Grupo Manifiesto Historia a Debate
|
History under Debate Manifiesto |
|
After eight years of contacts, reflections and debates, in the form of conferences, inquiries and of late over the Internet we have felt compelled to make explicit and update our stance in the critical dialogue with other historiographic tendencies which were also developed in the last decade of the twentieth century: (1) the sixties and seventies continuism, (2) postmodernism and (3) the return to the old history, the latest historiographic ‘innovation’ . We are experiencing a transition both historical and historiographic whose outcome is yet to be known. History under Debate, as a historiographic tendency, wishes to contribute to the configuration of a common and plural paradigm of historians of the twenty first century which ensures a new spring for history and its writing. To such end, we have thought up 18 methodological, historiographic and epistemologic proposals which we now submit to historians all over the world for debate, and if so deemed, for critical endorsement and further elaboration. METHODOLOGY I We advocate neither Ranke’s objectivist history nor the subjectivist history of Postmodernity. We propose a science with a human subject who discovers the past as he or she builds it. To take into account the two subjectivities, historical agents and historians, that influence our process of knowledge is the best guarantee of the objectivity of its results, which are inevitably relative and plural, and therefore, rigorous. The time has come for history to update its concept of science, by shedding the naive objectivism inherited from nineteenth-century Positivism but without falling into the revival of the radical subjetivism of the late twenty century Postmodern trend . The growing confluence of the ‘two cultures’, the scientific and the humanistic, will facilitate in the century ahead the double definition of history - as a social science and as part of the humanities- which we need. II We are in favour of a new erudition which widens the concept of historical source to include non-official documentation, material evidence other than the written word, such as oral or iconographic evidence and the non-sources: silences, errors and gaps which historians should evaluate in an effort to preserve objectivity also in the plurality of sources. A new erudition which is decisively based on the other-than-source knowledge which the researcher provides. History is made up of ideas, hypotheses, explanations and interpretations, which contribute to building and discovering the sources. A new erudition that transcends the innovative historiography of the sixties and seventies by incorporating the new relation with the sources provided by women’s history, oral history, ecological history, world/ global history and other relevant innovations developed in the eighties and nineties , as well as the ‘new historiography’ which is being born over the Internet, and of which we are a part. A new erudition which, in the face of the fact that the necessary empirical work does not decide historical truth as this may only be reached through communities of historians, conducts debate and consensus in collective forums. A new erudition, in short, that enables us to overcome the conservative ‘Positivist turn’ to which the crisis of the great historiographic schools of the last century has led us, thus threatening our discipline with reverting to the nineteenth century. III A new paradigm is urgently needed to recover the social and academic prestige of innovation in methods and themes, in questions and answers, in short, in the originality of historical research. A new historiography that looks ahead and restores the historical profession its enthusiasm for renovation and historiographic commitment. New lines of research will come to light if we use our own heads : being aware that there is nothing historical that should not concern us; advancing through the mixture and the convergence of methods and genres; filling old casks with new wine from biography to microhistory, paying attention to scientific and cultural, social and political needs of a society subject to a profound transformation . The twenty first century historiography requires both the illusion and the reality of truly innovative approaches or else, like Lot’s wife, it will turn into a statue of salt. IV The new historiography we propose must stress the interdisciplinary approach of history, albeit in a balanced way: inwards within the wide and diverse community of historians, by strengthening the disciplinary and scientific unity of professional history; and outwards, by stretching the ranges of alliances beyond the classical social sciences. We must build bridges that communicate the vast archipelago our discipline has grown into in the last decades. At the same time, history must interchange methods, techniques and approaches not only with social sciences but also with literature and philosophy ( of history and science, especially),as far as humanities are concerned . Special mention deserve emerging disciplines which deal with new technologies and their transforming impact in society, culture, politics and communication. Past experiences have taught us that there are three avenues which, in our view, must be eluded if we want history to be enriched by an interdisciplinary approach : 1) to pursue an impossible ‘unified social science’ around any other discipline, without this affecting its full interdisciplinary development both individually and collectively; 2) to turn the dialogue between history and social sciences into the magic wand for ‘ the crisis of history’, which we see as a change in paradigms; 3) to dilute history in this or that successful discipline, as radical narrativists propose in relation to literature. V The failure of sixties and seventies ‘total history’ triggered the quick fragmentation of themes, methods and schools, accompanied by epistemological development and chaos, which seemed to come to a stop in the nineties, and which is proving increasingly anachronic in the world ahead that is based in interrelation and global communication. Our proposal is to go further into the historiographic practice, in search of new forms of approaching a globality which contribute to the convergence of historical research across space, genres and levels of analysis. To make possible a history free of adjectives, an integral history, we must therefore, experiment with research proposals which take the global as their starting point and not as a ‘Utopian horizon’: mixed lines of study as regards sources and topics, methods and specialties; incorporating to general history the most innovative, specialized paradigms; combining qualitative and quantitative approaches; designing temporalities(which include present and future) and different scales; scrutinizing the global through concepts and methods, still potentially wide reaching and comprehensive like mentality and civilization, society, network and social change, narration and comparison, and create new ones; investigating world history as a new front of global history; using new technologies to work at the same time with the written word, voices and images ,thus bringing research and dissemination together ; promoting reflection and debate, methodology and historiography, making them a common ground for all historical specialties as well as a meeting point for other disciplines. HISTORIOGRAPHY VI Knowing as we know that the subject influences the results of the research, the need arises of looking at the researcher for the sake of historic objectivity . How ? By trying to integrate individuals in groups, schools and implicit and explicit historiographic tendencies which unavoidably condition the internal evolution of the history being written. By studying historians for what they do and not just for what they say; for their work, not just their discourse. By applying, with qualification, three key concepts in the history of Postpositivist science : the ‘paradigm’ as a set of shared values; the ‘scientific revolution’ as disciplinary break and continuity; the ‘community of specialists’ because of its decision-making power, which is , in turn, conditioned by the social, mental and political environment. By conducting, in short, an immediate historiography which strives to anticipate the historical events which influence the historiographic events we are witnessing. VII The exhaustion of twentieth century national centres of renovation has been followed by an unprecedented historiographic decentralization, driven by the globalization of information and academic knowledge, which transcends the old Eurocentrism. Historiographic initiatives are now closer to us all. The momentum, for instance, of a critical Latin historiography and of Postcolonial historiography is evidence of this. The transnational communities of historians, organized over the Internet, already play an important role in the creation of new consensus to the detriment of the former system in which national historiographies depended on others and where academic exchanges were elitists, hierarchical and slow. We do not conceive historiographic globalization as a standardizing process . We think and do history and the history of history as teachers and researchers , in different overlapping and interrelated spheres: local, regional, national , continental and international / global. VIII As the collective projects of the twentieth century fell into decline, without being substituted by a new, common paradigm, the influence has exaggeratedly grown of the publishing market, of the great media and political institutions in the writing of history, in the choice of topics and methods, in the formulation of hypotheses and conclusions, with an increasingly more evident slant towards the promotion of the old history of the ‘great men’. In order to recover the critical autonomy of historians with regards to the established powers to decide the how, the what and the why of historical research the following is needed: to rebuild the tendencies, associations and communities that revolve around historiographic projects beyond conventional academic fields ; to use the Internet as a democratic and alternative media for publishing and circulating proposals and research ; to pay attention to the evolution of immediate history, without falling prey to presentism so as to capture the historiographic needs , both present and future, of global and local civil societies. IX The most noxious way of imposing one’s own historiographic tendency , usually a conservative one, is to deny that historiographic tendencies exist or should exist. The prevailing individualism, academic practices and national borders hide what we have in common, of which we are not aware or are not able to voice because of our education, readings, affiliations and attitudes . We are consequently in favour of bringing out the more or less latent, more or less organized working tendencies to clarify stances, delimit debates and facilitate consensus . An academic discipline devoid of tendencies, discussion and self-reflection is subject to extra-academic pressures , often negative for its development . Our conscious historiographic commitment makes us free before third parties, breaks the personal, corporatist and local isolation, favours public acknowledgment and the scientific and social usefulness of our professional effort. X We are against a fresh start which ignores the history and historiography of the twentieth century . The recent return of the nineteenth history makes useful and advisable to be reminded of the critiques of Annales, Marxism and Neopositivism. In all fairness, we should admit that this ‘great return’ shows the partial failure of the twentieth century historiographic revolution of which such tendencies were protagonist. The unavoidable critical and self-critical balance of historiographic vanguards does not, therefore, invalidate their relevance as necessary traditions for the construction of the new paradigm because they symbolize the ‘spirit of school’ and the historiographic militance as well as the illustration of a professional history open to the new, to social commitment . These are essential features which we are to recover in a different academic, social and political context, where communication possibilities have been greatly enhanced in comparison to the sixties and seventies of the century that has just finished. XI New technologies mean a revolution in the access to bibliography and the sources of history. By putting an end to the constraints of paper for research and publishing; by making possible new global communities of historians . The Internet is a powerful tool against the fragmentation of historical knowledge if used within its identity and possibilities, i.e. as an interactive media able to transmit information in an instantaneous and horizontal way to most of the world. In our view, digital historiography must continue to be complemented by books and the other conventional forms of research, dissemination and academic exchange and vice versa. This new paradigm of social communication, consequently, is not going to substitute face-to-face activities and century-long institutions but it will increasingly become part and parcel of the real academic and social life . The universalization of the Internet in universities and in society at large, together with the computer literacy of the youngest generation will end up imposing this new historiography as a relevant factor in the as yet unfinished paradigmatic transition between the twentieth and the twenty first centuries. XII The second decade of this century will see a remarkable generational change in teachers and researchers as those born just after the Second Wold War retire. Will this transition mean the consolidation of an advanced change in paradigms? That we cannot say. The 1968 generation was rather an exception. Among university students now we find a historiographic and an ideological heterogeneity similar to that found among the academia and society at large. We may find older historians who remain innovative and younger historians who hold nineteenth-century notions of what the profession of historian and its relationship with society is. Our responsibility as educators of students who will become teachers and researchers tomorrow is, in this sense, enormous. It has never been so important to explain history with advanced approaches - because of their self-criticism as well - starting at elementary and secondary school through postgraduate courses. Future history will be conditioned by the education given here and now to future historians : our students. THEORY XIII It is essential for the historian to think about the topic, the sources and the methods, the questions and answers, the social interest and the theoretical implications, the conclusions and the consequences of a piece of research. We are against a ‘work division’ according to which history provides the data and other disciplines reflect on them (or write accounts which have wide circulation). The communities of professional historians must assume their intellectual responsibility seeking to complete the cycle of historical studies, from archive work up to the assessment and vindication of their impact on social and human sciences, in both society and politics. The education of university history students on issues of methodology, historiography, philosophy of history and other theoretically-based disciplines is the avenue to pursue in order to increase the future creativity of historical research, underscoring the place of history in the scientific and cultural system as well as promoting new and promising historiographic vocations. Our aim is that the historians that do intellectual reflection conduct empirical work and that the researchers who investigate using concrete data reflect with some depth about what they are doing, thus obviating the frustrating dilemma of a ( positivist) practice devoid of theory or of a ( speculative)theory with no practice . A greater unity of theory and practice will furthermore enable a greater coherence of historians -both individually and collectively- between what is historiographically said and what is empirically done. XIV The historical acceleration of the last decade has replaced the debate on the ‘end of history’ for the debate on the ‘ends of history’. Assuming that history has no pre-established aims and that in 1989 a profound historical turn occurred, we should ask ourselves where it is taking us , who leads it, in favour of which interests and which are the alternatives. The future is open-ended. It is the historians’ responsibility to help the subjects of history build future worlds which guarantee a free and peaceful, full and creative life to men and women of all races and nations. The communities of historians must therefore contribute to building a ‘new enlightenment’, which, learning from the errors of history and philosophy , reflects theoretically on the sense of progress society demands nowadays, guarantying the great majorities of North and South, East and West, the human and ecological enjoyment of the revolutionary advancement in medicine, biology, technology and communications. SOCIETY XV The prime political commitment of historians should be to vindicate before society and the power the ethical function of history, of humanities and social sciences in the education of citizens and in the formation of community consciences Professional history must combat those parochial and neoliberal conceptions which still intend to confront technical knowledge and culture, economy and society, present and past, past and future. The most evident effects of public policies of social undervaluing of history are the lack of professional prospects, a decrease in vocations and the obstacle to generational continuity. The communities of historians must accept as theirs the lack of career prospects of the students who want to become historians , lending a hand in the finding of solutions which imply a revaluation of the historical profession as well as its working and living conditions within the framework of the defense of the development of the public function in education, the university and research. XVI In times of paradoxical ‘returns’, we would like to mention and encourage the ‘return to commitment’ by many scholars, among them historians, in different parts of the world with the social and political causes related to the defense of universal values of education and health, justice and equality , peace and democracy. These are indispensable attitudes of solidarity to counteract other academic commitments with the great economic and political media and publishing powers. A vital counterbalance, therefore, to prevent a potential disentanglement of academic writing of history in relation to the social majorities that finance with their taxes our teaching or our research. The new commitment we defend is diverse, critical and future-oriented. Historians should combat, from the truth we know, those myths that manipulate history and promote racism, intolerance and class, gender or ethnic exploitation . We should oppose, using our knowledge of the past , undesirable futures in cooperation and rivalry with other social and humanistic scientists in the construction of historically better worlds as professionals of history but also as citizens. The relation of the historian with the surrounding reality implies its analysis in a continuous temporal framework . If we accept that objectivity in the historical science is inseparable from the subjectivity of the historian, we must conclude that there are not great qualitative differences between an immediate history and a mediate history, between a more contemporary history and one more distanced in time. Everything is history, although the more we distance ourselves from current events the greater is the burden on us historians due to the diminishing applicability of the more presentism disciplines. XVII Our object of study ( men, women, the humanized natural environment) is obviously in the past , but we are in the present, and the presents are full of futures. Historians cannot write history with rigour outside their time and its permanent flow. We see several levels in the relationship of historians with historical immediacy : the social and political commitment, the topic of research, the historiography of intervention or the general methodological criterion for research . Half a century ago the founders of the Annales school formulated it : ‘ to understand the past through the present, to understand the present through the past’. Today, it is also equally necessary to emphasise the past/ future relationship. The fall of the teleological philosophies of history, whether socialists or capitalists, has shown a future more open than ever. Historians must play a role in its definition through their experiences and historical arguments, with hypotheses and proposals originating in history. To build the future without taking history into account would condemn us to repeating its errors, to resigning to the lesser evil or to building castles on empty air. XVIII Historiography depends on historians and immediate history. The change in historiographic paradigms we have been suggesting since 1993 relies on the accelerated historical changes that go back to 1989. Between December 1999 (Seattle) and July 2001 (Genoa ) we have seen the beginning of an unprecedented global movement against the ravages of globalisation which is already searching for an alternative society : unique pansee is now less unique. Many consider globalisation and its critics, the society of information, the new scientific-technological and the social global movement a change of civilisation: it is not easy to glimpse what the future has in store for us but there are reasons for hope. We all should contribute. History under Debate is an active part in this transforming process: we want to change the history being written and contribute to changing human history. As the historiographic debate and the most immediate history evolves, our proposals will receive more or less academic consensus and we will vary them or not according to our interests . Nonetheless, although there are approaches which, restricted as they are as yet, seem unavoidable to critically condition the new paradigm in the making: the plural set of values and beliefs which is going to regulate our historical profession in the new century. For all these reasons, history shall absolve us, let’s hope. On the Internet September 11th
2001
Yes, I wish to collaborate in the promotion and development of the Manifesto Yes, I wish to express my opinion on the context of the Manifesto Further information at Manifiest Group
NB: If you would like to subscribe to this Manifesto and / or include your opinions, criticisms and suggestions as regards its contents please do e-mail us at h-debate@cesga.es Historia a Debate Apartado 26 15702 Santiago de Compostela España tel. 981 55 21 52 fax 981 81 48 97 h-debate@cesga.es www.h-debate.com
|