Peter Burke

MONTAIGNE criou um novo gênero literário – o ensaio -, seus próprios Ensaios tiveram uma vasta influência sobre o pensamento e a literatura do Renascimento e dos séculos posteriores. Observador sereno e irônico da comédia humana, era notavelmente muito consciente do etnocentrismo de outros povos. Atraído pela diversidade humana, estava preparado para tomar a vida privada tão seriamente quanto a vida pública. MONTAIGNE tem sido muito freqüentemente tratado como um “moderno” nascido fora de sua época. Peter Burke apresenta-o como um cavalheiro do campo, um homem do Renascimento e um membro da geração dos anos 1530 que floresceu numa sociedade dividida pela guerra civil, descreve as reações da posteridade aos Ensaios e pergunta se MONTAIGNE pode, em algum sentido, ser considerado nosso contemporâneo.

This essay, published originally in 2002, is reprinted in “Contextualism—The Next Generation: Symposium on the Future of a Methodology,” because of its impact on the thinking that informs and has led to this new symposium. Burke's argument is that the term context has become “an intellectual slogan or shibboleth” and that “there is a price to pay” for its “more and more frequent use... in a number of disciplines—among them, anthropology, archaeology, art history, geography, intellectual history, law, linguistics, literary criticism, philosophy, politics, psychology, sociology, and theology.” A brief history of the uses of the term and its cognates in these disciplines is provided, along with an examination of “recent interest in the phenomenology of recontextualism or ‘reframing,’” which “depends on agency, creativity, and the power to adapt” and which, indeed, almost defines what is meant by “originality, innovation, invention, or creativity.” The essay concludes that context ought to be used mainly in the plural to indicate that no topic is properly interpretable in any single framework.

This essay—a contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium on contextualism—is concerned with the gradual rise (in Europe and then more generally in the West) of awareness of the existence of modes of thought or systems of belief that are different from those that are dominant in one's own culture. The awareness can be found in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (for example, in John Locke, Bernard de Fontenelle, and Giambattista Vico) but was developed further in the early to mid-twentieth century. Its main consequence has been to encourage individuals to distance themselves from their own system—to criticize and change it.

Cet article porte sur les concepts que les historiens ont empruntés, en les adaptant, aux disciplines voisines ces dernières décennies, plutôt que sur ceux qu’ils leur ont prêtés (phénomène rarissime). Il étudie le « virage social » des années soixante, l’intérêt pour l’anthropologie historique et la psycho-histoire (qui s’appuie sur la psychanalyse) dans les années soixante-dix, le tournant littéraire dans les années quatre-vingt (qui va de la poétique de l’histoire à l’analyse des archives comme fiction), l’histoire de la mémoire sociale ou culturelle, le développement de l’histoire du genre, et le « virage culturel » dans les années quatre-vingt dix. Au fil de ces quatre décennies, les historiens ont souvent échangé avec les chercheurs en sciences sociales et plus généralement avec les spécialistes en sciences humaines. En de début de XXIe siècle, en revanche, on note un rapprochement avec la psychologie expérimentale et les neurosciences (dans le cas des études sur la mémoire et les émotions) ainsi qu’avec la biologie, aboutissant – à l’heure actuelle – à une « bio-histoire » qui se concentre sur la co-évolution des humains et des animaux. Ainsi, la traditionnelle opposition entre « nature » et « culture) disparaît peu à peu.