| This dissertation presents an argument for approaches to history-writing that might re-animate the political and ethical projects of `'history from below' in the face of the global realities, political and academic, of the twenty-first century. The argument is premised on the conviction that historiography is suasive, and that it is both political (addressing and intervening in relations of power) and moral (necessarily communicating and shaping judgments of value). While revisions to theoretical understandings and changes in the self-definition, the reach and the vigour of social movements have dramatically altered the context for 'history from below' as a project, I argue that inequality and violence require, from all of us, critical judgments based on historical understanding---require, that is, 'just history'.;After a review of some of the aims and the accomplishments of what I call 'challenger histories', the dissertation addresses three dimensions of history-writing that need re-consideration: the subjects of history, its boundaries, and its production in the academy. With respect to each of these dimensions, I argue against narrow construals of who 'deserves' a history (not just workers, say, or women; not just fellow-citizens; not just fellow-scholars), and argue for a cosmopolitan egalitarianism that would encourage the most inclusive possible recognition of moral obligation. At the same time, I argue for an attention to harm as a practice whose effects our histories should illuminate and whose eradication our political practice should seek to effect.;Central to my concerns is the question of 'just history's' audience. 'Challenger histories' typically imagined their subjects and their audiences to be, in some sense, fellows, be that fellowship one of class, gender or nation. I argue that to reconcile the ethical demands of attending to those most harmed and marginalized with the structural constraints of academic knowledge-production requires that we re-consider both who our audiences are and with which rhetorical strategies we might best address them. While earlier 'challenger histories' might be said to have encouraged consciousness-building among the powerless in order to make them less so, I argue that academic 'just history' might also address the powerful, to demonstrate, and to encourage critical reflection on, the harms in which they (we) are implicated. My argument, then, is that 'just history' will entail critical cosmopolitan histories of harm. |
