This article reconstructs J. G. A. Pocock's debt to Hannah Arendt's political philosophy in The Machiavellian Moment and argues that her presentation of classical politics in The Human Condition and her account of the secular nature of American foundation in On Revolution were important sources for Pocock's analysis of American liberal insecurity. However, a contextualization of The Machiavellian Moment within Pocock's immediate intellectual and professional milieu indicates that he placed himself in critical relation to Arendt's civic republican theory and located (...) her philosophy of history in the same spectrum as the American political tradition he sought to historicize. While they did share a similar perspective on the ethical and political value of locating oneself within a long historical durée, their different conceptions of the problem of continuity for secular political structures provides a crucial context for their disparate responses to the discourse of political crisis in the United States in the late 1960s and the 1970s. (shrink)

The main goal of this paper is to offer a reading of Reinhart Koselleck’s work as an ally of critical theory. My contention is that, despite customary accusations of Koselleck being an anti-Enlightenment historian detrimental to social criticism and emancipatory politics, his investigations on the semantic fabric of modern society may actually expand our resources for the critique of domination. In order to make this argument plausible, I reconstruct some antinomies that are at the basis of Koselleck’s work (state/society, language/reality, (...) experience/expectation) and discuss their critical potential. This analysis shows that, rather than a rejection of the spirit of critique, Koselleck contributes to the temporalization of the practice of critique as such: namely, a clarification of the contradictions and potentials of a reflexive practice imbued in the struggle between the need to comprehend the world as it is and the right to experiment with other forms of life. (shrink)

Gilles Deleuze and Hannah Arendt are two thinkers who have theorised the exceptionalism of the revolutionary moment. For Deleuze, it is the moment of the people to come. For Arendt, it is the moment of the freedom of political action. In the decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall there has been extensive debate on how to remember the German Democratic Republic (DDR) and how to understand the events leading up to its demise. Arendt's analyses of totalitarianism, natality and (...) the public sphere provide points of orientation in an attempt to clarify the nature of the DDR, the dishonesty of its evaluation in the West as well as the transitory purchase of its legitimating discourse on later generations of its citizens. Deleuze's reinvigoration of the revolutionary sense of the term ‘people’ sets it in defiance of prevalent notions of popular sovereignty and therefore facilitates a different reading of the protests against the so-called people's republic of the DDR: something else was at issue besides the substitution of one state form for another. (shrink)

In this paper, I would like to show that Koselleck’s thesis on the dissolution of the topos historia magistra vitae in modernity is open to certain objections, to the extent that one finds in modernity a number of practical conceptions of history which are “useful for life”. My own thesis is that the topos of history as the “Guide to Life” is not so much dissolved as rather transformed with modernity, and in a sense which has to be specified. This (...) point of view will be defended with reference to European authors of the nineteenth century, though I will add some observations on the twentieth century in the last part of the paper. (shrink)

Reinhart Koselleck never gave spatial aspects centre stage in his work, but is nevertheless referred to as a pioneer of the ‘spatial turn’. This article explores this paradox by examining Koselleck's understanding of and approach to spatial aspects, the role they played in his work, and the reception of his work on spatial matters by other scholars. The aim is to achieve a better grasp of Koselleck's work and to clarify in what sense we can label him a pioneer of (...) the ‘spatial turn’. The article presents three arguments: (1) Spatial aspects represent a somewhat marginal and sketchy rather than integral part of Koselleck's thinking, and they stand in the shadow of his much stronger interest in historical time. (2) Koselleck's work nevertheless contains spatial analytical features, which embody, respectively, anthropological and social, geographical and geopolitical, and phenomenological and linguistic dimensions. (3) The reception of the spatial aspects of Koselleck’ work is disparate and unconnected, and those finding inspiration in Koselleck do not regard him as a spatial thinker. These caveats, the article concludes, should be kept in mind in discussions of whether Koselleck ought to be understood as a pioneer of the ‘spatial turn’. (shrink)

This article attempts to order tentatively Koselleck´s unfinished outline of a Historik, a theory of the prelinguistic possibility of histories, dispersed in various articles. Besides, I will try to widen the scope of the meta-historical pairs, among which stand out, due to their highly abstract character, insideoutside, above-below and before-after, which are the basis of his historical anthropology. The inclusion of a new pair to the previous ones, namely unity-plurality, that moves between an abstract figure without history and another filled (...) with it, would strengthen the quasi-transcendental basis of this theory of history by means of the inclusion of the former pair, leading to a more subtil historical research of political and social concepts. (shrink)

Reinhard Koselleck has long been regarded as a particularly eminent theorist of socio-political concepts, while Hannah Arendt had not been in focus as a conceptual author until recent times. This article explores the common thinking space between Arendt and Koselleck through their thesis about the gap, rupture, crisis, or break in the tradition of political thinking and historical periods and how this is linked to their notion of conceptuality, i.e. Begreifen. Despite the impression that each of them focused on the (...) one main break between the past and the future, Arendt and Koselleck both studied multiple breaks and crises in the Western political tradition. The article attempts to show how their distinctive thinking and rethinking of political concepts are related to these breaks through several direct and indirect encounters and how these are both close and apart at the same time. While they have different concepts of politics and the political, their understanding of the breaks in time and crises can be read as complementary, especially considering their concern with returning the responsibility for actions and concepts to the human sphere. (shrink)