Time and Periodization in History – serie

Time permeates language, society, and individual lives, but time eludes definition. From grand scales of geologic time to the exasperation of waiting in endless bureaucratic lines, from the unifying sense of ancestral presence at an ancient monument to the imminent question of climate resilience, this volume presents conceptions of time through a kaleidoscope of cultures and disciplines. Accessible to students and scholars alike, the book demonstrates that far from natural, stable, or singular, time is culturally dependent, historically contingent, socially constructed, and disciplinarily specific – and that multidisciplinary and cross-cultural conversations transform our understanding of time.

Periodizations are a fundamental element of historical thinking, and for this reason are a matter of importance for all historians. And yet, the history of periodization as such has only rarely been interrogated. Zeitenwende aims to address this shortcoming by engaging with some of the principal themes and problems in the historical study of periodization across different periods, regions, and historiographical traditions. Zeitenwenden begins from the assumption that, far from being neutral or merely technical classifications, historical periodizations are driven by political, cultural, economic, intellectual, and religious agendas in the present day. In other words, they tell us as much about the periodizer as the periodized. Recognizing that the field is of increasing interdisciplinary importance, the volume aims to set an agenda for a new history of periodization.

From the viewpoint of social history, is time itself a plural entity or are there multiple forms of engagement in and with it? Pivoted around this question, Sinha attempts to rethink the current theory and practice of history writing by pointing the pitfalls of the growing fetishisation of plurality and the ‘plural time’ framework. Engaging a range of studies in History, Anthropology, and Sociology, Sinha provides a critical assessment of some of the leading frameworks on time studies, questions their foundational premises, highlights their limitations, and proposes an alternative framework that is attuned to privileging the approach of social history. The purposes of the latter, the book argues, is best served when time’s irreversible character is not diluted under the weight of plurality. Plurality in time is an outcome of practices and their historicisation; plurality of time can become an empty statement. Rather than defining what time is, the book casts that inquiry into the historical mould to explore how time, as a contestatory resource, becomes part of social relationships and what it does to them when scripts of power align themselves with the control of time.