20th INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF HISTORICAL SCIENCES
Sydney
Congress — July 3-9, 2005
Opening of the
International Congress of Historians
Sydney, July 3, 2005
Sydney, CISH and the Utopia of Universal History
The
20th International Congress of Historians — which we start
today — is a very particular one. From Paris 1900 to Oslo
2000, all nineteen Congresses so far took place either in Europe
or North America. Now, in 2005, we convene for the first time in
the Southern hemisphere.
We
should take this as a sign. On the way towards a truly global community
of historians, we are reaching a new stage. Our organisation —
the International Committee of Historical Sciences, founded in Europe
80 years ago — is broadening its scope and spreading into
regions where it has been traditionally under-represented. Historians
from outside Europe and North America increasingly join the networks,
debates and common enterprises for which the International Committee
stands. As a consequence, our topics, viewpoints and agenda change.
They become more global and, in some sense, more universal. This
Congress marks an important step on this way, and will help us to
get ahead.
Joseph
Banks, the botanist in the expedition of Captain James Cook, praised
the coast which they had just “discovered”, and which
they named “New South Wales”. He spoke of the land and
its “most enticing allurements to European adventurers”.
This was in the early 1770s. Today, we would use other language
to describe the attractions of Sydney and its environment, and not
all of us would qualify as “adventurers” — although
we came a long way, and many of us had to overcome obstacles: shortages
of travel funds e.g., or visa formalities, or jet lags. But we share
Joseph Banks’ high esteem for the “enticing allurements”
of this place. We look forward to the coming week which we shall
spend in this stimulating and hospitable city. Thanks for inviting
us — thanks to the City, to the Australian Historical Association,
to the University of New South Wales, and particularly to the historians
and organisers who have prepared this occasion so well, under the
leadership of Martyn Lyons.
In
addition to its undisputed charms and qualities as a host city,
Sydney offers a special symbolic surplus for this Congress of 2005.
Seen from Europe at least, Australia is something like a bridge.
Strongly British and Western in many ways, her geography and composition,
outlook and neighbours make her open and close to non-Western regions
and civilisations. I could not think of a better place for the Congress
of the World Organisation of Historians which originated in the
West and maintains a Western core, while opening up to other traditions
and regions of the world, thus changing itself, becoming more global
and, hopefully, more universal.
I
speak for the International Committee of Historical Sciences —
in French: Comité International des Sciences Historiques
or CISH — whose main task is to organise the World Congresses
of Historians. The organisation was founded in 1926 with the support
of European, North American, and very few additional national committees
of historians. This group of supporters has grown over the decades.
Australia became a member in 1964, while Australian historians had
been active on International Congresses at least since 1950. Nowadays
the organisation consists of historians’ associations from
54 countries as well as of 28 thematically specialised international
commissions. From a bird eye’s view, the history of CISH has
moved through three phases:
First,
CISH tried to heal some of the wounds left over from World War I,
by bringing historians from victorious and defeated countries together,
and by fighting nationalism in the study and presentation of history.
With very limited success. The organisation virtually collapsed
before and during World War II.
The
second phase extended from right after World War II up to 1990.
These were the decades of the Cold War, when the International Congresses
served as one of the very few platforms on which historians from
the communist “East” and the non-communist “West”
could meet, discuss and negotiate.
In
1990, CISH lost this mission, the Cold War was over. We entered
a new period of accelerated globalisation. CISH was moving into
its third phase. Now its primary aim was to bring together historians
and historical approaches from different continents and regions
of the world, from the North and the South. It became the major
task of CISH to facilitate and promote what we sometimes call the
“globalisation” of history. It is in this context that
the Sydney Congress has its particular importance.
Nearly
everywhere in the world, the study and presentation of history has
always been closely tied to regional, national, specific cultural,
sometimes religious frameworks. This is not surprising. After all,
people in all civilisations turn to parts of their past in order
to relate them to their present situation and their future expectations
(in other words, they get interested in history) because they are
interested in where they come from and where they go, to whom they
belong and from whom they differ. Dealing with one’s history
has to do with one’s collective identity, and this is why
the study and presentation of history has always had, nearly everywhere,
a particularising thrust. In the 19th and 20th century, national
frameworks and loyalties were those which shaped the study and presentation
of history most. Sometimes, such loyalties have led to grave distortions
in the work of historians. On the other hand, people share a lot
beyond national, regional, ethnic and cultural particularities,
since they are human. A lot of real history has always taken place
in spaces reaching beyond the scope of the single regional, cultural,
national or religious units. And, once history was practiced as
scholarship, according to scientific principles, the dealing with
one’s past and relating it to the present became less particularistic
— since the principles of scholarship are not nationally or
ethnically or religiously specific but claim universal acceptance.
Because of all this, the study and presentation of history has also
developed a universalising drive.
In
this basic tension between history as a particularising endeavour
tied to specific collective identities — on the one hand —
and history as a universalising potentiality and force — on
the other — CISH has mostly been on the side of the latter.
The work of CISH has usually tried to emphasize the universalizing
aspects of the study of history. I hope this Congress will do the
same.
Universalizing,
universal history — but what does it mean?
It
certainly cannot mean something like a unified world history framed
by one encompassing developmental scheme. Attempts of this kind
have always failed — why? Because the study and presentation
of history is always dependant on the viewpoints practised and the
questions asked by those who study and present it. These viewpoints
and questions are influenced by individual and collective experiences,
expectations and choices. Such experiences and expectations differ
by country, class, culture, gender and other criteria, and they
clearly change over time. This makes for a high degree of diversity,
fluidity and conflict in the study and presentation of history —
as long as such diversity, fluidity and conflict are not ruled out
or suppressed by political means or ideological force.
Rather,
when speaking of universal history I have three characteristics
in mind:
| 1. |
common
methodological convictions. Historians with universalizing
orientations will, certainly, apply very different methods,
viewpoints and theories. But they will share certain convictions
as to the spirit in which history should be researched and
narrated, e.g. respect for evidence as well as faith in certain
principles of communication between them, including debate
and criticism as well as the readiness to learn and to revise
oneself in case one is faced by new evidence or better arguments.
This is the core of what we mean by history as a science –
Geschichte als Wissenschaft. |
| 2. |
a
spirit of inclusion. Clearly, historians differ as
to what they find interesting, how they put their stories
together, which explanations they offer, and how they make
sense of the past. They deeply differ and will continue to
do so. But these differences become compatible with universal
history to the extent that these different positions are not
practised in isolation from one another, but are brought to
face one another and to deal with one another, by opposition
and cooperation, interpretation and comparison, rejection
and recognition. This way coexistence is transformed into
interdependence, and as a consequence the single positions
change. For practicing universal history in this sense, one
needs to ask questions which form bridges across diversity,
one needs to have certain skills of communication, and it
helps if one mixes curiosity with tolerance. Universal history
of this sort can be trained, and International Congresses
can be training grounds. |
| 3. |
emphasis
on context and interconnections. Clearly,
the history of single nations, regions and cultures, of specific
processes, experiences and events, the history of specific
problems will continue to be the normal objects of historical
study. Most of us will continue to be experts in the history
of one or a few countries, of specific problem areas and of
limited time periods. The standards within our discipline
are such that one has to specialize. Usually historians have
specific preferences, and are not interested in everything.
That’s the way it is and, probably, should be. But the
orientation towards universal history would mean that one
is, nevertheless, interested in broad interconnections and
contexts. One can learn to see the single regions, societies,
nations and constellations, which one studies in depth, as
influenced and framed by their mutual relations and by comprehensive
processes. This way, national identities and structures will
appear more as results of transnational processes than vice
versa. Many of us will continue to concentrate our research
on problems within one or two national contexts. But one can
frame and interpret them in a different light, if one sees
them from a universal perspective, as parts and products of
universal interconnections, entanglements. |
Common
methodological convictions, a spirit of inclusion, the emphasis
on context and interconnections — if these are the features
which define universal history, why should it be a utopia?
Utopias
are desirable, resist full realisation, but have an impact on reality.
No
doubt, universal history is something to aim at and to work for.
It can provide new perspectives and surprising insights. It can
be a source of learning. It can serve as a platform on which one
can deal with differences in a rational way instead of ignoring
or suppressing them. In an increasingly interconnected but highly
diversified world this is an important qualification. Historians
can help to produce it.
There
can be no doubt that universal history is difficult to do. One needs
specific skills, languages among them. One needs a lot of knowledge,
one needs to know how to compare and how to study interconnections.
One needs to be patient and know one’s own limits. Most important
perhaps, nearly everywhere the study of history continues, with
good reason, to be closely tied to the national and cultural context
in which it is pursued. But to some extent one has to unlock oneself
from such specific contexts in order to do universal history.
On
the other hand, universal history is not an illusion but an utopia.
It can have — and does have — a productive impact on
our work as historians today, even if only in the sense of a regulatory
idea. I am optimistic that this congress will be a case in point:
a market place of different ideas, results and approaches, but with
some orientation towards universal history.
I
hope we will have an interesting week.
Jürgen Kocka
President (2000-2005)
