Literary Historiography and the "Other": Presentation - Revision history

SvDijk at 13:54, 22 December 2008

SvDijk — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:54:18 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 22 December 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	<br><br><br>		<br><br><br>
		+	''Anke Gilleir:'' <br><br>
	How did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent "others" (women as well as other "others")? And how much – in spite of every possible form of reflexion - we take for granted the canonical inheritance in spite of all sorts of ideological awareness. <br><br>		How did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent "others" (women as well as other "others")? And how much – in spite of every possible form of reflexion - we take for granted the canonical inheritance in spite of all sorts of ideological awareness. <br><br>

SvDijk at 13:53, 22 December 2008

SvDijk — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:53:37 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 22 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	<br>__NOEDITSECTION__
		+	== Historiography and the question of "cultural heritage" ==


		+	<br><br><br>
		+	How did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent "others" (women as well as other "others")? And how much – in spite of every possible form of reflexion - we take for granted the canonical inheritance in spite of all sorts of ideological awareness. <br><br>

-	Discussion about historiography and the question of "cultural heritage": how did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent "others" (women as well as other "others").<br><br>	+	Obviously as children of the 21st century we know that history is a construction. Philosophy of history has investigated into history as a textual practice (H. White, F. Ankersmit), we have learned how collective memories are formed and institutionalized (A. Assmann), we realize that both on collective and individual level memory functions in a spatio-temporal context, we have come to estimate the impact of trauma, we know that traditions are invented (E. Hobsbawm), that concepts such as "origin" and "generation" are not mere facts of nature but highly functional terms in the process of community formation, terms that may blur diversity and incompatibility of historical experience (S. Weigel). At the end of the addition we are extremely conscious, yet how does it influence our practice as scholars in literary history? <br><br><br>

-	Obviously as children of the 21st century we know that history is a construction. Philosophy of history has investigated into history as a textual practice (H. White, F. Ankersmit), we have learned how collective memories are formed and institutionalized (A. Assmann), we realize that both on collective and individual level memory functions in a spatio-temporal context, we have come to estimate the impact of trauma, we know that traditions are invented (E. Hobsbawm), that concepts such as "origin" and "generation" are not mere facts of nature but highly functional terms in the process of community formation, terms that may blur diversity and incompatibility of historical experience (S. Weigel). At the end of the addition we are extremely conscious, yet how does it influence our practice as scholars in literary history? <br><br>	+	SvD, December 2008<br><br><br>

-	The workshop addressed questions on the kinds of literature we deal with, on how much – in spite of every possible form of reflexion - we take for granted the canonical inheritance in spite of all sorts of ideological awareness. <br><br><br>	+	<hr>
		+	<br>
		+	*Conferences > NEWW November meetings > 2008 > Gilleir <br><br>

SvDijk: New page: Discussion about historiography and the question of "cultural heritage": how did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent ...

SvDijk — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:50:30 GMT

New page: Discussion about historiography and the question of "cultural heritage": how did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent ...

New page

Discussion about historiography and the question of "cultural heritage": how did our present day knowledge of historical literature get established and how did it present and represent "others" (women as well as other "others"). 

Obviously as children of the 21st century we know that history is a construction. Philosophy of history has investigated into history as a textual practice (H. White, F. Ankersmit), we have learned how collective memories are formed and institutionalized (A. Assmann), we realize that both on collective and individual level memory functions in a spatio-temporal context, we have come to estimate the impact of trauma, we know that traditions are invented (E. Hobsbawm), that concepts such as "origin" and "generation" are not mere facts of nature but highly functional terms in the process of community formation, terms that may blur diversity and incompatibility of historical experience (S. Weigel). At the end of the addition we are extremely conscious, yet how does it influence our practice as scholars in literary history? 

The workshop addressed questions on the kinds of literature we deal with, on how much – in spite of every possible form of reflexion - we take for granted the canonical inheritance in spite of all sorts of ideological awareness.