Regimes of Historicity Eliminado: Article Title

Eliminado: h
María Inés Mudrovcic
Eliminado: Author 1

María Inés Mudrovcic is a Full Professor at the National University of Comahue and Eliminado: Author 1 blurb

Principal Researcher at CONICET-IPEHCs, Neuquén, Argentina Eliminado: .

Keywords
Historicity, Historical time, Orders of time, Multiple time, Historical temporality, Human Eliminado: h
temporality, Science of time, Presentism Eliminado: o
Introduction
Eliminado: m

François Hartog coined the term “regimes of historicity” in a critical note entitled “Marshall Eliminado: h
Eliminado: h
Sahlins et l´antropologie de l´histoire” (1983) on Marshall Sahlins’s lecture that was Eliminado: s
Eliminado: p
published in the American Anthropological Journal. This notion was born from the encounter
Eliminado: ´
between history and anthropology. Hartog and Gérard Lenclud defined it for the first time in Eliminado: (Hartog 1983)

1993 as “the type of relation that every society has with its past, the way that it is treated by it

and how she treats it to use it and build this thing that we call history” and subsequently

added that the regime of historicity “refers to the modality of a self-consciousness of a human

community” (Hartog and Lenclud 1993: 26, my translation). In 2003, Hartog developed this

concept in his key book on this topic Régimes d´historicité: Présentisme et experiences du

temps, and he defined it as “the ways in which these universal categories or forms we call

‘the past’, ‘the present’, and ‘the future’ are articulated,” namely, the ways that societies in Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: i.e.
different times and in different spaces organize the past, present, and future. These categories
Eliminado: the

“partake both of thought and of action, actualized at different times, and in different places Eliminado: the

and societies, … make possible and perceptible a particular order of time” (Hartog 2015: 17).

Although the concept has circulated in France for almost a decade, Lenclud credits Hartog

with the inventor’s patent (le brevet d´inventeur).

Following the text that he wrote with Lenclud in 1993, Hartog gave the notion a broad

meaning of the “relations of men with time … [and] the modalities of self-awareness of a
human community” and a more restricted sense that refers to “how a society treats its past”

(2003: 19, my translation). In an interview conducted in 2009, Hartog defined the regime of

historicity as “the passage from the individual and plural experiences of time to an Eliminado: [
Eliminado: ]
elaboration of them” (Delacroix, Dosse, and Garcia 2010: 154, my translation), and in the

Preface to the English translation of Régimes d´historicité in 2015 as “a category (without Eliminado: p

content), which can elucidate our experiences of time … nothing restricts it to the European

or Western world alone” (Hartog 2015: xvii). As Jacques Revel recognized, in the French Eliminado: Jacques Revel (2000: 16)

context, “regimes of historicity” is a “plastic notion” that is not at all stabilized (2000: 16).

Why the concept of “regime” rather than an “order,” “modality,” “way,” or “form” of

historicity? In the text that Hartog wrote with Lenclud, he noted that a “regime” can be

understood in many ways or have many registers: (1) in the sense of a Constitution (politeia),

(2) in the sense of a lifestyle or diet (diaita), and (3) in a mechanical sense (the regime of a

motor) (Hartog and Lenclud 1993: 22). In the Preface of the English translation of Régimes, Eliminado: 1993
Eliminado: p
despite some criticism, he confirms his preference for the concept of “regime” over other

concepts because “it reveals the idea of degrees, or more or less, of mixtures and composites,

and an always provisional or unstable equilibrium” (Hartog 2015: xv). Similarly, why

“historicity” rather than “temporality”? Despite the objections by Claude Calame and

Lenclud, among others, that it would be better to speak of temporality than historicity, in the

Preface of 2015, Hartog affirmed that the notion of temporality has the disadvantage “of Eliminado: p

referring to an external standard of time” (2015: xvi), while “historicity” refers directly to a

human temporality; it expresses the relation of humans with time. Originally, the notion had a

strongly epistemological and methodological objective; that is, it was conceived as a tool to

analyze how different societies organize the past, present, and future. However, although Eliminado: s
Eliminado: the
Hartog always insisted on this heuristic function, by pairing it with the hypothesis of
Eliminado: the

presentism, it acquires an ontological quality with regard to the human historical condition.
Presentism is the term used by Hartog to characterize our present “throughout, and primarily

in opposition to futurism which had long dominated the European scene.” It is a “disoriented Eliminado: .

time, marked by greater uncertainty” (196). In any case, the publication of Regime in 2003 Comentado [KB1]: AU: Please provide full citation details.

crystallized into two concepts—regimes of historicity and presentism—two ideas that were

floating in the air around historians: (1) different cultures, different temporalities and (2) the

hegemony of the present, at least in Western societies.

Background

The concept of “regimes of historicity” was born in France from the confluence of various

factors: (1) the encounter between history and anthropology, (2) the exhaustion of the

quantitative, serial and “longue durée” history that led to the “critical turn” of the Annales’

research program, (3) the influence on the French context in general and on Hartog in Eliminado: me

particular of Koselleck’s work, and (4) the impact of Pierre Nora’s and Paul Ricoeur’s works

during the “memorial turn” in France during the 1980s. Until the publication of Hartog’s Eliminado: eighties

book in 2003, the notion was used mainly in a methodological or heuristic sense. However,

since Hartog strongly correlated “presentism” with the “regime of historicity” that we are

supposed currently going through and opposed it to “futurism” or the “modern regime of

historicity,” the notion has acquired a historicist tint that many scholars are unwilling to

accept (for example, Jordheim 2014; Lorenz 2019; Stewart 2016; Tamm and Olivier 2019). Comentado [KB2]: TS: Please link to reference.
Eliminado: Tamm and Olivier 2019
Maurice Mandelbaum stated that “essential to historicism is the contention that a meaningful
Eliminado: ; Jordheim 2014; etc.

interpretation or adequate evaluation of any historical event involves seeing it as part of a

stream of history” (1971: 43). From a historicist perspective, an adequate understanding of

presentism as a regime of historicity is to be gained “through considering it in terms of the

place which it occupied … within a process of development” (42), namely, as a successor of Eliminado: i.e
Eliminado: .
and opposed to “futurism.”
Eliminado: .
 In a distinguished lecture given to the American Anthropology Association in 1982, Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva

Sahlins noted with regard to Fiji culture that “different cultural orders have their own mode

of historical action, consciousness and determination—their own historical practice. Other Eliminado: –

times, other customs” (1983: 518). In this lecture, he quoted the work of the anthropologist Eliminado: …
Eliminado: Sahlins
Jørgen Prytz Johansen, who contrasts the Maori’s temporal experience with the historical
Eliminado: Johansen (1954),

meaning of the “unique event” in the West. “For Maori … events are hardly unique or new” Eliminado: ´

(Prytz Johansen 1954: 518). He concludes, “We should be wary, as Johansen cautions, of Eliminado: [
Eliminado: ]
imputing to Maori our own ideas of the individuality of event and experience” (528). For

Sahlins (1983), the time had come to leave behind the theoretical differences that divide Eliminado: Sahlins (
Eliminado: )
anthropology and history. Anthropologists are often as diachronic as historians are
Eliminado: ,

synchronous, and it is necessary to “explode the concept of history by the anthropological

experience of culture.” Historians must realize that other cultures, even in past times, have

other experiences of time that should not be seen through a Western lens. Sahlins named this

encounter between anthropology and history and between the synchronic and the diachronic

“historical anthropology.” Eliminado: .

“Regimes of historicity” are these different experiences of times or, in Hartog’s Eliminado: ´

words, the idea that “each cultural order has its own historicity” (1983: 1258). In the critical

note on Sahlins’s lecture, Hartog states that it is a “working misunderstanding” (malentendu Eliminado: ´

productif) that an “event” in Maori culture would be understood with the same meaning as an

“event” in l´histoire événementielle. Western modern history establishes a rupture between

the past and present, as Michel de Certeau has stated, that does not exist in Maori culture, in

which it is more appropriate to speak of the “coexistence” or “reabsorption” of the past

within the present (1259). For Hartog, the different status of the notion of “event” in different Comentado [KB3]: AU: Please provide full citation details.

cultures shows the differences in “ways of living and thinking (historical consciousness)”

(1261), namely, different regimes of historicity. The same idea is developed again in his Eliminado: i.e.
review of the French translation of Sahlins’s book (Hartog 1989). There, he recognizes that

Sahlins “makes the concept of history explode: not to destroy it, but to make it more complex

… through the tragic interference between two different cultural logics … the meeting of

Europe and the peoples of the South Pacific” (Hartog 1989: 1362, my translation).

A decade later, the historian Hartog and the anthropologist Lenclud wrote the chapter

“Regimes of Historicity” in a section devoted to reviewing the “new objects and methods of

history” in a book compiled by Alexandru Dutu and Norbert Dodille (1993). History is Eliminado: Alexandru Dutu and Norbert Dodille (
Eliminado: )
anthropologized, and the concept of “regimes of historicity” is offered as a “common place”

between anthropologists and historians. It is a “key-concept” that helps to open the

“common-locks” of history and anthropology (Hartog and Lenclud 1993: 18). “Regimes of

historicity” is a concept that, for the authors, comes to confront, on the one hand, the

“structural anthropology” in force at those times, which relied on the “longue durée” and

“immobile time,” and, on the other hand, the classification of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Eliminado: ,

Hegel´s “people without history” or “without writing” (20). In opposition to structure/event

or synchronic/diachronic, Sahlins’s notion of the “conjuncture structure” makes it possible to

compare an événementiel society with another that is stagnant (21).

Likewise, for Hartog and Lenclud, regimes of historicity also attempt to overcome the

division between myth/history and myth/memory. For Hartog and Lenclud, Nora’s,

Ricoeur’s, and de Certeau’s works contributed to overcoming the opposition between myth Eliminado: ´

and history. History is not a product of science and stands in some truth sphere and myth is Eliminado: Neither
Eliminado: h
not a kind of fiction of “primitive” people. Both history and myth are discourses of social
Eliminado: nor

identity. In relation to the opposition between memory and history, authors such as Henry Eliminado: is

Rousso, Jocelyne Dakhlia, and Pierre Joutard, among others, help to explain that history

should not be defined against memory. Since the 1970s, works from different disciplines

began to address, from different perspectives that have not always converged, issues such as
the role of collective memory in the present and in the constitution of collective identities,

memory and forgetfulness as political phenomena, and the incidence of memory in the

reconstructions of the past. In France, the historian Nora conducted the ambitious project of

reconstructing the history of French collective memory in Les Lieux de mémoire (1984–92).

Comparable works were conducted by sociologists and historians in the United States,

Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, and Israel, both in the study of national history and in the

study of social groups such as native peoples and sects within these nations (Agulhon 1981;

Baram 1991; Bodnar 1992). Much of this literature emphasizes the socially constructed

nature of memory and its current political, historical, and cultural uses. Likewise, in the

middle of the last century, the history of the present erupted, forcing a revision of the

presupposition of the rupture between the past and present that de Certeau had so clearly

exposed. The history of the present is “the historiography in which objects are social events

or phenomena that are memories of, at least, one of the generations that share the same

historical present, [and it] reveals the complex and conflicting relationship between the

historian´s present and the very recent past” (Mudrovcic 2014: 16–17). Thus understood, this

historiography’s field is especially consolidated in France as well as in Spain, Italy, and Latin Eliminado: ´

America. The creation of the Institut d’histoire du Temps Présent in 1978 under François Eliminado:

Bédarida´s direction, Nora’s seminar on the “Histoire du Présent” at the l’École des hautes Eliminado: ´

études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and the publication of the Journal Ayer by the

Asociación de Historia Contemporánea called into question the separation that historians had

established with the past. This “climate of time” affected Hartog and Lenclud, who suggest

that the notion of “regimes of historicity” allows a place for these oppositions—myth/history,

memory/history—“without the risk of eliminating them” or “freezing them in large divisions”

(1993: 22). Likewise, this notion helps to express the idea of the “event differential”

(différentiel d´événementialité) articulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss and to better organize the

conceptual oppositions between “cumulative history” and “stationary history” that are typical

of anthropology (24). The regime of historicity determines the “project of historicity,” the Eliminado: 1993:

index of événementialité, and the proper temporality of a society. In other words, it expresses

“the relationship that every society establishes with its past, the way in which it treats and is

treated by it and constitutes that kind of thing called ‘history’.” In a narrow sense, “the Eliminado: .

regime of historicity would define a culturally delimited, although conventional, way of

relating to the past; historiography would be one of those forms, and, in a broad sense, it is a

symptomatic element of the regime of historicity that encompasses it” (26, my translation). In

this way, a regime of historicity and a regime of historiography are not placed on the same

plane (27).

In their 1993 work, both authors acknowledged that Ricoeur’s work had been a great

contribution to the debate on the regimes of historicity and the modalities of temporality.

Ricoeur pointed out the importance of stories received for the constitution of communities’

own identities, the set of which anthropologists call “tradition.” In other words, there is a

relationship between the fabrication/reception of these stories and the self-awareness of a

society (“regime of historicity”); the story is the conjunction between temporality (or

historicity) “lived and acted” (Hartog and Lenclud 1993: 32). Temporality can only be Eliminado: 1993

grasped through the story, so both anthropologists and historians have access to the

temporality “experienced” by other cultures through their stories. In turn, the reconstruction

by history and anthropology of other cultures supposes a hermeneutic undertaking that

involves the temporal experiences of historians and anthropologists themselves. Sahlins’s

work on the peoples of the Pacific is an example of this. Cultures have different

characteristics and have a different openness to history: “The regime of historicity would then

be defined as a way of carrying out in the bosom of a human community this ‘symbolic

dialogue of history’ … between the categories received and the contexts perceived” (36, my
translation). The chapter ends by presenting Nora and his Lieux de mémoire as a diagnosis

“on the historical moment and a historiographic response to this moment,” which is

considered a symptom of a new regime of historicity. This constitutes a preamble to the

diagnosis of “presentism” that, since 2003, Hartog has conducted. However, in the 1993 text,

the notion of a regime of historicity is the dominant axis that is understood in a heuristic

sense.

The strength that this concept acquires among French historians is reflected in an

editorial written by the Editorial Committee of Annales in 1994 when it presented its new

subtitle, “Histoire, Sciences Sociales,” instead of the tripartite division of “Économies, Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva
Eliminado: ,
Societés, Civilizations.” At this moment of historiographical renewal and openness to other
Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva

social sciences such as anthropology and sociology, the editorial board, chaired by Bernard Eliminado:
Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva
Lepetit, affirmed that history, “without losing its identity or forgetting its methodological Eliminado: .

references … must preserve and amplify its sense of diachrony and their ambition to

understand regimes of historicity in their diversity” (3, my translation). The notion of Comentado [KB4]: AU: Please provide full citation details.

“regimes of historicity” in the context of Annales is the concept that would define, from this

point forward, the specificity of history in relation to the other social sciences. This change

was preceded by a diagnosis of the exhaustion of quantitative and serial history, the growing

difficulties of the history of mentalities in renewing its objects and the challenge presented by

micro-history in those years. All these issues had been discussed in the publication of a

special issue called Le Tournant Critique (the critical turn) published by Annales in Eliminado: “
Eliminado: ”
December 1989. The change in the name of Annales in 1994 confirms this diagnosis. Until

then, history had been one more dimension among the social sciences; in the words of

Fernand Braudel, “all the sciences of man, including history, … [spoke] the same language”

(Braudel 1958: 18, my translation). The notion of regimes of historicity gave specificity to

history in an attempt to “broaden its approaches and integrate more diversified reflections on
temporal or social processes.” The editorial ends by affirming that the intersection of Eliminado: .

economics, sociology, and anthropology, on the one hand, and history, on the other, would

allow a better understanding of current times and modernity.

Reinhart Koselleck´s book Futures Past was translated into French in 1990 and was

edited by the EHESS. Koselleck had been known in the field of French historians since 1985 Eliminado: L´École des hautes études en sciences sociales

through Ricoeur and his Temps et Récit. Ricoeur was a philosopher who circulated in the

field of historians. In Jacques Guilhaumou’s review of Futures Past published by Annales in Eliminado: the
Eliminado: ´
1991, Koselleck’s contribution to the field of conceptual history and its tensions and

differences in relation to social history are emphasized. However, in Hartog and Lenclud’s Eliminado: ´

text, Koselleck’s notions of the “space of experience” and “horizon of expectations” are put Eliminado: text (1993)

in tension with the concept of “regimes of historicity”: “Thanks to the categories of

experience and expectation, Koselleck can see historical time as a product of the tension that

is established between the two categories” (Hartog and Lenclud 1993: 29, my translation). Eliminado: 1993
Código de campo cambiado
However, both authors immediately note that it is the “modern regime of historicity” that

takes place among “other regimes of historicity.”

Faced with the metahistorical and universal character that Koselleck gives to the

categories of the “space of experience” and “horizon of expectations” as a condition of the

possibility of the temporality of history, first Hartog and Lenclud and then Hartog prior to the

publication of Regimes in 2003 supported the operative and heuristic nature of the notion of

“regimes of historicity.” In this regard, Lenclud maintains that Hartog “clearly separates

himself from Koselleck … [since] Hartog does not use the notion as a universal key that

would open particular historical locks; this is a key that is used to identify the locks to be

opened. Its function is entirely heuristic” (Lenclud 2006: 37, my translation). According to

Lenclud, although Hartog “feeds” on Koselleck´s enterprise, his program is quite different: Eliminado: me

“Koselleck hopes that semantics will lead him to the heart of the theory of history; … Hartog
hopes that the notion of a regime of historicity will be put more at the service of historians

and anthropologists in a broad sense; ‘Regime of historicity’ is only grasped in plural” (32, Eliminado: Lenclud 2006:

my translation). Likewise, he finds a difference that he considers notable in the inflection

toward the present between Koselleck and Hartog: “the principle according to which, for the Eliminado: s

former [Koselleck], each historical present articulates the past and the future; the way in

which the past, the future and the present are related to different historical presents for

Hartog” (32, my translation). Koselleck’s work was translated in France at the moment when

historians began to wonder about time. In the introduction to Regimes, entitled “Ordres du Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva

Temps, Régimes d´historicité,” Hartog dedicates a paragraph to the work of Krzysztof

Pomian (1984), who was a pioneer in the discussion of historical temporality in the French Comentado [KB5]: TS: Please link to Pomian.

sphere. Footnote 5 of the same introduction presents the question of the debate on temporality

in the French sphere.

If the conception of regimes of historicity had remained within the limits of “temporal

or historical orders” to address the diversities of historical experiences in different cultures,

then it would be correct to understand it as a heuristic tool. However, Hartog’s diagnosis of

“presentism,” namely, that our current experience of time would be commanded by the Eliminado: i.e.

present and that we would find ourselves transiting a different regime of historicity from the

modern one commanded by the future, gives the concept a strong imprint of ontology of the

historical condition that exceeds epistemological and methodological limits. The relationship

between “presentism” and the regime of historicity is clearly expressed in a 1995 text that

Hartog dedicates to Nora’s work. Les Lieux (1997) are, for Hartog, a “symptom” since they Comentado [KB6]: TS: Please link to reference – Nora.

“pretend to be a history of the present, in the present, that respond to a crisis of the present,

since the present, as Nora maintains, has ‘become a category for understanding of ourselves’”

(1995: 1233, my translation). Our current experience of time or the regime of historicity has Comentado [KB7]: AU: please provide full citation details.

passed from “futurism to presentism”: “a present that is, itself, its own horizon,” a present
without a past and without a future (1224). This relationship between both concepts is

deepened in the Prologue to the English translation of Regimes in 2015. Hartog states, “My Eliminado: p

hypothesis (presentism) and my methodological instrument (the regime of historicity) belong

together. The notion of a ‘regime of historicity’ helps shape the hypothesis of presentism, and

the latter helps flesh out the notion of a ‘regime of historicity.’ The two are inseparable, at

least in the first instance” (2015: xv). This inseparability triggers a redefinition of the notion

of regimes of historicity from the perspective of presentism: “a tool for creating this distance,

with a view to having a finer understanding at the end of the process of what is close by”

(xv). The distance that Hartog refers to is the result of historians’ works. Historians, “by Eliminado: ´

taking a step back,” discover “something other than this mesmerizing present” (xv).

Historians are those who, by their profession, have the necessary perspective to realize that

the actual experience of time is a different regime of historicity than the modern one in which

the future commanded. In the Prologue of the English translation, Hartog established a strong Eliminado: p

relation between “presentism” and the “regime of historicity”—as two sides of the same

coin—that was absent in the first French edition of Regime.

The hypothesis of presentism has been present since Hartog’s early works. First, the Eliminado: ´

concept appeared in the form of question: “Would not there be today a link between the

vague idea that there is no future, neither ahead nor behind (without future, living in the

present) and the hypertrophy of the event?” (Hartog 1983: 1262, my translation). Second, it Eliminado: 1983

was a diagnosis of the “historiographical situation”: “The quick rise, then the primacy of

‘contemporary’ or ‘present’ as the dominant category would be the first feature of this

conjuncture … present, memory, identity, genocide, witness, responsibility would definitely

figure there. The contemporary is an imperative” (Hartog and Revel 2001: 20, my Eliminado: .

translation). Finally, “presentism” is the concept that characterizes the regime of historicity

we entered around approximately 1989: “To characterize our present, I have used the term
“presentism” throughout, and primarily in opposition to futurism, which had long dominated

the European scene. When it disappeared, there emerged a disoriented time … presentism,

understood as a confinement to the present alone and to the present´s vision of itself” (Hartog

2015: 196–7). Hartog coined the term “presentism” to indicate the hegemony of the present

of the actual regime of historicity. This concept gained popularity in others’ proposals. Jean

Chesneaux (1996) proposed the term “presenteeism,” Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (2014) Comentado [KB8]: AU: Please provide full reference
details.
discussed the “broad present,” and Paul Virilio (2009) used the term “instantaneism.” “A Eliminado: Chesneaux (
Eliminado: )
number of authors have spoken of the ‘ideology’ or even the ‘tyranny of the present,’ ‘the
Eliminado:

grip of the present,’ ‘the redirection of expectation toward the present’ … in other words, of Comentado [KB9]: TS: Please link to reference.
Eliminado: “
‘presentism’ as the ‘ethos of the contemporary moment’” (Bantigny 2013: XI, my Eliminado: ”
Eliminado: “
translation).
Eliminado: ”
Importance Today Eliminado: “
Eliminado: ”
“Regimes of historicity” is a concept that has begun to gain strength among historians. When
Eliminado: “

Hartog affirms that this concept must be understood as a “heuristic tool,” he means that Eliminado: ”
Eliminado: “
“regimes of historicity” can be an operative term to compare different “orders or forms of Eliminado: ”
Eliminado: “
temporality” of different cultures, whether diachronic or synchronic; that is, different

societies might have different ways of experiencing time, and Western society is only one

among others. Chris Lorenz calls “presentism n° 2” when the term is considered as an “order

of time,” namely, from a heuristic point of view, “a particular view on the relationship Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: i.e.
between past, present and future, in which one of them is dominant—and ‘presentism’

represents the regime of historicity in which the present is dominant” (2019: 23). Before Eliminado: 2019

Hartog published Regimes, several historians, mostly French, undertook a comparative

approach using this concept. Revel defines this “plastic notion” as “a relationship—or rather,

a set of relationships—that a social actor or social practice maintains over time and,

eventually, with a history, as well as the way these relationships are embedded in a present,
which may be that of memory but also that of action” (2000: 16, my translation). Eliminado: 2000

Marcel Detienne, for example, warned us to “be wary of history.” In “Setting a

Variety of Regimes of Historicity” (2000), he invites us to reject positions that propose a Comentado [KB10]: TS: Please link to reference –
Detienne.
distinction between societies with “historical consciousness” and those that supposedly lack Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ”
it. For a society to have a temporal experience of time, it does not need to construct a model

of linear time or think that the past is different from and “something else” than the present. Eliminado: ing

When the descendants of pre-Columbian societies became aware that the Yankees had taken

possession of their lands, they took the United States to court. They “were then required by

the judges to provide ‘historical evidence’ of their rights over more or less extensive

territories,” namely, they “were under obligation to explain how they belonged to a history Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: i.e.
that they not necessarily lived or thought through” (Detienne 2000: 41). To demand
Comentado [KB11]: TS: Please link to reference.

“historical evidence” from them was to place them in a “temporal order” or “regime of

historicity” that is typical of Western societies that rely on archives and documentary

evidence that, in turn, are accepted by the state. These societies were led “to create for

themselves a historical identity according to new criteria” (41, my translation). To illustrate

the variety of regimes of historicity and their differences from the Western one, Detienne

used examples such as Chinese and Roman cultures, among others. In the same vein but

without using the term “regimes of historicity,” James Clifford noted that professional

anthropologists and historians played a major role in the Mashpee trial, but the American

court found their claims about the past unconvincing. For Clifford, there was a collapse

between the historicist perspective of the court underlying assumptions such as a narrative

continuity of history and identity and the Mashpee culture. “The Mashpee were trapped by

the stories that could be told about them. In this trial ‘the facts’ did not speak for themselves.

Tribal life had to be emplotted, told as a coherent narrative” (Geertz 1988: 204). Comentado [KB12]: AU: Please provide full reference
details.
 In “Les régimes d´historicité: un outil pour les historiens? Une etude de cas: la ‘guerre

des races’” (2002), Patrick Garcia also tested the heuristic value of the notion. For him, the Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: Garcia (2002)
regime of historicity is “the social value assigned to each time period (past/present/future)”

(2002: 43). He analyzed the “war of races” that extended from the seventeenth century to the Eliminado: s
Eliminado: 17
first half of the nineteenth century in France. This “war of races” involved the dispute begun
Eliminado: 19th

by historians such as Henri de Boulainvilliers, Jean-Baptiste Dubos, François Dominique de

Reynaud, Comte de Montlosier, François Pierre Guillaume Guizot, and Augustin Thierry

about the origins of the nobility, the foundations of their prerogatives, and their legitimacy. In

other words, the term “race,” in this context, should not be understood in a biological way but

refers to the distinction between Francs and Gaulois, victors and losers (Garcia 2002: 3). For Eliminado: Garcia

François-René Chateaubriand, for example, the French Revolution was one among many

others: “There is nothing new under the sun” (14). By “revolution,” he intended the

astronomical meaning that died out at the end of the eighteenth century. In contrast, for an Eliminado: 18th

author such as Boulainverlliers, the French Revolution was a rupture. In reality, the treatment

of the French Revolution involved a confrontation between absolutist historians—the

“continuators”—and the defenders of the Third State—the “breakers.” The continuators

fought for the installation of the “race” of the Franks and did not consider the Revolution a

milestone that separated the past and present. Tierry, on the contrary, saw in the Revolution

an “abyss” that separated the world of the Restoration from the Old Regime. After analyzing Eliminado: s

the works of those historians, Garcia concludes that a new regime of historicity, a new

historicity, was installed in France after the “force of the revolutionary event.” However,

Garcia is careful not to generalize. He has only “read the work of some historians and not of

the population as a whole.” In this sense, he indicates the imprudence of including the rest of

the population, in which different modalities and temporalities may coexist according to

social groups (39).

 Ten years after the publication of Regimes, a French historian of religion, Christophe

Lemardelé, taking the term from Detienne, compared the biblical and Aztec regimes of Eliminado: B

historicity. He understands regimes of historicity to indicate a tradition that was transformed

into historiography through writing, that is, a written temporality. This written tradition

sought to legitimize an identity through a founding story. Lemardelé is clear about the

difficulties of comparing such dissimilar cultures. However, he maintains that it is important

to know what is being compared, in this case, regimes of historicity. As a “simple tool,”

regimes of historicity is more than a “plastic” term, as Revel baptized it. Used in a heurist

way, namely, as a tool to compare different temporalities between different cultures, the Eliminado: i.e.

notion of “regimes of historicity” has wide semantic dispersion. Multiple temporalities are

the common places that cross through the notion. Another example of this is Alain de Libera,

a medieval philosopher:

When referring to “medieval worlds,” … he stated that “the Baghdad of the Eliminado: w
Eliminado: ‘
third century of the Hegira and the Aix of the ninth century of the Christian
Eliminado: ’

era are contemporaries, but they are neither in the same time nor in the same Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ‘
world or in the same story.” For the historian of medieval philosophy, there Eliminado: ’

is “a multiplicity of durations: a Latin duration, a Greek duration, an Arab- Eliminado: ‘

Muslim duration, a Jewish duration.” (Revel 2000: 15–16)
Each cultural world has its own peculiar time. A multiplicity of times coexisted in medieval
Comentado [Q13]: AU: As per style, quoted text of more
than 60 words need to be set as a display quote rather than
an in-line quote. Please check whether the change done here
in line with this style is appropriate.

Europe that also coexisted with the peculiar times of American or African peoples with Eliminado: ’
Eliminado: 2000
whom they had no interaction” (Mudrovcic 2019: 463). This is the same idea expressed by Eliminado: .
Eliminado: M
Sahlins in 1985: “Different cultures, different historicities” (x).
Comentado [KB14]: AU: Please confirm where the
opening quote mark should be inserted.
This beginning of the recognition by historians of temporal plurality (time in plural)
Comentado [KB15]: AU: Please provide full reference
details for Sahlins 1985.
between different societies and cultures was condensed in the heuristic use of the term

“regimes of historicity.” In the 1980s, history found temporal multiplicity in anthropology.

Hartog’s reading of the work of Sahlins and his company and friendship with the

anthropologist Lenclud led many historians and, with them, philosophers and theorists of

history to discover multiple temporalities in cultures rather than only in language, as had

happened with Koselleck. “Regimes of historicity” as “tool” alludes to this multiplicity of

temporalities that includes Western societies as one among many others. This notion is a

means of communication between anthropologists, historians, philosophers, and theorists of

history when the “time of history” “explodes into crumbs,” in François Dosse’s terms. The

time of history did not suffer the same fate as the encounter that took place a few years earlier

between history and sociology in the dispute between Braudel and Georges Gurvitch. Until

then, the question of temporality was a matter almost exclusively for philosophers.

In 1949, Braudel published his first book, La Méditerranée et le Monde

méditerranéen a l´époque de Philippe II (1949). It was not organized chronologically but Comentado [KB16]: TS: Please link to reference – Braudel.

thematically: (1) the role of the environment; (2) collective destinies and general trends; and

(3) events, politics, and people. The first part contains an “almost immobile story”; the

second part contains a “slow-paced story” of group and groupings; and the third presents a

“traditional” story of events, “événementielle,” of “brief, fast and nervous oscillations.” The Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva

three parts correspond to the three times that Braudel distinguishes in history: a “geographical

time,” a “social time,” and an “individual time.” Almost ten years later, in 1958, as Director

of Annales, he published his famous article, “Histoire et sciences sociales.” The “longue

durée,” which includes his reflections on the time of history and the time of sociology,

installed the binomial longue durée/événementiel. The event is “explosive”; it is better to use

the term “short time” tailored to individuals and everyday life. However, the “short time” is

the most deceptive of durations (Braudel 1958: 728). Economic and social history, unlike

political history, needs longer durations. The time of history, the long time, is measured, as

the economic cycles governed by the flow and reflux of material life are measured or as the
social structures that must be located according to concomitant structures are measured (749–

50). History is not a science of the idiographic, of the event, of the “short time.” The science

of history is concerned only with “all things that can be recorded in relation to the uniform

time of historians, the general measure of all phenomena, and not to the multiform social

time, a particular measure of each of these phenomena” (750, my translation). The “long

duration” is the “most useful” line of research for common reflection in the social sciences.

Braudel, in response to the challenges presented by structuralism, Marxism and the renewal

of anthropology and sociology, attempted, through the long duration, to establish a common

ground that transforms history into a true social science that leads the others (Maillard 2005).

This undertaking led him to discard the “multiple temporalities” that Gurvitch proposed from

sociology. If each “social reality hides its time or its time scales, like vulgar shells … [w]hat

would historians gain from that?” (Braudel 1958: 750). Eliminado: Braudel

Gurvitch answered Braudel in a course he taught at the Sorbonne in 1958 entitled La

Multiplicité des temps sociaux (1963) and in the Dialectique et sociologie (1962). As early as Comentado [KB17]: TS: Please link to reference –
Gurvitch.
1955, his first reflections on time appeared in Déterminismes sociaux et Liberté humanaine Eliminado: 1962

(1955), in which he recognized a time scale of eight genres ranging from the long duration to Comentado [KB18]: TS: Please link to reference –
Gurvitch.
the explosive time of creation. If for Braudel all social reality is historical, Gurvitch Eliminado: 8

distinguishes and separates them: historicity is a socio-temporal dynamic that is characteristic

of industrial societies.

“The” historical reality, which certain authors call “historicity,” is a Eliminado: ‘

Eliminado: ’
privileged sector of social reality …. It is characterized, in effect, by the
Eliminado: ‘

collective and individual consciousness of human freedom whose action can Eliminado: ’
Eliminado: ,..
succeed in turning or to modify the structures and to rebel, to a certain

extent, against tradition, … the historical reality is opposed … to the so- Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ,
 called archaic societies and also, with some reservations, to the patriarchal

or traditional societies. (Gurvitch 1962: 209, my translation)
For Gurvith, “historicity” is not universal; the “cold societies” of Lévi-Strauss ignored it and
Comentado [Q19]: AU: As per style, quoted text of more
than 60 words need to be set as a display quote rather than
an in-line quote. Please check whether the change done here
in line with this style is appropriate.

had other types of temporalities. At that time, Gurvith denounced the danger of the historian Eliminado: .

reconstructing the temporalities of other cultures from an “ideological” point of view,

projecting his own time to the detriment of others: “It is for this reason that the great

temptation that weighs about the science of history is the ‘prediction of the past’ that often

becomes a projection of this prediction in the future” (Gurvitch 1962: 210).

The classifications of temporalities proposed by Gurvith were abandoned by

sociologists who continued with the idea of multiple time. In 1996, the sociologist William

Grossin proposed the idea of “temporal ecology” to name a “science of times.” In Pour une

science des temps: Introduction a l’écologie temporelle, Grossin (1996) proposed a series of Eliminado: .
Eliminado: Grossin (
concepts as instruments of both empirical and theoretical research on time: “milieux
Eliminado: )

temporal” (“set of nested and intersected times”); “temporal regime” (“specific social Eliminado:

construction arising from human decisions”); “temporal culture” (“set of models, norms,

values that have to do with the social theme”); “socio-temporal frames” (“set of collective

beliefs about time historical and cultural changing”), and so on. The research program of a Eliminado: etc
Eliminado: me
“temporal ecology” as a science of times must be undertaken by psychologists,

anthropologists, and sociologists. In 1984, Grossin created the Temporalistes, a bulletin that

was, for eighteen years, an instrument of dissemination that brought together the best Eliminado: 18

specialists on individual or social temporal issues. In 2004, the Bulletin was transformed into

Temporalité, Revue des Sciences Sociales et Humaines, which aimed to favor all Eliminado: u

interdisciplinary initiatives around the issues of temporality. As he says in his editorial, the

journal addresses the foundations of temporal distinctions, the articulation and conflicts

between temporalities, the confrontation of various uses and languages of time, the modes of
historicity of the disciplines, and the confrontations of philosophical categorizations in

empirical works. Claude Dubar, the editor in chief of the journal, published a review in 2004 Eliminado: -
Eliminado: -
of Hartog’s Regimes (Dubar 2004). Although he begins with praiseworthy terms, he then
Eliminado: ´

makes harsh observations of the term “regimes of historicities” in terms of presentism.

Despite the long tradition of the Temporalists on the insistence of multiple temporalities, in

the review, Dubar focuses on the choice of the term “presentism” as the regime of historicity

that would succeed the modern regime. His criticism failed to detach the heuristic version of

the term “regimes of historicity” from its historicist version.

In a recently published article in the field of anthropology, Charles Stewart refers to

the expression “regimes of historicity” used for Hartog in its heuristic meaning: “to denote Eliminado: , i.e.,

the various combinations of past, present, and future orientation, which form the prism

through which a society views its ‘historicity’ (in the historians’ sense of actual eventuation)”

(Stewart 2016: 86). The most important problem for anthropologists is with the concept of

“historicity.” For anthropologists, “historicity” refers to a framework for approaching time as

linear; therefore, it is difficult to make it a suitable concept to deal with other temporalities

that are not only Western. At first, the concept seemed appropriate for anthropologists along

with the concepts of “materiality,” “sociality,” and “environmentality” because these

concepts served to overcome old oppositions such as “persons-things,” “individuals-society,”

and “people-environment.” However, its full adoption has been hindered for two reasons: (1) Eliminado: .
Eliminado: a
“the original formulations of historicity are pitched at a philosophical level that requires

adaptation to anthropological research,” and (2) “the constant presence of competing usages Eliminado: b

of the term historicity has caused confusion” (81). Born in a post-Enlightenment thought Eliminado: Stewart:

complex, the use of the term may also lead to the belief that ideas such as chronology,

temporal progression, and pastness must be human universals and are presuppositions of the

intellectual baggage of the anthropologist that makes him neglect other temporal forms to
experience the past. The point is whether the concept of “historicity” can be re-signified as a

cross-cultural analytic term that allows the study of all the diverse ways in which the past

may be construed (83). For Stewart, the concept “regimes of historicity” used by Hartog

involved small steps toward building a conception of plural times. However, the author Eliminado: s

concludes that despite these small steps, the sense of “historicity” remains unclear because

the greatest danger is to associate it to “historicism.” The same diagnosis is shared by Helge

Jordheim, who affirms that Hartog´s concept considers the diachronic succession—not the

synchronic coexistence—of “regimes of historicity” (Jordheim 2014: 509). Eliminado: Jordheim

Understood as a diachronic succession, a “regime of historicity” defined as

“presentism” sits too firmly within the paradigm of “historicism,” which holds, among other

things, that the present succeeds the past and that anachronism is impermissible (Chakrabarty

2000b: 248). It is what Lorenz calls “presentism n° 1,” “according to which presentism Eliminado: 0
Eliminado: b
basically means our ‘present,’ ‘contemporary’ period, … a chronological ‘block of time’ that
Eliminado: ´

fits in the linear and progressive time conception of modern history” (Lorenz 2019: 1). Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: Lorenz
Hartog is unclear about these two different senses of the regime of historicity as

“presentism.” In his anthropological stage, namely, when Hartog read Sahlins, Lévi-Strauss, Eliminado: i.e.

or Claude Lefort and worked and wrote with Lenclud, we can find a looser use of presentism

as a regime of historicity or order of time that would characterize the contemporary epoch.

One could then agree with Hartog that regimes “are not supported by any teleology, in the

manner of the old phases or modes of production, and do not claim to give the key to history”

(Delacroix, Dosse, and Garcia 2010: 153, my translation). In other words, presentism was Eliminado: Delacroix et al.

intended to be more a “diagnosis” or “symptom” of the “temporal order” that was being

crossed (Hartog 1983, 1993). In the text written with Revel in 2001, the authors offer some

“brief notes” on the “historical situation,” “taking as support the French situation” (Hartog

and Revel 2001: 19). They observe an increasing supremacy of the “present” or of the
“contemporary.” “If there are no more great stories, great “master names” circulate in

revenge, … although they do not form a system, at least they constitute a network, … present,

memory, identity, genocide, testimony, responsibility, they are the ones who would surely

appear” (20, my translation). Hartog recognizes the imprint of the diagnosis of “presentism” Eliminado: Hartog and Revel 2001:

in the works of Nora and Pomian, and by the late 1980s, he had marked the beginning of the

presentist regime of historicity, the order of time in which the present is dominant.

Hartog consistently rejected a historicist or teleological reading of “presentism” as a

historical regime, acknowledging that “the construction of the neologism” presentism “was

made above all with respect to the category of futurism” (Delacroix, Dosse, and Garcia 2010 Eliminado: Delacroix et al.:

158). Unlike the modern regime of historicity in which the future commanded, in our

presentist regime of historicity, the “future is perceived as a threat, not a promise. The future

is a time of disasters, and ones we have, moreover, brought upon ourselves, … [we are living]

in a world governed solely by an omnipresent and omnipotent, in which immediacy alone has

value” (Hartog 2015: xviii). By the late 1980s, Hartog marked the beginning of the presentist

regime of historicity, the order of time in which the present is dominant: “the Present has

become omnipresent” (Hartog 2005). The present is the only horizon but with a particularity: Eliminado: ,

“the present, in the moment it is being actualized, wishes to be considered as historical, as

past.” It is as if the present turns on itself to predict how it will be considered in the past,

anticipating how it will be seen by the past. As Lorenz has noted, this diagnostic of

presentism as a way of periodization fits in a linear and progressive conception of time,

which he calls “presentism n° 1” (Lorenz 2019: 1). Dubar’s (2004) review is an example of Eliminado: Lorenz
Eliminado: ´
this. Dubar calls “presenteeism” the “fourth regime of historicity.” The others are the “heroic
Eliminado: (2004)

regime,” that of “la Communauté” and its “history of kings and battles”; the “Christian

regime,” in which “the articulation between the past, present and future is based on eternity”;

and the modern or, better, “futuristic regime,” founded on “optimism of progress and the
future.” The latter enters into crisis and gives birth to the presentist regime of historicity. His

criticism of Hartog has nothing to do with the historicist presupposition of his own reading of

the regimes of historicity; that is, Dubar is “blind” to this linear developmental temporal

framework. His criticisms point in two directions: (1) questioning the “baptism” of the Eliminado: a

present time as “presentist” and not, for example, as “post-modernist” and (2) showing that

the concept of “identity forms” is more satisfactory because “contrary to Hartog’s regimes,

identity forms do not disappear when they cease to be dominant at any given time” (Dubar

2004: 132). The ambiguity that Lorenz identifies between a historicist version (presentism N° Eliminado: Dubar

1) and a version “as an instrumental concept to pluralize the notion of time” (presentism N°

2) is maintained through the work of Hartog.

Hartog’s diagnosis that at least Western societies are living in a new order of time is Eliminado: ´

widely shared. First, as a shift to the past that has been described as a “memory boom”

(Runia 2007; Winter 2006), a “surfeit of memory” (Maier 1993), a “world (that) is being

musealized” (Huyssen 2000; Lübbe 1983), or a “desire to commemorate” (Runia 2007). The

diagnosis seems unanimous: we are living in a period in which the present lives off the past,

in a kind of “a present past” (Huyssen 2000). This past that lives in the present has been

called “traumatic” (Ankersmit 2005), “sublime” (Ankersmit 2005), and “spectral”

(Bevernage 2008), among other things. Several theories stress the presence of the past in the
Comentado [KB20]: TS: Please link to reference.
present (Bevernage 2012; Domanska 2006; Kleinberg 2017; Lorenz and Bevernage 2013; Eliminado: Lorenz and Bevernage 2013;
Comentado [KB21]:
Runia 2006; Tamm 2015). Others, such as Assmann (2013) and Gumbrecht (2014), attempt,
Eliminado: Assmann (
like Hartog, to conjugate the past, present, and future in a new order. Finally, Simon (2018, Eliminado: )
Eliminado:
2019) attempts to redefine temporality by stressing the future. “Shifting notion of time”
Eliminado: Finally, Simon (

(2019), Tamm and Oliver’s introduction to a very recent book, is really a state of affairs Eliminado: ,
Comentado [KB22]: TS: Please link to reference – Tamm
about current trends in the discussion of temporalities. The pertinence of Hartog’s analysis is and Oliver.
Eliminado: ´
widely recognized by the editors considering the book’s subtitle, “New Approaches to Eliminado: (2019)
Eliminado: ´
Presentism.” The first part of the book is titled “Presentism and New Temporalities.” Both

editors note in the introduction that because the “ambiguous use of the term has created a

certain confusion … our use of the term in this introduction, ‘presentism’ is to be understood

only as a regime of historicity (what Lorenz calls Hartog’s ‘presentism n° 2’).” There is a Eliminado: ´
Eliminado: ´
recognition of the methodological dimension of presentism as a regime of historicity to
Eliminado: ´

pluralize temporality but a strong criticism of every historicist interpretation of the concept

understood as a successor of futurism or as a “block of time” in Lorenz’s words. Eliminado: ´

Criticism of the term “regime,” as with “historicity,” continues. The anthropologist

Calame recognizes the relevance of the “semi-empirical” category of the “regime of

historicity,” elaborated in “a rare collaboration between a historian and an anthropologist

[Lenclud].” For him, it would be convenient to replace “historicity” with “temporality”

because the term historicity restrictively refers only to the configuration of the past. Likewise,

he prefers the term “logic” (logique) instead of “regime” since it is better interwoven with the Eliminado: “
Eliminado: ”
correlation between the nunc and the hic; that is, a logic of temporality would also imply a

regime (or a logic) “of spatiality” (2005: 59, my translation). In the same vein, Lenclud Comentado [KB23]: AU: Please provide full citation
details.
suggests that we should speak of “temporality” rather than “historicity” (Lenclud 2010).

However, according to both Hartog and Lenclud, Ludivine Bantigny suggests that the term

“regime” refers to a composition that includes different levels, oppositions, and

contradictions; the notion of “regime” is disturbing “because—no matter how cautiously

scholars approach it—it tends to freeze a period in its relation to time and history, to

crystalize its domination, to reify its essential traits” (Bantigny 2013: III, my translation).

Although Jordheim prefers “temporal” instead of “historicity,” he agrees with the term

“regime” because it is primarily employed as a political term, “mostly in a slightly pejorative

and negative sense …. Transposed into the analytics of multiple times, the term serves to
remind us that time is also a question of power, the power of control movements, to decide

about beginnings and endings, to set the pace, to give the rhythm” (Jordheim 2014: 510).

Undoubtedly, the notion of “regimes of historicity” has had a great impact, especially

in the English-speaking world after the English translation of Regimes in 2015. As Peter

Seixas recognizes in his review, the concept of regimes of historicity “is itself an important

contribution.” Hartog’s work was vastly known in Latin America before the Spanish Eliminado: ´
Eliminado: ´s
translation of Regimes in 2007. The translation was carried out by the Universidad

Iberoamericana of México, where Hartog was invited to lecture several times. The concept

was used to think of the multiples experiences of time in a multicultural nation such as

México (Hernández Reyna 2016), the relation between regimens of historicity and regimens

of historiography (Mudrovcic 2013), the link between the cultural heritage and presentism

(Aravena 2014), among other things. The enthusiasm with which this category was received

in the international academic sphere is reflected in a recent book including renowned Western

researchers in philosophy, anthropology, curatorship, archaeology, theories of history,

history, cultural geography, and humanities in general (Tamm and Olivier 2019). In the Comentado [KB24]: TS: Please link to reference.

conclusion, Assmann sharply notes the “irritation” that “resonates through all the essays of

this volume” (2019: 208). Western researchers have suddenly discovered that universal and Comentado [KB25]: TS: Please link to reference –
Assmann.
linear time—which has been taken for granted—not only turned out to be contingent and

debatable but also has the same epistemological and normative values as other times in other

cultures. In her analysis of the foregoing chapters, Assmann cannot avoid a historicist reading

of the notion of “regimes of historicity.” The time regime of modernity “collapsed, … when

the past became sticky and resisted being shed and left behind like the skin of a snake … the

past, the present and the future have not only dramatically changed their valence and

meaning, but also the ways in which they have been connected” (208). She recognizes that Eliminado: 2019:

for (Western) people, there is a “new regime” of temporality that must coexist with the Eliminado: [
Eliminado: ]
multiplicity of cultural temporalities and that “implies coming to terms and living together

with multiple time regimes in a global culture” (218). Neither she nor the other contributors Eliminado: 2019:

to the book (or most Western researchers) question the three temporal dimensions of past,

present and future. This threefold division of time as self-evident and universal is one of the Eliminado: -

presuppositions that underlies most Western reflections about multiple times.

In the Future

Hartog’s expression “regimes of historicity” in its methodological use has undoubtedly Eliminado: ´

contributed to pointing out the plurality of ways in which past-present-future ordering is

applied across different cultures. The concept is one, among others, which Western culture

uses to consider other forms of temporalities. It was particularly illuminating to some

historians and theorists and philosophers of history. However, the idea of multiple

temporalities that the concept involves in its heuristic or methodological version was not such

a surprising point to postcolonial approaches or to linguistic studies.

In a very well-known article, the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf claimed that

“the Hopi language is seen to contain no words, grammatical forms, constructions or Eliminado: [
Eliminado: ]
expressions that refer directly to what we call time, or to past, present or future, or to

enduring or lasting … the Hopi language contains no reference to time, either explicit or Comentado [KB26]: AU: Are these emphases in the
original?
implicit” (1950: 67). His study was an example of his “linguistic relativity hypothesis,” the Comentado [KB27]: TS: please link to reference – Whorf.

idea that the language one speaks influences the way one thinks. He found it “gratuitous” to

“assume that a Hopi who knows only the Hopi language and the cultural ideas of his own

society has the same notion of time and space we have, and that are generally assumed that

are universal” (67). This Whorf¨s controversial claim originated a debate about “Hopi time” Eliminado: 1950:

and what is known as the theory of “linguistic relativity.” In the same vein, researchers at Eliminado: .

various universities have challenged the paradigm of conceptual metaphor based upon

claimed universal cognitive processes that has led to the assumption that the analysis of
linguistic space-time mapping are universal. “Time as Space is a deep metaphor for all

human beings. It is common across cultures, psychologically real, productive and profoundly

entrenched in thought and language” (Fauconnier and Turner 2008: 55). Some researchers

challenge this Universal Mapping Hypothesis. Chris Sinha, Vera Da Silva Sinha, Jörg

Zinken, and Wany Sampaio have shown that in a culture such as Amazonia, people do not

have an inventory of terms to express temporal relations as known by Western culture (Sinha

et al. 2011). Various contemporary approaches from cognitive sciences question our tripartite

version of time; there are cultures that experience time without distinguishing between the

past, present, or future.

Multiple temporalities have also been a central concern of subaltern studies and

postcolonial historiography. Dipesh Chakrabarty shows how the intellectual reach of

subaltern studies exceeds that of the discipline of history and refers to how postcolonial

theorists have taken an interest in subaltern studies. One of the common points is the

“contemporary critiques of history and nationalism, and of orientalism and Eurocentrism in

the construction of social science knowledge” (Chakrabarty 2000b: 9). He recognizes that Eliminado: 0
Eliminado: b
multiple temporalities as well as religious, supernatural, and miraculous terms have

challenged Marxist methodological/epistemological approaches because they “have not

always successfully resisted historicist readings.” The peculiarities of the indigenous peoples

of America or Indian people resist being caught by what Chakrabarty calls a “transition

narrative” to which terms such as “development,” “modernization,” and “transformation,”

among others, are applied. “The British conquered and represented the diversity of Indian

pasts through a homogenizing narrative of transition from a medieval period to modernity.

The terms have changed with time. The medieval was once called ‘despotic’ and the modern

‘the rule of law.’ ‘Feudal/capitalist’ has been a later variant” (Chakrabarty 2000b: 32). In Eliminado: 0
Eliminado: b
these sorts of narratives, “Indian” was always “a figure of lack.” For Chakrabarty, to think in
terms of this sort of narrative is to “think a history whose theoretical subject was Europe”; the

“transition narrative” will always remain “grievously incomplete.” He concludes, “So long as

one operates within the discourse of ‘history’ produced at the institutional site of the

university, it is not possible simply to walk out of the deep collusion between ‘history’ and

the modernizing narrative(s)” (41). For Chakrabarty, it is not about producing new concepts

to be able to capture the diversities regarding temporal issues or other nature since in that way

historians will continue doing European history with non-European archives. Instead, it is

about writing another form of “history” grounded in a profound critique of “Europe” as a

transcendental subject. This is the project of provincializing “Europe” that still did not exist

when he wrote the book.

The challenge is open to the future. If we radicalize temporal differences to the

extreme, it would be impossible even to build bridges of meaning. How, then, can we

understand the radical “other”? This is a problem that has been central to all hermeneutics. If

the multiplicity of temporalities is a conception that is born when we associate time and

culture, is there a risk of reproducing cultural relativism? Is cultural relativism truly a risk, or

is it the result of an epistemological reading in terms of “objectivity,” “truth,” and

“universality”? To put it in Chakrabarty´s terms, if one operates within the discourse of

history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and any other post-enlightened discipline, is it

not possible to leave hegemonic categories to “read” the world in a different way?

In another sense, an author such as Zoltán Boldizsár Comentado [KB28]: AU: Please complete or confirm
deletion.
Simon suggests that the presentist regime of historicity helps “to gain an

understanding of the altered historical condition of Western societies by articulating and

conceptualizing it in the shape of a more or less comprehensive theoretical account” (2019: Eliminado: Simon

1). However, for Simon, the sense of debt to the past that characterized Hartog’s concept does Eliminado: ´

not help to “open” the future. The problem for Simon is that a presentist regime of historicity
understood in these terms obscures the emergence and future possibilities in the technological

and ecological domains (5–6). To address the complexity of the present moment, he coins the Eliminado: 2019:

concept of an “epochal event” to reflect the emerging societal experience of time in which

actual changes are occurring around us (Simon 2020). In the same vein, Ewa Domanska Comentado [KB29]: TS: please link to reference.

affirms that “[the] main challenge for today´s historical research lies … in applying a future-

oriented position (2020: 183). Comentado [KB30]: TS: please link to reference.

Conclusion

The concept of “regimes of historicity” is indeed a Pandora’s box. The concept was one that Eliminado: ´

helped “the West” to wake up from its “dogmatic dream” about a single, universal, and linear

time. Although many other concepts and different principles from a variety of disciplines
Eliminado: r
show potential for further analysis of time, the notion regime of historicity is currently at the Comentado [KB31]: TS: please link to reference.
Eliminado: r
center of the scene. The great impact it had when it was coined in the 1980s in the French
Eliminado: o
sphere was consolidated when Regimes was translated into English. It is one of the most Eliminado: r
Eliminado: ,
powerful concepts between all the shifting notions of time. It is a concept that, even in its
Eliminado: (

ambiguity or, perhaps, for its own sake, captured the climate of our times. Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
The preoccupation with the question about time is so central to our present that it has
Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva

even contributed to the emergence of a new field: “time studies.” This new field tries to Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: . 43–67
“track how time is conceptualized in our own moment.” The scholars who participated in a Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: .
collection of essays attempted to construct a “vocabulary of the present.” Time studies
Eliminado: Franc
involves parts of what the anthropologist David Scott has recently described as “a new time- Eliminado: e
Eliminado: ,
consciousness” (Burges and Elias 2016). The regime of historicity is perhaps another way to
Movido (inserción) [1]
name the same idea. Eliminado:
Subido [1]: A. J.
Further Reading and Online Resources
Eliminado: (
André, J. ed. (2010), Les Récits du Temps, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Eliminado: ),
Burges, J. and A. J. Elias, eds. (2016), Time: A Vocabulary of the Present. New York: New York
Eliminado: .
University Press.
Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva
Eliminado: ,
 Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ,
Chakrabarty, D. (2000), Provincialinzing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Con formato ... [1]
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Eliminado: (
Detienne, M. (2000), Comparer L´Incomparable. París: Seuil. Eliminado: ),

Kuukkanen, J. M., ed. (2020), Philosophy of History. Twenty-First-Century Perspectives, Great Britain: Eliminado: .
Bloomsbury Academic. Con formato ... [2]
Eliminado: ,
Lorenz, C., and B. Bevernage., eds. (2013), Breaking up Time: Negotiating the Borders between
Present, Past and Future, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck/Ruprecht. Comentado [KB32]: AU: Please provide city name.
Eliminado: ,.
Pomian, K. (1984), L’ordre du Temps, Bibliothèque des Histoires, Paris: Gallimard.
Eliminado: (
Simon, Z. B. (2020), The Epochal Event. Transformation in the Entangled Human Technological, and
Eliminado: ),
Natural Worlds, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eliminado: .
Tamm, M. and L. Olivier, eds. (2019), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to Presentism, Eliminado: ,
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Eliminado: .
Virilio, P. (2009), Le Futurism de L´instant: Stop Eject, Paris: Galilée. Con formato ... [3]
References Eliminado: (
Agulhon, M. (1981), Marianne into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France, 1789–1880, Eliminado: ),
trans. J. Lloyd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eliminado: .

Ankersmit, F. (2005), Sublime Historical Experience, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Con formato ... [4]
Eliminado: .
Aravena, P. (2014), “F. Hartog: la historia en un tiempo catastrófico,” Cuadernos de Historia: Revista
de la Universidad de Chile, (41): 227–34. Con formato ... [5]
Eliminado: ,
Assmann, A. (2013), Ist die Zeit auys den Fugen? Aufstieg und Fall des Zeitregimes der Moderne,
Eliminado: .
Munich: Hunser.
Eliminado: (
Assmann, A. (2019), “Conclusion: A Creed That Has Lost its Believers? Reconfiguring the Concepts of
Eliminado: ),
Time and History,” in M. Tamm and L. Olivier (eds.), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to
Presentism, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [6]
Bantigny, L. (2013), “Historicités du 20e Siècle,” Vingtième Siècle: Revue D’Histoire, 117 (1): 13–25.
Eliminado: .
Baram, A. (1991), Culture, History and Ideology in the Formation of Ba’thist Iraq, 1968–80, New York: Con formato ... [7]
St. Martin’s Press.
Eliminado: (…ibliothèque des Histoires.) ... [8]
Bevernage, B. (2008), “Time, Presence, and Historical Injustice,” History and Theory, 47 (2): 149–67. Con formato ... [9]
Bevernage, B. (2012), History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice, Abingdon: Eliminado: ,
Routledge. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: (
Bodnar, J. (1992), Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration and Patriotism in the
Twentieth Century, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Braudel, F. (1949), La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à L’époque de Philippe II, vol. 3:3, Les
Événements, la Politique et les Hommes, Paris: Armand Colin. Con formato ... [10]
Eliminado: ,
Braudel, F. (1958), “Histoire et Sciences Sociales: La Longue Durée,” Annales: Histoire, Sciences
Eliminado: .
Sociales, 13 (4): 725–53.
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: , L.…, ( ... [11]
Eliminado: ) (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [12]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: , UK
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [13]
Eliminado: ,
 Eliminado: .
Movido (inserción) [9]
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Burges, J. and A. J. Elias (2016), “Introduction: Time Studies Today,” in J. Burges and A. J. Elias (eds.), Eliminado: .
Time: A Vocabulary of the Present, 1–32, New York: New York University Press.
Eliminado: .
Chakrabarty, D. (2000a), Provincialinzing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Eliminado: ,…in ... [35]
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Eliminado: I
Chakrabarty, D. (2000b), “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography,” Nepantla: Views from Eliminado: edited by
South, 1 (1): 9–32. Con formato ... [36]
Chesneaux, J. (1996), Habiter les Temps: Passé, Présent, Futur: Esquisse d´un Dialogue Politique, Subido [9]: J. Burges and A. J. Elias,
Paris: Bayard. Eliminado: (eds), Time: A Vocabulary of the Present,

Clifford, J. (1988), “Identity in Mashpee,” in J. Clifford (ed.), The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth- Eliminado: ,

Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, 277–346, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: (
de Libera, A. (2000), La Filosofía Medieval, Buenos Aires: Docencia.
Eliminado: ),
Delacroix, C. (2005), “Genealogía de una Noción,” in C. Delacroix, F. Dosse, and P. Garcia (eds.),
Eliminado: .
Historicidades, 31–50, Buenos Aires: Waldhuter.
Con formato ... [37]
Delacroix, C., F. Dosse, and P. Garcia (2010), “Sobre la Noción de Régimen de Historicidad. Entrevista Eliminado: ,
con Francois Hartog,” in C. Delacroix, F. Dosse, and P. Garcia (eds.), Historicidades, 145–63, Buenos
Eliminado: .
Aires: Waldhuter.
Eliminado: (
Detienne, M. (2000), Comparer L´Incomparable, París: Seuil.
Eliminado: ),
Domanska, E. W. A. (2006), “4. The Material Presence of the Past,” History and Theory, 45 (3): 337– Eliminado: .
48. Eliminado: .
Domanska, E. W. A. (2020), “The Paradigm Shift in the Contemporary Humanities and Social Eliminado: ,
Sciences,” in J. M. Kuukkanen (ed.), Philosophy of History: Twenty-First-Century Perspectives, Great Con formato ... [38]
Britain: Bloomsbury Academic.
Eliminado: ,
Dubar, C. (2004), “François Hartog, Régimes D’Historicité, Présentisme et Expériences du Temps,” Eliminado: ),
Temporalités, June 29. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/temporalites/794 (accessed Eliminado: (
June 22, 2020).
Eliminado: )
Dutu, A. and N. Dodille, eds. (1993), L´Etat des lieux en sciences sociales, Paris: L´Harmattan. Eliminado: .

Garcia, P. (2002), “Les Régimes D’historicité: Un Outil pour les Historiens? Une Etude de Cas: la Eliminado: ,
«Guerre des Races»,” Revue D’Histoire du XIXe Siècle, (25): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.4000/rh19.418. Con formato ... [39]

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2008), “Rethinking Metaphor,” in R. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Eliminado: ,

Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 53–66, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: (
Grossin, W. (1996), Pour une Science des Temps: Introduction Al’Écologie Temporelle, Paris: Octares.
Eliminado: ),
Grumbrecht, H. U. (2014), Our Broad Present: Time and Contemporary Culture, New York: Columbia
Eliminado: .
University Press.
Eliminado: .
Gurvitch, G. (1955), Determinismes Sociaux et Liberte Humaine, Paris: Presses Universitaires de Eliminado: ,…in ... [40]
France.
Eliminado: I
Gurvitch, G. (1962), Dialectique et Sociologie, Paris: Flammarion. Con formato ... [41]
Eliminado: edited by J. Clifford,
Eliminado: (ed), The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-
... [42]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [43]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: .
 Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: .…, ... [71]
Gurvitch, G. (1963), “La Multiplicité des Temps Sociaux,” in G. Gurvitch (ed.), La Vocation Actuelle de Eliminado: in
la Sociologie, 325–430, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Eliminado: I
Hartog, F. (1983), “Marshall Sahlins et L’anthropologie de L’histoire (Note critique),” Annales: Con formato ... [72]
Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 38 (6): 1256–63. Eliminado: edited by Gurvitch, G. Gurvitch,
Hartog, F. (1989), “Marshall Sahlins, des îles dans L’histoire (Traduit de L’anglais par un Collectif de Eliminado: La Vocation Actuelle de la Sociologie,
l’EHESS Sous la Direction de Jacques Revel), Paris, Éditions Gallimard-Le Seuil, «Hautes Études», Eliminado: ,
1989, 188 p,” Des Iles dans L´Histoire, 44 (6): 1361–3.
Eliminado: .
Hartog, F. ([2003] 2015), Regimes of Historicity. Presentism and Experiences of Time, New York: Eliminado: PUF
Columbia University Press. Eliminado: (

Hartog, F. (2005), “Tiempo y Patrimonio,” Museum International, Quarterly, Review, 227: 4–15. Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Hartog, F. (2015), “Temps et Histoire «Comment Écrire L’histoire de France?»,” Annales. Histoire,
Sciences Sociales, 50 (6): 1219–36. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ,
Hartog, F. and G. Lenclud (1993), “Régimes D´historicité,” in A. Dutu and N. Dodille (eds.), L´Etat des
Lieux en Sciences Sociales, 43–6, Paris: L´Harmattan. Con formato ... [73]
Eliminado: .
Hartog, F. and J. Revel. (2001), “Note de Conjoncture Historiographique,” in F. Hartog and J. Revel
Con formato ... [74]
(eds.), Les Usages Politiques du Passé, 13–24, Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales. Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ),
Hernández Reyna, M. (2016), “Regímenes de historicidad en la nación pluricultural: educación
Eliminado: (
intercultural y experiencias de la temporalidad en la era del multiculturalismo,” Historia y Grafía,
Universidad Iberoamericana, 24 (47): 179–215. Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Huyssen, A. (2000), “Present Pasts: Media, Politics, Amnesia,” Public Culture, 12 (1): 21–38.
Eliminado: .
Johansen, J. P. (1954), The Maori and The Religion, Copenhagen: Munksgaards.
Eliminado: ,
Jordheim, H. (2014), “Introduction: Multiple Times and the Work of Synchronization,” History and Con formato ... [75]
Theory, 53 (4): 498–518. Eliminado: ,
Kleinberg, E. (2017), Haunting History: For a Deconstructive Approach to the Past, Palo Alto, CA: Eliminado: ),
Stanford University Press. Eliminado: (

Koselleck, R. (2004), Future Pasts: On the Semantics of Historical Times, New York: Columbia Eliminado: ,
University Press. Eliminado: .

Lenclud, G. (2006), “Traversées dans le Temps,” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 61 (5): 1051–84. Con formato ... [76]
Eliminado: e
Lenclud, G. (2010), “Être Contemporain. Altérité Culturelle et Constructions du Temps,” in J. André
Con formato ... [77]
(ed.), Les Récits du Temps, 43–67, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Eliminado: t
Lorenz, C. (2019), “Out of Time? Some Critical Reflections on François Hartog’s Presentism,” in M.
Con formato ... [78]
Tamm and L. Olivier (eds.), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to Presentism, 23–42,
Eliminado: ,
London: Boomsbury.
Eliminado: .
Lorenz, C. and B. Bevernage., eds. (2013), Breaking up Time. Negotiating the Borders between
Eliminado: (
Present, Past and Future, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck/Ruprecht.
Eliminado: ),
Lübbe, H. (1983), Zeit-Verhältnisse: Zur Kulturphilosophie des Fortschritts, Graz: Verlag Styria.
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ,
Con formato ... [79]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ‘…emps et Histoire «Comment Écrire L’histoire
... [80]
Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [81]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ),
 Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: .
Maillard, A. (2005), “Les Temps deL´Historien et du Sociologue. Retour sur la dispute Braudel- Eliminado: ,
Gurvitch,” Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 2 (119): 197–222.
Con formato ... [103]
Maier, C. (1993), “A Surfeit of Memory? Reflections with History, Melancholy and Denial,” History Eliminado: ,
and Memory, 5 (2): 136–52. Eliminado: ),
Mandelbaum, M. (1971), History, Man, and Reason: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Eliminado: (
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eliminado: ),

Mudrovcic, M.I. (2013), “Regímenes de historicidad y regímenes historiográficos: del pasado Eliminado: .
histórico al pasado presente,” Historiografías, (5): 11–31. Eliminado: “

Mudrovcic, M. I. (2014),“Time, History, and Philosophy of History,” Journal of the Philosophy of Eliminado: .

History, 8: 1–26. Eliminado: ,

Eliminado: ,
Mudrovcic, M. I. (2019), “The Politics of Time, the Politics of History: Who are My Contemporaries?,”
Rethinking History, 23 (4): 456–73. Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: (
Nora, P. ([1984–92] 1997), Les Lieux de Mémoire, Paris: Ed. Gallimard.
Eliminado: ),
Pomian, K. (1984), L’ordre du Temps, Bibliothèque des Histoires, Paris: Gallimard. Eliminado: .
Revel, J. (2000), “Pratiques du Contemporaine et Régimes D´historicité,” Le Genre Humain, 35 (2): Con formato ... [104]
13–20. Eliminado: ,

Ricoeur, P. (1983), Temps et Récit, Paris: Seuil. Eliminado: .

Eliminado: , Md
Runia, E. (2006), “Presence,” History and Theory, 45 (1): 1–29.
Eliminado: The
Runia, E. (2007), “Burying the Dead, Creating the Past,” History and Theory, 46 (3): 313–25.
Eliminado: (
Sahlins, M. (1983), Other Times, Other Customs: The Anthropology of History,” American Eliminado: ),
Anthropologist, 85 (3): 517–44. Eliminado: .
Simon, Z. B. (2018), “History Begins in the Future: On Historical Sensibility in the Age of Technology,” Eliminado: .
in S. Helgesson and J. Svenungsson (eds.), The Ethos of History: Time and Responsibility, 192–209, Eliminado: ,
New York: Berghahn.
Con formato ... [105]
Simon, Z. B. (2019), History in Times of Unprecedented Change: A Theory for the 21st Century, Eliminado: ,
London: Bloomsbury. Eliminado: ),
Simon, Z. B. (2020), The Epochal Event: Transformation in the Entangled Human Technological, and Eliminado: (
Natural Worlds, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Eliminado: ),

Sinha, C., V. D. S. Sinha, J. Zinken, and W. Sampaio (2011), “When Time is Not Space: The Social and Eliminado: .
Linguistic Construction of Time Intervals and Temporal Event Relations in an Amazonian Culture,” Eliminado: .
Language and Cognition, 3 (1): 137–69. Eliminado: ,

Stewart, C. (2016), “Historicity and Anthropology,” Annual Review of Anthropology, 45 (1): 79–94. Con formato ... [106]
Eliminado: ,
Tamm, M. (2015), Rethinking Historical Time, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Eliminado: ,
Tamm, M. and L. Olivier (2019), “Introduction: Rethinking Historical Time,” in M. Tamm, and L.
Eliminado: (
Olivier (eds.), Rethinking Historical Time: New Approaches to Presentism, 1–22, London: Bloomsbury.
Eliminado: ),
Virilio, P. (2009), Le Futurism de L´instant: Stop Eject, Paris: Galilée. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ,
Con formato ... [107]
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: -
Eliminado: 19
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Con formato ... [108]
Eliminado: , Paris: Ed
Eliminado: .
Whorf, B. L. (1950), “An American Indian Model of the Universe,” International Journal of American Eliminado: (
Linguistics, 16 (2): 67–72. Eliminado: ),
Winter, J. M. (2006), Remembering War: The Great War between Memory and History in the the Eliminado: .
Twentieth Century, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eliminado: .
Eliminado: ,
Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: ),
Con formato: Espacio Después: 8 pto
Eliminado: (
Eliminado: ),
Eliminado: .
Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva
Eliminado: w
Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva
Eliminado: ,
Eliminado: .
Eliminado: and London
Eliminado: ¶
Página 29: [1] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:09:00 p. m.
Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [2] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:19:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [3] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:19:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [4] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:19:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [5] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:19:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [6] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:20:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [7] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:20:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [8] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:27:00 p. m.

(

Página 29: [8] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:27:00 p. m.

(

Página 29: [9] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:20:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [10] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:20:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [11] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:47:00 p. m.

, L.

Página 29: [11] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:47:00 p. m.

, L.

Página 29: [12] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:31:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [13] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:31:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [14] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:31:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [15] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:31:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [16] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:23:00 p. m.

T

Página 29: [16] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:23:00 p. m.

T

Página 29: [17] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:32:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [18] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:33:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [19] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:33:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [20] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:34:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [21] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:35:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [22] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:35:00 p. m.

(eds), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to Presentism,

Página 29: [23] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:24:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [24] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:36:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [25] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:37:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [26] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:37:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [27] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:38:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [28] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:38:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva
Página 29: [29] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:38:00 p. m.
Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [30] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:39:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [31] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:25:00 p. m.

-Tome

Página 29: [31] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:25:00 p. m.

-Tome

Página 29: [31] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:25:00 p. m.

-Tome

Página 29: [32] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:39:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [33] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:40:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 29: [34] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:40:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [35] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:59:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [35] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:59:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [36] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:20:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [37] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:42:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [38] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:44:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [39] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:46:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [40] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:59:00 p. m.

,
Página 30: [40] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 7:59:00 p. m.
,

Página 30: [41] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:48:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [42] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:48:00 p. m.

(ed), The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art,

Página 30: [43] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:49:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [44] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [44] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [45] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:49:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [46] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [46] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [47] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:17:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [48] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:17:00 p. m.

o

Página 30: [48] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:17:00 p. m.

o

Página 30: [49] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:52:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [50] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:53:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [51] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:00:00 p. m.

p

Página 30: [52] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:01:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [52] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:01:00 p. m.

,

Página 30: [53] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:12:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [54] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:12:00 p. m.

.

Página 30: [54] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:12:00 p. m.

.

Página 30: [55] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:53:00 p. m.

(ed.), Philosophy of History. Twenty-First-Century Perspectives,

Página 30: [56] Comentada Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:12:00 p. m.

AU: Please provide city name and page range.

Página 30: [57] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:16:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [58] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:16:00 p. m.

29

Página 30: [58] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:16:00 p. m.

29

Página 30: [59] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:03:00 p. m.

, N.
Página 30: [59] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:03:00 p. m.
, N.

Página 30: [60] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:54:00 p. m.

)

Página 30: [60] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:54:00 p. m.

)

Página 30: [61] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:55:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [62] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:55:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [63] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:56:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [64] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:56:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [64] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:56:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [64] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:56:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [65] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:56:00 p. m.

(ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought,

Página 30: [66] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:58:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [67] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:58:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [68] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:58:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [69] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:58:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 30: [70] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 4:59:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [71] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:09:00 p. m.

.

Página 31: [71] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:09:00 p. m.

.

Página 31: [72] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:10:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [73] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:01:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [74] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:01:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [75] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:01:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [76] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:02:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [77] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:02:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [78] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:02:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [79] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:03:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [80] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:08:00 p. m.

‘

Página 31: [80] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:08:00 p. m.

‘

Página 31: [80] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:08:00 p. m.

‘

Página 31: [81] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:03:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [82] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:08:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [82] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:08:00 p. m.

,
Página 31: [83] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:33:00 p. m.
Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [84] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:33:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [85] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:09:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [85] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:09:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [86] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:36:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [87] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:07:00 p. m.

edited by F. Hartog and J. Revel, (eds), Les Usages Politiques du Passé,

Página 31: [87] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:07:00 p. m.

edited by F. Hartog and J. Revel, (eds), Les Usages Politiques du Passé,

Página 31: [88] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:37:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [89] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:38:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [90] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:38:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [91] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:42:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [92] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:44:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [93] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:45:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [94] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:45:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [95] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:45:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva
Página 31: [96] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:11:00 p. m.
,

Página 31: [96] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:11:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [97] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:47:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [97] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:47:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [98] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:49:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [98] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:49:00 p. m.

,

Página 31: [99] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:49:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [100] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:49:00 p. m.

(eds), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to Presentism,

Página 31: [101] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:50:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 31: [102] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:51:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [103] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:51:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [104] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:53:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [105] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:32:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [106] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:32:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [107] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:17:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [108] Con formato Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 3:12:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [109] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:16:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [110] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:16:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [111] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:01:00 p. m.

(

Página 32: [111] Eliminado Katherine Bosiacki 16/1/2021 4:01:00 p. m.

(

Página 32: [112] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:16:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [113] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:15:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [114] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:15:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [115] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:14:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [116] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:11:00 p. m.

,

Página 32: [116] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:11:00 p. m.

,

Página 32: [117] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:10:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [117] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:10:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [118] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:10:00 p. m.

(eds), The Ethos of History: Time and Responsibility,

Página 32: [119] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [120] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva
Página 32: [121] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.
Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [122] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [123] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [124] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:04:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [125] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:05:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [126] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:05:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [127] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:06:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [128] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:35:00 p. m.

,

Página 32: [128] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 8:35:00 p. m.

,

Página 32: [129] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:07:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [130] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:07:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva

Página 32: [131] Eliminado Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:07:00 p. m.

(eds), Rethinking Historical Time: New approaches to Presentism,

Página 32: [132] Con formato Editorial Integra 23/12/2020 5:08:00 p. m.

Fuente: Cursiva