Julia Costa López, Zeynep Gülşah Çapan, Ayşe Zarakol, Atsuko Watanabe, Adhemar Mercado
{"title":"思考 1492 年:IR 的历史学运作与基准日期政治学","authors":"Julia Costa López, Zeynep Gülşah Çapan, Ayşe Zarakol, Atsuko Watanabe, Adhemar Mercado","doi":"10.1093/ips/olae032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Collective Discussion aims to open up space for an international political sociology of the production of historical knowledge that interrogates the politics around benchmark dates and what becomes knowable and unknowable through them. Specifically, it examines 1492 as a historiographical device through which to unpack how the discipline of IR knows history. 1492 presents a relevant case for this interrogation, for it is central for the historical narratives of a variety of approaches. In this sense, the different contributions do not seek to recover an alternative, ‘better’ history of 1492, but rather to explore its politics of knowledge production: what types of histories it makes visible, what types it precludes, and in what way it partakes in the reproduction of specific hierarchies of knowledge and the power structures that operate through them. In doing so, the Collective Discussion makes visible – and thus opens up for discussion – the historiographical operations performed by periodization and benchmark dating in IR, pointing to a way forward for an international political sociology of knowledge production in the discipline.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking through 1492: IR's Historiographic Operation(s) and the Politics of Benchmark Dates\",\"authors\":\"Julia Costa López, Zeynep Gülşah Çapan, Ayşe Zarakol, Atsuko Watanabe, Adhemar Mercado\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ips/olae032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Collective Discussion aims to open up space for an international political sociology of the production of historical knowledge that interrogates the politics around benchmark dates and what becomes knowable and unknowable through them. Specifically, it examines 1492 as a historiographical device through which to unpack how the discipline of IR knows history. 1492 presents a relevant case for this interrogation, for it is central for the historical narratives of a variety of approaches. In this sense, the different contributions do not seek to recover an alternative, ‘better’ history of 1492, but rather to explore its politics of knowledge production: what types of histories it makes visible, what types it precludes, and in what way it partakes in the reproduction of specific hierarchies of knowledge and the power structures that operate through them. In doing so, the Collective Discussion makes visible – and thus opens up for discussion – the historiographical operations performed by periodization and benchmark dating in IR, pointing to a way forward for an international political sociology of knowledge production in the discipline.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olae032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olae032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Thinking through 1492: IR's Historiographic Operation(s) and the Politics of Benchmark Dates
This Collective Discussion aims to open up space for an international political sociology of the production of historical knowledge that interrogates the politics around benchmark dates and what becomes knowable and unknowable through them. Specifically, it examines 1492 as a historiographical device through which to unpack how the discipline of IR knows history. 1492 presents a relevant case for this interrogation, for it is central for the historical narratives of a variety of approaches. In this sense, the different contributions do not seek to recover an alternative, ‘better’ history of 1492, but rather to explore its politics of knowledge production: what types of histories it makes visible, what types it precludes, and in what way it partakes in the reproduction of specific hierarchies of knowledge and the power structures that operate through them. In doing so, the Collective Discussion makes visible – and thus opens up for discussion – the historiographical operations performed by periodization and benchmark dating in IR, pointing to a way forward for an international political sociology of knowledge production in the discipline.
期刊介绍:
International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.