29/12/2022
➡Revista História (São Paulo)
Chamada para Dossiê:
🔴Times of History
Volume 42, 2023.
📆Deadline
31 de março de 2023
Submission Link: https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/his-scielo
Coeditors:
Cardoso Jr, Hélio R. (Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brasil)
Landwehr, Achim (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Alemanha)
Mudrovcic, María Inés (Universidad Nacional de Comahue, Argentina)
Although the disciplinary common sense recognizes the primary role that time plays for historical practice and thinking, the notion of historical time only begins to be carefully studied as late as the 1970s. In fact, a closer focus on the concept of time has only increased from the 1990s on, for both historians, according to Lorenz, and historical theorists, according to Gorman. The recent development of time studies in discipline of history invites to make “a radical critique of the dominant concept of historical time and the metaphysical presuppositions and ontological commitments that accompany it”, Bevernage assures.
This special issue welcomes the different branches of time studies that contribute to the critique of historical time within the discipline of history and beyond.
The theory of history and the historiography have long been fathoming the many ontological commitments of historical time, which are at large related to the metaphysics of historical time, whose main issue is the order of time related to the relationship between past, present, and future. On the one hand, there is the classical metaphysics of time, whose most representative names are philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Ricoeur, and historians as Spengler, Toynbee, and Braudel. On the other hand, there is the new metaphysics of historical time that involves as main trends studies related to the relationship between past and present, and between past and future, having as its most representative names theorists of history. Regarding the relationship between past and present , three sub-trends stand out: 1. historical presence and its varieties (for instance, Gumbrecht’s, Runia’s, and Kleinberg’s), 2. multiple temporalities and ana/syn/pro/para/metachronism (Koselleck and Jordheim, Landwehr), and 3. the analytical philosophy of history’s approach to historical time (Roth). As for the relationship between past and future, the new metaphysics of historical time has been dealing with the “historical futures” concerning Anthropocene, Posthumanism, and the boundaries of historical time with anthropological time, archeological time, and the time of the Earth (Braidotti, Chakrabarty, Hayles, Staley, Domanska, Simon, Tamm).
However, the historical time not only brings metaphysical challenges, but it also addresses the experience of time, which organizes the relationship between past, present, and future, according to the predominance of one over the others, for instance, the pre-modern experience of time, the modern experience of time, and the current presentism (Koselleck’s space of experience and horizon of expectation, Hartog’s regimes of historicity, and Gumbrecht’s broad present). Moreover, the regimes of historicity are written according to “historiographical regimes” (Mudrovcic) insofar as the historiography, being a social practice, is involved in the ambience of a specific regime of historicity.
Last but not least, contributions external to the field of the Humanities are also welcome to this special issue. It became evident that there is a displacement in the relationship between historical and natural time that draws attention to a mutual involvement between them. The longstanding idea that the natural time is previous and distinct from the historical time has been under criticism since recent lines of research assumed that a sharp distinction between them does not hold. The focus on the relationship among the natural time’s past, present, and future may bring important information for the historical time studies, mainly because the boundaries between history and the times of the Earth have been challenged.
