Editing Intellectual history (section)

== Methodology ==

=== The Lovejoy approach ===
The historian [[Arthur O. Lovejoy]] (1873–1962) coined the phrase ''history of ideas''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hellström |first=Petter |date=2016 |title=The great chain of ideas : The past and future of the history of ideas, or why we should not return to Lovejoy |url=https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-315744 |journal=Lychnos |pages=179–188}}</ref> and initiated its systematic study<ref name="greatchain">Arthur Lovejoy: ''The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea'' (1936), {{ISBN|0-674-36153-9}}</ref> in the early decades of the 20th century. [[Johns Hopkins University]] was a "fertile cradle" to Lovejoy's history of ideas;<ref name="Paulson1970">[[Ronald Paulson]] [https://www.jstor.org/pss/468272 ''English Literary History at the Johns Hopkins University''] in ''New Literary History'', Vol. 1, No. 3, History and Fiction (Spring, 1970), pp. 559–564</ref> he worked there as a professor of history, from 1910 to 1939, and for decades he presided over the regular meetings of the ''History of Ideas Club''.<ref>Arthur Lovejoy, ''Essays in the History of Ideas,'' {{ISBN|0-313-20504-3}}</ref> Another outgrowth of his work is the ''[[Journal of the History of Ideas]]''.

Aside from his students and colleagues engaged in related projects (such as [[René Wellek]] and [[Leo Spitzer]], with whom Lovejoy engaged in extended debates), scholars such as [[Isaiah Berlin]],<ref>Isaiah Berlin, ''Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas'', {{ISBN|0-691-09026-2}}</ref> [[Michel Foucault]], [[John Edward Christopher Hill|Christopher Hill]], [[J. G. A. Pocock]], and others have continued to work in a spirit close to that with which Lovejoy pursued the history of ideas.  The first chapter of Lovejoy's book ''The Great Chain of Being'' (1936) lays out a general overview of what he intended to be the programme and scope of the study of the history of ideas.<ref name="greatchain" />

==== Unit-idea ====
In the History of Ideas, Lovejoy used the ''unit-idea'' (concept) as the basic unit of historical analysis. The unit-idea is the building block of the history of ideas; though relatively stable in itself, the unit-idea combines with other unit-ideas into new patterns of meaning in the context of different historical eras. Lovejoy said that the historian of ideas is tasked with identifying unit-ideas and with describing their historical emergence and development into new conceptual forms and combinations. The methodology of the unit-idea means to extract the basic idea from a work of philosophy and from a philosophical movement, with the investigative principles of the methodology being: (1) assumptions, (2) dialectical motives, (3) metaphysical pathos, and (4) philosophical [[semantics]]. The principles of methodology define the overarching philosophical movement in which the historian can find the unit-idea, which then is studied throughout the history of the particular idea.<ref name="greatchain" />

The British historian [[Quentin Skinner]] criticized Lovejoy's unit-idea methodology as a "reification of doctrines" that has negative consequences.<ref>Skinner, Quentin. (1969) "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas", ''History and Theory'' '''8''' (1): 3–53.</ref> That the historian of ideas must be sensitive to the cultural context of the texts and ideas under analysis. Skinner's [[historical method]] is based upon the theory of speech acts, proposed by [[J.L. Austin]]. In turn, scholars criticized Skinner's historical method because of his inclination to [[Reification (knowledge representation)|reify]] social structures and sociological constructs in place of the historical actors of the period under study. The philosopher [[Andreas Dorschel]] said that Skinner's restrictive approach to ideas, through verbal language, and notes that ideas can materialize in non-linguistic media and genres, such as music and architecture.<ref>Dorschel, Andreas. ''Ideengeschichte.'' Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  2010. {{ISBN|978-3-8252-3314-3}}</ref> The historian [[Dag Herbjørnsrud]] said that "the Skinner perspective is in danger of shutting the door to comparative philosophy, and the search for common problems and solutions across borders and time."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Herbjørnsrud|first=Dag.|date=2019-05-10|title=Beyond Decolonizing: Global Intellectual History and Reconstruction of a Comparative Method|journal=Global Intellectual History|volume=6 |issue=5 |pages=614–640|doi=10.1080/23801883.2019.1616310|s2cid=166543159|issn=2380-1883}}</ref>

The historian [[Peter Gordon (historian)|Peter Gordon]] said that unlike Lovejoy's practise of the History of Ideas, the praxis of Intellectual History studies and deals with ideas in broad historical contexts.<ref name="history.fas.harvard.edu">Gordon, Peter E. [http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/history/files/what_is_intell_history_pgordon_mar2012.pdf "What is intellectual history? A Frankly Partisan Introduction to a Frequently Misunderstood Field"]. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.</ref> That unlike historians of ideas and philosophers ([[Philosophy#History|History of Philosophy]]), intellectual historians, "tend to be more relaxed about crossing the boundary between philosophical texts and non-philosophical contexts . . . [Intellectual historians regard] the distinction between 'philosophy' and 'non-philosophy' as something that is, itself, historically conditioned, rather than eternally fixed." Therefore, intellectual history is a means for reproducing a historically valid interpretation of a philosophical argument, by implementation of a context in which to study ideas and philosophical movements.<ref name="history.fas.harvard.edu"/>
=== Foucault's approach ===
{{See also|Genealogy (philosophy)|The Archaeology of Knowledge}}

[[Michel Foucault]] rejected [[narrative]], the historian's traditional mode of communication, because of what he believed to be the shallow treatment of facts, figures, and people in a long period, rather than deep research that shows the interconnections among the facts, figures, and people of a specific period of history.<ref>Felluga, Dino. [http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/newhistoricism/modules/foucaulthistory.html "Modules on Foucault: On History"], ''Introductory Guide to Critical Theory''.</ref> Foucault said that historians should reveal historical descriptions through the use of different perspectives of the "archaeology of knowledge", whose historical method for writing history is in four ideas.

First, the archaeology of knowledge defines the period of history through philosophy, by way of the discourses among [[thought]], [[Representation (arts)|representation]], and themes. Second, that the notion of discontinuity has an important role in the disciplines of history. Third, that discourse does not seek to grasp the moment in history, wherein the social and the persons under study are inverted into each other. Fourth, that Truth is not the purpose of history, but the discourse contained in history.<ref>Foucault, Michel. [https://foucault.info/doc/documents/archaeologyofknowledge/foucault-archaeologyofknowledge-00-intro-html "Archaeology of Knowledge, Introduction"], A.M. Sherida Smith, Ed. Vintage, 1982.</ref>

=== Long period approach ===
{{See also|Longue durée}}

=== Global intellectual history ===
In the 21st century, the field of [[global intellectual history]] has received increased attention. In 2013, [[Samuel Moyn]] and Andrew Sartori published the anthology ''Global Intellectual History''.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/global-intellectual-history/9780231160490|title=Global Intellectual History|date=June 2013|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=9780231534598|editor-last=Moyn|editor-first=Samuel|editor-last2=Sartori|editor-first2=Andrew}}</ref>

In 2016, the Routledge journal ''Global Intellectual History'' (ed. [[Richard Whatmore]]) was established.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rgih20/current|title=Global Intellectual History: Vol 4, No 2|newspaper=Taylor & Francis|access-date=2019-06-24}}</ref> [[J. G. A. Pocock]] and [[John Dunn (political theorist)|John Dunn]] are among those who recently have argued for a more global approach to intellectual history in contrast to [[Eurocentrism]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haakonssen|first1=Knud|last2=Whatmore|first2=Richard|date=2017-01-02|title=Global possibilities in intellectual history: a note on practice|journal=Global Intellectual History|volume=2|issue=1|pages=18–29|doi=10.1080/23801883.2017.1370248|issn=2380-1883|hdl=10023/17249|s2cid=148755525|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.husserlarchiv.de/materialien/JohnDunnConf/JohnDunnConf4|title=Why We Need A Global History of Political Thought|last=Dunn|first=John|date=2013-11-21|access-date=2019-06-24}}</ref>