Actualités et agenda
Nos formations
Présentation
In order to pass the course, each student has to fulfill four requirements. The final grade of the course is composed of the following assignments:
(1) Active participation (20%): Each student is expected to read the assigned texts thoroughly and participate actively in class discussions.
(2) Written pro- or contra-statement (30%): Each student writes a concise statement of about 800 words (plus/minus 100) for one session of the course (sessions 4-8), in which (s)he answers the specific question posed for the session, based on arguments derived from an analysis of the readings assigned for that session. The paper should not summarize the readings but rather make an argument in support of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ standpoint. Positions are decided and allocated at the beginning of the course. Papers must be submitted by email to the course instructor two days before the session takes place (by midnight).
(3) Debates (50%): Students will take part in organized debates – with each student team engaging in two debates – on questions in sessions 8-11. Specifics will be provided in class.
The course revisits a vast array of historical sites and episodes, from the silk roads over witch trials to pirates, not to reconstruct a general ‘world history’ but to illuminate the politics of historical perspectives and encourage students to think critically about the promises and contradictions of the ‘global turn’, its variations, and its alternatives. History is not only inescapable, but also shapes what seems desirable, possible, and necessary in the first place; everyday historical notions such as ‘origins’, ‘progress’, and ‘decline’ deeply form our political imagination. History is therefore not a ready-made object but always a powerful reconstruction that inevitably eclipses as it illuminates. Following a general introduction in part I, part II revisits traditional master narratives of modern history, including ‘repetition’, ‘origins’, ‘progress’, and ‘decline’, which are behind such familiar stories as the rise and fall of great powers, the eternal ‘clash of civilizations’, mankind’s inevitable progress, or the need to halt some decline in its tracks. In part III, the course probes the fragmentation of these stereotypical master narratives by exploring more research-oriented views, including micro- and macro-histories, connected histories and global entanglements, and contingencies and counterfactuals. In part IV, the course traces dimensions of global modernity from sugar plantations to railway clocks and to terrorist cells, exploring aspects of early capitalism, imperial sovereignty, war, and international order. Part IV concludes by emphasizing the lures and limits of historical perspectives for any understanding of international or global politics today.
Modalités
PART I: PRELIMINARIES
1 Introduction: Entering the maze
No readings.
2 The global turn and the politics of history
Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. 2013. ‘The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations.’ International Studies Quarterly 57(3): 620-634.
Conrad, Sebastian. 2016. What is Global History?, Princeton: Princeton University Press, introduction, 1-16.
White, Hayden. 1980. ‘The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.’ Critical Inquiry 7(1), 5-27.
PART II: MASTER NARRATIVES OF HISTORY
3 Origins, identities, and repetition
Kennedy, Paul. 1988. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, London: Unwin Hyman, Introduction, xv-xxv, and Chapter I, (‘The Rise of the Western World’), 3-38.
Huntington, Samuel. 1993. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs, 7, Summer 1993, 22-49.
Question 1: Is the notion of cultural or civilizational ‘identity’ compatible with historical inquiry, yes or no?
4 Progress, corruption, and intervention
Morgan, Lewis H. 1907 [1877]. Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. New York: Henry Holt, chapter 1 (‘Ethnical Periods’), 3-18.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. ‘The End of History?’ The National Interest, (16), 3-18.
Schmitt, Carl. 2005 [1922]. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Chicago: Chicago University Press, chapter 4 (‘The state philosophy of the counter-revolution’), 53-66.
Hirschman, Albert. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, chapter 1 (‘Two hundred years of reactionary rhetoric’), 1-10.
Question 2: Can deliberate ‘intervention’ help to accelerate progress or stop decline, yes or no?
PART III: FRAGMENTING HISTORIES
5 Scopes: Macro- and micro-histories
Wolf, Eric. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 6 (‘The fur trade’), 158-194.
Ginzburg, Carlo. 1989. Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath. New York: Pantheon, Introduction, 1-30.
Andrade, Tonio. 2010. ‘A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys, and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory.’ Journal of World History 21(4): 573-591.
Question 3: Which scope provides a better angle for understanding history, the macro or the micro one?
6 Connections: Encounters and entanglements
Williams, Steven. 2003. The ‘Secret of Secrets’: The Scholarly Career of a Pseudo-Aristotelean Text in the Latin Middle Ages, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, introduction, and chapter 1 (‘The Contents and the Formation of the Secret of Secrets’), 1-30.
Frankopan, Peter. 2015. The Silk Roads. A New History of the World, London: Bloomsbury, chapter 1 (‘The Creation of the Silk Road’), 1-26.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. 1997. ‘Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia.’ Modern Asian Studies, 31(3), 735-762.
Question 4: Do encounters and connections challenge traditional understandings of distinct civilizations, yes or no?
7 Chances: Contingencies and counterfactuals
McNeill, John R. 2010. Mosquito Empires: Ecology and War in the Greater Caribbean, 1620-1914. Cambridge University Press, Introduction, 1-14.
Lebow, Richard N. 20