As (des)classificações do tempo: linguagens teóricas, historiografia e normatividade

Abstract

RESUMO Nas últimas décadas, as reflexões em torno da temporalidade passaram a ocupar um lugar de destaque na agenda de pesquisas historiográficas. O objetivo deste artigo é, justamente, propor um exercício de leitura, expresso em uma breve análise comparativa, de duas propostas teóricas que têm encontrado ressonâncias nessa agenda: a de François Hartog, centrada nas categorias de "regimes de historicidade" e de "presentismo"; e a de Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, centrada principalmente nas categorias de "cronótopo", "presente lento" e "latência". Ainda que essas categorias apareçam por vezes intercambiadas em alguns textos e debates, elas guardam diferenças importantes, tanto no que diz respeito aos seus pressupostos epistemológicos (ou ontológicos) e alcances heurísticos, como nas formas de encaminharem seus diagnósticos e prognósticos das experiências contemporâneas, incidindo em duas posturas disciplinares e éticas distintas. Palavras-chave: Teoria da História; temporalidade; historiografia. ABSTRACTIn the past few decades, reflections on the subject of temporality have come to stand out in the historiographic research agenda. This paper aims to perform a comparative analysis of two theoretical proposals which have found repercussions in that agenda: François Hartog's, which concentrates in the categories of "historicity regimes" and "presentism," and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht's, mainly focused on the categories of "chronotope," "slow present," and "latency." Although these categories are sometimes used interchangeably in some texts and debates, they yield important differences, regarding their epistemological (or ontological) foundations and heuristic scope, as well as the manner in which they deliver their diagnosis and prognosis of contemporary experiences, resulting in distinct disciplinary and ethical stances.

The Mood of Time(s): Melancholia and the Limits of Temporal Thinking in World Politics

“…Here, the association of temporal and spatial difference as a mechanism of historical knowledge-the problem of "historical distance"-became emblematic of attempts to deal with this double critique (Bevernage;Lorenz, 2013;History & Theory, 2011). Likewise, Harthog's reflection on different regimes of historicity pointed to multiple ways through which past, present, and future can be organized to produce fields of historical knowledge, modern historiography consisting only one of them, which has been losing its centrality at the end of the 20 th century (Harthog, 2013; see also Turin, 2016). Finally, Koselleck's semantics of historical time itself was revisited, pointing to the potential for thinking about modern history in terms of the overlapping of multiple temporalities instead of the more traditional rendition of modern historical time in terms of future-oriented progressive narratives (Jordheim, 2012; see also, Zammito, 2004;Bouton, 2016).…”

“…From a different framework, Gumbrecht (1996;; see also Turin, 2016) notes that the diminishing horizon of expectations creates a sense of "broadened present" in which the experience of time is altered and the possibility of learning Nonetheless, most of the hopeful readings of this tradition come not so much from the sense of the loss of progressive narratives, but of the death of progressive narratives-in the same sense that Foucault spoke of the death of Man (Foucault, 2002) and the death of the author (Foucault, 1998). Thus, in the third and last trend, the future is not, and has never been, what it was supposed to be: progressive narratives of history are revealed to have always been a fiction, even if a particularly productive one.…”