Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique
Historical anthropology has been defined as a history of the collective as opposed to a political and elitist narrative history. The advent of “a history of the ordinary” has exposed a paradox because the conditions of historical knowledge, such as documentary evidence or transmission, as well as th...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | fra |
Published: |
Centre de Recherches Historiques
2010-07-01
|
Series: | L'Atelier du CRH |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/acrh/1928 |
id |
doaj-99a5cfab7cf4461eab494400f7127a0a |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-99a5cfab7cf4461eab494400f7127a0a2020-11-24T23:56:40ZfraCentre de Recherches HistoriquesL'Atelier du CRH1760-79142010-07-01610.4000/acrh.1928Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historiqueGil BartholeynsHistorical anthropology has been defined as a history of the collective as opposed to a political and elitist narrative history. The advent of “a history of the ordinary” has exposed a paradox because the conditions of historical knowledge, such as documentary evidence or transmission, as well as the writing of history, are focused on discontinuity and the exceptional. While there is a historical knowledge that one might call homologous (where the object of study conforms to the means of its examination), the historical anthropologist himself engages with a counter history, or an asymmetrical knowledge. This brings with it a formidable epistemological leap. A number of recent reflections on history directly result from this constitutive inversion: for example, the way a corpus or isolated cases may be or may not be representative; the investigation of the object of historical understanding, be it neither singular nor universal; the consequence of “political” decentralization towards a history from the outside. The opposition between these two historiographies, one considered traditional, investigating dates and institutions, and the other more egalitarian and anthropological – is not this gap, at least conceptually, already a thing of the past? Have we not, for several decades, entered into a third paradigm, in which historical anthropology plays a part, already visible at the fore? We would say that presently, we are dealing with symptom-events, the structures at work, and the individual as a civilization. Beyond the givens provided by the fact of not limiting oneself to the conscience aspects, or to talk about Others, this scientific regime is as inexhaustible as the research itself: our categories, vocabulary, and practices are themselves the subjects of study.http://journals.openedition.org/acrh/1928ethicshistorical anthropologyhistory of historyMiddle Ages (the)ordinary (the) / extraordinary (the)scientific regime |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
fra |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Gil Bartholeyns |
spellingShingle |
Gil Bartholeyns Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique L'Atelier du CRH ethics historical anthropology history of history Middle Ages (the) ordinary (the) / extraordinary (the) scientific regime |
author_facet |
Gil Bartholeyns |
author_sort |
Gil Bartholeyns |
title |
Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
title_short |
Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
title_full |
Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
title_fullStr |
Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
title_full_unstemmed |
Le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
title_sort |
le paradoxe de l’ordinaire et l’anthropologie historique |
publisher |
Centre de Recherches Historiques |
series |
L'Atelier du CRH |
issn |
1760-7914 |
publishDate |
2010-07-01 |
description |
Historical anthropology has been defined as a history of the collective as opposed to a political and elitist narrative history. The advent of “a history of the ordinary” has exposed a paradox because the conditions of historical knowledge, such as documentary evidence or transmission, as well as the writing of history, are focused on discontinuity and the exceptional. While there is a historical knowledge that one might call homologous (where the object of study conforms to the means of its examination), the historical anthropologist himself engages with a counter history, or an asymmetrical knowledge. This brings with it a formidable epistemological leap. A number of recent reflections on history directly result from this constitutive inversion: for example, the way a corpus or isolated cases may be or may not be representative; the investigation of the object of historical understanding, be it neither singular nor universal; the consequence of “political” decentralization towards a history from the outside. The opposition between these two historiographies, one considered traditional, investigating dates and institutions, and the other more egalitarian and anthropological – is not this gap, at least conceptually, already a thing of the past? Have we not, for several decades, entered into a third paradigm, in which historical anthropology plays a part, already visible at the fore? We would say that presently, we are dealing with symptom-events, the structures at work, and the individual as a civilization. Beyond the givens provided by the fact of not limiting oneself to the conscience aspects, or to talk about Others, this scientific regime is as inexhaustible as the research itself: our categories, vocabulary, and practices are themselves the subjects of study. |
topic |
ethics historical anthropology history of history Middle Ages (the) ordinary (the) / extraordinary (the) scientific regime |
url |
http://journals.openedition.org/acrh/1928 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT gilbartholeyns leparadoxedelordinaireetlanthropologiehistorique |
_version_ |
1725457258524966912 |