Humanities2013, 2(4), 449-461; doi:10.3390/h2040449 - published online 18 October 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: The discourses of literature and history are generally regarded as two distinct genres. This essay sets out to investigate the use of fictitious, that is, the invented, as well as real elements, in addition to narrative tools in some literary and historical texts to examine whether there is evidence for a fundamental difference between them in this respect. In the first half of the article, from the juxtaposition of Merle’s historical novel, En nos vertes années, to Le Roy Ladurie’s The Beggar and the Professor, we shall see that real and fictitious elements are also interwoven in Merle’s text, just as history uses fictitious elements, necessarily and tacitly, or, in some works, in a rather provocative way. In the second half of this essay, in examining literary and historical narratives of the counter-revolution in the Vendée, it will become evident that historians also use the same narrative techniques as writers to orientate readers. While these findings would confound the normative distinction between history and literature, we cannot, however, finally conclude that there is no fundamental difference between literary fiction and history. Arguing against Alun Munslow, who claims in Authoring the Past that “’doing history’ is an authorial activity,” this present article tries to argue that, while in many aspects writing history is indistinguishable from writing fiction, the historian has co-authors: the sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives.
Humanities2013, 2(4), 439-448; doi:10.3390/h2040439 - published online 14 October 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: Over the last decade, numerous modules, courses, and programs in Management Education have integrated sustainability into their curricula. However, this “integration” has translated into very diverse forms and contents. This article aims to clarify these ambiguities. It maps four forms of sustainability integration in Management Education. These four distinct forms are (1) discipline-based integration, in which the anchoring point is the business discipline (sustainability is added as a dimension of this body of knowledge); (2) strategic-/competitive-based integration, in which the anchoring point is the strategy of the organization (sustainability is viewed as a potential contributor to the firm’s competitive advantage); (3) integration by application, in which managerial tools and approaches from business disciplines are applied so as to contribute to addressing a sustainability challenge; and, last, (4) systemic integration, in which the anchoring point is a social-ecological-economic challenge defined from an interdisciplinary perspective. Implications of this chapter for the design of courses and programs and the practice of sustainability in Management Education are twofold. First, this article contributes to going beyond the prevailing tendency of studies in the field of sustainability in Management Education to focus mainly on tools and applications. In doing so, this article helps frame these challenges on the level of course and program design. Second, this article helps management educators map what they are intending to achieve by the integration of sustainability into the Management Education curriculum.
Humanities2013, 2(3), 421-438; doi:10.3390/h2030421 - published online 15 August 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: This paper takes up the practice and ideas of Richard Rorty and Jane Addams, considering their work at the intersection of pragmatism and social action. It argues that both Richard Rorty and Jane Addams, each in their own way, were thinking through the significant challenges that confront individuals in their everyday lives: How do we adjudicate between the competing values of individual accountability and helping others in our community? This is our social test, and the way we each answer the question matters for the future of democracy and our degree of social hope. Rorty was a champion of engagement with the community, and believed that out of this experience comes our capacity to creatively weave the fabric of liberal democracy. The paper argues that Addams’s work at Hull-House in Chicago offers concrete examples of the potential of reciprocal social relations, providing practical substance to Rorty’s ideas and showing how we can create social hope through action.
Humanities2013, 2(3), 404-420; doi:10.3390/h2030404 - published online 2 August 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: Richard Rorty was a strong contextualist in his approach to philosophical and political ideas, yet his own most characteristic arguments are typically evaluated without much reference to the historical circumstances that provoked them. A key participant in the post-1980 revival of pragmatism within North American and European intellectual circles, Rorty reaffirmed the strong connections between American pragmatism and German idealism. This move placed him at odds with scholars who forged the unity of pragmatism—united John Dewey and William James—under the banner of radical empiricism. Those engaged most enthusiastically in celebrating Rorty’s achievements, in short, defend a conception of pragmatism that Rorty sharply criticized and ideas about the history of philosophy that he did not share. His distinctive intellectual agenda is best appreciated after setting it in the context of the history of the American Left and, more specifically, the reckoning with the tumultuous 1960s that animates so many ongoing debates—inside and outside the academy—about cultural and political affairs.
Humanities2013, 2(3), 384-403; doi:10.3390/h2030384 - published online 10 July 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: In Contingency, irony and solidarity Rorty attempts to solve what Robert Pippin calls the ‘Modernity Problem’ by outlining a new self-understanding for the intellectuals of the ideal liberal society. The so-called liberal ironists of this post-philosophical milieu are no longer characterized by the quest for what Rorty describes as ‘a single vision’. This paper evaluates Rorty’s attempt to conceptualize the self-image of post-philosophical intellectuals in the light of two similar endeavors; namely, Nietzsche’s and the ancient Sceptics’. The preliminary conclusion is that although Rorty’s attempt fails, it points to an alternative way of interpreting the desire for a single vision; namely, as a form of autobiography. Drawing on Nietzsche, Nagel and Mill, the paper proceeds to argue that Rorty’s own autobiographical fragment exemplifies the way in which the narration of a failed attempt to find a ‘single vision’ can itself be seen as the achievement of such a vision.
Humanities2013, 2(3), 369-383; doi:10.3390/h2030369 - published online 10 July 2013 Show/Hide Abstract
Abstract: One of Richard Rorty's legacies is to have put a Jamesian version of pragmatism on the contemporary philosophical map. Part of his argument has been that pragmatism and analytic philosophy are set against each other, with pragmatism almost having been killed off by the reigning analytic philosophy. The argument of this paper is that there is a better and more interesting reading of both the history of pragmatism and the history of analytic philosophy.