Este artículo analiza la evolución del concepto de totalitarismo en Italia desde su aparición en 1923. Desde aquel momento, el concepto recorrió distintas etapas históricas marcadas por el contexto nacional e internacional, fundamentalmente relacionadas con el fascismo hasta 1945 y posteriormente con la guerra fría y su variable intensidad. Sorprende que Italia se mantuviera por lo general tan alejada del llamado «paradigma totalitario», es decir, de los usos y significados predominantes en el mundo occidental, sobre todo en la guerra fría. El artículo muestra la relativa singularidad del concepto en el discurso político italiano a lo largo de su recorrido histórico y las claves que explican esta «historia particular».

Th e concept of populism has generated endless controversy marked by both the contrasting political feelings it conveys and a particular problem of defi nition. Th is article-based on political speeches, academic literature, and relevant online sources, such as Google Ngram Viewer, catalogs of great libraries, and digital archives of newspapers-adopts a pragmatic approach to the concept throughout its history, from the moment when the noun appeared in North American political life in the late nineteenth century until the most recent "populist moment" in response to the economic crisis that started in 2008. Th e study of its changing meanings shows, however, some elements of continuity that make sense of what Margaret Canovan defi ned as "a notoriously vague term."

No abstract

No abstract

jfs/jff Among the many subjects you have worked on throughout your career, we would like to concentrate on those related to the methodology of intellectual history, especially conceptual history. We will then go on to make you a few questions about your recent work on memory and identity. conceptual history: questions on method. jfs/jff As historians interested in how your reflections on method come As historians interested in how your reflections on method come to play with historiography, we would like to say that your work has made us reconsider the relationship between old and new, tradition and innovation. In this sense, some of the basic premises of Begriffsgeschichte, in our opinion, greatly contribute to expose the misleading nature of the dichotomy between continuity and rupture, a separation that traditionally undermines the adequate comprehension of change and of future historical developments. Getting over the faux dilemma which pits continuity against rupture, permanence against innovation-which linguistically can be approached by your proposal of what could be called "diachronic synchronicity," which are the layers of time-undoubtedly adds to and refines historical analysis. Now, as you have many times stated, given that reality can never be encompassed by language, that there is always an insurmountable gap between facts and concepts, what is your opinion on the use of categories such as continuity and rupture as heuristic tools in factual history? Does it seem to you that this polarization might still be useful, or should it be abandoned? contributions 2 (1) :-12 an interview with reinhart koselleck 100