Chris Lorenz's idea of conceptual inversion

The text deals with Chris Lorenz’s idea of conceptual inversion, understood as an epistemological blockade that stands as a barrier to the development of a proper theory of humanities and social sciences. According to Lorenz, the methodological and theoretical views of scientific programmes embody negations (i.e. inversions) of the views being criticized by them. Because of this process of “turning upside down”, many of the conceptual problems connected with the criticized positions survive. The author asks two questions: first, about the relation between Lorenz’s idea of conceptual inversion and Imre Lakatos’ idea of reconfigurations of research programmes, and, second, about possible common ground on which Lorenz’s interest in empiricism emerging out of his criticism of narrativism, and Ewa Domanska’s interest in new empiricism related to posthumanism (also critical of textual constructivism), could meet

Beyond Anthropocentrism in Historical Studies

no abstrac

Chris Lorenz's idea of conceptual inversion

The text deals with Chris Lorenz’s idea of conceptual inversion, understood as an epistemological blockade that stands as a barrier to the development of a proper theory of humanities and social sciences. According to Lorenz, the methodological and theoretical views of scientific programmes embody negations (i.e. inversions) of the views being criticized by them. Because of this process of “turning upside down”, many of the conceptual problems connected with the criticized positions survive. The author asks two questions: first, about the relation between Lorenz’s idea of conceptual inversion and Imre Lakatos’ idea of reconfigurations of research programmes, and, second, about possible common ground on which Lorenz’s interest in empiricism emerging out of his criticism of narrativism, and Ewa Domanska’s interest in new empiricism related to posthumanism (also critical of textual constructivism), could meet

Beyond Anthropocentrism in Historical Studies

no abstrac

Globalizing Hayden White

This conversation originated in a plenary session organized by Ewa Domańska and María Inés La Greca under the same title of ‘Globalizing Hayden White’ at the III International Network for Theory of History Conference ‘Place and Displacement: The Spacing of History’ held at Södertörn University, Stockholm, in August 2018. In order to pay homage to Hayden White’s life work 5 months after his passing we knew that what was needed–and what he himself would have wanted–was a vibrant intellectual exchange. Our ‘celebration by discussion’ contains elaborated and revised versions of the presentations by scholars from China (Xin Chen), Latin America (María Inés La Greca, Veronica Tozzi Thompson), United States (Paul Roth), Western (Kalle Pihlainen) and East-Central Europe (Ewa Domańska). We took this opportunity of gathering scholars who represent different parts of the world, different cultures and approaches to reflect on White’s ideas in a global context. Our interest was in discussing how his work has been read and used (or even misread and misused) and how it has influenced theoretical discussions in different parts of the globe. Rather than just offering an account as experts, we mainly wanted to reflect on the current state of our field and the ways that White’s inheritance might and should be carried forward in the future.Fil: Domanska, Ewa. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań; PoloniaFil: la Greca, María Inés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero. Departamento de Metodología, Estadística y Matemáticas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Departamento de Filosofía; ArgentinaFil: Roth, Paul A.. University of California at Santa Cruz; Estados UnidosFil: Chen, Xin. Zhejiang University; ChinaFil: Tozzi, María Verónica. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero. Departamento de Metodología, Estadística y Matemáticas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Departamento de Filosofía; ArgentinaFil: Pihlainen, Kalle. Tallinn University; Estoni

Historicism and constructionism: rival ideas of historical change

Simon ZB. Historicism and constructionism: rival ideas of historical change. History of European Ideas. 2019;45(8):1171-1190.A seemingly unitary appeal to history might evoke today two incompatible operations of historicization that yield contradictory results. This article attempts to understand two co-existing senses of historicity as conflicting ideas of historical change and rival practices of temporal comparison: historicism and constructionism. At their respective births, both claimed to make sense of the world and ourselves as changing over time. Historicism, dominating nineteenth-century Western thought and overseeing the professionalization of historical studies, advocated an understanding of the present condition of the human world as developing out of past conditions. Constructionism, dominating the second half of the twentieth century, understood the present condition as the recent invention of certain ‘historical’ environments, without prior existence. As competing ideas of historical change, they both entail a comparison between past and present conditions of their investigated subjects, but their practices of temporal comparison are irreconcilable and represent two distinct ways of historicization