Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: the presence and the otherness of the past

Anton Froeyman (2012) RETHINKING HISTORY. 16(3). p.393-415
abstract
This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, I give an in-depth comparison and analysis of the theories of Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia, in which I highlight their most important resemblances and differences. What both have in common is their notion of the presence of the past as a 'presence in absence'. They differ, however, with respect to the character of this past and the role representation plays in making it present. Second, I also argue that for both Ankersmit and Runia, the presence of the past is always the present of our past, which excludes the experience of the otherness of the past, and which opens both theories to the criticisms of being self-centered and nationalistic.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
otherness, representation, presence, Levinas, Runia, Ankersmit, COHEN, HISTORY, EXPERIENCE
journal title
RETHINKING HISTORY
Rethink. Hist.
volume
16
issue
3
pages
393 - 415
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000306660100006
ISSN
1364-2529
DOI
10.1080/13642529.2012.695065
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
2977241
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2977241
date created
2012-08-31 11:20:15
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:43:07
@article{2977241,
  abstract     = {This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, I give an in-depth comparison and analysis of the theories of Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia, in which I highlight their most important resemblances and differences. What both have in common is their notion of the presence of the past as a 'presence in absence'. They differ, however, with respect to the character of this past and the role representation plays in making it present. Second, I also argue that for both Ankersmit and Runia, the presence of the past is always the present of our past, which excludes the experience of the otherness of the past, and which opens both theories to the criticisms of being self-centered and nationalistic.},
  author       = {Froeyman, Anton},
  issn         = {1364-2529},
  journal      = {RETHINKING HISTORY},
  keyword      = {otherness,representation,presence,Levinas,Runia,Ankersmit,COHEN,HISTORY,EXPERIENCE},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {393--415},
  title        = {Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: the presence and the otherness of the past},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2012.695065},
  volume       = {16},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago
Froeyman, Anton. 2012. “Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: The Presence and the Otherness of the Past.” Rethinking History 16 (3): 393–415.
APA
Froeyman, A. (2012). Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: the presence and the otherness of the past. RETHINKING HISTORY, 16(3), 393–415.
Vancouver
1.
Froeyman A. Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: the presence and the otherness of the past. RETHINKING HISTORY. 2012;16(3):393–415.
MLA
Froeyman, Anton. “Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia: The Presence and the Otherness of the Past.” RETHINKING HISTORY 16.3 (2012): 393–415. Print.