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)

At the end of the 19th century, most professional historians – wherever they existed – deemed history to be a form of knowledge ruled by a method that bears no resemblance with those most commonly traceable in the natural sciences. The bulk of the historian’s task was then frequently regarded as being the application of procedures frequently referred to as ‘historical method’. In the context of such an emerging interest on historical methods and methodology, at least three textbooks stand out: (...) Johann Gustav Droysen’s Grundriss der Historik (Outline of the Theory of History), Ernst Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (Handbook of Historical Method), and Charles Langlois and Charles Seignobos’s Introduction aux études historiques (Introduction to the Study of History). These books were quite influential in Germany, France, and elsewhere, and they very much helped promote a general idea of historical method that would become relatively consensual among historians of many nationalities by the early 20th century. Such a relative agreement on historical method sponsored both the communication and the development of a sense of disciplinary identity among historians trained within different and sometimes conflicting national traditions. It was then partially extended, partially challenged, and surely made more complex when, from the 1920s on, social and economic historians became a good part of the historiographical establishment in many countries. -/- The three books by Droysen, Bernheim, and Langlois and Seignobos were already pieced together by Rolf Torstendahl, who studied them as a group of texts that, despite their differences, contributed to shape the developments outlined above. However, Torstendahl’s primary aim was to show how Droysen, Bernheim, and Seignobos all resorted to ‘method’ as a way to circumvent skepticism against the possibility of historical knowledge, rather than investigate the internal interrelationships between the three texts. In this chapter I follow precisely this latter, not yet taken, road, focusing on crucial cross-references between the Grundriss, the Lehrbuch, and the Introduction. I intend to show that, at a general level, the schemes of historical method found in these texts are largely convergent, and that this convergence is due to Bernheim’s reading of Droysen and to Langlois and Seignobos’s reading of Bernheim. I will attempt to do it through a regressive approach that starts with an analysis of the Introduction. Aspects of the editorial history and circulation of the three texts will also be briefly addressed, as a way to illustrate their special importance within the framework of early 20th century historical theory. Because my argument calls for a focus on the most general lines of Droysen’s, Bernheim’s, and Langlois and Seignobos’s schemes of historical method, I will, for the sake of consistency, refrain from analysing in-depth the complex epistemological and ontological arguments in which those schemes are nested. (shrink)

Trata-se de um trabalho de natureza didática cujo propósito é introduzir o leitor à teoria da história de Jörn Rüsen. O texto inicia-se com uma introdução que situa este autor no contexto do desenvolvimento histórico da disciplina “teoria da história. Está dividido em três capítulos, nos quais os cinco componentes da sua “matriz disciplinar da ciência histórica são apresentados e discutidos, a saber (1) as carências de orientação e funções orientativas; (2) perspectivas diretoras da interpretação histórica e métodos de pesquisa (...) empírica; e (3) as formas de apresentação histórica. O trabalho finaliza-se com uma lista bibliográfica, da qual constam os títulos mais importantes de Rüsen, bem como uma série de comentários à sua teoria da história. (shrink)

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)

O presente texto oferece uma interpretação de Do Império à República, o livro de Sérgio Buarque de Holanda que reconta a história política brasileira da segunda metade do século XIX. Baseando-se em conceitos desenvolvidos pelo teórico da história Jörn Rüsen, o artigo detém-se particularmente em três aspectos do referido livro: os artefatos teóricos que presidem a interpretação da crise da Monarquia brasileira, os padrões narrativos que dão suporte à constituição de sentido sobre essa experiência do passado, bem como o contexto (...) atual de orientação que serviu de parâmetro de significado/sentido à interpretação e à representação. Esta análise pretende ilustrar que a teoria da história é não só um meio para explorar abstratamente as complexas questões ligadas à produção do conhecimento histórico, mas também uma ferramenta para a obtenção de imagens concretas acerca da prática intelectual dos historiadores profissionais. (shrink)

Throughout Alexandre Herculano’s historical oeuvre claims of impartiality are mingled with the partiality of the beliefs, ideals, and interests that give shape to the author’s point of view. One can trace in it both the commitment to the disinterested search for truth and the pragmatic intention to remodel the relations of Portuguese society with its past and with the effects of this past on the present. This text revisits Herculano’s major historical writings with the aim of understanding how it is (...) possible for historical texts to be or claim to be at the same time true and useful, objective and engaged, impartial and partial. I intend to show that those oppositions not necessarily entail paralyzing contradictions, and that good historians such as Herculano are usually capable of drawing from them a great amount of intellectual energy. Focusing on the tension between impartiality and partiality, and supported by close readings and contextual analyses, I will try to demonstrate that such tension configures itself in at least two different modes, which in turn depend on the positive or negative significance the studied past turns out to have for the person who studies it. (shrink)

The text addresses conceptions of human selfhood and humankind as developed by two major nineteenth-century German-speaking historians, Johann Gustav Droysen and Jacob Burckhardt. It aims at ascertaining to what extent the historical anthropologies proposed by both authors can be considered to be humanistic. We will attempt to provide an answer to this question while locating and discussing both humanistic and anti-humanistic features in their texts. Humanism is understood here as a perspective that emerged within the framework of the philosophy of (...) the Enlightenment, for example, in Immanuel Kant's ethics and in Friedrich Niethammer's pedagogy. On the one hand, we will define Droysen's and Burckhardt's anthropologies as humanistic, stressing their intellectual connection to the universalistic notions of humankind and human nature developed in the late eighteenth-century. On the other, we will relativize this predicament by exploring their main anti-humanistic traits, i.e. nationalism, with regard to Droysen, and aestheticism, in the case of Burckhardt. (shrink)

What is history about? This Element shows that answers centred on the keyword 'past events' are incomplete, even if they are not simply wrong. Interweaving theoretical and historical perspectives, it provides an abstract overview of the thematic plurality that characterizes contemporary academic historiography. The reflection on different sorts of pasts that can be at focus in historical research and writing encompasses events as well as non-events, especially recursive social structures and cultural webs. Some consequences of such plurality for discussions concerning (...) historical methodology, explanation, exemplification, and representation are also outlined. The basic message, reinforced throughout, is that the great relevance of non-event-centred approaches should prompt us to talk more about “histories” in the plural and less about “history” in the singular. (shrink)