Call: Are our pasts still historical? Interpellations from the present to the discipline
Our pasts can still be thought of historically? In other words, does the historiographical operation that, through the notions of distance and evidence, transformed the past experiences of men and women into history still make sense in our present? The uncertainties and questions about the authority of history, both as a past transformed into verifiable matter and as a disciplinary field, are undoubtedly pertinent. The world that produced historical science, characterized by the geopolitical primacy of nation-states and the availability of the future as progress, has undergone profound transformation.
As a result of this broader change, we have witnessed, over the past decades, significant mutations in the historiographical field that have generated numerous research fronts sharing an arsenal of doubts and hesitations about the permanence of fundamental principles that consecrated history as a discipline. We no longer seem to believe in the immediacy of writing as a means of expressing historical experiences and constantly reassess the place of fiction and fictionalization in our modes of narration. We reconsider the ontological distinctions between past, present, and future and reframe the issue of temporal politics. We resize the role of the epistemic authority of the historian and the relationships between the historiographical field and discussions about our ethical-moral responsibility. The force of the diffusion of denialist discourses poses undeniable challenges to our disciplinary practice, and the traumatic experiences of the twentieth century - which seem to deepen in our days - require interdisciplinary efforts - for example, regarding Law - not always easily assimilated by historians.
Therefore, it seems that we are facing many signs of processes and transformations that cast doubt on the relevance of the past as a sense-making experience. If we continue to nurture interest in the experiences of other times, we do not seem as confident about the effectiveness of disciplinary history to address them. The paradox between a culture of pasts that seems increasingly present in our societies and the hollowing out or crisis of the historical discipline leads us to discuss whether we can still call them (these pasts) historical, in the sense of being epistemologically constructed by historians. In this scenario, what is the role and place of the theory of history as a self-reflective practice or even a critique of culture? What are the most urgent issues and which are at the forefront of the numerous disputes over practical and historical pasts that mark the public scene today?"
ÁVILA, Arthur Lima de. NICOLAZZI, Fernando e TURIN, Rodrigo. A história (in) disciplinada: teoria, ensino e difusão do conhecimento histórico. Vitória: Milfontes, 2019.
ÁVILA, Arthur Lima de. A história no labirinto do presente: ensaios (in)disciplinados sobre teoria da história, história da historiografia e usos políticos do passado. Vitória: Editora Milfontes, 2022.
ARAVENA, Pablo. Pasado sin futuro. La teoría de la historia como crítica de la cultura. Valparaíso: Escaparate, 2019.
HARTOG, François. Croire en l’histoire. Paris: Flammarion, 2013.
IEGELSKI, Francine; SCHITINNO, Renata. Teoria da história hoje. Historiografia e sentido do histórico. São Paulo: Usina, 2023.
MUDROVCIC, María Inés. The politics of timem the politics of history: who are my contemporaries? Rethinking History, v.23, n.4, p.456-473, 2019.
OHARA, João. The Theory and Philosophy of History: Global Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
SILVEIRA, Mariana de Moraes. Os anacronismos do direito, o direito como anacronismo. ArtCultura, v. 24, n. 44, p. 117-133, jan./jun. 2022.
VALIM, Patrícia, AVELAR, Alexandre de Sá e BEVERNAGE, Berber. Negacionismo: história, historiografia e perspectivas de pesquisa. Revista Brasileira de História, v.41, n.87, p.13-36, 2021.
WHITE, Hayden. The practical past. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2014.
