Between Ruptures and Continuities. Historiography: the "Practical-as-Moral" Pastand the "Practical-as-Ethical" Present

MUDROVCIC, MARÍA INÉS

Ouro Preto

Conferencia; 2nd Conference of the International Network for Theory of History. The Practical Past: on the advantrages of History for Life; 2016

International Network for Theory of History

Between ruptures and continuities. Historiography: the ?practical-as-moral? past and the ?practical-as-ethical? presentThe aim of this paper is to show that there will be no distinction between the practical past and the historical past if academic historiography is cast in a narrative form. The past of historical narratives is historical insofar as it is practical. The ?practical attitude? that accompanies historical narratives functions as moral guide to the present. Finally, I will try to show that if historians assume a critical attitude and regard the ?present as history?, it would be possible to display the experiences of our world in their naked contingency. Unlike the moral dimension of the historical past of narrative historiography, the idea of ?present as history? defines an ethical project insofar as the present is considered historically.To this point, some ambiguity should be noted in the use of the concept "practical" that leads to confusion about the semantic scope of the term. I will distinguish three meanings: "practical" as useful, "practical" as moral and "practical" as ethical. On the one hand, the word "practical" refers to "usefulness". Something is "practical" if it can be used or if it "serves" us. On the other hand, the concept "practical" can relate to actions. In this sense, the term may be understood morally. Morality defines a world of obligations that appears when we try to answer the question what must I do? However, "practical" can also be understood ethically. This is the case when Kant asks what should I do? Unlike the moral world of obligations, the ethical world offers no map to follow.Historians are willing to recognize for historiography its ?practical-as-useful? dimension because it maintains their pretentions to purport an objective and detached knowledge of the past. As Argentinian historian Chiaramonte stated in a recent published book: ?The intention of putting some results of historiography in the service of other human activities is legitimate as long as that service is respectful of historiographical task".The separation between the past and the present, which would guarantee the objectivity of the "professional" historian and give him/her freedom from the interests of daily life, is only a gesture to repress the inherent practical-as-moral dimension of the past of historiography. Narrative configuration creates historical identities relating beginning, middle and end, which, all together, are temporal coherent wholes. This way of linking events is characteristic of narratives and constructs continuities between the present and the past. It also favors the transformation of these continuities into present subjects who understand themselves as coming and resulting from the past. Belonging to historical identities -a nation, a church, a group- allows people to think and act in specific ?concrete? situations and it serves as a ?practical-moral guide? of present and future actions. The result is a past that helps the present be more livable- i.e., a practical-moral past.However, if historians consider the ?present as history?, i.e., ?present as contingency?, they are reversing the historical attitude of the historical narratives. Disconnecting the present from the future and from the past is to begin to think that what will happen in the future will not be similar at all neither with the present nor with the past. In this sense, ?present-as-history? delimits an ethical field under the sign of history?s purely negative side.