Reinventing “History”?

Hodges, Matt

doi:10.1080/02757206.2015.1074901

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considerations of the relevant methodologies for ethnographic study (Kilroy-Marac 2014, Glass 2016) as well as detailed ethnographies are appearing (Knight 2015;Bacigalupo 2016;Eisenstein & Smith 2016). In addition, over the past two decades there have been various attempts to survey the idea of historicity and to summarize the contribution this concept can make to research (Trouillot 1995, Lenclud 1997, Hirsch & Stewart 2005a, Detienne 2008, Delacroix et al 2009, Ballard 2014, Hartog 2015, Hodges 2015. There have been collections of ethnographies of historicity (Whitehead 2003, Hirsch & Stewart 2005b, Fausto & Heckenberger 2007 and the development of parallel concepts such as "historical poiesis" (Lambek 1998), "historical consciousness" (Seixas 2004), and "historia" (Wallace 2005).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historicity and Anthropology

Stewart

2016

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historicity has emerged within anthropology to refer to cultural perceptions of the past. It calls attention to the techniques such as rituals that people use to learn about the past, the principles that guide them, and the performances and genres in which information about the past can be presented. The concept is in essential tension with the meaning of the term as "factuality" within the discipline of history and in wider society. Anthropologists also sometimes compose histories within this Western paradigm, but historicity in anthropology orientates a different objective, namely to discover the ways (beyond Western historicism) in which people, whether within or outside the West, construe and represent the past. Historicity, which is grounded in a notion of temporality, offers a framework for approaching time as nonlinear and may thus be suited to studying other histories without fundamentally measuring how well they conform to Western history.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historicity and Anthropology

Stewart

2016

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But this is only one way of understanding the past and its relation to the present and future. There are other ways of conceiving 'history' and historical consciousness (see Stewart 2012;Hodges 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

History

Hirsch¹

2021

CEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropology and history are inseparable, sharing concerns with societies other than the one we currently inhabit-whether in time or in space. This entry considers how the relation between anthropology and history developed since the late nineteenth century when anthropology professionalised as a discipline. Initially, anthropology was wedded to a form of history that was conjectural, based on hypothetical ideas of societal development deriving from evolution or diffusion. Thus, societies were often held to progress over time, in ways comparable to biological evolution, or they were held to develop through adoption of sociocultural traits from one or several culture centres. Criticism of this conjectural history came from within both anthropology and history. For a period of several decades, then, anthropology had a relatively detached relation from history, but by the midtwentieth century this all changed. Anthropology was now understood as analogous to historiography-to writing history-as both seek to understand another society or culture and translate it into terms of one's present society. Later, the influences of colonialism and global capitalism on the societies studied by anthropologists were given greater prominence, as was the issue of understanding societies in historical time, i.e. as subject to change over time. However, the supremacy of historical knowledge and historical time was subsequently questioned, as anthropologists asked whether all people should be seen to exist in a single and secular historical time that encompasses other kinds of time. In contrast to the single frame of historical time, with its radical separation of past and present, greater recognition is being given to the multifaceted temporal relationships of past, present, and future as diverse peoples have distinct ways of valuing and communicating temporal categories and their interconnections. Anthropology thus raises the question of whether everything can or should be historicised.This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.For image use please see separate credit(s).

show abstract

“…Historicity is a move away from western convention; it is ‘culturally patterned way or ways of experiencing and understanding history’ (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1990 cited in Stewart, 2016). Historicity depends on temporality, which is either understood as a cultural relationship with time or as a phenomenological sense of time where past, present and future may take many configurations (Hodges, 2008). Regimes of historicity in the narrow sense are how a society relates to past and in a wider sense to signify modes of self-awareness of human community.…”

Section: Heritage As Historicity Regimementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Cultural Heritage: Multiplicity and Contestations in Chamba Town in the Western Himalayas

Kaushal

2018

Journal of Heritage Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of heritage is not new; originating in the West in the nineteenth century, it travelled in the world through colonial policy. However, heritage or world heritage, as it is known today, was conceived and propagated by global agencies like UNESCO in the second half of the twentieth century. The present article aims to explore the heritage status demand for Chamba town located in the Western Himalayas. Heritage is treated here not as a thing, but as a different kind of attitude towards past. Drawing form Ericksen’s idea heritage in this article is understood as different ‘historicity regimes’. Pursuance for heritage status for Chamba which was ruled by a single dynasty until Independence, having vibrant past, can be seen as part of globalization. Heritage here means for some a ‘brand’ for marketing a place for tourist attraction and for others preservation of antiquities or veneration of past which plays a decisive role in negotiating, maintaining and creating a group identity. Official and unofficial heritage practices coexist which sometimes lead to contestation over meaning and practice. Analysing categories that organize experiences of temporality in Chamba such as antiquity and heritage employed by scholars and practitioners are coexistent with folklore, memory and beliefs that are part of everydayness and differ from how practitioners make sense of past.

show abstract

Reinventing “History”?

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Historicity and Anthropology

Historicity and Anthropology

History

Understanding Cultural Heritage: Multiplicity and Contestations in Chamba Town in the Western Himalayas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About