‘Live where the terrorists live’: Urban safety,diverse neighbourhoods and bomb blasts in Manchester and Mumbai

This article is a brief commentary on new geographies of urban fear emerging in ‘post-blast’ cities. Most anthropologists studying the city through its blasts and bombs and exploring the aftermath of violence in areas afflicted by religious, racial and communal tensions, show how these events subsequently lead to ghettoization and segregated living, as majority communities both edge out and cordon off areas from minority inhabitants and mixed ethnic life. Using Manchester and Mumbai as ethnographic landscapes, the author shows how certain residential areas in both cities turn towards accommodating large numbers of Muslim residents – not to overtly sustain interreligious and interracial trust and communication, but as a form of safety and security in everyday urban life.     

A TURNING POINT IN THEORY OF HISTORY: THE PLACE OF HAYDEN WHITE IN THE HISTORY OF METAHISTORY

This article intends to place Hayden White's reflection on the basic principles of meaning-construction in history into the historical context of modern historical studies. It first presents the self-understanding of professional historians in which they emphasize the academic (wissenschaftlichen) character of the discipline. In this way of reflection, the traditional (premodern) interpretation of history as a part of rhetoric was pushed back and replaced by methodological argumentation about the rules of research (with an emphasis on source critique). Historiography, or the presentation of the results of research in a narrative form, was not completely neglected, but was not widely recognized. After the analytical insight into the narrative form of historical knowledge, significant discussion of the principles of historical thinking dramatically changed from the issue of research to that of representation (historiography). Hayden White's Metahistory (1973) marked this change paradigmatically. It turned the shift from rhetoric to science in its contrary direction: a new turn to rhetoric was proclaimed. This new anti-turn set off a hitherto unanswered question as to how research methodology should be treated. Source critique was not refuted but did not attract significant attention. The research procedure of interpretation, in contrast, was met by a new understanding and interest: it was identified as representation by the linguistic procedures of meaning-construction. Its role as a part of historical method, however, was completely ignored. The article ends with a still unresolved problem of metahistory, namely the relationship between interpretation and representation. They are not identical, but are closely related. Their synthesis and their differences have to be systematically inquired into and reflected upon if metahistory is to step forward and engage in this task. Then the merits of White's return to rhetoric will be appreciated as well as its one-sidedness criticized, before a further step is taken.