Modern Intellectual History最新文献_第8页

The Present as a Foreign Country: Teaching the History of Now 外国的当下：当代史教学

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI: 10.1017/S147924432200018X

Patrick Iber, Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen

引用次数: 0

Always Already and Never Yet: Does China Even Have a Present? 永远已经，永远还没有：中国有礼物吗？

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000130

F. Lanza

引用次数: 0

Practices Make Pertinent: Prospecting and Histories of the Present 实践使相关性：当前的展望与历史

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000178

Todd Shepard

引用次数: 0

Past and Present in Japanese Historiography: Four Versions of Presentism 日本史学的过去与现在:现在主义的四个版本

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000221

Louise B. Young

{"title":"Past and Present in Japanese Historiography: Four Versions of Presentism","authors":"Louise B. Young","doi":"10.1017/S1479244322000221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244322000221","url":null,"abstract":"For many intellectual historians, presentism is viewed as a cardinal sin—linked to unreflective anachronism and the inappropriate projection of present-day values onto a very different past context. However, by embracing the ways in which the present inevitably shapes our modes of inquiry, our historical interests, and even the moral underpinnings of our analysis, we can find in the present tools that can make our history better, and help make sense of historical debates and controversies. This essay gives an account of Japanese historiography organized around four versions of presentism. The first is political presentism, an analytic lens that emerged in the “objectivity debate” over what constituted politicized scholarship and reflected the political antagonisms of the Cold War in Asia. Consciously or unconsciously, political convictions shape our scholarship. The second version is the presentism of social context. Each decade that followed the Asia–Pacific War possessed its particular zeitgeist, and histories written during those moments were products of their time. The third form of presentism is the connection between past and present via analogy or likeness: using a past event or person to understand the present and vice versa. To analogize past and present means finding a correspondence that makes the past feel familiar and less “other.” The fourth version of presentism is the project of contemporary history: the past in the present, the past leading to the present, the present as the starting point for historical inquiry.","PeriodicalId":44584,"journal":{"name":"Modern Intellectual History","volume":"20 1","pages":"612 - 629"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48662919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Losing the Present to History 把现在让给历史

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000117

F. Devji

引用次数: 0

Historical Sankofa: On Understanding Antiblack Violence in the Present through the African Diasporic Past 历史的桑科法：从非洲的过去看当前的反暴力

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000105

Alaina M. Morgan

引用次数: 0

Intellectual History and the Fascism Debate: On Analogies and Polemic – CORRIGENDUM 思想史和法西斯主义辩论:关于类比和论战-勘误

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1017/s1479244322000129

Udi E. Greenberg

引用次数: 0

Political Thought and the Emotion of Shame: John Stuart Mill and the Jamaica Committee during the Governor Eyre Controversy 政治思想与羞耻感:约翰·斯图亚特·密尔与爱总督之争中的牙买加委员会

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-10 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000154

J. Richards

引用次数: 1

Introduction: Whose Present? Which History? 简介：谁的礼物？哪个历史？

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-08 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000142

Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins

{"title":"Introduction: Whose Present? Which History?","authors":"Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins","doi":"10.1017/S1479244322000142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244322000142","url":null,"abstract":"There can be little doubt that the history profession is experiencing a turn to the present. The post-2016 “crisis of democracy” has only dramatized it. Long-standing anxieties over presentism have crumbled under the weight of recent events. They have proven little match for Brexit, Trump, the rise of strongmen in the world writ large, racial injustice, and the pandemic. The turn to the present, however, is at times marked by undeniable provincialism—one that consistently offers a narrow perspective for understanding new and emerging global realities. Some historians, for instance, have taken on the role of liberal watchmen ready to strike the tocsin against suspected fascism, but they regularly do so by focusing on Europe's fascist past of the 1930s to explain the contemporary order. Or consider the economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. In the search for solutions, scholars proved quick to make historical comparisons to the great war economies of World Wars I and II, but appeared little bothered by the possibility that taking inspiration from Europe's age of extremes might “lead us to look for enemies and scapegoats.” So with the George Floyd protests: certain scholars and pundits likened them to the 1968 student protests in France and the United States, even as other scholars pointed out the historical shortcoming of the comparison.","PeriodicalId":44584,"journal":{"name":"Modern Intellectual History","volume":"20 1","pages":"559 - 570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44796792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Getting Tough or Rolling Back the State? Why Neoliberals Disagreed on a Guaranteed Minimum Income 强硬还是削弱政府?为什么新自由主义者不同意最低收入保障

IF 0.9 2区历史学

Modern Intellectual History Pub Date : 2022-06-08 DOI: 10.1017/S1479244322000257

Daniel Coleman

{"title":"Getting Tough or Rolling Back the State? Why Neoliberals Disagreed on a Guaranteed Minimum Income","authors":"Daniel Coleman","doi":"10.1017/S1479244322000257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244322000257","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores why neoliberals associated with the Mont Pelerin Society disagreed on the legitimacy of a guaranteed income in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States. Participants in this debate are categorized along a spectrum between “libertarians” like Milton Friedman and George Stigler, who favoured a minimum-income plan, and “paternalists” like Henry Hazlitt, who opposed one in any form. While these figures were united in their desire to roll back the welfare state, the two means they advocated to achieve this task were in stark contradiction in their assumptions. Divisions over a guaranteed income commonly reflected wider disagreements on economic methodology, consumer choice, citizenship, policing, and the moral implications of dependency. Previous analysts have tended to emphasize unity amongst neoliberals on the model of the “paternalist” paradigm. By recovering the origins of the libertarian paradigm, this article demonstrates instead that there was never an orthodox neoliberal approach to welfare reform. “What does neoliberal welfare reform do?” is shown to be a question requiring more complex answers than have been recognized in the literature.","PeriodicalId":44584,"journal":{"name":"Modern Intellectual History","volume":"20 1","pages":"484 - 511"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46231600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0