This week, ending in April 13 2017:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
• What has been the history of regulating historic work ? I.e what are the dominating philosophic ideas on history that had come to be the bedrock of modern historic academia?
• what challenges does the historic field face in a globalized world with multicountry cooperation between historians working at times with country specific narratives in regard to events!
• many times in academia rivalries are put forward as a catalyst for greater advances. What rivalries in the historic field has been detrimental? Be it between professors or between faculties and disciplines.
I've seen and heard the term 'post-modernism' being tossed around, but I'm not in academia so I don't have a very full picture of what exactly postmodern historical thought is. What is postmodernism? What makes it postmodern? Is subscribing to postmodern thought something 'mainstream' historians do? On what grounds would you criticize postmodern thought?
I have heard that there is a criticism of 'history from below' in that it is 'history without politics'. However I find this hard to believe, as I assumed this field held Marxist origins. Where does this idea come from? And is their any truth to it?