What do you think?
Rate this book
Breaking up Time: Negotiating the Borders Between Present, Past and Future
Thirteen expert historians and philosophers address basic questions on historical time and on the distinctions between past, present and future. Their contributions are organised around four the relation between time and modernity; the issue of ruptures in time and the influence of catastrophic events such as revolutions and wars on temporal distinctions; the philosophical analysis of historical time and temporal distinctions; and the construction of time outside Europe through processes of colonialism, imperialism, and globalisation.
274 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
35 people want to read
About the author
Berber Bevernage
11 books4 followersBerber Bevernage is Assistant Professor of philosophy and theory of history in the Department of History at Ghent University.
Much of his current research focuses on the uses of history and memory after violent conflict, dictatorship or cases of historical injustice. He is especially interested in the politics of time and history that are often at play in societies emerging from these types of situations and which are trying to break with painful or shameful pasts. A related research interest is that in the increasing confluence of the practices of historiography and jurisdiction, which, for example, manifests itself in the growing international preoccupation with historical justice, the establishment of truth commissions and historical commissions, the engagement in reparation politics and the issues of so-called “memory laws” in several countries around the world.
Berber has published in journals such as History and Theory, Memory Studies, Social History and History Workshop Journal. His book History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice was published by Routledge in 2012. Together with Chris Lorenz he has edited a volume titled Breaking Up Time: Negotiating the Borders between Present and Future, which was published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in 2013.
Berber is (co-)founder of the interdisciplinary research forum TAPAS / Thinking About the PASt, which focuses on popular, academic and artistic dealings with the past in a large variety of cultural and social areas. Together with colleagues he in 2012 established the International Network for Theory of History, which aims to foster collaboration and the exchange of ideas among theorists of history around the world.
Much of his current research focuses on the uses of history and memory after violent conflict, dictatorship or cases of historical injustice. He is especially interested in the politics of time and history that are often at play in societies emerging from these types of situations and which are trying to break with painful or shameful pasts. A related research interest is that in the increasing confluence of the practices of historiography and jurisdiction, which, for example, manifests itself in the growing international preoccupation with historical justice, the establishment of truth commissions and historical commissions, the engagement in reparation politics and the issues of so-called “memory laws” in several countries around the world.
Berber has published in journals such as History and Theory, Memory Studies, Social History and History Workshop Journal. His book History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice was published by Routledge in 2012. Together with Chris Lorenz he has edited a volume titled Breaking Up Time: Negotiating the Borders between Present and Future, which was published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in 2013.
Berber is (co-)founder of the interdisciplinary research forum TAPAS / Thinking About the PASt, which focuses on popular, academic and artistic dealings with the past in a large variety of cultural and social areas. Together with colleagues he in 2012 established the International Network for Theory of History, which aims to foster collaboration and the exchange of ideas among theorists of history around the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
October 22, 2024The notion of "breaking up time" is inextricably linked to that of European modernity, a way of interpreting time as a straight line going from past to present to future (of course, actually it is the other way round), with clear divisions between the three. The German theoretical historian Reinhart Koselleck (1923-2006) elaborated a whole theory on temporality, starting from this strict division between past, present and future. Koselleck invented the concepts of 'space of experience' (regarding the past) and 'horizon of expectation' (towards the future) and highlighted how modern thinking in the 18th and the 19th century gradually made a split between the two. That split, this “breaking up time”, between a really gone past and a present that looks to the future, made the scientific study of that past possible, as if it were an external object. This was the "temporality" basis for modern history studies that came in vogue in the second half of the 19th century. Modernity also linked this with a progressive structure, an upward line more or less from primitive to cultivated, with of course modern times at the top.
The compilers of this book, Chris Lorenz and Berber Bevernage rightly state that this modern/Western concept of temporality recently came under attack. This concerns both epistemological criticism, from the inside, namely whether that "modernity" concept adequately covers reality, as from the outside, by other cultures that reject its universalist claim. This book addresses several of those critical approaches, with the common denominator being the question of whether it makes sense to break up time as absolutely as modernity seems to do. Moreover, there is the observation of some (especially François Hartog) that for some time yet we are not any more in that modern temporality framework, but that it is now 'presentism' that sets the tone: doubt has struck, especially since the end of the Cold War, that the future looks better, and the past has been brought back into the present (more or less lifting the divide), as evidenced by the 'memory boom' and the handling of traumas from the past (especially genocides, colonial rule and human rights violations).
I don't know if you are still with me, but I find all of this extremely intriguing and fascinating. This book is based on an academic conference held in 2011 at the University of Freiburg, Germany. As is the case with most 'readers', the level of the contributions is very uneven, but particularly disturbing is that almost every author uses his/her own concepts: time as transcending cosmological framework, time as duration, time as periodisation (whether or not not with its own teleology), temporality, historical regime, and so on. Another critique is that there are also major differences as to which temporality concept sets the tone at present, and whether the modernity framework is a realistic one or not. Martin L. Davies already pointed out these incongruities in a succinct review (see https://www.inth.ugent.be/content/bre...). This obviously complicates a dialogue between the contributions, although it illustrates once again how elusive the phenomenon of time is.
It is impossible for me to discuss all contributions here, but I pick out some very interesting ones. One of my favourites is Peter Fritsch's about ruins, in which he demonstrates that the distinction that Koselleck made between experience and expectation is not so strict, not even in modernity. I would also like to recommend William Gallois' final contribution: he demonstrates how Western colonization (in his case the French occupation of Algeria) led to a confrontation between two concepts of temporality (Western modernity and Islam). A lot of other contributions take the theoretical path, in distinct directions, often using very philosophical slang.
The problem is that after having read all these contributions, and convinced that the concept of modernity is problematic when formulated in an absolute way, it is not really possible to offer sound alternatives. Even in their highly critical analyses, all authors use the classic temporality inspired by modernity, with time as linear, homogenic and universal. In her essay, Lynn Hunt comes to the same conclusion: okay, the excesses of a strict separation between past and present and an absolute belief in the linear, progressing history line, are not healthy; but for a scientific approach to the past, there seems to be no valid alternative. Perhaps it is ultimately a matter of pragmatics: Western historiography and the underlying temporality have proven that they can make a real contribution to a better understanding of historic reality, so let us make the best of it. But at the same time let us keep an eye on the limits and the distortions that are implicitly part of it. In this sense, this book offers a fruitful contribution.
(rating: 2.5 stars)
The compilers of this book, Chris Lorenz and Berber Bevernage rightly state that this modern/Western concept of temporality recently came under attack. This concerns both epistemological criticism, from the inside, namely whether that "modernity" concept adequately covers reality, as from the outside, by other cultures that reject its universalist claim. This book addresses several of those critical approaches, with the common denominator being the question of whether it makes sense to break up time as absolutely as modernity seems to do. Moreover, there is the observation of some (especially François Hartog) that for some time yet we are not any more in that modern temporality framework, but that it is now 'presentism' that sets the tone: doubt has struck, especially since the end of the Cold War, that the future looks better, and the past has been brought back into the present (more or less lifting the divide), as evidenced by the 'memory boom' and the handling of traumas from the past (especially genocides, colonial rule and human rights violations).
I don't know if you are still with me, but I find all of this extremely intriguing and fascinating. This book is based on an academic conference held in 2011 at the University of Freiburg, Germany. As is the case with most 'readers', the level of the contributions is very uneven, but particularly disturbing is that almost every author uses his/her own concepts: time as transcending cosmological framework, time as duration, time as periodisation (whether or not not with its own teleology), temporality, historical regime, and so on. Another critique is that there are also major differences as to which temporality concept sets the tone at present, and whether the modernity framework is a realistic one or not. Martin L. Davies already pointed out these incongruities in a succinct review (see https://www.inth.ugent.be/content/bre...). This obviously complicates a dialogue between the contributions, although it illustrates once again how elusive the phenomenon of time is.
It is impossible for me to discuss all contributions here, but I pick out some very interesting ones. One of my favourites is Peter Fritsch's about ruins, in which he demonstrates that the distinction that Koselleck made between experience and expectation is not so strict, not even in modernity. I would also like to recommend William Gallois' final contribution: he demonstrates how Western colonization (in his case the French occupation of Algeria) led to a confrontation between two concepts of temporality (Western modernity and Islam). A lot of other contributions take the theoretical path, in distinct directions, often using very philosophical slang.
The problem is that after having read all these contributions, and convinced that the concept of modernity is problematic when formulated in an absolute way, it is not really possible to offer sound alternatives. Even in their highly critical analyses, all authors use the classic temporality inspired by modernity, with time as linear, homogenic and universal. In her essay, Lynn Hunt comes to the same conclusion: okay, the excesses of a strict separation between past and present and an absolute belief in the linear, progressing history line, are not healthy; but for a scientific approach to the past, there seems to be no valid alternative. Perhaps it is ultimately a matter of pragmatics: Western historiography and the underlying temporality have proven that they can make a real contribution to a better understanding of historic reality, so let us make the best of it. But at the same time let us keep an eye on the limits and the distortions that are implicitly part of it. In this sense, this book offers a fruitful contribution.
(rating: 2.5 stars)
February 2, 2020
Time never has been a topic of great interest to historians. Yes, you're reading this right. Of course, historians are interested in the past, but that's something quite different. The past is only the fruit of the working of time, and since time is one of the most elusive aspects of reality (even to physicists!), why bother about it?
Now, since the end of the 20th century time has become an object of study even to historians, or at least to the more theoretical and philosophical oriented among them. Since Reinhart Koselleck (and to be honest already before him) we know that looking at the past we unconsciously are influenced by a certain way of looking at time. This is called 'temporality'. In our modern world (since the end of the 18th century) in the West, and afterwards also in an ever growing part of the world, we don't see the trio past-present-future as one and the same any more, but as three distinct aspects of temporal reality. Moreover, the past was severed from the present, that became increasingly orientated towards the future.
This 'breaking up time' in what is called 'Modernity' is the central topic of this collection of academic articles. As always, the contributions are a bit uneven, and there's quite some difference in the concepts the authors use, but still, this is a valuable reader when looking at that strange world of temporalities or time-frames. For a more elaborate review, see my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Now, since the end of the 20th century time has become an object of study even to historians, or at least to the more theoretical and philosophical oriented among them. Since Reinhart Koselleck (and to be honest already before him) we know that looking at the past we unconsciously are influenced by a certain way of looking at time. This is called 'temporality'. In our modern world (since the end of the 18th century) in the West, and afterwards also in an ever growing part of the world, we don't see the trio past-present-future as one and the same any more, but as three distinct aspects of temporal reality. Moreover, the past was severed from the present, that became increasingly orientated towards the future.
This 'breaking up time' in what is called 'Modernity' is the central topic of this collection of academic articles. As always, the contributions are a bit uneven, and there's quite some difference in the concepts the authors use, but still, this is a valuable reader when looking at that strange world of temporalities or time-frames. For a more elaborate review, see my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews