Editorial Manifesto  

We are living in a period in which concern with the past (which also includes the so-called history of the present) has been augmenting until reaching proportions of mass market. “L’uso pubblico della storia”, as the historian, Nicola Gallerano, called this phenomenon, does not stop extending, in accord with the development of mass media, new technologies, memories, needs for identity, social movements, and cultural tastes. It seems to inexorably come true the premise, which Fredric Jameson and David Lowenthal expounded more than two decades ago, according to which the development of mass culture and commercialization give birth to the emergence of a new “nostalgia”, that is, a tendency to look at the past regardless chronological boundaries, geographic borders and themes, cultural grounds and ways of expression, for this kind of nostalgia pervades them all. In one sense the omnipresent expression “memory” – and its opposite, “oblivion” – is meeting the need for new and increasingly diverse ways of conjuring up and identifying with the past. For historians and experts in historical matters this new situation is representing an unusual challenge, though a great opportunity too.  

In this unstable land, where interest in history and amnesia seem to be in a state of permanent tension, is of great importance to put again – perhaps the question should be raised more insistently than ever – what the role of the historical discipline must be and how, because of that, its capacities of inquiry might be improved. This is why we have embarked on the endeavour to edit Historiografías, revista de historia y teoría, a biannual electronic journal devoted to historiographic studies and theoretical history. We are persuaded that, at this moment, when memory and commemoration are more ubiquitous than ever – it has come to be defended that “each group is its own historian” – to insist upon the importance of historical reflection might be a necessary and urgent task. Should be regarded historiography as a mere consequence of the needs for legitimization of an institutionalized field – the historical studies – as certain writers from the ranks of postmodernism assert? Or perhaps historiography must be content to be considered as one of the varieties of memory – a special “learnt memory”? We do not think that mixing, without further precautions, historiography, historical culture and memory, as deduced from these hypothetic questions, was to be an appropriate response.     

If we eschew extreme positions (those that melt the writing of history in other “narratives” and underestimate the job of the historian), then we should agree that the response to the question posed above – the reason for the importance or priority of historiography – continues to essentially be the same as that of generations of historians have offered since the historical profession emerged and the genre of historical epistemology was invented more than a hundred years ago. One can thus emphasize that the historiographic study not only serves to examine the scientific importance of new topics and paradigms but also works as an element of intellectual and professional identity for those people who are concerned with historical inquiry. It continues to be valid that that Marc Bloch wrote at the beginning of his Apologie pour l’ histoire when he claimed for the need to expound how and why the historian practises his job – of course, as he explained, this to be understood as a “science in motion” and, therefore, open to other disciplines. Sure, both current historical culture and paradigms are disregarding watertight compartments, and the idea of the interdisciplinary is reaching levels that even the boldest authors would have never suspected in that epoch. Nor is today the scope of memories the same as it could have for Marc Bloch – friend and contemporary with Maurice Halbwachs, forerunner theorist of the concept of “collective memory”: nowadays is to be recognized without difficulty that memory, whose study is by no means an exclusive competence of historians, takes somehow part of historical writing, or is related to it. On the other hand, the writing of history – is to be assured as well – has never been indifferent to public opinion; the very interest that collective representations arouse blurs the dividing line between historiography, social research and even artistic theory and creation – hence the increasing importance of the so-called Cultural Studies. It exists besides an experimental film that, for example – some authors assert – is akin to historical research (a comparison between genres that would have looked heretical coming from an author of Marc Bloch’s generation).   

In fact, all these proofs should instead serve to consider the priority of historical epistemology and defend its raison d’être: in addition to research activity itself, the most important of the guarantees of historical writing, that which distinguishes historical knowledge from memory, continues to be the study of the theory and forms historiography adopts. Though its public nature is somehow immanent to the writing of history, not all the public uses of the past are equal in value. In terms of epistemology, there are “central” – those related to research and teaching – and there are “peripheral”, namely those in which memory and commemoration prevail. And are the studies in theory and historiography those that should help to understand the importance of these memorial uses for historical knowledge – by examining, for example, the importance of realms of memory and repositories for historical information – and not the opposite, not to confine historiography to a mere aspect of memory. Yet this conclusion would be ineffective without at the same time emphasizing that historiography has become a highly plural field with blurred boundaries. In order to show this situation, the word “historiographies” has seemed to us the most suitable. We do not want, however, that the title in the plural was to be interpreted as though it was about to regard the writing of history as a kaleidoscope of memories, or as a statement in favour of absolute relativism. Far from our intention thus choosing the plural to conclude that the study of the theory and history of historical writing were to be overtaken by the memorial use of the past, a topic that we consider inevitable, but not the most important. Nevertheless, simply declaring priority to historiographic theory does not remove the current challenges. 

The so-called history of historiography – a realm stemmed from cultural changes at the beginning of the twentieth century with many antecedents – is still finding it difficult to be considered a specialty area proper, notwithstanding its academic recognition by the International Committee of Historical Sciences in the early eighties of the twentieth century. There is no shortage of reasons for this paradox. If, according to Arnaldo Momigliano, the history of historiography was to be regarded as the outcome of historicism – that is, of a concept of history based upon a one-dimensional idea of progress – then it would be extremely hard to extend its scope today. A history of history only understood as “teleology” of methods and topics, or as a survey of simple progress in historical writing, from Antiquity to the twentieth century, has little to contribute to a culture as the current one where breaks, discontinuities and globalization prevail (except for showing, perhaps, in what manner ideas and paradigms lose importance with the passage of time). Nor is lack of people who are discussing the existence of a crisis in the history of historiography, proving, as they are, that the expectations raised in the seventies and eighties over that field were never confirmed. But were not those hopes closely connected with a diversity of paradigms, or ways of writing history, which were bursting onto the scene at that time? If so, instead of a supposed emergence of a new specialty, things should be interpreted in another way: what may rather have happened is that studies in historiography were simply seeking their place along with the new cultural history and other rising paradigms. Apparently, such studies seemed to start a new phase in those decades, and so it happened to a certain extent. If cultural history could transform multitude of activities and values, unnoticed before, into subjects of inquiry, it was also legitimate for specialists in the history of history to intend to do the same with historical culture – surpassing thus the simple review of great historians and theirs writings. But the shift had its limits too because it is difficult to be creative in a field, as that of the classic history of historiography, that declares its concern with the writings of the past while ignores the writings of the present and historical theory – or does not give them too much importance – as well as the influence these exert on the questions that researchers raise. It is not possible, for instance, to explain the current interest in literary forms and rhetoric of past historians and their histories without taking into account what the so-called post-structuralism has meant. To a certain extent was correct Benedetto Croce when defended, a hundred years ago, that there was a close link between the theory and the history of historiography.  

If we decide to maintain the term “history of historiography” to put historical writings within their context, then we should interpret it in a wider and more ambiguous way than before: for example, as a substratum, as a realm of problems concerning historiographies both from the present and from the past, or a field of discussion intended to examine the features of past historiographies and compare them with current trends, concepts and historiographic problems. Trying, as has sometimes been defended, to confine the history of historical writings to a narrow separate specialty, disregarding other aspects, not only contradicts the current trends of cultural history – which uses historical writings as a source – and the importance of theory, but also ignores the value that historical writing has as an element of intellectual identity for professional historians.  

In order to prevent the study of historiography from becoming a marginal field, prey to its own paradoxes, this should cover as much the past as the current ways of writing history, in addition to all kind of methodological and theoretical aspects and those related to historical culture. This is why we have preferred entitling this journal with the term “historiographies”, instead of blindly relaying on the expression “history of historiography” – despite the fact that this could be interpreted as a statement in favour of relativism. With “historiographies” we wish to refer to an open field without dogmatisms of any kind – always ready to act as high priests of how the study of historical writings must be practised. Our purpose is thus twofold: 1) to examine all the forms the writing of history has adopted, without geographic, chronologic and cultural restrictions; from historiography in Antiquity – including medieval and Renaissance writers – to forms memories have adopted in other civilizations, in addition to “modern” ways of writing history all over the world, and current trends; 2) to give importance to historical epistemology and theory in general. In short, we consider the study of historiography as a limitless field, a realm of problems to deal with the writing of history from such different viewpoints as to covering from cultural and intellectual history to political history and biography, including epistemology and social theory, anthropology, sociology and history of sciences.      

Aware that the field of historiography has decisive challenges to face up to, Historiografías, revista de historia y teoría wish to joint the international publications of theory and historiographic studies – and will accept papers in Spanish, English and French language. This is no little challenge in the Spanish panorama, which has hardly specific journals and forums for theoretical and historiographic discussion. Owing to international nature of historiographic theory, the reference to Spanish situation should be anecdotal. Nevertheless, we do not want to conceal that our purpose is also overcoming limitations that have always been surrounding Spanish historiography – because of language barriers, an age-old lack of originality and a compulsive tendency to imitation – which has resulted in a similar lack of theoretical originality. It is possible that a new journal was not the panacea for changes in this tendency; changes that, given the current situation of Spanish historiography, perhaps have already their seeds sowed, and will soon begin to yield. We would be content with the fact that Historiografías was a way of helping this originality to more easily emerge.