Theorising the history of violence after Pinker

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Matthew P. Fitzpatrick, C. Kevin
{"title":"Theorising the history of violence after Pinker","authors":"Matthew P. Fitzpatrick, C. Kevin","doi":"10.1080/13642529.2020.1847897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Pinker’s 2018 work Enlightenment Now maintains his earlier commitment to Norbert Elias’ sanguine reading of post-Enlightenment human history. It replicates the problems that historians identified with his 2011 work, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Moving past Pinker’s theory does not, however, necessitate a rejection of theoretical or meta-historical approaches to the history of violence. Other recent works concerned with the history of violence offer rival theoretical positions and insights that are central to their success as works of history. Pushing past Pinker’s claim that Elias’ work is ‘the only theory left standing’ for historians of violence, this article demonstrates how theory has been used successfully by other historians. It interrogates the characteristic theoretical claims and concerns of four major approaches: new imperial history, comparative genocide studies, histories of war and society, and the history of gendered violence, and negates Pinker’s claim that no other theoretical tradition is appropriate for the study of the history of violence.","PeriodicalId":46004,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking History","volume":"24 1","pages":"332 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13642529.2020.1847897","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rethinking History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2020.1847897","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Pinker’s 2018 work Enlightenment Now maintains his earlier commitment to Norbert Elias’ sanguine reading of post-Enlightenment human history. It replicates the problems that historians identified with his 2011 work, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Moving past Pinker’s theory does not, however, necessitate a rejection of theoretical or meta-historical approaches to the history of violence. Other recent works concerned with the history of violence offer rival theoretical positions and insights that are central to their success as works of history. Pushing past Pinker’s claim that Elias’ work is ‘the only theory left standing’ for historians of violence, this article demonstrates how theory has been used successfully by other historians. It interrogates the characteristic theoretical claims and concerns of four major approaches: new imperial history, comparative genocide studies, histories of war and society, and the history of gendered violence, and negates Pinker’s claim that no other theoretical tradition is appropriate for the study of the history of violence.
平克之后的暴力史理论化
摘要平克2018年的作品《启蒙运动》延续了他早期对诺伯特·埃利亚斯对启蒙运动后人类历史的乐观解读。它复制了历史学家在他2011年的作品《我们大自然中更美好的天使》中发现的问题。然而,超越平克的理论并不需要拒绝对暴力史的理论或元历史方法。最近其他与暴力史有关的作品提供了相互竞争的理论立场和见解,这些立场和见解是它们作为历史作品取得成功的核心。这篇文章推翻了平克的说法,即埃利亚斯的作品是暴力历史学家“仅存的理论”,展示了其他历史学家是如何成功地使用这一理论的。它质疑了四种主要方法的特征性理论主张和关注点:新帝国史、比较种族灭绝研究、战争和社会史以及性别暴力史,并否定了平克关于没有其他理论传统适合研究暴力史的说法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rethinking History
Rethinking History Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This acclaimed journal allows historians in a broad range of specialities to experiment with new ways of presenting and interpreting history. Rethinking History challenges the accepted ways of doing history and rethinks the traditional paradigms, providing a unique forum in which practitioners and theorists can debate and expand the boundaries of the discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信