It will have as its great Langlois-Seignobos passage, where the great contribution of this type of history they had been the basic document concepts, historical fact and time. The marxism anger to be a great one I criticize of this type of History of character narrative, factual and linear, where it affirms Falcon: … the theoretical bases of such opposition well are known, being enough to still mention here that the marxist vision was decisive, in century XIX, when denouncing the three main dolos of that history politics: a politician notion disentailed of the totality of easy the historical process and imprisoned politics, of the ideology; the voluntarista character of a history based on ideas and action of some few individual historical agents; narrative, chronological and linear speech historical constructed in function of a empirista epistemologia. (p.71) Understood in this way the marxism it rejected the history of traditional type and recolocou in first plan the history of the power and the politician interpreting the politics as effect derived from the structures that composes the society. At Kindle Direct Publishing you will find additional information. In 1929 with the advent of the Annales of first generation with Bloch and Febvre you criticize them in relation traditional history continue arriving these to call this type of history evenementielli, that is, a history of successive, factual, chronological, linear, narrative events and without problems. In the second generation of you criticize them to Braduel remain, and this with its structures locates History politics in the short duration of time, where he is unstablest and less decisive in its duraes of time. However during this Braduel period it affirms to have a confusion saying that history politics is not eventual and nor this conditional one to be, therefore this is the character of the traditional history that differs from history politics.
With nouvelle histoire from the decade of 1970 history politics gains new character, where Foucault according to Falcon: … Foucault … revolutionized the understanding of these new objects, placed in prominence the relation between different practical social and the plurality and onipresena not of to be able, but being able of them. The historiografia politics started to focus, in years 70, Microfisica of the Power, in the reality the astcias infinite being able of them in historical places little known family, school, asylums, arrests, hospitals, hospices, workshops, plants etc; in short, in daily of each individual or social group. (P.
75) Falcon follows in my opinion this trend of history politics enxergando inside varies them faces of the power of the daily social relations. Where this arrives to affirm: It is recognized that it is basic that the historian politician pass of the institucional study of the State for the study of the power; also that the traditional pseudoquestions as of the sovereignty concept must be eliminated. The essential one is the event concept politician to be coats, starting point for a history comprehensive politics, based in concepts of partisan system, critical periods, beyond bigger opening to the had cultural elements until here as extrapoliticians. The plural conception I publish of it (receiving, hearing) perhaps and the perspectives of the culture concept politics exemplificam how much it is tried to suppress and to innovate in history politics. (PP 79-80) In short, Falcon follows Remond affirms to it that the politician exists distinguishing itself from the other types of reality, where its pretension with the subject treated in the text was with the distinction of the debates concerning history and power in the perspective of the history of history.
No comments