Suchergebnisse

In Towards an Historiography of Science (1963) and in other related works spanning over his entire career, Agassi presents his wide-ranging and original understanding of the history of science. It emerges from the criticism of two distinctive approaches, each informed by the uncritical acceptance, on the part of historians, of two philosophies of science: inductivism (scientific theories emerge from facts), and conventionalism (scientific theories are mathematical frameworks for classifying facts). Both produce unsatisfactory historical reconstructions, in which errors are either concealed or condemned. Popper's philosophy, by contrast, allows for a picture in which science grows from the recognition and criticism of our best and wisest errors.

AbstractIn recent years, there has been renewed interest in conceptualising the relationship between oppression and capitalism as well as intense debate over the precise nature of this relationship. No doubt spurred on by the financial crisis, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism, both historically and in the twenty-first century, has had particularly devastating effects for women and people of colour. Intersectionality, which emerged in the late twentieth century as a way of addressing the relationship between race, gender, sexuality and class, has submitted orthodox Marxism to critique for its inattention to the complex dynamics of various social locations; in turn Marxist thinkers in the twenty-first century have engaged with intersectionality, calling attention to the impoverished notion of class and capitalism on which it relies. As intersectionality constitutes perhaps the most common way that contemporary activists and theorists on the left conceive of identity politics, an analysis of intersectionality's relationship to Marxism is absolutely crucial for historical materialists to understand and consider. This paper looks at the history of intersectionality's and Marxism's critiques of one another in order to ground a synthesis of the two frameworks. It argues that in the twenty-first century, we need a robust, Marxist analysis of capitalism, and that the only robust account of capitalism is one articulated intersectionally, one which treats class, race, gender and sexuality as fundamental to capitalist accumulation.

Scholarly research & publication in many countries has made the Korean War not only remembered, but also better understood. Material from Russia & People's Republic of China has been especially helpful in adding nuance & detail to now-dated writing about the war's causes. Much more work needs to be done on Korean politics & the 1952-53 period, but all the scholarship simply confirms the shared responsibility of all the belligerents -- including the Koreans -- in starting & continuing the war. Adapted from the source document.

Max Tomba aims to reconstruct how historical actors reconstructed the past to open the future in ways that diverged from the trajectory of the dominant modernity. Insurgent Universality would break open the dead logic of the juridical, political, and economic trajectory of modernity that limits what is given and constrains what is possible. This essay reflects on the practice and the role of the historian. Beyond merely adopting insurgents' perspectives, the historian must engage in a practice of critical and reflective judgment. The essay draws on Michel-Rolph Trouillot on the silencing of the past, Reinhard Koselleck on the priority of the future, and Marisa Fuentes on the limits of the archives for voicing marginalized points of view. It concludes by calling for judgment and imagination where the archives run dry.

The article examines the relationship between the shaping of Indian foreign policy discourse, macro-historical processes that influence the formation of Indian political elites, and the development of historical knowledge about the Indian Ocean region. Its purpose is to ascertain the factors that influenced the specific perception of India's place in the region by Indian elites and how this perception evolved within the framework of foreign policy discourse. Additionally, the role of historians who have studied the past of the Indian Ocean is explored. The author concludes that the changes in global political discourse following the First World War played a crucial role in shaping the ideas of India's position in the world among the elites. These elites adopted the stance that the nation-state, with its own industrial base, was the only viable option. From the early stages of independent India, its political elites, influenced by British or Anglicized upbringing and education, rejected the notion of continuity between the new Indian state and the British Raj and the possessions of the East India Company. Instead, they attempted to establish historical continuity with pre-British Indian polities. Indian and foreign historians supported them in this endeavor. The author demonstrates how India's political elites utilized the findings of scholars to serve their own purposes, selectively adopting suitable historical narratives while discarding others. This process gradually drew the community of historians into the production of discourse. During the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, the Mughal Empire received the most attention as the last pre-British Indian polity. However, with the Bharatiya Janata Party coming into power, research on Hindu polities and personalities is now encouraged.

The main topic to treat in this article lies in the relation between history (as historiography or past reasoned knowledge of the discipline rules of its studio) and politics. We could summarize this issue in several fundamental questions. Is it possible a neutral story, completely "objective", aseptic and free from ideological meaning? Is it feasible a historiography 'autonomous' expresses an independent view of the world, based on irrefutable proofis, relieved of the ideology and philosophy, as has been postulated by some historians of the Annals School? Is it feasible a "History of History" without political guidance, based only on its scientific principles, as proposed by Professor Sergio Villalobos? I think this is a start point to try to elucidate the relationship between history, citizenship and politics in Chile today. ; El núcleo del tema que abordaré en esta oportunidad reside en la relación entre la Historia (entendida como historiografía o conocimiento razonado del pasado conforme a las reglas de la disciplina encargada de su estudio) y la política. Podríamos sintetizar esta cuestión en varias preguntas fundamentales. ¿Es posible una historia neutra, completamente "objetiva", aséptica, desprovista de sentido ideológico? ¿Es factible una historiografía "autónoma", que exprese una visión independiente del mundo, basada en demostraciones irrefutables, desembarazada de la ideología y de la Filosofía, tal como ha sido postulado por algunos historiadores de la Escuela de los Anales? ¿Es viable una "historia por la historia", sin orientaciones políticas, basada sólo en sus principios científicos, según lo propuesto por el profesor Sergio Villalobos? Me parece que éste es el punto de partida para intentar elucidar la relación entre historia, ciudadanía y política en el Chile actual.

The article describes what we have come to call ANTi-History, which entails the development of actor-network theory (ANT) as a critical approach to organizational historiography. It proceeds through four sections: 1) a review of the call for critical organizational historiography to establish the need for ANTi-History; 2) an overview of ANT to identify its potential to contribute to critical organizational historiography; 3) a development of ANT insights into an ANTi-History, through engagement with cultural theory historiography, and the sociology of knowledge; and 4) an account of the potential contribution of ANTi-History to critical management studies.

Historical digitization projects are transformative endeavours that attempt to negotiate and navigate a past's relationship to the present and the future. This article considers librarians' roles within the context of critical librarianship and digital historiography and argues for a more robust role for librarians within these transformative endeavours. Within the literature on digital humanities, there are recurrent assumptions that librarians' roles in digitization projects ought to be those of collectors, cataloguers, preservers, metadata creators, web designers, or programmers while the intellectual or theoretical "heavy lifting" falls to disciplinary partners like historians or literary scholars. In this article, we argue that librarians' digital historical work also needs to engage with "core historical questions" and with the act of asking critical questions about the larger cultural, social, and political issues inherent in digitization work.