Philosophy of History and the Historians' Dispute

On the evening of Friday, June 10, the Philosophy of History session: "Fascism Studies in Our Time" was held at the National Library of Iran. This session was organized by the Khorshid-e Raga Cultural Institute and the Siavashan Institute in collaboration with the National Library. This session was one of the programs that Khorshid and Siavashan will hold on the subject of the philosophy of history and the major disputes among historians.

Although the subject of the session was highly specialized and had a specific audience, a large number of experts and researchers in the sociology and history of fascism were present at the session, and in the second half of the program, they discussed and exchanged views on the existing theories and opinions in this field. The main speaker of this program was Dr. Mehdi Tadayoni, who spoke in detail about the theoretical frameworks of fascism studies, the philosophy of history and methodology of Ernst Nolte, and his important works in this field, and presented a report on the Historians' Dispute that had erupted between Habermas and Nolte. The Historians' Dispute was a theoretical conflict among German historians that lasted more than twenty years and during which more than a thousand articles and dozens of books were written. Dr. Tadayoni is a student of Ernst Nolte and over the past years has translated a collection of specialized books on fascism studies, and especially Nolte's works, into Persian. The second speaker of this session was Dr. Shervin Vakili, who began his discussion with the Historians' Dispute and addressed the question of the concept of objectivity in history. On one hand, he addressed the critiques of leftists and neo-Marxists who consider history, and science in principle, to be a constructed matter devoid of scientific value, considering only its operational value. On the other hand, he cited the views of proponents of the Narrativism school, who, due to the quasi-literary narrative texture and the dominance of metaphor in historical texts, place them outside the realm of science. Dr. Vakili emphasized, on one side, the metaphorical and power-laden aspects of empirical sciences, and on the other side, defended historical objectivity and highlighted a systemic methodology that makes historical propositions verifiable and provides the possibility of judging their accuracy. After that, Dr. Morteza Mardiha delivered remarks on the critique of the leftist approach to historiography. He considered the instrumental view of history and science, which stems from prioritizing Marxist praxis, as the discursive foundation that is politicized, science-averse, and deceptive, and enumerated examples of research that demonstrate the scientific baselessness of discourses about the history of Australian Aboriginals or feminist theories.

The point on which all three speakers agreed, and the position all three defended, was the emphasis on the objectivity of historical data, and the insistence that in history, as in all other sciences, it is possible to evaluate propositions and judge their accuracy, and therefore an instrumental and politicized approach to it is incorrect and deceptive. The session continued with a question and answer period until 7:30 PM, and those present expressed their views on Nolte, fascism studies, and the philosophical systems governing this branch of historical research.

.

Download the audio of the Philosophy of History session: Fascism Studies in Our Time

(In order of the talks by Mehdi Tadayoni, Shervin Vakili, and Morteza Mardiha)

.

Report source: Website of the Khorshid-e Raga Institute

In this session, Mehdi Tadayoni presented his talk titled "From Fascism Studies to Historical Thinking: A Review of the Thoughts of Ernst Nolte," Shervin Vakili spoke on "Challenges and Strategies in Re-reading the History of Fascism," and finally, Morteza Mardiha (Professor at the University of Tehran) delivered remarks on the critique of the leftist approach to historiography.

Friday, June 10, 2016