Our field falling apart?
CfP: "Worlds Apart? Futures of Global History" (Conference, Vienna, 25/26 May 2023) - link
Global history has come under scrutiny in recent years. Critics have bemoaned the field’s failure to overcome colonial attitudes and Eurocentric perspectives. Originally intended as a corrective to the shortcomings of Western scientific thought, the field has barely managed to break out of the discipline’s conceptional constraints and has remained rooted in the Anglophone academy. The result has been Janus-faced: while broadening the scope of historical analysis, it has failed to include a variety of voices, tools, and subjects, and reinforced ‘Europe’ as the default reference point. Moreover, the glaring inequalities in access to travel, knowledge, and funding often exclude researchers from participating in scholarly debates and exchange on an equal footing. How can the practice of global history be diversified, decentered, and decolonized?
Global history has come under scrutiny in recent years. Critics have bemoaned the field’s failure to overcome colonial attitudes and Eurocentric perspectives. Originally intended as a corrective to the shortcomings of Western scientific thought, the field has barely managed to break out of the discipline’s conceptional constraints and has remained rooted in the Anglophone academy. The result has been Janus-faced: while broadening the scope of historical analysis, it has failed to include a variety of voices, tools, and subjects, and reinforced ‘Europe’ as the default reference point. Moreover, the glaring inequalities in access to travel, knowledge, and funding often exclude researchers from participating in scholarly debates and exchange on an equal footing. How can the practice of global history be diversified, decentered, and decolonized?