Analytical Concepts for Transcultural Settings: Pathways in Global Intellectual History
From Firenze University Press Journal: CROMOHS
Luc Wodzicki, Freie Universität Berlin
Sebastian Conrad, Freie Universität Berlin
While intellectual history — and its cousins, conceptual history and the history of ideas — can look back ona long pedigree, the field of global intellectual history is of comparatively recent origin. One of its main challenges consists in capturing the multifaceted and diverse character of the global past while operating within a disciplinary framework that ispremised on the dominance of Anglophone scholarship and a Western worldview. This tension, between an anti-Eurocentric agenda and institutions that tend to reproduce forms of Eurocentrism, has been with this new field from its inception.In a recent article on the state of the art of global history, Francesca Trivellato has argued that reflecting on the wayswe study global history is more important than defining what it actuallyis.1Concepts that help mediate between historical reality and present-day interpretations play a crucial role in this process. The study of the past demands attention to the voices of historical actors and requires historians to respect, understand, and take seriously the systems of thought from which they originate. This imperative casts a spotlight on the intricate tension between analytical concepts, often rooted in Western or colonial epistemologies, and actors’concepts,whose meaning is no longer transparent to us but requires careful unpacking.2Historians are thus tasked with achieving a balance between specialised knowledge that is sensitive to historical contexts and accessibility to a broader academic audience, compounded by the necessity of employing English as the lingua franca of global history.In the broader field of global history, therefore, scholars of global intellectual history often take on the role of mediator. This role is crucial in navigating the delicate interplay between global narratives and local realities. Abstracting historical realities into more generalised categories is particularly vital in global history due to the vast temporal and spatial scales involved. But since many of the concepts — such as ‘empire,’‘migration,’‘religion,’or even ‘enlightenment’ — need to encompass diverse experiences and perspectives, they become so broad and generalthat theyrisk flattening historical reality in ways that make the specificity of each case invisible.Thus, the first task of the global intellectual historian is to ensure that the voices of historical actors are heard, even when their concepts and narratives do not neatly align with the historian’s own analytical frameworks. This role is pivotal in bridging the gap between the multifaceted expressions of local thought and experience and the concepts and narratives of present-day historians that are not able to capture such non-conforming realities.From thisfollows an equally important second mediation role: the task of contextualising and correlating diverse local contexts without succumbing to the pitfalls of essentialisation. In this role, global intellectual historians must carefully reconstruct the interconnected but distinct nature of local realities, ensuring that each is understood and represented in its own right. This includes a deep engagement with the cultural, linguistic, and situational nuances of actors’concepts, ensuring that even notions that appear legible to us are not stripped of their local significance. These concepts are rooted in specific vernacular contexts but can also be employed in communicative situations that may diverge from their typical local meanings. Thus, the historian’s task is not only to trace the threads of these local narratives as they weave into the global fabric but also to preserve their unique texture and colour, ensuring that the global historical tapestry reflects the rich and varied hues of human experience across time and space.In their classical forms, intellectual history, history of ideas, and conceptual history may struggle to address these matters adequately. Originating primarily for the exploration of European or Anglophone contexts, these approaches traditionally extended their scope beyond these realms mainly for comparative purposes. This origin implies that adapting to new methodological and theoretical challenges requires a willingness to critically reevaluate and possibly revise their foundational principles. Since thepublication of Samuel Moyn and Andrew Sartori’s seminal book Global Intellectual History(2013), and the inception of the journal with the same name (2016), the field has undergone a rapid evolution. The dialogue between Rosario López, a representative of a new generation of intellectual historians, and the late J. G. A. Pocock, is a particularly enlightening example. López, reviewing Moyn and Sartori’s contributions, agrees that while global intellectual history is expanding in practice, it needs more theoretical reflection within the discipline. She criticises the enduring influence of the classical Cambridge School for its text-centric approach and its focus on the political significance of texts, ideas, and thinkers, suggesting that this has led to a limited and somewhat insular view. López advocates for a reimagined, inclusive, understanding of ‘context’to overcome these barriers.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/cromohs-15310
Read Full Text: https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/cromohs/article/view/15310
