian in it, from its paratext and external references (Carl Schmitt, Ernst Rudolf Huber, Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) as well as from the history of the journal Der Staat. Thanks to this case study, this article tries to propose a specific way of contextualization and to highlight how much the label "theory" was a battleground in West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s.

International audience ; The shadow cast by National Socialism in the academic world of the Federal Republic of Germany and Koselleck's close relations with the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt constitute a challenge for an historical inquiry of Reinhart Koselleck's historiography. In order to address this challenge, I propose a "close contextual reading" of an article published in 1965 ("Geschichtliche Prognose en Lorenz von Steins Schrift zur preussischen Verfassung") in which he expressed one of his leading diagnoses on how the conception of history had evolved since 1750. This article praises Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890), a German public administration scholar and hailes him as a model for the definition of a historian after the French Revolution. Fifteen years later, Koselleck showed how much he valued this article by taking it up in a collection of articles which he considered as an historiographic manifesto: Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (1979). To try to grasp the meaning and the historiographical, academic and political issues of this diagnosis in the then Federal Republic of Germany, I will contextualize starting from the text, from the portrait that Koselleck explicitly draws of the historian in it, from its paratext and external references (Carl Schmitt, Ernst Rudolf Huber, Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) as well as from the history of the journal Der Staat. Thanks to this case study, this article tries to propose a specific way of contextualization and to highlight how much the label "theory" was a battleground in West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s.

International audience ; The shadow cast by National Socialism in the academic world of the Federal Republic of Germany and Koselleck's close relations with the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt constitute a challenge for an historical inquiry of Reinhart Koselleck's historiography. In order to address this challenge, I propose a "close contextual reading" of an article published in 1965 ("Geschichtliche Prognose en Lorenz von Steins Schrift zur preussischen Verfassung") in which he expressed one of his leading diagnoses on how the conception of history had evolved since 1750. This article praises Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890), a German public administration scholar and hailes him as a model for the definition of a historian after the French Revolution. Fifteen years later, Koselleck showed how much he valued this article by taking it up in a collection of articles which he considered as an historiographic manifesto: Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (1979). To try to grasp the meaning and the historiographical, academic and political issues of this diagnosis in the then Federal Republic of Germany, I will contextualize starting from the text, from the portrait that Koselleck explicitly draws of the historian in it, from its paratext and external references (Carl Schmitt, Ernst Rudolf Huber, Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) as well as from the history of the journal Der Staat. Thanks to this case study, this article tries to propose a specific way of contextualization and to highlight how much the label "theory" was a battleground in West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s.

International audience ; For some time now, historians of humanities and social science have taken some of their most famous categories of analysis as subjects of their own research: "ethnicity", "race", and "class", for instance. This did not occur with the meta-categories which structure knowledge, and indeed they are often considered to be self-evident. This article weaves between France, Great Britain and German-speaking lands to reconstruct the shifting appropriations and meanings, and also rejections, of the categories "sciences morales et politiques", "moral sciences", and "Geisteswissenschaften". In so doing, it exposes the scientific, academic, political and nationalist forces at work. It thus also, reflexively, comments on its own research field and how it has been carved out. ; Depuis un certain temps, les historiens des sciences humaines et sociales ont pris pour objet d'enquête certaines de leurs plus célèbres catégories d'analyse comme « ethnie », « race » ou « classe ». Mais les méta-catégories organisatrices du savoir sont restées dans l'ombre. Elles sont encore souvent considérées comme allant de soi. En proposant un parcours qui retrace les appropriations, resémantisations ou rejets des catégories « sciences morales et politiques », moral sciences, Geisteswissenschaften entre France, Grande-Bretagne et territoires de langue allemande, cet article propose de mettre en évidence leurs enjeux scientifiques, académiques, politiques et d'affirmation nationale. Ce faisant, l'article offre un regard réflexif sur son propre domaine de recherche et les découpages qui le caractérisent.

International audience ; For some time now, historians of humanities and social science have taken some of their most famous categories of analysis as subjects of their own research: "ethnicity", "race", and "class", for instance. This did not occur with the meta-categories which structure knowledge, and indeed they are often considered to be self-evident. This article weaves between France, Great Britain and German-speaking lands to reconstruct the shifting appropriations and meanings, and also rejections, of the categories "sciences morales et politiques", "moral sciences", and "Geisteswissenschaften". In so doing, it exposes the scientific, academic, political and nationalist forces at work. It thus also, reflexively, comments on its own research field and how it has been carved out. ; Depuis un certain temps, les historiens des sciences humaines et sociales ont pris pour objet d'enquête certaines de leurs plus célèbres catégories d'analyse comme « ethnie », « race » ou « classe ». Mais les méta-catégories organisatrices du savoir sont restées dans l'ombre. Elles sont encore souvent considérées comme allant de soi. En proposant un parcours qui retrace les appropriations, resémantisations ou rejets des catégories « sciences morales et politiques », moral sciences, Geisteswissenschaften entre France, Grande-Bretagne et territoires de langue allemande, cet article propose de mettre en évidence leurs enjeux scientifiques, académiques, politiques et d'affirmation nationale. Ce faisant, l'article offre un regard réflexif sur son propre domaine de recherche et les découpages qui le caractérisent.

International audience ; For some time now, historians of humanities and social science have taken some of their most famous categories of analysis as subjects of their own research: "ethnicity", "race", and "class", for instance. This did not occur with the meta-categories which structure knowledge, and indeed they are often considered to be self-evident. This article weaves between France, Great Britain and German-speaking lands to reconstruct the shifting appropriations and meanings, and also rejections, of the categories "sciences morales et politiques", "moral sciences", and "Geisteswissenschaften". In so doing, it exposes the scientific, academic, political and nationalist forces at work. It thus also, reflexively, comments on its own research field and how it has been carved out. ; Depuis un certain temps, les historiens des sciences humaines et sociales ont pris pour objet d'enquête certaines de leurs plus célèbres catégories d'analyse comme « ethnie », « race » ou « classe ». Mais les méta-catégories organisatrices du savoir sont restées dans l'ombre. Elles sont encore souvent considérées comme allant de soi. En proposant un parcours qui retrace les appropriations, resémantisations ou rejets des catégories « sciences morales et politiques », moral sciences, Geisteswissenschaften entre France, Grande-Bretagne et territoires de langue allemande, cet article propose de mettre en évidence leurs enjeux scientifiques, académiques, politiques et d'affirmation nationale. Ce faisant, l'article offre un regard réflexif sur son propre domaine de recherche et les découpages qui le caractérisent.

Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Isabelle Stengers fought against a state-controlled form of science and saw "nomadic science/concepts" as a way to escape from it. The transnational history of the term milieu marks a good opportunity to contribute to another theory of nomadic vocabularies. Traveling from France to Germany, the word milieu came to be identified as a French theory. Milieu was seen as an expression of determinism, of the connection between the rise of the natural sciences and the rise of socialism, and it deterred the majority of German academics. Umwelt was thus coined as an "antimilieu" expression. This article defends a "transnational historical semantic" against the Koselleckian history of concepts and its a priori distinctions between words and concepts. Instead of taking its nature for granted, a transnational historical semantic investigation should analyze the terminological and national status given to the objects of investigation by the term's users.

La mise en "contexte" est souvent tenue pour une pratique commune aux sciences humaines et sociales. Prendre acte de l'inscription des faits étudiés dans un temps et dans un lieu circonstanciés apparaît incontournable pour des sciences censées rendre compte de la singularité de leurs objets. Mais cette référence au contexte est-elle vraiment fédératrice ? Revenant sur l'émergence, la dissémination mais aussi le rejet du terme "contexte" et des pratiques qui lui furent associées dans diverses disciplines, le présent volume fait apparaître un paysage plus complexe qu'attendu. Le "contexte" révèle des tensions existant entre les différentes sciences humaines et sociales comme au sein de chacune d'elles. Des défenseurs de l'autonomie du texte (juridique, philosophique…) y voient une pratique relativiste. D'autres dénoncent, au contraire, un usage paresseux qui en ferait un simple décor. Certains spécialistes de l'histoire environnementale préfèrent la notion d'Anthropocène afin de mettre en relief l'empreinte humaine sur la terre à une échelle moins locale. Par-delà leur variété, les études de cas proposées ici montrent que l'historien des sciences ne peut objectiver les pratiques de mise en "contexte" sans s'interroger sur les siennes propres