,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
If your history program teaches nothing but modern history, it's positioned to historicize neither modernity nor anything else.
And if I made the analogous point with respect to national/regional focus, it would be utterly obvious.
We hear endlessly about the obsolescence, inadequacy, or failure of modern institutions, norms, ways of thinking, ways of life.
Taking such assessments at their word, then, looking at historical antecedents and alternatives -- as well as origins -- is more, not less, relevant.
Taking such assessments at their word, then, looking at historical antecedents and alternatives -- as well as origins -- is more, not less, relevant.
And by "relevant", I mean relevant both to critical reflection on the present and to freeing our view of the past -- as far as possible -- from the blinkers of our moment. I take both of these to be central, even defining purposes of our discipline.
Giving these up, I think, means giving up most of what sets the discipline apart.
Reducing the relevance of history to a function of its proximity to us, or its capacity to supply useful facts, or its inculcation of transferable skills, liquidates it as a distinct endeavour.
Reducing the relevance of history to a function of its proximity to us, or its capacity to supply useful facts, or its inculcation of transferable skills, liquidates it as a distinct endeavour.
