The author examines the evolution of «Peace History» as a distinct field of research (its birth in the ‘60s and ‘70s, its growth in the ‘80s and its ultimate success with the end of the Cold War) in the USA, in Germany, in Great Britain, in France and, at last, in Italy. Many of peace historians’ books are scholarly written, stimulating and well documented. The majority of them, however, remains still far too parochial in perspective and shows an open militant attitude often inclined to condemn war history and to separate it from peace history. Further, as a result of their tight connection with «peace research», peace historians lean often towards theoretical frameworks, as in the cases of their use of categories like «pacifism» and «pacificism» which are proposed not as historically based but as timeless experiences (even if they depend in most cases only on value judgements, like a short history of the words themselves may prove). The author argues that peace history has to grow not as a separated history but as a field of research deeply connected with history of society, history of war, history of mass politics.
Il saggio esamina l’evoluzione della “peace history” come specifico terreno di ricerca (la sua nascita negli anni ’60 e ’70, la sua crescita negli ’80 e il suo definitivo successo alla fine della Guerra Fredda) negli USA, in Germania, in Gran Bretagna, in Francia e, alla fine, in Italia. Molti dei lavori degli storici della pace sono scientificamente impostati, stimolanti e ben documentati. Tuttavia, la maggioranza di essi continuano ad essere di prospettiva troppo “parrocchiale” e mostrano un atteggiamento fortemente valoriale che arriva spesso a condannare la storia della guerra contrapponendola a quella della pace. Inoltre, come risultato del loro stretto rapporto con il “peace research”, gli storici della pace spesso sono inclini a teorizzazioni, come nel caso dell’uso di categorie come “pacifismo” e “pacificismo” che vengono proposte non come esperienze senza tempo e non storicamente date (anche se esse dipendono in molti casi essenzialmente da giudizi di valore, come una breve storia delle parole stesse dimostra). La storia della pace deve svilupparsi non come storia separata ma come terreno di ricerca connesso strettamente con la storia della società, la storia della guerra e quello della politica di massa.
Moro, R. (2006). Sulla «storia della pace». MONDO CONTEMPORANEO, II/3(3), 97-140.
Sulla «storia della pace»
MORO, Renato
2006-01-01
Abstract
The author examines the evolution of «Peace History» as a distinct field of research (its birth in the ‘60s and ‘70s, its growth in the ‘80s and its ultimate success with the end of the Cold War) in the USA, in Germany, in Great Britain, in France and, at last, in Italy. Many of peace historians’ books are scholarly written, stimulating and well documented. The majority of them, however, remains still far too parochial in perspective and shows an open militant attitude often inclined to condemn war history and to separate it from peace history. Further, as a result of their tight connection with «peace research», peace historians lean often towards theoretical frameworks, as in the cases of their use of categories like «pacifism» and «pacificism» which are proposed not as historically based but as timeless experiences (even if they depend in most cases only on value judgements, like a short history of the words themselves may prove). The author argues that peace history has to grow not as a separated history but as a field of research deeply connected with history of society, history of war, history of mass politics.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.