If a historical sensibility informs our views, the election was probably a toxic brew of these interconnected necessary conditions logrolling into a unique sufficient condition. It was not likely brought about by only racism and sexism, those left behind by the modern economy, reactionary cultural forces, or any other single cause. Two features of historical sensibility, for instance, are a willingness to entertain multi-causal explanations for complex events and an acceptance of uncertainty in human relations. But how exactly do policymakers apply historical sensibility to today’s illiberal moment? To start, examine the components of Gavin’s notion in the context of today’s global politics. Rather, it is what Francis Gavin calls “historical sensibility.” Such a sensibility, Gavin argues, is defined by a “familiarity with the past and its powerful and often unpredictable rhythms.” It is a “practice, mental awareness, discernment, responsiveness to the past and how it unfolded into our present world.” The study of history from such a perspective may offer policymakers a respite from today’s howling winds of illiberalism. This is not history as clumsy analogy, shown by Harvard historian Earnest May as often impeding sound policy. Historical knowledge can prepare policymakers for this moment of contested liberalism. The importance of universal human rights, the rule of law, international organizations, alliances of democracies, global trade, and economic integration, among other facets of modern liberal international and domestic orders, are all hotly contested. Those policymakers who thought the ideological struggle for liberalism’s primacy in domestic and international politics was settled are shocked by the realization that the battle is far from won. A set of political and economic ideas that lifted people from poverty, expanded and protected human dignity, and offered a vision of liberty and justice for all are today lamented on both the left and right. With the election of decidedly illiberal Donald Trump, the rise of nationalist and nativist parties across Europe, and the specter of a resurgent and repressive Russia, the citadel of liberalism appears under siege. She also will bring in a comparison of Ho Chi Minh’s cults to the cults of other communist leaders.The cracks in liberalism are growing. She is currently working on a monograph titled Ho Chi Minh’s Cult in Vietnamese Statehood, where, among other things, she focuses on the examination of Ho Chi Minh’s cult in the construction and maintaining the Vietnamese state. Among her awards are a National Endowment for Humanities Fellowship, a Henry Luce National Humanities Center Fellowship, a fellowship of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Nantes, France, and a Dan David International Fellowship. Her articles have appeared in the leading journals of several fields Journal of Asian Studies, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Journal of Social History, Journal of Cold War Studies. Her most recent monograph Making Two Vietnams: War and Youth Identities, 1965-1975 was published in 2018 by Cambridge University Press. The focus of her research ranges from Vietnamese and Chinese theistic religions and European missionaries in Asia in early modern times to the study of the civilian experience during the Tet Offensive in Hue, to North and South Vietnamese youth during the Second Indochina War to political religions. She has authored, translated, and co-edited five books and numerous articles. Educated in the Soviet Union, Israel, and the United States, Olga Dror is currently a professor of history at Texas A&M University.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |