THE ANTHROPOCENE AND THE PLANET

Dipesh Chakrabarty's The Climate of History in a Planetary Age is, in three respects, far more than a synthesis of over a decade of pioneering conceptual work aimed at making sense of the Anthropocene/planetary predicament and its implications for historical understanding. First, the book makes visible an intellectual trajectory in which Chakrabarty's conceptual struggles with the Anthropocene gradually move from the centrality of the notion of the Anthropocene toward the centrality of the notion of the planet. Second, it highlights the relational complexities with which one needs to grapple when trying to make sense of the current predicament. Third, and finally, the book showcases a series of often overlapping conceptual distinctions that Chakrabarty has developed while navigating these complexities. Through a discussion of the above key aspects, this review essay highlights the achievements of The Climate of History in a Planetary Age and critically engages with its central themes. In dialogue with the book, it pays special attention to exploring the respective benefits and drawbacks of the notions of the Anthropocene and the planet, and to the character and role of human agency in the Anthropocene/planetary predicament. Finally, the essay concludes with a few thoughts concerning the question of what kind of a reinvention of historical understanding might be triggered, respectively, by the notions of the Anthropocene and the planet.     

KOSELLECK ON MODERNITY,HISTORIK, AND LAYERS OF TIME

In the scholarly reception of his work, Reinhart Koselleck's notion of modernity and his theory of multiple times have been cast as essentially at odds with each other. This article argues that although these positions are valid, Koselleck's writings can also accommodate an interpretation according to which the theory of multiple temporalities, or “layers of time,” provides theoretical ground for the modern understanding of time and history. Elaborating on this insight, the article shows the linkages sustaining the unity between Koselleck's formal theory of multiple times and his interpretation of modernity. To that end, I outline the main premises of the temporalization thesis that lies at the heart of Koselleck's theory of modernity, scrutinize his notion of Historik within which the framework “layers of time” belongs, and explore Niklas Olsen's and Helge Jordheim's interpretive accounts on how to conceive of the relationship between the two strands in Koselleck's thought. Ultimately, I argue that “layers of time” entails the formal conditions for historical acceleration, which is crucial for explaining the emergence of a specifically modern temporality wherein experience and expectation increasingly grow apart.     

世界近代史断限问题新探

历史时期的划分不同于社会形态的演变。世界近代史不能同资本主义史画等号。划分历史时期,应以社会经济发展为主要依据．同时也要考虑到政治和思想文化方面的情况。世界近代史是人类进入工业社会和工业社会发展的历史。它的上限可以定在18世纪60年代．下限可以定在20世纪40年代。     

RESISTING MODERN TEMPORALITIES: TOWARD A CRITICAL HISTORY OF BREAKS IN TIME

This is an exceptionally sophisticated and wide‐ranging book on historical time, the construction of the past, present, and future, and the problem of periodization. Its major thesis is that temporal divisions of history are produced by social actors, including historians, who break up time from their distinct temporal positions. The book inquires about the theoretical underpinning and historical constitution of temporal breaks: the premises sustaining notions of pastness, presentness, and futurity; the relations constructed by these notions between historiography and other fields of knowledge; the specific articulation of shifting and mutually competing temporalities both within and beyond European history; and the political implications of temporal divisions. Throughout the book the breaking up of time is studied as a fundamental political operation. To engage with temporal breaks, the authors contend, is to engage with the historian's contemporary, to negotiate borders that act upon the present, including the border that safeguards the presumed autonomy of the time of history‐writing. Focusing especially on the temporality of European modernity, the book invites reflection on the politics of time as articulated through categories of historical totalization imposed on modernity's others. But it also suggests that this imposition gave rise to acts of resistance indicating how historical time defies the analytical categories through which social actors seek to organize and control it. This dialectic of imposition and defiance is made evident through the comparative study of temporal concepts that replace one another, compete with one another in certain historical settings without any of them constituting a final historical representation. It is also traced in the continuing significance of suppressed or “failed” temporalities, which are nonetheless still capable of challenging and qualifying our insights into historical time. The book's key contribution lies precisely in the attempt to intensify this challenge by translating the contradictory constitution of modern temporality into a language of self‐critique.     

历史观与意识形态:世界历史叙事中的现代化理论

作为世界历史叙事的一种范式,现代化理论不仅体现了一种历史观,也展示了其意识形态的特质。现代化理论的意识形态功能包括：解释功能、压制宣传功能、整合和激发功能以及合法化功能,这些功能使世界历史叙事充斥着偏见与“公允”、“真理”与权力、压制与整合等悖论。这种悖论在历史观层面,则凸显为现代化的“历史观”和历史观的“现代化”二者之间的张力。只有克服二者之间的张力,才能超越现代化的“历史观”的局限,才能使历史观的“现代化”成为一种世界历史叙事的实践理念。     

论新时代中国世界历史学话语体系的构建

世界历史学的话语体系蕴含在世界史的研究、编撰和教学之中,其实质是中国学者如何认识中国与世界的关系,如何界定人类历史的性质,如何阐明对人类社会发展演变的基本观点和判断,体现的是中国学者将世界历史理论化的途径,目的则在于实现自身的学术话语权。新的时代必然要求不断发展的话语体系,这就需要在唯物史观基本原理和新时代中国特色社会主义思想的指导下,梳理世界史话语体系建设的发展历程,进一步提炼世界史研究的核心概念、表述框架和阐述方式,彰显中国世界史研究和编撰的当代理论视角。从生产和交往两个基本概念进一步分析世界历史演化的内在动力,显然是其中一种可行的研究思路。通过生产和交往两种基本动力构建的分析框架,可以清楚地看到,中国特色社会主义建设事业不仅是中国历史连续性的自然体现,而且也是人类社会发展规律的具体表现。     

宅兹中国——重建有关中国的历史论述

班纳迪克·安德森认为所谓庞大的很多国家,实际上只不过是通过想象构成的一个共同体,并不具有实质国家的意义;杜赞奇说,我们不要用现代的民族国家的概念来讨论历史问题,要把历史从民族国家里救出来;施坚雅而以城市为研究对象,改变了将中国作为整体来研究的方式,改变了政治行政区域为单位的研究;日本、韩国强调亚洲史、东亚史,弱化中国与中国史,认为中国不是一个“历史单位”;1996年以后“新清史”诞生,形成一股大潮。看起来似乎只是国外中国学界各种理论、学派、观点的争鸣,但实际上掩藏了很多悬而未决的大问题,“中国”、“中国史”这些概念,面临被消解、结构的困境,学术争鸣的后面又藏着政治的背景。国内学界如何应对,如何解决,本文提出了自己独特的看法。     

雅斯贝斯的世界历史纲要与文化研究的历史视野

人类文化在本质上是历史的,只有把文化放在适当的历史视野中才能理解文化的真实内涵。雅斯贝斯的世界历史纲要,就是他为自己打造的一个历史视野。带着对人类文化和历史的困惑,并通过对雅斯贝斯世界历史纲要及其基本概念——“轴心期”的解读,本文尝试着提出一个粗略的人类历史纲要,并在此基础上尝试着提出一个新的历史视野和文化框架。本文认为,在这个新的历史视野和文化框架下,研究、分析和解读全部人类历史也即人类由起源走向未来的自我创造和自我发展的过程,是文化研究的根本任务。     

迈克尔·曼的社会权力史及权力史观述评

迈克尔·曼是第三代历史社会学家中的杰出代表。他的社会权力史别出心裁、匠心独具 ,理论上讲是马克思·韦伯“社会理想型”研究方法的延续。曼的社会权力史涵括整个人类史 ,其解释力强、角度新颖、理论性强。但是 ,其权力史仍是欧洲中心主义的 ,并且在其中 ,作为历史组成部分的个人消失了。     

A HISTORY OF THE SPECIES?1

By rejecting the old divide between prehistory and history, the group of scholars behind Deep History opens a new window on the problem of the unity and diversity of human experience over the very long run. Their use of kinship metaphors suggests not only a link between modern society and the deep past, but also perhaps a way to imagine the common legacy of the human species. But what emerges from Deep History is hardly a sunny story about the distant origins of social justice and ecological harmony. The other central metaphor of the book—the fractal—uncovers the slow prelude to the Anthropocene. Rather than seeing a sharp break in the Industrial Revolution from an “organic” to a fossil fuel‐burning economy, these scholars stress the history of environmental destruction that has accompanied human expansion. My critical reading presents an alternative understanding of deep history as an arena for a new politics of species. Here a cornucopian understanding of human adaptation clashes with a new pessimism about the climatic fragility of Neolithic civilization.     

HARTOG,KOSELLECK, AND RICOEUR: HISTORICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE CRISIS OF THE PRESENT

I enquire here into whether historical anthropology may serve to orient the critique of modes of temporalization under the conditions specific to what François Hartog designates as the contemporary regime of historicity. To this end, I bring Hartog into conversation with Paul Ricoeur: both arrive at a diagnosis of the crisis of the present on the basis of a parallel interiorization of the metahistorical categories of Reinhart Koselleck. Sharing a common interlocutor, the diagnoses at which they arrive are nevertheless quite different in nature, a result of the way in which these categories are inflected alternatively toward the anthropological perspective of fundamental temporalization and the semantic perspective of articulation at the level of “orders of time.” I suggest that the crisis of the present eludes the grasp of both and, with a view to gaining a more secure critical purchase over this crisis, propose a framework for bringing them into conversation.     

Archaeology in the age of the Anthropocene: A critical assessment of its scope and societal contributions

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed heightened public and governmental awareness of the nature and scale of environmental challenges likely to face the planet over the course of the next fifty to one hundred years. Scholars from across a broad range of disciplines have been drawn into these debates and have begun to reorient their research towards finding solutions to some of the most pressing problems and to devising more sustainable and resilient livelihoods. Archaeologists, with their conventional orientation toward past events and processes have been rather slower to engage with these issues. Recently, however, there has been a steady shift within the discipline so as to incorporate more future-oriented perspectives, and ‘the use of the past to plan for a better future’ is rapidly becoming a common theme within archaeological research projects and publications. While welcoming some of these developments, this paper offers a critical assessment of the various claims that are now being made of archaeology's potential to help overcome current environmental challenges and its contributions to defining and understanding ‘the Anthropocene.’     

IN THE FOLDS OF TIME: RASHĪD AL‐DĪN ON THEORIES OF HISTORICITY

By focusing on Rashīd al‐Dīn's (d. 718/1318) historiographical oeuvre and here in particular his “History of the World,” this article challenges the usual approach to his Jāmi? al‐tawārīkh (Compendium of Chronicles) and argues that his was a deeply pluralistic enterprise in a world with many centers, tremendous demographic change, high social mobility, and constantly shifting truth‐claims in an ever expanding cosmos, to which Rashīd al‐Dīn's method, language, and the shape of his history were perfectly adaptable. This article introduces the notion of “parallel pasts” to account for Rashīd al‐Dīn's method. By placing the Jāmi? al‐tawārīkh and its author in their historical and intellectual context, this article also argues that this method is not restricted to Rashīd al‐Dīn's historiography: His historiographical work ought to be seen as part of his larger theological and philosophical oeuvre into which the author placed it consciously and explicitly, an oeuvre that is, like Rashīd al‐Dīn's historiography, pluralist at heart, and that could be as easily classified as “theology” or “philosophy” as “historiography.”     

TRAUMA DELEGITIMIZED: KARL LÖWITH AND THE COSMIC VIEW OF HISTORY

This article uncovers the work of trauma in Karl Löwith's historical thought. Although best known for his critique of the philosophy of history and for the conception of secularization in his 1949 book, Meaning in History, Löwith deepened his positive historical vision in several essays that he wrote in the 1950s and 1960s. From these texts emerges a unique historical orientation, which I call the “cosmic view of history.” This perspective was at once a critique of modern historical consciousness and an embodied corrective to that consciousness, one in which the catastrophes of the twentieth century were relativized and made endurable. In both the origin and structure of this historical orientation and in its textual expression in Löwith's work, trauma is a residual force that links Löwith's language, his experiences, and the postwar context. The role of trauma in Löwith's thought further reveals a process of delegitimization in which historical consciousness and historical events lose their power to determine historical meaning, thus enabling a response to and an escape from catastrophe. This article also explores the significance of this cosmic view of history for contemporary theoretical concerns related to the Anthropocene and its consequences for historical theory.     

世界历史教学的挑战

当今,无论在研究领域还是教学领域,世界历史都成为最重要的议题之一。人们可以真切地感受到有关世界体系的历史研究取得了长足发展。这一新趋势削弱了传统的中、小学历史教学,传统历史教学建立在种族中心主义方法基础之上,被民族国家用于加强民族集体认同（通常与其他国家相对立）。与此相反,新的世界历史教学可以被视为一种开展不同文化间教育和加强世界主义的手段。这里建议世界历史课程计划以概念、空间和时间这三重框架为基础。概念框架集中于两个主题：人类社会的演进及其相互交往;空间框架可以持续利用与主题有关的球体投影图来展示;时间框架由基于9个时代的历史分期连接起来,另附一个时期论述未来前景。     

世界史研究发展的当代背景

整体的“世界史”概念是在地区国别史研究的基础上逐步形成的,对“世界体系”认知的热情从来也没有像第二次世界大战以后这样高涨。这种学术现象的出现是以经济发展全球化、生活模式单一化、价值观念趋同的趋势为大背景的。可以认为,真正意义的世界史观念是全球经济一体化不断深化和不同文化交流日益频繁这一形势在历史研究领域引起的反应。作为全球化的逆向思维,强调对话反对对抗,强调联系和交流反对封锁,对各个民族原创文明的探讨成为文化知识界的共识。对多元文明,特别是不同文明之间“联系”的探讨是整体世界史研究发展的又一种深层动力。整体的宏观的世界史研究与地区国别史研究相辅相成、互相促进。现代科技水平和新科技观念迅猛发展,促进了地区国别史、专门史、断代史学者的交流,加强了世界各地学者之间的联系,打破了历史学和其他哲学社会科学学科、甚至自然科学学科之间的壁垒,交叉与对比研究为世界史研究的新发展开辟出无限广阔的空间。     

HEGEL AND PATHOLOGIZED MODERNITY,OR THE END OF SPIRIT IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

This article has two broad concerns, both of which are pursued primarily with reference to Hegel's philosophy of history. First, it examines whether Hegel can help explain the difficulty we have in modernity in responding to climate change and ecological crisis. It argues that Hegel provides a useful analysis of this problem, since the model of self‐determination that he appeals to is comprehensively embedded in embodied forms of culture. This helps explain why even a self‐correcting worldview like modernity is obdurate in the face of this crisis. Second, Hegel claims that the defining attribute of spirit is its capacity for self‐production. Modernity is characterized by the emerging and widespread knowledge that spirit is self‐producing. Modernity develops institutions that facilitate and provide an objective reality for spirit's self‐production and its freedom. This aspect of the article examines whether the distinctive capacity of spirit for self‐determination, which is realized in modernity, is subject to the same atrophying conditions by which Hegel says all other historical shapes of spirit are characterized. It asks if the present ecological crisis, something that is directly attributable to spirit itself, represents the limits of self‐producing spirit. The article concludes by examining the difficult position of those countries that cannot be considered to be responsible for the emergence of the Anthropocene but whose actions in the present will amplify its impact.     

Metaphor and the Anthropocene: Presenting Humans as a Geological Force

Intellectually as well as materially, the Anthropocene is a deeply cultural phenomenon. This includes its communicative form, which is a contested trope‐rich narrative, even within the sciences. In this essay I focus on the role of metaphor in Anthropocene thought and in particular, on the provocative, ambiguous, and potentially far‐reaching idea of humans as a geological force. By considering the different interpretations and meaning this metaphor encourages – including differences in what is meant by geological and force, both within and beyond stratigraphy and Earth System Science – we gain a stronger sense of the deeply allegorical and theological character of the Anthropocene story and the way it promises to reposition humans in the world.     

PEIRCE AND FOUCAULT ON TIME AND HISTORY: THE TASKS OF (DIS)CONTINUITY

Some have recognized an affinity between Pragmatist thought and that of Foucault, though this affinity is typically cashed out in terms of William James and John Dewey and not Charles Sanders Peirce. This article argues that bringing Foucault and Peirce into collaboration not only shows the relevance of Peirce for Foucault, and vice versa, but also enriches the thought of both thinkers—indeed, it also reveals important implications for the theory of history more generally. Specifically, the article crosses the Peircean concept of habit and the Foucauldian concept of practice (as it operates in the arenas of discourse, power, and self), ultimately decoding them in terms of an account of time that derives from Peirce and that gives a fundamental role to discontinuity. In this way the article shows how Peirce can provide Foucault with an account of time that buttresses and grounds his genealogical approach to history, while at the same time revealing how Foucault can provide Peirce with an account of history. The synergy between the two thinkers offers a way to think about the nature of history that goes beyond what each thinker individually provided.