How important is an era? Anachronism and history

Abstract

The present article seeks – from the issue raised in the academic dossier “Presence of 1980’s: hopes, longings and historiography” – perform a retrospective analysis to authors such as Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx and establish the differences and similarities between these authors around the guiding thread: what is the relation that the human being has with time, space and the practice of freedom? What, then, is the importance of a ‘time’ for historical analysis? It can be seen that, although Hegel and Marx follow important elements of Kantian thought, both converge on a principle that differs from Kant’s analysis: the notion that some groups or individuals would have a better understanding (Einsicht) of the situation of all. In this sense, we understand that the sequence between Kantian criticism and contemporary thought is mainly in the work of authors who thought the critique of the philosopher of Königsberg as ‘critical attitude’ before the assumption of authority. Among these authors are Michel Foucault and Jacques Rancière, who defend the eminently anachronistic feature of the work of the historian, without the presupposition of the superiority of one individual or group over the others.