bielefeld–wesleyan theory of history workshop

metahistorical categories and beliefs 

in historical writing

november 2–3, 2023 @ wesleyan university

menu

details

November 2–3, 2023 @ Wesleyan University

links  

social media 

about

In this workshop, participants took up the ways that historians and other scholars who work on the past often do so by employing meta- or extra-historical categories and definitions. One way to illustrate this move is through recourse to Reinhart Koselleck’s own deployment of such a mechanism in his famous essay “‘Erfahrungsraum’ und ‘Erwartungshorizont’—Zwei historische Kategorien,” or “‘Space of Experience’ and ‘Horizon of Expectation’: Two Historical Categories.” Koselleck tells us that both experience and expectation are anthropological givens that are applicable at all times and in all places and, as such, are not historical but metahistorical. What’s more, “without [such] metahistorical definitions directed toward the temporality of history we would, in using our terms in the course of empirical research, get caught up in the vortex of its historicization” (“‘Space of Experience’ and ‘Horizon of Expectation,’” in Futures Past, 259). (“Ohne eine metahistorische Bestimmung, die auf die Zeitlichkeit der Geschichte zielt, würden wir bei der Verwendung unserer Ausdrücke in der emprischen Forschung sofort in den endlosen Strudel ihrer Historisierung geraten” [“‘Erfahrungsraum’ und ‘Erwartungshorizont,’” in Vergangene Zukunft, 354]). Here and elsewhere, Koselleck argues that, for history to make sense and to avoid the conundrum of getting caught in a vortex or maelstrom of its own historicization, we require categories that are extra-historical to serve as a guide or lodestar. This use of meta-history actually differs little from that of Thucydides in The History of the Peloponnesian War, wherein he concludes that those readers “who want to look into the truth of what was done in the past—which, given the human condition, will recur in the future, either in the same fashion or nearly so—will find this History valuable enough, as this was composed to be a lasting possession and not to be heard for a prize at the moment of a contest” (“On Historical Method,” i. 20.2-22). For Thucydides, it is an emphasis on the structural repetition of social-psychological processes or a permanent human condition that is an ahistorical vector outside of time and place, and this allows for all aspects of the past to be explained from the vantage of the present and even a future present.

Such meta-historical definitions or categories are not restricted to issues of temporality or psychology but can be seen in all forms of historical discourse. The Cambridge school’s use of “context” as the cipher to determine historical meaning can be seen in this light, as can the use of “moral” or “ethical” standards. In short, meta-historical categories or definitions are ones that do not change over time or due to place but that can serve as constants that enable the historian or scholar of the past to the keep that past separate from the present. Crucially, these metahistorical categories often go undetected as an organization principle that enables the historian to make claims about the past but that is itself not investigated. In this workshop, we interrogated these categories and definitions.

In this way, “metahistorical categories/definitions” served as an umbrella theme that enabled each of our participants to look for the use of such extra-historical mechanisms in works of history or topics that coincide with their particular interest. This fostered temporal, geographical, topical, and methodological diversity, but it also enabled us to explore this phenomenon in multiple context or modes of deployment. Each participant presented a short position paper that asked, What kind of extra- or meta-historical definition/category is deployed in any given historical work?

participants