History and Theory最新文献

Tanvir Ahmed, “Green Boughs on the Graves: Unmooring Herat from Imperial Time,” History and Theory 62, no. 3 (2023), 367–85.

The following funding information should have appeared in the original version of this article: Austrian Science Fund, FWF-START, Nomads’ Manuscripts Landscape, Y-1232 G30.

History theory does not have a mature theory of questions. This reflects both historical and philosophical assumptions. As Holly Case has argued in The Age of Questions (2018), the big questions of the nineteenth century and their proposed final solutions arguably primed the murderous logic of genocide in the first half of the twentieth century. On her account, questions have become tamed as technical tools in historical monographs and reviews like this one. This picture of the twentieth century, though, runs up against R. G. Collingwood's historiographical logic of questions and the rise of erotetic logics in computer science. Computational erotetic logics have shaped the creation of large language models such as the GPT series and focused our attention on expressivity, effectivity, and classification in the relation of questions and answers. Collingwood's logic is different, using the relation of questions to questions to point to presuppositions. This metaphysical view of erotetic logic is timely, for it reminds why it might be so hard for historians to cut through with true propositions in an age of AI. Collingwood reminds us that a focus on truth-evaluable answers to questions does not explain why those questions were asked in the first place. Chasing chains of questions back to presuppositions, Collingwood argues that tackling what is assumed and what is lived with can help historians to change an unthinking world. In our age, this includes the idea of a shift from historians being the users of large language models to historians being the designers of new forms of relationship between people and information.

In this article, I extract a theory of class from E. P. Thompson's historical works of the 1960s and 1970s, focusing especially on his 1963 magnum opus The Making of the English Working Class, the articles later collected in the 1991 volume Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture, and the essays “The Peculiarities of the English” and “Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle without Class?” In the first section, I argue, following Ellen Meiksins Wood, that Thompson developed a genuinely historical materialist theory of class formation as a “structured process” that moves from class struggle to class consciousness, a theory that complicates the frequent description of Thompson as a “voluntarist.” In the second section, I take a more critical position toward Thompson's understanding of class, discussing a tension between this notion of class as structured process and his numerous invocations of class as a form of “lived experience” whose diversity and unpredictability exceed theorization. This tension aside, Thompson claims that, in the case of the nineteenth-century English working class, to which he dedicated so much research, lived experience coincided with the more general structured process he posits. In the third section, therefore, I more fully elaborate on this specific process of class formation as Thompson portrays it, identifying and discussing three intertwined threads: (1) a movement from a past-oriented defense of traditional institutions to a future-oriented demand for reforms, (2) the development of oppositional, class-specific pedagogical institutions and practices, and (3) the creation of a distinct class culture (which Thompson closely aligns with the achievement of class consciousness) that is aware both of itself and of its antagonism with other classes.

This review essay offers an extended analysis of Hartmut Rosa's Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. By proposing a critical theory for our present times, the book dissects modes of being related to the world and how these relations are conditioned by the dynamic of escalation that is inscribed into modern social formations. Rosa argues that the wide-ranging compulsion to grow, accelerate, and innovate produces a distorted and alienated mode of being in the world, suppressing and limiting possibilities for developing dialogic and responsive relations that are characterized by the concept of resonance. This review essay parses the categorical distinction between alienation and resonance, critically interrogating Rosa's notion that resonant relations form the basis for a good and successful life. While my analysis argues that the structural shortage of resonant relations can make subjects and collectives vulnerable to acting on the promise of resonance—possibly giving rise to problematic and undesired effects—I nonetheless contend that the concept of resonance is an effective explanatory tool that exhibits significant potential for interdisciplinary engagement. To illustrate this potential, I explore the extent to which Rosa's theorizing can illuminate contemporary matters of history and historical temporality. More specifically, I consider the perspective that the framework of resonance provides a comprehensive background for the paradigm of presence and the related surge in interest to theorize bodily and perceptual modes of being connected to the past.

Theo Hermans's Translation and History: A Textbook offers an insightful, clear, and sophisticated account of debates in translation history as a transdisciplinary field that remained, until recently, at the margins of historiographical debates. It discusses essential theoretical and methodological tools through which historians of translation may wrestle with the problem of defining their object; with modalities of historicizing associated with specific fields and perspectives (including, for instance, memory studies, microhistory, and the history of concepts); and with questions of context, temporality, space, and agency by accounting for translation's transformative movement, migration, and metamorphosis. This review essay follows the book's journey in and out of disciplinary and conceptual borders in order to discuss some of the stakes at play in it, especially problems pertaining to the delimitation of translation as a differential, but distinct, object of historical research, one that lays bare the power of translations to mobilize cultural works and frontiers. By the same token, it attempts to inscribe a translation paradigm into historical theory and, crucially, into debates that shift our focus from rigid historiographical borders toward mobilizing and transformative motifs, identities, and domains of history. This focus grants a new orientation to (translation) history, setting malleability, thresholds, mobility, and resistance to movement at the center of ongoing attempts to configure alternative spatialities, temporalities, subjects, and worlds of the past beyond conventional accounts of contextualizing, periodizing, and only human history.

This article addresses two primary tensions that currently beset medieval history. The first concerns a contentious debate within the field regarding the relative merits of two interpretative approaches: that which seeks to situate the Middle Ages within a narrative of continuity wherein aspects of the medieval bear some relationship of familiarity with the present and that which accords a radical alterity to the past that instigates moments of historical rupture. The second tension concerns the fraught relationship between history as a site of knowledge production with some proximity to engaging and producing truth and history as constructed, wherein its purported object of study, the past, is not an ontological fact but a cultural artifact. In this instance, what we witness is less a debate among scholars within history than an amorphic anxiety about history. This article makes a case for engaging the radical alterity that confronts the historian of the Middle Ages. It does so, however, cognizant of an ontological impasse: if alterity is attentive to difference, a difference that resists translation into modern knowledge regimes, then what does it mean to engage it historically—that is, through a temporal structure that would have been foreign to the very period of study?