Marnie Hughes-Warrington

This book introduces students to ethics in historiography through an exploration of how historians in different times and places have explained how history ought to be written and how those views relate to different understandings of ethics. No two histories are the same. The book argues that this is a good thing because the differences between histories are largely a matter of ethics. Looking to histories made across the world and from ancient times until today, readers are introduced to a wide variety of approaches to the ethics of history, including well-known ethical approaches, such as the virtue ethics of universal historians, and utilitarian approaches to collective biography writing while also discovering new and emerging ideas in the ethics of history. Through these approaches, readers are encouraged to challenge their ideas about whether humans are separate from other living and non-living things and whether machines and animals can write histories. The book looks to the fundamental questions posed about the nature of history making by Indigenous history makers and asks whether the ethics at play in the global variety of histories might be better appreciated in professional codes of conduct and approaches to research ethics management. Opening up the topic of ethics to show how historians might have viewed ethics differently in the past, the book requires no background in ethics or history theory and is open to all of those with an interest in how we think about good histories.

While the concept of internationalization plays a key role in contemporary discussions on the activities and outcomes sought by universities, it is commonly argued that it is poorly understood or realised in practice. This has led some to argue that more work is needed to define the dimensions of the concept, or even to plot out stages of its achievement. This paper aims not to provide a definition of internationalisation for those working in higher education. On the contrary, it seeks to open up discussion on internationalisation by considering Derrida's reflections on hospitality and the metaphysics of presence. In so doing, it will be shown that internationalisation is an ethical demand that is as much about being unsettled by thinking about ourselves and others, as it is about mobility programs and online education, and about being ‘late’ rather than surrendering to the space‐time compression of modernity.

History from Loss challenges the common thought that 'history is written by the winners' and explores how history makers in different times and places across the globe have written histories from loss, even when this has come at the threat to their own safety. A distinguished group of historians from around the globe offer an introduction to different history-makers' lives and ideas, and important extracts from their works which highlight various meanings of loss: from physical ailments to social ostracism, exile to imprisonment, and from dispossession to potential execution. Throughout the volume consideration of the information 'bubbles' of different times and places helps to show how information has been weaponised to cause harm. In this way, the text helps to put current debates about the biases and weaponization of platforms such as social media into global and historical perspective. In combination, the chapters build a picture of history from loss which is global, sustained, and anything but a simple mirror of history made by victors. The volume also includes an Introduction and Afterword which draw out the key meanings of history from loss, and which offer ideas for further exploration. History from Loss provides an invaluable resource for students, teachers, and general readers who wish to put current debates on bias, the politicization of history, and threats to history makers into global and historical perspective.

This paper examines Robin George Collingwood's decision to place primary responsibility for education in the hands of parents by considering contemporary philosophies of education and the historical context in which The New Leviathan appeared. It shows that while Collingwood's views were out of step with the `New' philosophies of education that are conventionally emphasised in histories of education, they are not entirely out of keeping with contemporary New Idealist thought, particularly in Australia. Further, it argues that Collingwood's hope for parent-led education might not simply be a reflection of his own childhood experiences--as is traditionally argued--but also of contemporary issues such as the effects of evacuation on parent-child relationships and institutional education. Considering these factors, new light is cast on Collingwood's description of New Leviathan as a `war effort'

R.G. Collingwood's name is familiar to historians and history educators around the world. Few, however, have charted the depths of his reflections on what it means to be educated in history. In this book Marnie Hughes-Warrington begins with the facet of Collingwood’s work best known to teachers — re-enactment — and locates it in historically-informed discussions on empathy, imagination and history education. Revealed are dynamic concepts of the a priori imagination and education that tend towards reflection on the presuppositions that shape our own and others’ forms of life.

R. G. Collingwood’s writings do not sit neatly within any of the major approaches to metaphysics. Moore’s Evolution of Modern Metaphysics corrects the conventional exclusion of Collingwood’s thought, only to position him as contributing an ‘interlude’. I argue that this treatment does little to bring the far-reaching implications—and problems—of Collingwood’s reversible treatment of history as metaphysics and metaphysics as history to the fore. In particular, I highlight Collingwood’s not having worked through the ontological implications of historians actively making meaning of the past, including potentially creating absolute presuppositions. In the end we are not sure whether this is ontologically committing or even a variety of modal fictionalism.

This paper explores the emergence and evolution of philosophical Australian New Idealism through an analysis of the writings of Francis Anderson (1858-1941), Mungo MacCallum (1854-1942), E.H. Burgmann (1885-1965) and G.V. Portus (1883-1954). Where their British Idealist contemporaries during and after the First World War were criticized for their putative 'Germanic' and authoritarian conception of the state, the writings of these Australian Idealists were centrally shaped by a concern with the categories of 'empire', 'humanity' and 'the international order', as much as they were with the state. This proved significant during the two world wars, for rather than being called upon to defend the German roots of their understanding of the state, they opted instead to present events in Germany as a necessary stage in the development of civilization and a world community

Revision in history is conventionally characterized as a linear sequence of changes over time. Drawing together the contributions of those engaged in historiographical debates that are often associated with the term "revision," however, we find our attention directed to the spaces rather than the sequences of history. Contributions to historical debates are characterized by the marked use of spatial imagery and spatialized language. These used to suggest both the demarcation of the "space of history" and the erasure of existing historiographies from that space. Bearing these features in mind, the essay argues that traditional, temporally oriented explanations for revision in history, such as Thomas S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, miss the mark, and that a more promising line of explanation arises from the combined use of Michel Foucault's idea of "heterotopias" and Marc Augé's idea of "non-places." Revision in history is to be found where writers use imagery to move readers away from rival historiographies and to control their movement in the space of history toward their desired vision. Revision is thus associated more with control than with liberation