INTRODUCTION
Global conversations on the future of history and theory
PIOTR KOWALEWSKI JAHROMI
University of Silesia, Katowice
TAYNNA MENDONÇA MARINO
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Cite this post: Cite this post: Piotr Kowalewski Jahromi and Taynna Mendonça Marino, “Introduction: Global Conversations on the Future of History and Theory,” One More Thing… (blog), History and Theory, October 2023, https://historyandtheory.org/omt-poznan/introduction.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Check out the History and Theory Discord server, where we have a dedicated channel for discussing contributions to One More Thing . . . !
Organized every five years (with some short interruptions) since 1900, the International Congress of Historical Sciences meetings have provided a platform for discussions addressing the current state of the discipline of history and for reflecting on new and emerging historiographical trends while encouraging interdisciplinary research and international cooperation. [1] Following World War I, the discipline faced accusations that it had fueled aggression and nationalism. In response, the first proposals for a Comité International des Sciences Historiques (CISH)/International Committee of Historical Sciences (ICHS) emerged at the 5th International Congress, which was held in Brussels in 1923. [2] As stated in Article 1 of the CISH/ICHS Constitution, the aim of the organization is “to promote the historical sciences through international co-operation.” [3] The founding of the Committee should be seen in three important contexts: (1) after the end of World War I, it was closely connected to the Western idea of “peace through law,” with global historiography being considered an essential element of the global order; (2) history was defined as a science, with the methods and theories applied being ascribed equal significance to research findings; (3) from the outset, positions represented by the Global North and West were prevalent in the CISH/ICHS.
A century later, debates about the status of history as a science, historians’ objectivity, and relations between history and politics continue. Despite declarations proclaiming the “end of history,” historiography is still consistently used to justify territorial claims and to lend legitimacy to certain groups’ hatred toward others. On the other hand, the status of history as a science is increasingly threatened by fake news, negationism (denialism), aggressive politics of history and memory, and general indifference toward knowledge of the past. These challenges lead us to ask: What can we do to ensure that our discipline remains relevant and useful, for whom will it remain relevant and useful, and why?
These long-familiar questions are acquiring new meanings today with the emergence of new trends in historical thought, trends that are connected to, for example, discussions related to the Anthropocene, the agency of nonhuman beings, the anthropocentric and Eurocentric nature of historiography, technology and artificial intelligence, and the role of indigenous knowledges in creating knowledge of the past. What should be at the heart of these discussions about the position and relevance of history are not only the above-mentioned challenges but also the roles and responsibilities of those building historical knowledge from their specific epistemic standpoints. It is becoming increasingly obvious that, for historical knowledge to be genuinely global, it must be recognized that its theories are not exclusively produced in Western epistemic centers and subsequently distributed as something supposedly universal. Theories should be constructed within transnational and transcultural relations and networks. Critical theoretical concepts and ethical values—such as the social relevance of knowledge, trust between its creators and recipients, and dialogue between history and theory—should be included to a greater extent in reflections on history as something understood in increasingly broad terms.
The Poznań Congress Interviews project, a series of interviews conducted with renowned historians and historical theorists, was initiated by Ewa Domańska, who, for some time now, has promoted using interviews as an important source in the analysis of academic culture and the current condition of historical knowledge and has treated them as an opportunity for PhD students and early career researchers to establish direct contact with well-known scholars and thus to develop international collaborative networks. The idea was put into practice by a group of young researchers: Piotr Kowalewski Jahromi from the University of Silesia in Katowice; Taynna Marino, Hugo Merlo, Dawid Rogacz, and Tomasz Wiśniewski from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań; and Marta Nowak from Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. They all participated in the 23rd International Congress of Historical Science, which was held in Poznań on 21–27 August 2022. The aim of the project was to highlight the most important themes shaping discussions on the theory and history of historiography, identifying problems and challenges facing these fields while also indicating potential directions for the further development of the fields.
The interviews feature repeated references to key questions that the researchers had identified beforehand, with each of them offering a unique perspective on the questions posed during the opening ceremony of the Congress, which took place under the motto Quo vadis, historia? [4] They address the status of history within academia and beyond it, issues relating to the theory and history of historiography, discussions of the main challenges and possibilities facing these fields of knowledge, and the publications the scholars have found most inspiring. All interviews were conducted in Poznań between 21 and 28 August 2022, with the exception of the one with Michele Salzman, which took place online. They all have been authorized by those involved. The early career scholars conducting the interviews have selected excerpts from the transcripts and added titles and notes. Many of the footnotes contain additional bibliographical details that were provided by the researchers with whom the interviews were conducted. The project was coordinated by Piotr Kowalewski Jahromi, who arranged the order of the interviews and edited them all.
The series begins with a conversation between Ewa Domańska and Olufunke Adeboye (University of Lagos, Nigeria). It offers interesting insight into African historiography, which remains fairly unknown in Europe, while also providing an important contribution to discussions of the geography of knowledge and the status of so-called epistemic margins in relation to dominant Anglo-American historiography. These issues were also addressed from an Asian perspective in Dawid Rogacz’s interview with Edward Q. Wang (Rowan University, USA, and Peking University, China). It would be impossible to discuss the provincialization of Europe without engaging in conversation with Dipesh Chakrabarty (University of Chicago, USA). His interview with Tomasz Wiśniewski not only addresses the issue of Eurocentric and secular history but also introduces planetary perspectives into thinking about the past.
The current historical condition and the challenges facing more-than-human history are at the heart of Taynna M. Marino’s interview with Marek Tamm (Tallinn University, Estonia) and Zoltán Boldizsár Simon (Bielefeld University, Germany). In two further contributions, Hugo Merlo, talking with Edoardo Tortarolo (University of Eastern Piedmont, Italy) and Estêvão Chaves de Rezende Martins (University of Brasília, Brazil), inquires into the prevailing trends in global historiography and the epistemic status of the theory of history.
Wiśniewski’s conversation with Kalle Pihlainen (University of Helsinki, Finland) further develops the trope of the ongoing crisis of history and corporeality as fundamental elements of historical representation. In turn, two interviews conducted by Piotr Kowalewski Jahromi—one with Verónica Tozzi Thompson (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina) and one with Antoon De Baets (University of Groningen, the Netherlands)—address the challenges facing history and potential solutions to them: developing trust, professional critique, and human rights.
An important addition to this series of theory-oriented conversations comes in the form of the conversations conducted by Marta Nowak with two renowned scholars of Late Antiquity: Michele Salzman (University of California, Riverside, USA) and Ignazio Tantillo (University of Naples “L’Orientale,” Italy). In their interviews, these two practitioners of history working on the relatively distant past reflect on the current state of historiography as an academic discipline and on ongoing debates relating to the problems of doing ancient history.
Where is history going? This question addresses not only the future of history in the sense of predicting what may emerge in the context of themes and research trends but also historians’ efforts to position themselves within various power relations and epistemic stances. Those include the ethical choices they make and their decision to conduct research on certain questions and not others and from certain perspectives and not others. With whom and how should the past be discussed? Who is permitted to speak about it, and who is excluded from those discussions? We are convinced that dialogue, shaped by mutual respect and conducted between different worlds and worldviews, offers the best way of working together toward a better future for all. Where are we heading (quo vadimus?) as historians and researchers? The use of the first-person plural is crucial to us as it emphasizes the incessant movement toward building a global community of historians (in Karl Dietrich Erdmann’s ecumenical sense) who are engaged in the struggle for a better future for our planet by creating and promoting a valid, just, and useful knowledge about its past.
In the name of all those involved in the Poznań Congress Interviews project, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the researchers who gave us their time, demonstrated openness, and assisted us in conducting the interviews. The Congress provided us with an exceptional occasion to encounter historians whose works have provided long-standing inspiration. We hope that this project will inspire other researchers and scholars who would be interested in continuing the dialogue we have initiated.
Notes:
[1] See Karl Dietrich Erdmann, Toward a Global Community of Historians: The International Historical Congresses and the International Committee of Historical Sciences, 1898–2000, ed. Jürgen Kocka and Wolfgang J. Mommsen in collaboration with Agnes Blänsdorf, transl. Alan Nothnagle (New York: Berghahn Books, 2005). A brief history of the International Congresses is available on the website of the Poznań Congress, https://ichs2020poznan.pl/en/tradition/.
[2] Much current information and some historical details can be found on the CISH/ICHS website, https://www.cish.org/index.php/en.
[3] Constitution of the CISH/ICHS, art. 1, https://www.cish.org/index.php/en/presentation/constitution/.
[4] Keynote lectures presented for this occasion were Olufunke Adeboye’s “Where Is History Going in Africa?”; Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Capitalism, Work, and the Ground for Planetary Histories”; and Ewa Domańska’s “Wondering about History in Times of Permanent Crisis.” These keynote lectures will be published in Storia della Storiografia 82, no. 2 (2022). The lectures have been published in the XXIII International Congress of Historical Sciences: Poznań 2020/2022 Opening Ceremony booklet, https://ichs2020poznan.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Ksie%CC%A8ga-OPEN-CEREMONY-4.pdf.
