The chapter discusses how questions of time and temporality shape and challenge global history, as well as historical studies in general. I take my cue from the specific temporality of global history itself and its role in defining the identity of the field. I move on to show, firstly, why time can be understood as history’s ‘last fetish’, as Chris Lorenz has phrased it, and how this makes itself known among global historians. In a second step, politics of periodisation are analysed as a particular challenge for de-centring history. Here, the recent debate about the ‘Global Middle Ages’ and the longer history of the global proliferation of the ‘medieval’ serve as an example. Finally, I turn to the question of synchronisation and contemporaneity, which presents both a promise and a problem for global historians.

This chapter is based on the proposition that translation is about the extension of one language by another, not about the provision of a replacement text; translation is not about interpretation but about inhabitation. The chapter critically reviews different perspectives on interpretation, particularly those supplied by the diachronic and synchronic, by universality and totality, by the signifier and the signified. Our meanings are always just beyond us, in intentions to mean. The chapter goes on to consider the status of je/I in speech and the nature of linguistic performance. It ends with a short reflection on translation’s perturbational effects on language.

This overarching chapter offers a comprehensive overview on how history is dealt with in International Relations (IR) and presents a conceptual framework for the study of history in IR based on the concept of historicity. The chapter also makes the case why looking at imperialism – the cross-cutting theme addressed in every chapter in this book – is a particularly fruitful way for both tracing the role of history in international politics and making use of the concept of historicity. The chapter introduces in particular six modes of historicity which shape its core argument on the centrality of history for a better understanding and better analyses of international politics.

This chapter argues against mainstream IR, which tend to only identify deficit of governance in ‘areas of limited statehood’. It presents the results of a structured comparison between Uganda and Cameroon. Taking the historicity of state seriously, the authors argue, brings to the fore that what is usually considered to be recent crisis, has it long roots in the past of how states have been formed. The four features that are highlighted are as follows. First, both Uganda and Cameroon are highly internationalized structures of domination. Second, both polities present a bifurcation inherited form the colonial regime between ‘citizens’ from ‘subjects’ (Mamdani). Third, both states make intensive use of the strategy of ‘discharge – i.e.the delegation of functions to private or semi-private agencies without giving up final control of them’ (Hibou). Fourth ‘power without knowledge’ (Breckenridge) is a central feature of state politics. The chapter ultimately argues against conventional narratives on modern statehood that ignore such important historical imprints.

The relationship between imperialism and international organizations is a close one. This chapter charts three stages in this relationship since the early nineteenth century: first, the use of international organizations as a means of coordinating imperialism and containing or, preferably, preventing inter-imperial conflict; second, the global expansion of international organizations as a means of stratifying polities initially via a ‘standard of civilization’ and, later, through quotients of ‘modernization’; and third, the use of international organizations as a means for various forms of interventionism. Taken together, these three stages mark a shift from a limited realm of international organization to a virtually universal condition of international administration. Over the past two centuries, the rationale and competences of international organizations have been reconfigured, rearticulated and redistributed. This narrative demonstrates that international organizations in particular, and forms of international administration in general, owe core aspects of their origins, development and legacies to imperialism.

The chapter provides a study of François Hemsterhuis’ affinities with and influence on Jacobi’s Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn. Both Hemsterhuis and Charles Bonnet significantly influenced Jacobi’s thought and the development of German idealism while providing the foundation for an alternative understanding of Spinoza.

Jacobi’s influence on the founder of so-called existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, has rarely been examined. This chapter explores Kierkegaard’s critical and somewhat polemical discussion of Jacobi’s notion of the “leap” in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, which not only shows that Kierkegaard was acquainted with Jacobi’s major work, Concerning the Doctrine of Spinoza but how it shaped Kierkegaard’s own particular development of the salto mortale.

Drawing on literary works from the Revolutionary Wars (Schiller’s Die Jungfrau von Orleans and Kleist’s Hermannsschlacht), the First World War (Erich Maria Remarque’s Im Westen nichts Neues and Ernst Jünger’s In Stahlgewittern), the Second World War (Christa Wolf's Kindheitsmuster) and the recent Iraq War (Handke’s Yugoslavia essays and Jelinek’s Bambiland), this chapter argues that the perception of specific historical wars is marked by distinct configurations of time and historicity. Literary representations of the Revolutionary Wars tend to conceive of war within a gradual unfolding of national destiny. Depictions of the First World War chafe against linear concepts of time and against concepts of temporal homogeneity. Representations of the Second World War radically deconstruct concepts of linearity and teleology. Here, time is a web in which the past impinges on the present and the present impacts the future. Both Handke’s and Jelinek’s texts, finally, are characterized by a detachment or even alienation from time and space occasioned by the mediatization of warfare on television and the web.

In contrast to the small-scale we of shared action, this chapter analyses the large-scale and temporally prolonged we’s of communities governed by social norms. Drawing on Heidegger’s analysis of the Anyone and of historicity, I distinguish between anonymous social normativity and historical social normativity. Anonymous social normativity provides a set of social norms in the form of a relatively stable, socially inflected comportmental pattern that we assume to be a universal default. However, this kind of social normativity comes with only a minimal awareness of its own nature, extent, and origin. Historical social normativity, on the other hand, implies a historical awareness in which social norms are disclosed as historical and hence as fragile and contestable. For Heidegger, this leads to the proto-political possibility of what I call communal commitments—roughly, commitments in which a group of people commit themselves to sustain a particular set of social norms across generations.

Anne Pollok discusses the role of history, historiography, and historicity in Cassirer’s philosophy in this chapter. In contrast to the “objectively teleological” approaches to history offered by Leibniz or Hegel, Cassirer, on the one hand, does not assume an inherent teleology that is merely reflected in culture, but interprets history as a dynamic and progressive movement of the self-liberation of spirit that must be expressed and manifested by cultural means. Hence, the historian must actively engage with our cultural past as a means to elucidate our current standing and inform our future development. Contrary to Heidegger, on the other hand, Cassirer sees this process of self-liberation not as an existential struggle, but assumes that a proper relation to our history offers a valid answer to the demands of the present. Pollok hereby demonstrates that historical reconstruction elucidates the basic communal and intersubjective structure of symbol formation, thus transcending the limits of the historian’s time and elucidating the complex system of human symbolic formation in culture.

In this paper, I present a range of contemporary Jewish theological approaches to revelation with the aim of highlighting an array of opinions for beginning a discussion of a Jewish theology of revelation. I use models in theology because a “models approach” helps one place the thinkers into conceptual rubrics loosely based on the models of the Catholic theologian Avery Dulles. We discuss seven different models of Jewish Revelation. (1) the historic event model (2) the dialectic model (3) the mystical model (4) the Verbal model (5) the human potential model (6) the negative theology model and the (7) Hermenutical model

Linguistics as a modern science has invested its attention in describing structural rules and “trustworthy” parameters, which involve ideologies of objectivity, stability and invariance. These references conceived of language as an autonomous structured entity that created a kind of fixed ontology, relegating historical phenomena to a subaltern position. One can thus say that linguistics and history have been traditionally kept apart in the field of mainstream language studies. Considering the self-enclosure of linguistics, in this chapter, we begin by discussing how historicity and language are associated by different twentieth-century philosophers whose insights into historicity speak well to contemporary views of language as discourse. We then move into exploring how history is brought into textuality in present-day discourse studies by focusing on the macro–micro theoretical constructs of interdiscursivity and intertextuality. We conclude by drawing upon the relevance of such a theoretical apparatus to account for discourse circulation in fluid and superdiverse contexts. A specific question orients our line of reasoning and the pathway we construct: How can we, as discourse analysts, deal with the temporal–spatial horizon of history in view of the accelerated and ephemeral time-space references we experience nowadays? This question reflects our concern with the challenges that contemporary chronotopes pose to discourse analysis.