Search

This article explores the relation between testimony and history by considering the recent "ethical turn" toward experience and memory in historical research. By way of a brief history of the concept of testimony in historical research, the article pinpoints current discussions as being about historical understanding rather than factual knowledge about the past. With reference to the revaluation of history within the linguistic turn, influential historical theorists have argued that abandoning objectivism calls for a rapprochement between historical research and attempts to make sense of the past in accounts of memory. Both history and memory accounts, they argue, offer forms of understanding that are equally conditioned by language as well as politics, culture, and identity. Thus, the inclusion of testimony has been framed as not only legitimate but also important for an "ethical" understanding of the past within historiographical discourse. In relation to this development, the article shows that abandoning objectivism in the wake of the linguistic turn cannot justify a general rapprochement between history and memory accounts. On the contrary, abandoning objectivism only increases the importance of appreciating the conceptual distinction between testimony and history as different forms of understanding. For clarifying the conceptual distinction, the article reexamines R. G. Collingwood's (in)famous contention that "testimony ... stops where history begins." Collingwood's main point was not, as previous interpreters have argued, only about epistemology but was about the qualitative difference between historical and practical pasts. In conclusion, the article articulates the importance of the distinction between history and practice in relation to questions about the historian's ethical responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that, in order to understand Peter Winch's view of philosophy, it is profitable to read him together with R. G. Collingwood's philosophy of history. Collingwood was both an important source for Winch and a thinker engaged in a closely parallel philosophical pursuit. Collingwood and Winch shared the view that philosophy is an effort to understand the various ways in which human beings make reality intelligible. For both, this called for rapprochement between philosophy and the humanities. Like Collingwood, Winch wanted to reformulate philosophy as a form of human science. Both thinkers advanced a conception of logic where the validity of judgements, propositions, and thought are dependent on their function as instruments in human dialogue. In their treatments of logic, Winch and Collingwood were fleshing out their idea that questions concerning human meaningful behaviour also tie back to the question of what philosophical analysis is about. There is a deep connection between two main issues in both Collingwood's and Winch's writings: on the one hand, the need for 'internal' understanding of how human beings relate to reality, and on the other hand, their critique of the idea of logic as a self-sufficient system, external to historically embedded forms of life. At the core of their shared vision there was a comprehensive critique of metaphysical realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the philosophy of history forwarded by historian R. G. Collingwood in his 1946 posthumous book "The Idea of History." Topics considered include the role of historical witnesses and sources, testimony, the role of historians, authority, and autonomy. An overview of criticisms made of Collingwood by historians including C. A. J. Coady, Haskell Fain, and Gordon Couse.

The interpenetration of nationalism and socialism is a seminal problem for understanding 20th century labour movement history. This article approaches the issue of ideological interpenetration by way of a close examination of the relationship between minority nationalism and socialist unity during a formative phase for the Finnish labour movement in the post-war period. More precisely, the article investigates the Swedish-speaking minority within the Finnish labour movement and its attempt to unify different ideological factions in the labour movement through minority nationalism. The article contributes to the study of the relation between socialism and nationalism by extending the discussion to include national minorities and their relation to the socialist labour movement. The main theoretical innovation of the article is the concept of socialist minority nationalism. This concept will function as a heuristic tool for analysing the intersection of nationalism and socialist class-consciousness within the Finnish labour movement. The Swedish-speaking agents of the Finnish labour movement, and their socialist Finland-Swedish identity-project, has hitherto been neglected in Finnish labour history. Through historical investigations of national or ethnic minorities, or other past and present marginalized groups and individuals in labour history, it is possible to problematize the hegemonic historical narratives of the majority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Historisk Tidskrift is the property of Svenska Historiska Foereningen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The concept of evidence is a cornerstone for the modern idea of history. As the story goes, pre-modem history was based on testimony from authorities in the past - modern history is, in contrast, based on treating material from the past strictly as evidence. Through this transformation history became a science of inference from evidence in the present to causes in the past. This transformation has been labelled the birth of an evidential paradigm in historical research. Understanding the change this paradigm brought about was a central concern for seminal authors such as Marc Bloch, R. G. Collingwood, Michel Foucault, Carlo Ginzburg and Paul Ricoeur. My aim in this essay is to examine a specific idea that is often associated with the evidential paradigm; namely, the idea that the modem historian's relation to material from the past is evidential through and through. The main aim of the essay is to show that this evidentialist idea is deeply problematic. I will argue that the evidentialist idea is in conflict with both the phenomenology and the epistemology of historical research. My central claims are that material from the past does not enter the historian's experience merely in the form of evidence, and that the very possibility of historical knowledge is, in fact, significantly dependent on not treating material from the past only as inferential evidence. 1 will, concurrently, connect these issues with contemporary trends in the philosophy of history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We will look critically at three essays by Cora Diamond concerning Peter Winch's views on the possibility of communication and criticism between language-games. We briefly present our understanding of Winch's approach to philosophy. Then, we argue that Diamond misidentifies Winch's views, taking them to imply language-game relativism or linguistic idealism. When she does raise valid criticisms against language-game relativism, her critical points mainly coincide with things that Winch has already stressed in his own work. That leaves us with the question what their real disagreement amounts to. Finally, we suggest that at the bottom of Diamond's objections lies her failure to appreciate Winch's insights about the place of logic in human intercourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the book "Testimony, Trust and Authority" by Benjamin McMyler.

Copyright of Historisk Tidskrift is the property of Svenska Historiska Foereningen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)