,You got your history, I got mine’: Some reflections on truth and objectivity in history

The author offers a critical appraisal of some central problems of post-modern historiography. Starting from Keith Jenkins's introduction to his postmodern history reader and referring to authors such as Michel Foucault, Hayden White and Michel de Certeau, Lorenz once again raises the question whether history/ies can be true or objective. Distancing himself decidedly from all trivialising forms of the receptions of postmodern thought, but at the same time remaining sceptical towards the likes of Foucault, de Certeau and White, Lorenz tries to formulate the basic outlines of those conditions, which might allow us to answer the initial question in the positive. His polemical and pointed essay is crowned by a discussion of the relationship between history and the instrumentality and legitimacy of power.The author offers a critical appraisal of some central problems of post-modern historiography. Starting from Keith Jenkins's introduction to his postmodern history reader and referring to authors such as Michel Foucault, Hayden White and Michel de Certeau, Lorenz once again raises the question whether history/ies can be true or objective. Distancing himself decidedly from all trivialising forms of the receptions of postmodern thought, but at the same time remaining sceptical towards the likes of Foucault, de Certeau and White, Lorenz tries to formulate the basic outlines of those conditions, which might allow us to answer the initial question in the positive. His polemical and pointed essay is crowned by a discussion of the relationship between history and the instrumentality and legitimacy of power

Explorations between philosophy and history

This introduction summarizes the basic ideas behind the articles collected in Przekraczanie granic: eseje z filozofii historii i teorii historiografii [Bordercrossings: essays on the philosophy of history and theory of historiography]. The first basic idea is the idea that the writing of history has a “border crossing” character, meaning that history writing involves border crossings, first, between history and philosophy and, second, between history and “politics” in a broad sense. The second basic idea is that the dialectical mechanism of “inversion” (of “negation” and of “the unity of opposites”) is fundamental for our understanding of debates in the philosophy of history and in historiography. The third idea is that interesting prejudices and other assumptions in both philosophy and in history are found by contrast, not by analysis (Feyerabend). Analysis of controversies is therefore the most fruitful point of departure in the philosophy of history and in historiography. Because all key ideas in the humanities are “essentially contested concepts” (Gallie), controversies are the “normal” discursive condition in the humanities

Reply to my critics

In this reply to my critics (Monika Bobako, Krzysztof Brzechczyn, Ewa Domańska, Juliusz Iwanicki, Aviezer Tucker, Hayden White). I am answering several critical arguments that have been formulated concerning my ‘Bordercrossings’. First, I dismantle the critique that I am subscribing to some version of ‘covering law explanation’. Second, I clarify in what – limited - sense I find Lakatos ideas concerning ‘scientific researchprogrammes’ fruitful for philosophy of history. The cognitive and political Doppelexistenz of theories in the human sciences explains why epistemological analyses always need to be complemented by practical analyses. Third, I defend my ‘double focus’ against the postmodern critique that my ‘internal realism’ is ‘powerblind’, and fourth, against the critique that ‘scientific history’ is ‘beyond politics’. Fifth and last I argue that in criticizing positions it is fruitful also to include the discussions about them in the critical argument

Explorations between philosophy and history

This introduction summarizes the basic ideas behind the articles collected in Przekraczanie granic: eseje z filozofii historii i teorii historiografii [Bordercrossings: essays on the philosophy of history and theory of historiography]. The first basic idea is the idea that the writing of history has a “border crossing” character, meaning that history writing involves border crossings, first, between history and philosophy and, second, between history and “politics” in a broad sense. The second basic idea is that the dialectical mechanism of “inversion” (of “negation” and of “the unity of opposites”) is fundamental for our understanding of debates in the philosophy of history and in historiography. The third idea is that interesting prejudices and other assumptions in both philosophy and in history are found by contrast, not by analysis (Feyerabend). Analysis of controversies is therefore the most fruitful point of departure in the philosophy of history and in historiography. Because all key ideas in the humanities are “essentially contested concepts” (Gallie), controversies are the “normal” discursive condition in the humanities

International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography Book Prize 2016

Applications are now open for the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH) International Book Prize and the ICHTH Doctoral Dissertation Prize for the History and Theory of Historiography. Worth $500 each, the prizes are offered alternately for the best doctoral dissertation and book on any aspect of the history and the theory of historiography

Who knows where the time goes?

In this interview Marek Tamm asks questions concerning some of the main developments in Chris Lorenz' thinking about history over the last 25 years. The following topics are discussed: the necessity and function of theory in history, historical theory of Frank Ankersmit and Hayden White, relations between objectivism and relativism, between theories and facts, possibilities of truth and objectivity in history, perspectives of a scientific historiography, the change of temporal and spatial categories in contemporary historiography, distinctions between past, present and future, criticism of national history, prospects of comparative history and politics of time in the discipline of contemporary history