Thinking through 1492: IR's Historiographic Operation(s) and the Politics of Benchmark Dates

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Political Sociology Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1093/ips/olae032
Julia Costa López, Zeynep Gülşah Çapan, Ayşe Zarakol, Atsuko Watanabe, Adhemar Mercado
{"title":"Thinking through 1492: IR's Historiographic Operation(s) and the Politics of Benchmark Dates","authors":"Julia Costa López, Zeynep Gülşah Çapan, Ayşe Zarakol, Atsuko Watanabe, Adhemar Mercado","doi":"10.1093/ips/olae032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Collective Discussion aims to open up space for an international political sociology of the production of historical knowledge that interrogates the politics around benchmark dates and what becomes knowable and unknowable through them. Specifically, it examines 1492 as a historiographical device through which to unpack how the discipline of IR knows history. 1492 presents a relevant case for this interrogation, for it is central for the historical narratives of a variety of approaches. In this sense, the different contributions do not seek to recover an alternative, ‘better’ history of 1492, but rather to explore its politics of knowledge production: what types of histories it makes visible, what types it precludes, and in what way it partakes in the reproduction of specific hierarchies of knowledge and the power structures that operate through them. In doing so, the Collective Discussion makes visible – and thus opens up for discussion – the historiographical operations performed by periodization and benchmark dating in IR, pointing to a way forward for an international political sociology of knowledge production in the discipline.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olae032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Collective Discussion aims to open up space for an international political sociology of the production of historical knowledge that interrogates the politics around benchmark dates and what becomes knowable and unknowable through them. Specifically, it examines 1492 as a historiographical device through which to unpack how the discipline of IR knows history. 1492 presents a relevant case for this interrogation, for it is central for the historical narratives of a variety of approaches. In this sense, the different contributions do not seek to recover an alternative, ‘better’ history of 1492, but rather to explore its politics of knowledge production: what types of histories it makes visible, what types it precludes, and in what way it partakes in the reproduction of specific hierarchies of knowledge and the power structures that operate through them. In doing so, the Collective Discussion makes visible – and thus opens up for discussion – the historiographical operations performed by periodization and benchmark dating in IR, pointing to a way forward for an international political sociology of knowledge production in the discipline.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
思考 1492 年:IR 的历史学运作与基准日期政治学
本集体讨论旨在为历史知识生产的国际政治社会学开辟空间,审视围绕基准日期的政治以及通过基准日期变得可知和不可知的东西。具体地说,它将 1492 年作为一种史学手段进行研究,以揭示国际关系学科是如何认识历史的。1492 年是这一问题的相关案例,因为它是各种方法的历史叙事的核心。从这个意义上说,不同的贡献并不寻求恢复另一种 "更好 "的 1492 年历史,而是探索其知识生产的政治性:它使哪些类型的历史变得可见,排除了哪些类型的历史,以及它以何种方式参与了特定知识等级制度和通过它们运作的权力结构的再现。在此过程中,《集体讨论》揭示了--并由此开启了--国际关系学中的时期化和基准年代所进行的史学运作,为该学科中的知识生产国际政治社会学指明了前进方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Bio/Necropolitical Capture and Evasion on Africa–Europe Migrant Journeys Justice “to Come”? Decolonial Deconstruction, from Postmodern Policymaking to the Black Horizon “I Flip, Therefore I Am”: Smartphone Detoxing as a Practice of Sovereignty Nomads’ Land: Exploring the Social and Political Life of the Nomad Category Thinking through 1492: IR's Historiographic Operation(s) and the Politics of Benchmark Dates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1