The increasing importance of globalisation gave rise in the nineties to a new object of research, debate and reflection: world history.
Its novelty lies in its firm proposal for a global sphere for historical studies which surpases and contextualises the traditional local and national histories, thus promoting continental, subcontinental and intercontinental histories.
The following names are usually cited as precedents of the new world history: Marx , Weber, Spengler, Toynbee, Gamsci, Braudel, Parsons, Wallerstein, Gunder Frank, Skocpol, Fukuyama...
Questions for the debate:
* Is this new scale of historical research necessary and relevant ?
* What relation should it have with local, regional and national history
?
* Is it as jumble of different things or a new, homogeneous enough line of
research, reflection and debate?
* Is it relevant for the history of current events or for all historical
periods ?
* What can it contribute to the assessment of the 20th century?
* What can it add to the renewed study of civilisations / historical social
formations ?
* Is it relevant for the current debate on the future of globalisation
(especially after Seattle) ?
* What relation should World History have with the universal history of our
textbooks ?
* What relation should World History have with the universal history of
philosophers ?
* What relationship should World History have with the Total / Global History
of materialism and the school of Annals ?
* Is it yet another fragmentation of the discipline or a means of fighting
it ?
* Is World / Global History part of the new historiographical paradigm ?
If you want to participate (in english, spanish or another languages) send your messages to: had@cesga.es
The first messages already can be consulted in: www.h-debate.com.
Carlos Barros
Coordinador de Historia a Debate
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
email: cbarros@cesga.es
Copyright ©1996-2002, H-Soz-u-Kult · Humanities · Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte