Anthropology after Gluckman places the intimate circle around Max Gluckman, his Manchester School, in the vanguard of modern social anthropology. The book discloses the School’s intense, argument-rich collaborations, developing beyond an original focus in south and central Africa. Where outsiders have seen dominating leadership by Gluckman, a common stock of problems, and much about conflict, Richard Werbner highlights how insiders were drawn to explore many new frontiers in fieldwork and in-depth, reflexive ethnography, because they themselves, in class and gender, ethnicity and national origins, were remarkably inclusive. Characteristically different anthropologists, their careers met the challenges of being a public intellectual, an international celebrity, an institutional good citizen, a social and political activist, an advocate of legal justice. Their living legacies are shown, for the first time, through interlinked social biography and intellectual history to reach broadly across politics, law, ritual, semiotics, development studies, comparative urbanism, social network analysis and mathematical sociology. Innovation – in research methods and techniques, in documenting people’s changing praxis and social relations, in comparative analysis and a destabilizing strategy of re-analysis within ethnography – became the School’s hallmark. Much of this exploration confronted troubling times in Africa, colonial and postcolonial, which put the anthropologists and their anthropological knowledge at risk. The resurgence of debate about decolonization makes the accounts of fierce, End of Empire argument and recent postcolonial anthropology all the more topical. The lessons, even in activism, for social scientists, teachers as well as graduate and undergraduate students are compelling for our own troubled times.
The recognition of a female subject is relatively recent in Western philosophy, through Western intellectual history, it has been assumed to be normatively male. This book provides the first English commentary on Luce Irigaray's poetic text, Elemental Passions, setting it within its context within continental thought. It explores Irigaray's images and intentions, developing the gender drama that takes place within her book, and draws the reader into the conversation in the text between 'I-woman' and 'you-man'. In Irigaray's philosophy of sexual difference love is of ultimate significance for the development and mutual relationship of two subjects. The book explains how the lack of a subject position for women is related to the emergence of rigid binaries, and catches a hint of how subversive attention to fluidity is to the masculinist pattern. This emphasis on desire and sexual difference obviously intersects with the psychoanalytic theories of S. Freud and J. Lacan, theories which had enormous impact on French philosophers of the time. Irigaray has used vivid imagery from the very beginning of her writings. A few of her images, in particular that of the lips, have become famous in feminist writings. The development of mutually affirming sexual subjects, different but not oppositional, and thereby the destabilizing of traditional binary categories of oppositional logic, is simultaneously highly innovative and has far-reaching consequences. The book presents a critique of Irigaray's methods and contentions to critical scrutiny, revisiting the idea of fluidity in relation to logic.
From the late 1930s to the end of the 1940s a high-profile group of mostly Christian intellectuals met to discuss the related crises of totalitarianism, war and cultural decline in the democratic West. Brought together by the leading missionary and ecumenist Joseph H. Oldham, the group included prominent writers, thinkers, activists and scholars, among them T. S. Eliot, John Middleton Murry, Karl Mannheim, John Baillie, Alec Vidler, H. A. Hodges, Christopher Dawson, Kathleen Bliss and Michael Polanyi. Among its wider circle of correspondents and supporters were the era’s most influential Christian authors and thinkers – such as Reinhold Niebuhr, William Temple, Jacques Maritain, Dorothy L. Sayers and C. S. Lewis. The participants in the Oldham group saw faith as a uniquely powerful resource for cultural and social renewal, and they sought to integrate diverse Christian viewpoints, reconcile faith and secular society, and reshape post-war British society. In an ‘age of extremes’ they pursued a variety of ‘middle ways’ with regard to topics such as the social relevance of faith, the relationship of Christianity to secularity, the legitimacy of capitalism, the role of State planning, the value of patriotism, the meaning of freedom and the value of egalitarianism.
What makes a good historian? When historians raise this question, as they have
done for centuries, they often do so to highlight that certain personal
attitudes or dispositions are indispensable for studying the past. Yet their
views on what virtues, skills or competencies historians need most differ
remarkably, as do their models of how to be a historian (‘scholarly personae’).
This volume explores why scholarly personae were, and are, so important to
historians as to generate lots of debate. Why do historians seldom agree on the
marks of a good historian? What impact do these disagreements have on historical
research, teaching and outreach? And what does this tell about the unity, or
disunity, of the field called historical studies? In addressing these questions,
How to be a historian develops a fascinating new perspective on the history of
historiography. It challenges conventional narratives of professionalization by
demonstrating that the identity of the ‘professional’ was often contested. At
the same time, it shows that personae could be remarkably stable, especially in
relation to race, class and gender assumptions. With chapters by Monika Baár,
Ian Hunter, Q. Edward Wang and other recognized specialists, How to be a
historian covers historical studies across Europe, North America, Africa and
East Asia, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in liberal
democracies and authoritarian regimes alike. The volume will appeal not only to
readers of historiography, but to all historians who occasionally wonder: what
kind of a historian do I want to be?
This book explores key critical debates in the humanities in recent times in the context of the legitimation crisis widely felt to be facing academic institutions, using Derrida's idea of leverage in the university. In particular, it concerns an account for the malaise in the university by linking critical developments, discourses and debates in the modern humanities to a problem of the institution itself. The book finds within these discourses and debates the very dimensions of the institution's predicament: economic, political, ideological, but also, inseparably, intellectual. It looks at some of the recurring themes arising in the early key texts of new historicism and cultural materialism. The book also argues that these approaches in a number of ways orient their critical strategies according to certain kinds of logics and structures of reflection. It instances disorientation and leverage in the university by exploring the problematic doubleness of economics as indeterminately both inside and outside contemporary cultural theory. The book also argues that the interdisciplinary approach of cultural analysis has a certain amount of difficulty positioning economics as either simply an outside or an inside. The orientation and leverage within the university apparently offered by the development of cultural studies and by certain forms of interdisciplinarity comes at the cost of an irresolvable disorientation between the object and the activity of criticism.
the twentieth century, with a heavy focus on the inter-war years. On the
other hand, in British intellectualhistory, liberal international thought in
this period is treated only tangentially, with the exception of studies of the
iconic figure of John Stuart Mill. While historians and political scientists
continue to benefit from an ever-growing literature on the development
of (particularly liberal) political thought in Britain during the country’s
remarkable period as a rising, dominant and declining imperial power,
wider systematic analyses of
Bayly 08_Tonra 01 21/06/2011 10:33 Page 213
Remembering the forgetting in schooling
Before discussing the two chapters on history and education and how that relates
to contemporary policy discussions in developing countries, I would like to start
with three different strands of intellectualhistory; this is a bit idiosyncratic, but
it brings to bear some literatures that I believe are relevant for our purposes.
First, there is a large ‘business management’ literature, the stuff about
business you can buy in airports and read on
Universitätsgeschichte’; Paletschek, ‘Stand und
Perspektiven’; Paletschek, ‘The Writing of University History’; Rohstock, ‘The
History of Higher Education’; Johan Östling, ‘Universitetshistoria: Friska
vindar över gammalt fält’, Respons, 2015:2.
The history of the university
too many potential insights to be left to collectors of anecdotes and
writers of chronicles. For this reason, I will present a framework
drawn from intellectualhistory and the history of knowledge which
may provide university history with relevant themes and methods.
University history as intellectual
body of egalitarian thought that is inaccurately presented in, or even excluded
from, other accounts of the historical formation of the idea of equality.
Equality and the British Left
Intellectualhistory and the British Left
Although I therefore see this book as offering a distinctive, and in some respects
revisionist, set of arguments, it is of course indebted to important work already
accomplished in this ﬁeld. In particular, the book draws on the now substantial
scholarship on the intellectual framework of modern British politics. While commentators
Philosophy, politics and foreign policy in America’s ‘second modernity’
Vibeke Schou Tjalve and Michael C. Williams
Vibeke Schou Tjalve and Michael C. Williams
Realist exceptionalism: philosophy,
politics and foreign policy in America’s
Exceptionalism is a dominant theme in intellectualhistories of American
foreign policy. The idea that the United States is somehow special, that it
possesses unique qualities or a special character that sets it apart from other
nations, has long been established as the principal framework for thinking
about the country and its place in the world.1 Indeed, the idea of exceptionalism is so dominant that