Academic literature on the topic 'Koselleck, Reinhart – Criticism and interpretation'

Este trabalho visa analisar os horizontes de expectativas contidos nos discursos do Senado Mineiro, entre 1891 e 1906, pesquisados nos Anais do Senado Mineiro. A partir da documentação reunida, buscamos interpretar como as ideias de progresso e instrução profissional norteavam as concepções dos senadores. Procuramos compreender de que modo as instituições escolares de formação profissional foram entendidas pela elite política como instrumento para atingir o desenvolvimento econômico e social; isto é, usando do vocabulário discursivo da época, o engrandecimento mineiro. Desse modo, tomamos como aportes teórico-metodológicos os conceitos de espaço de experiência e horizonte de expectativas cunhados por Reinhart Koselleck; o conceito de repertório conforme a definição de Angela Alonso e as proposições de análise do discurso realizadas por Patrick Charaudeau. Ao considerar o Senado Mineiro como espaço de embates retóricos, pretendemos compreender como o vocábulo progresso foi mobilizado para discutir a instalação de instituições de formação profissional como estratégia para equipara o estado mineiro aos núcleos sociais entendidos como modernos e civilizados.Progress' horizons of expectations: the framing of Professional Edication in discourses from the Senate of Minas Gerais. This paper aims to analyse the horizons of expectations which lay within Minas Gerais State between the years of 1891 and 1906, available at Minas Gerais Senate Records. From the gathered documents, we aimed to provide an interpretation of how the notions of progress and professional education outlined the senators ideas. We intended to comprehend in which ways professional education institutions were understood by some of the most powerful politicians as an instrument to achieve social and economical development; which was the enlargement of Minas Gerais state, as senators would address to it at that time. Therefore, we have chosen the following theoretical-methodological contributions: Reinhart Koselleck's concepts of space of experience and horizons of expectations; Angela Alfonso' concept of repertoire according to the definition; and Patrick Charaudeau's propositions into speech analysis. We considered Minas Gerais Senate as a field of rhetoric attacks in order to understand how the word progress was brought up in arguments considering the establishment of professional education institutes as a strategy to equate Minas Gerais State to the social areas considered modern and civilised. Keywords: Progress; Minas Gerais Senate; Public Education; Professional Education.

Reinhart Koselleck showed that the decades around 1800 witnessed a major transformation of political language. Around 1800, the horizon of expectations gained distance from the space of the experiences that human beings were making, and thus possibilities for the future opened up widely. In particular, the future would be the time during which ‘peoples’ would gain their capacity for self-determination, called popular sovereignty. This would occur in two particular versions that crystallized in the course of the 19th century, namely as ‘nations’ that would unify or liberate themselves from monarchical and/or imperial domination to form the polities proper to them, or as a ‘class’ that embodied the universal interest of humankind and would assert itself in a second revolution, following up on the French Revolution. Political concepts acquired during that period the meaning that they still had in the late 20th century, i.e. the time when Koselleck developed his approach to the history of concepts, but they may be challenged in the present time, and with them the entire self-understanding of modern polities. The recent Catalan conflict serves to better understand this challenge. ‘People’ and ‘nation’ are there used in ways that are reminiscent of this politico-conceptual tradition, but in a highly ambiguous way. On the one hand, they are employed in exactly their historical meaning: the Catalan people and nation are seen to be finally fulfilling their historical role of reaching political self-determination. On the other hand, these concepts are re-deployed to place them in the current context of existing democratic commitments and institutions as well as high interdependence between polities, all the while claiming that Catalan independence opens up a new normative horizon of democracy, rights, and freedom. This article will try to show that this undeclared ambiguity is characteristic of our current situation in general. This is a situation in which the historically created political concepts have sedimented in institutions, and thus appear to have ‘consolidated’ and moved beyond their historicity. At the same time, they remain impregnated with particular historical experiences that can be re-interpreted to be mobilized in political struggles of the present. To assess the validity and acceptability of any such re-interpretation requires explicit reflection about the persistence of historicity in political concepts.

Grundtvig på anklagebænken[Grundtvig in the dock]By Kim Arne PedersenThe article opens with a review of Gr’s position after the second World War. The Heretica-era’s positive disposition towards religion and Christianity is inspired by the life-philosophy of Vilhelm Grønbech which in turn serves as a preliminary understanding of Gr’s thinking on the relationship between Christianity and folkelighed, the nourishing of a popular culture. Four significant currents have characterised Danish identity: Grundtvigianism, pietism, Brandes-influenced cultural radicalism and the social-democratic movement. Social-democratic thinking on social equality is examined in connection with the Grundtvigian-tendency’s elevation of the concept of folkelighed.With Reinhart Kosellek’s concept-historical methodology as aprompt, the Grundtvig-based concept offolkelighed is analysed in its association with the concept of liberty, ideas of social equilibrium, the question of a Constitution, and the concept of popular enlightenment (oplysning) in Gr’s authorship. The starting-point is an analysis of Gr’s ideas on Christianity andfolkelighed where it is pointed out that Gr, with his background in a Christian anthropology, emphasises their reciprocal bearing upon each other (vekselvirkning). The chief aim of the article is to demonstrate that the reception of Gr in the period 1883-1983 is characterised by a contest between, on the one hand, a philosophical interpretation of Gr which is linked with an understanding of the folkelighed-concept as an aspiration towards social equality and, on the other hand, a theological interpretation of Gr which concentrates upon humankind’s interaction with God in dialogue as the nub of Gr’s outlook on humankind.The article focuses upon the 1930s, when the social-democratic Education Minister Frederik Borgbjerg seizes upon the egalitarian aspect of Gr’s concept of folkelighed and uses it in the development of Social-Democracy into a national party. Borgberg’s interpretation of Gr embraces those components which characterise the following generation’s image of Gr: he is the supporter of liberty (and thereby tolerance), democracy and social equality, all as understood from their basis in the concept of folkelighed.Borgberg’s and Grønbech’s interpretations of Gr constitute the background to the understanding formed by Professor Hal Koch, church-historian and pillar of the folk-highschool system, of both Gr and the concept offolkelighed. But it is to be emphasised that Koch, in contrast to Borgberg and Grønbech, but in line with the author Jørgen Bukdahl, draws his understanding of the concept offolkelighed from the idea that the interaction between folkelighed and Christianity - that is, between the particular and the universal - is the underpinning perception in Gr’s writings.However, in the post-war period it is the thoughts of Pastor Kaj Thaning concerning the differentiation between Christianity and folkelighed which become dominant. Like Hal Koch, Thaning writes out of inspiration from the life-philosophy of Grønbech, but also like Koch he traces this back to its anchorage within Gr’s Christian universe.Thaning’s differentiation-thesis forms - against his own wishes – a starting-point for the 1970s convergence between the ideas of Gr and left-wing thinking on political emancipation, whereby the tendency from the 1930s now reaches its culmination: grounded in the construction of an adversarial relationship between Gr and grundtvigianism, and in a non-theological interpretation of Gr, the way is clear for Gr to become the leading figure in Danish national self-perception.In 1990 the literary historian and publicist Henning Fonsmark initiated the surge of criticism of Gr which from about 1992 has permeated the Danish public. With its starting-point in the debate over Denmark’s relationship to the European Union and over immigration into Denmark, one may observe a steadily more violent criticism of Gr among intellectuals who have a more or less loose connection to traditional cultural-radical milieus. At the same time the Danish immigration-opposed right wing, identifies itself with Gr - as in the case of the theological ‘Tidehverv’-movement, The Danish Association (Den Danske Forening) and The Danish National Party (Dansk Folkeparti). In contrast to the understanding of Gr hitherto prevailing, Gr is now widely interpreted as hostile to foreigners, intolerant, and the opponent of democracy and social equality.The viewpoint of the article is that both the right-wing use of Gr and the criticism of him are made possible only by an underestimation of his Christian premisses. When Gr’s Christian anthropology - and thereby the fellowship of dialogue between God and humankind - are appreciated as being the very core of his writings, then it becomes possible to maintain an image of Gr as the supporter of liberty, of social equality and of an enlightenment of and for life, which on the one hand appears as a consequence of modernity’s breakthrough in Western Europe and on the other takes its distinctive form from Gr’s understanding of Christianity as the bearer of that universality in whose light the particularity offolkelighed is to be understood. And it is this relationship which renders problematical a nationalistic reading of Gr’s authorship.

Presentismo
 
 Perry Anderson
 
 Universidad de California en Los Ángeles
 
 La acusación —si no el término— de “presentismo”, de tomar ideas del pasado haciendo abstracción de su contexto histórico para usarlas erróneamente en el presente, ganó su primera notoriedad con The Whig Interpretation of History de Herbert Butterfield, escrito a comienzos de la década del treinta. El término, que probablemente ya estuviera difundido en Cambridge en los años cincuenta, adquirió plena vigencia con los primeros textos metodológicos de Quentin Skinner, John Dunn y J. G. A. Pocock, que polemizaban con la historia de las ideas tal como era practicada por Arthur Lovejoy o George H. Sabine o, en un registro diferente, por C. B. Macpherson. La propuesta de una transformación radical del modo en que el campo debía ser estudiado encontró su realización ejemplar en The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law de Pocock, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought de Skinner y The Political Thought of John Locke de Dunn. Ningún protocolo de la Escuela de Cambridge fue más severo ni ganó una aceptación más amplia que la prohibición de presentismo. Las ideas políticas del pasado pertenecían a los lenguajes del pasado, que no tenían continuidad con los del presente y debían ser reconstruidos si se pretendía entender el verdadero significado de cualquier texto que se articulara en esos lenguajes. Las ideas políticas no estaban disponibles para un traslado de modo ignorante al discurso contemporáneo.
 La “revolución en la historia del pensamiento político” de Cambridge, a pesar de su insistencia en la primacía del contexto histórico, en términos generales no aplicó sus preceptos a sí misma. Pero el escenario en el que se originó parece bastante claro: el consenso de posguerra en el ámbito angloparlante con el florecimiento de la filosofía del lenguaje y la promesa del fin de las ideologías. Se trataba, al menos en lo referido a la política interna, de una arena marcadamente despolitizada (en la política externa, por supuesto que la Guerra Fría estaba lejos de haber terminado). En la Europa continental no reinaban condiciones tan confortables. Con el telón de fondo del reciente fascismo y la resistencia contra él, y en un escenario persistente de comunismo y una batalla para contenerlo o reprimirlo, las pasiones ideológicas estaban mucho más exacerbadas. Así, no sorprende que las advertencias de la Escuela de Cambridge fueran poco tenidas en cuenta. En la Alemania de los cincuenta y los tempranos sesenta, los dos trabajos señeros sobre historia de las ideas, Kritik und Krise (1954) de Reinhart Koselleck y Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (1962) de Jürgen Habermas, podían ser vistos, a su modo, como una revolución de los métodos y de los hallazgos no menos profunda que la que el trabajo de los historiadores de Cambridge representaba en Gran Bretaña. Pero ninguno de los dos tuvo reparo en establecer conexiones directas —y antitéticas— entre los conceptos de la esfera pública propios de la Ilustración y las candentes preocupaciones relativas a la contemporaneidad: los peligros del totalitarismo, la cultura de los medios de comunicación mercantilizados y la democracia delegativa.
 Tales usos europeos del pasado persistieron. Baste pensar en Norberto Bobbio, quien comenzó escribiendo sobre Hobbes en la década del cuarenta. Tres décadas después, no dudó en transponer el diseño del Leviathan a los riesgos bélicos de la era nuclear ni en argumentar a favor de un superpoder singular con monopolio de la violencia extrema interestatal para asegurar una paz estable (Il problema della guerra e le vie delle pace, 1979). O, contrariamente, Habermas pudo retomar, sin sentir el menor inconveniente ni percibir la menor incongruencia, el esquema de Kant de la paz perpetua como una maqueta de las intervenciones humanitarias de las Naciones Unidas durante la década del noventa. O, más recientemente, Rosanvallon, quien trajo nuevamente a la discusión pública a Guizot en la década del ochenta para promocionar las ventajas de una recuperación del liberalismo francés —Le Moment Guizot (1985) como una operación subsidiaria del entonces vigente “momento Furet”—, retoma a Guizot con iguales objetivos en La contre-démocratie (2006), veinte años después. En definitiva, en esas declinaciones continentales el presentismo no produjo mayores ansiedades.
 Podría objetarse que esos pensadores, a excepción de Koselleck, no pueden ser considerados historiadores en sentido estricto —e incluso se podría acusar a Koselleck de practicar algo más cercano a una forma filosófica que a una forma convencional de la historia. Pero cuando atendemos a las producciones posteriores de los historiadores de Cambridge, advertimos que ellos mismos se alejaron hace tiempo de las prescripciones asépticas de su juventud. Las razones de ese cambio no son difíciles de descubrir. Las plácidas verdades indiscutibles de los cincuenta ya no se sostienen. Liberty before Liberalism (1998) de Skinner, busca recuperar en Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington o Algernon Sydney ideas “neo-romanas” de libertad como no-dependencia a la voluntad de otros, y las propone como antídoto a la concepción hobbesiana de libertad negativa como mera ausencia de impedimento de acción, que se convirtió en parte del sentido común. A esta construcción, evidente reacción a la era del thatcherismo, podría achacársele precisamente el pecado cuya condena fundó el renombre de Skinner. Para Blair Worden y Pocock, era claramente presentista. Dunn, más radicalmente disconforme con el devenir de la democracia occidental, en Setting the People Free (2005) volvió a Roberspierre y Babeuf para buscar pistas sobre los límites que el “orden del egoísmo” le impone a la democracia. Tampoco Pocock, el más autorizado de todos, pudo resistir la tentación del presente. Ya The Machiavellian Moment finalizaba con el escándalo de Watergate. Pero su modo de vincular el pasado con el presente fue claramente diferente. Richard Nixon pudo figurar en las páginas de Pocock como una criatura de una imaginación típicamente Old Whig, pero su modo no es la presentación abierta de los pensadores del pasado como enseñanza del presente, sino otro, a la vez más oblicuo y más directo. The Discovery of Islands (2005) no pone a su servicio a Tucker o Gibbon. Pero su feroz ataque al desmantelamiento de la soberanía nacional y a los triunfos de la mercantilización en la Unión Europea —objeto de admiración de Skinner— es más intencionalmente político que lo que cualquier colega de Pocock se permitió. No es necesario trazar su línea de proveniencia: no hay dudas de que estamos ante el republicanismo, en el sentido peculiarmente incisivo que el joven Pocock reveló a los modernos.
 ¿Toda esta reincidencia no es más que un lapsus tardío de presentismo? El término está expuesto a una confusión. El significado de una idea política sólo puede ser entendido en su contexto histórico –social, intelectual y lingüístico–. Arrancarlo de ese contexto es un anacronismo. Pero, contrariamente a la gastada afirmación atribuida a Wittgenstein, significado y uso no son lo mismo. Las ideas del pasado pueden adquirir relevancia contemporánea —incluso, en ocasiones, una mayor a la que poseían originariamente— sin ser mal interpretadas. No hay garantía contra su distorsión ni se puede asegurar su momificación.
 
 [Enviado por el autor. Traducción del original en inglés y notas: Natalia Bustelo]