Kompensation is the keyword for an influential answer to the problem of the function of the human sciences in the contemporary world. It emerged in the second half of the twentieth-century in the field of German philosophy, and its chief message is that the human sciences have the task of compensating modern societies and individuals for cultural losses generated within the course of modernization (for instance, by the spread social relations of a new, abstract, non-traditional kind; or by the accelerating (...) progress of technology). The compensation-theory can be stressed as one of the main ideational sets against which Jörn Rüsen developed his own theory of history. This paper focuses on the agonistic relationship between these two theories that attempt to elucidate what is the value and the use of historical studies. My interpretative bet is that by doing so we will better understand important aspects of Rüsen’s theoretical reflections on history and historiography that have not yet received sufficient attention. I will show that Rüsen rejects the compensation-theory not only because he disagrees with the scientific division of labor it entails – which ascribes to the human sciences the relatively modest role of attempting to preserve some of what modernity needs to destroy. I will try to explain how that rejection is also due to more fundamental differences between Rüsen and the compensation-theorists, more specifically their differing understandings of modernity, and their dissent regarding how should the complex interrelationship between knowledge, politics, and the future be configured. -/- “Compensação” é a palavra-chave que sintetiza uma influente resposta ao problema da função das ciências humanas no mundo contemporâneo. Originária do universo da filosofia alemã da segunda metade do século 20, tal resposta sustenta, em linhas gerais, que as ciências humanas servem como uma espécie de indenização espiritual por prejuízos culturais causados pela modernização a sociedades e indivíduos (no bojo, por exemplo, da disseminação de novas relações sociais abstratas e não-tradicionais, ou do acelerado progresso dos meios técnicos). A teoria da compensação pode ser apontada como um dos principais conjuntos de ideias a que se contrapõe a teoria da história de Jörn Rüsen. O presente texto enfoca a relação agonística entre essas duas teorias, no centro das quais está o problema do valor e da utilidade dos estudos históricos. Lançar luz sobre tal relação – esta é a minha aposta interpretativa – é uma maneira de compreender melhor aspectos importantes das reflexões de Rüsen sobre história e historiografia que até agora ainda não receberam a atenção que lhes é devida. Quero mostrar que Rüsen rejeita a teoria da compensação não só porque discorda da divisão do trabalho científico nela apregoada, a qual atribui às ciências humanas o papel relativamente modesto de tentar conservar alguma parte daquilo que a modernização ameaça destruir. Procurarei explicar como tal rejeição também se deve a diferenças mais fundamentais existentes entre Rüsen e os teóricos da compensação, mais especificamente, às suas divergências de entendimento quanto à natureza da modernidade e quanto ao modo de configurar a complexa inter-relação entre conhecimento, política e futuro. (shrink)

A scholar of Hellenistic and Prussian history, Droysen developed a historical theory that at the time was unprecedented in range and depth, and which remains to the present day a valuable key for understanding history as both an idea and a professional practice. Arthur Alfaix Assis interprets Droysen’s theoretical project as an attempt to redefine the function of historiography within the context of a rising criticism of exemplar theories of history, and focuses on Droysen’s claim that the goal underlying historical (...) writing and reading should be the development of the subjective capacity to think historically. In addition, Assis examines the connections and disconnections between Droysen’s theory of historical thinking, his practice of historical thought, and his political activism. Ultimately, Assis not only shows how Droysen helped reinvent the relationship between historical knowledge and human agency, but also traces some of the contradictions and limitations inherent to that project. (shrink)

Cicero once stressed as the first law of history that “the historian must not dare to tell any falsehood.” This precept entails a minimal ethical requirement that remains unscathed by the whirlpools of epistemic relativism that have called many other aspects of professional historians’ practice into question in the last century or so. No commendable scholar seems willing to invalidate Cicero’s first law, and dependable scholarship—whether relying on objectivity-friendly or objectivity-hostile theoretical assumptions—follows shared standards of integrity and accuracy with which (...) someone from Cicero’s time, for instance, would never be able to comply. In this essay, I suggest that those two circumstances should dispose us more favorably toward a refreshed notion of historical objectivity pointing not only to epistemology but also to professional ethics. I address the condemnation of lying and, more generally, historians’ commitment to sincerity as a way to highlight the ethical dimension of history writing. By focusing on the deep but underexplored moral roots of objectivity, I argue that this concept is still very useful as both an analytical tool and a normative ideal. Objectivity, in the sense I underline here, does not stand in opposition to subjectivity—on the contrary, it is actually tied up with subjective dispositions, virtues, and skills that help shape responsible historiography. (shrink)

The French molecular biologist François Jacob outlined a theory of evolution as tinkering. From a methodological point of view, his approach can be seen as a biologic specification of the relation between laws, describing coherently the dynamics of a system, and contingent boundary conditions on this dynamics. From a semiotic perspective, tinkering is a pragmatic concept well-known from the information-theoretic anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss. In idealized contrast to an engineer, the tinkerer has to accept the concrete restrictions on his material (...) resources as only gradually changeable constraints on his projects. Jacobian biopragmatics examines evolution as a biologic analogue to human tinkering devoid of any projecting subjectivity. To validate this analogy, four basic principles concerning main formal aspects of evolutionary objects, agents, histories, and consistency criteria are proposed. (shrink)