Vortrag von Per Högselius (Stockholm, Sweden): Why historians of technology and environment can and must engage in the public debate

Zeit: 16-18 Uhr | Online

Vortrag von Per Högselius (Stockholm, Sweden) im Berlin-Brandenburger Colloquium (BBC) für Umweltgeschichte im Sommersemester 2021

Veranstalter des BBC für Umweltgeschichte:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU Berlin) in Kooperation mit dem Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung (ZZF Potsdam)
Organisation: Dr. Jan-Henrik Meyer (ZZF Potsdam), Dr. Astrid M. Kirchhof (HU Berlin)

Abstract:
In this talk I will argue that historians are not well equipped to come up with concrete policy advice or propose solutions to various present-day problems. However, historians are well equipped to engage and participate in the public debate in more indirect ways. I will argue that they can do so in two main ways, which are important to separate from each other: empirically and theoretically. Empirically, historians can enrich the debate by “zooming out”, temporally and spatially. Actors and analysts of current affairs are often surprisingly unaware of the wider historical context in which many burning issues of the present are part. Worse, they often mobilize distorted and “fake” histories to advance their arguments. Clearly, historians have a moral duty to oppose this by unpacking the historical complexity of the present. Based on examples from the fields of energy and water history, I argue that it can be extremely fruitful to do so not merely by writing opinion pieces or giving radio and TV interviews, but rather by making the link between past and present explicit in their academic books and articles. Theoretically, historians can mobilize concepts and theoretical ideas generated in the context of historical research, and apply them to present-day burning issues. This creates a basis for systematically engaging in debates about analogies between current issues and historical events. In this case there is no need for an empirical overlap, in the sense that conceptualizations of, say, medieval forestry can be of relevance for engaging in twentyfirst century debates about electrical vehicles. Theory-based analogies can and should be mobilized not only for developing new “perspectives” on current affairs, but also for warning present-day actors about what can go wrong. Unfortunately, many false and “fake” analogies are always circulating, and over-simplifications are common. Paradoxically, however, I argue that at the theoretical level, historians actually need to simplify in order to make sense of their contributions to the debate.

Short Bio:
Per Högselius is Professor of History of Technology and International Relations at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Working at the intersection between history of technology and environmental history, he has written on European & global energy history, natural resource extraction in colonial settings, transnational infrastructures in their cultural & political context, coastal history & the transnational Baltic Sea region. His books include: Red Gas: Russia and the Origins of European Energy Dependence (2013), Europe’s Infrastructure Transition: Economy, War, Nature (2016, with Arne Kaijser & Erik van der Vleuten) and Energy and Geopolitics (2019).