Gumbrecht: “We have to rethink political organization”
Michał Sutowski speaks with Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht - philosopher and literary theorist, Professor at Stanford University published here in Political Critique 23 January 2015
uses term history for old mode of perception:
'I try to historicize History, admitting that it is still around, but no
longer as the dominant way under which we think about time and make our
experience with regards to time.'
'I have a different understanding of the end of history than my Stanford colleague, Fukuyama. Certainly, there is no such thing as a literal end of history: there will always be transformations, there will always be new events, unexpected events – in that sense, history continues. What differs is the regime d’histoire, the chronotope. History – in the Hegelian sense – was the chronotope of the 19th c. and most of the 20th c. It can be characterized by three features. First, you progressively leave the past behind, and the further behind you leave it, the less its orientational power matters. Second, the future is an open horizon of possibilities from which you can choose. Third, between the past and the future the present has shrunk to an imperceptibly short moment. Such a construction of time comes from the 18th c. and was so heavily institutionalized throughout the 19th and 20th century that people thought: “this is time in and by itself”'.
Production of Presence
Published on Jun 4, 2014
Nov. 4, 2013; 5:00pm-7:30pm
Stanford Humanities Center, Stanford University
A Europe Center special event with guest speaker Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Albert Guérard Professor in Literature and professor of Comparative Literature, of French & Italian. Commentary provided by professors Amir Eshel (German Studies), Robert Harrison (Italian Literature), Roland Greene (Comparative Literature) and Denise Gigante (English). Co-sponsored by the Division of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages and the Stanford Humanities Center.
'I have a different understanding of the end of history than my Stanford colleague, Fukuyama. Certainly, there is no such thing as a literal end of history: there will always be transformations, there will always be new events, unexpected events – in that sense, history continues. What differs is the regime d’histoire, the chronotope. History – in the Hegelian sense – was the chronotope of the 19th c. and most of the 20th c. It can be characterized by three features. First, you progressively leave the past behind, and the further behind you leave it, the less its orientational power matters. Second, the future is an open horizon of possibilities from which you can choose. Third, between the past and the future the present has shrunk to an imperceptibly short moment. Such a construction of time comes from the 18th c. and was so heavily institutionalized throughout the 19th and 20th century that people thought: “this is time in and by itself”'.
--------------+------------------
Was there something latent after 1945? (and what this has to do with
'Latency')".
Lecture presented by Professor Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. IV
Lisbon Summer School for the Study of Culture. 2014.Nov. 4, 2013; 5:00pm-7:30pm
Stanford Humanities Center, Stanford University
A Europe Center special event with guest speaker Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Albert Guérard Professor in Literature and professor of Comparative Literature, of French & Italian. Commentary provided by professors Amir Eshel (German Studies), Robert Harrison (Italian Literature), Roland Greene (Comparative Literature) and Denise Gigante (English). Co-sponsored by the Division of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages and the Stanford Humanities Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment