In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

42Historically Speaking · March 2004 indeed,"objectively" valid knowledge. So insteadofnegatingWesternhistoricalthought, itis necessaryto elucidate its inbuilt morality. Veryoften the inbuiltmoralityofhistorical knowledge has remained implicit and invisible, and thus we pretend that the strength ofempirical evidence is convincing enough for claims of historical identity. Instead ofblurring cognition and moralityin the construction ofhistorical narratives, it is necessary to disclose their complex interrelationship . The use of modern historical methods reinforces the empirical plausibility of all statements about the cultural specifics of a country, a region, a nation, or a people. Butin respect to the claims for normative validity related to these empirical events, the method ofhistorical research seems to have no voice. Yethistoryhas served as a medium for statements ofcultural difference and the struggle forrecognition. And itis this clash thatmotivates non-Western scholars to doubt the Western concept ofhistory. Since Western historical methods have become so influential , there is an understandable fear thatWestern historical methods will undermine nonWestern cultural identities. One has to understand the rational means ofmodernhistorical research as awayofconstructively dealingwith identity-bearing cultural differences. Doing so, one can easily argue that methodical rationalityintroduces thenormative elementofequalityinto intercultural communication. Cultural difference has to be treatedhistoricallyunderthe aspect of equality, and this brings us to the notion ofmutual recognition. Thus I make the plea for a new ethics of historical thinking.4 Every presentation and expression of cultural identity should shape the constitutive interrelationship betweenself and otherness in such a way that both sides canrecognize their difference. Differentcultures have to agree on shared principles of communication. Itis importantto preserve our differences and not dissolve them into an abstract concept of commonality. Commonality by difference —this is the goal ofhistoricalworkin the age ofglobalization. Globalization subjects human life to the pressures ofadjusting to the generalizing forces ofeconomics, politics , science, social life, and environmental issues. Along with fine art (and maybe religion ), historyis a cultural force thatintegrates these generalizing tendencies into specific and particular forms. Jörn Rüsen is thepresident ofthe Institutefor AdvancedStudy in the Humanities in Essen, Germany. He isgeneral editor ofthe series Making Sense ofHistory: Studies in Historical Culture and Intercultural Communication ofwhich his edited volume, Western Historical Thinking: An Intercultural Debate (Berghahn Books, 2002) is thefirst. 1 Masayuki Sato, "Cognitive Historiography and Normative Historiography," in Jörn Rüsen, ed., WesternHistoricalThinking:AnInterculturalDebate (Berghahn Books, 2002), 128-141. 2 Leopold von Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen undgermanischen Volkervon 1494-1514 (Sämtliche Werke Bd. 33, 1855). My translation partly follows Leopold von Ranke, The TheoryandPractice ofHistory, ed. Georg G. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke, trans. Wilma A. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke (Bobbs-Merrill, 1973), 137. 3 Historical inquiry today is still a mixture ofboth claims forobjectivityand normative commitment This can be demonstrated by two books: Peter Novick, ThatNoble Dream: The "Objectivity Question " and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge University Press, 1988) and Thomas L. Haskell, Objectivity b Not Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History (TheJohns Hopkins University Press, 1998). 4 Jörn Rüsen, Kann Gestern besserwerden?Essayszum Bedenken der Geschichte (Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2003). LETTER To the Editors: Michael Burger might be delighted to know that not all historians are as lost as those candidates he discusses in "History and the Other Disciplines" (Historically Speaking [November 2003]). In fact, I wrote a detailed answer to (what I only now learned was) his very question , and if the situation is really as bad as Burger says (I shudder at the thought), then maybe my article should be made required reading for all new history professors. See Richard Carrier, "The Function ofthe Historian in Society," History Teacher 35 (2002): 519526 . RichardC. Carrier, M.Phil. Columbia University ...

pdf

Share