Call for papers for the Special Issue ''Theory of history after the linguistic turn''

Not so long ago, the scenario of theory of history was dominated by reflections on the linguistic turn, from national and international events to publications in the field. The discussions were mainly around the work of Hayden White, often labeled as relativist or postmodern and, in more mature moments of the discussion, identified as an author who contributed to reflecting on the ethical and epistemological dimensions of the historical text, not only considering its formal-aesthetic dimension as a “literary artifact”.  We can say that, since Metahistory, published in 1973, and Practical Past, in 2014, the American historian's works have marked generations on scholars associated with the field of historical theory. After his death, would the strength of the debate on the linguistic turn and the narrativist philosophies of history also have died? Not only the work of Hayden White, but also that of Louis Mink, Paul Roth, Frank Ankersmit and other so-called narrativists; would the analytical philosophy of history with William Dray and Carl Hempel have met its demise? This tradition of thought in History Theory seems to have faded away. Has it run out of steam, reached the limits of the conclusions it could reach? Or are their reflections still valid?With the emergence of new reflections on historical temporality, such as the work of Zoltán Boldizsár Simon and the work of Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen on the post-narrativist philosophy of history, as well as reflections on the Anthropocene and an epistemological view of history that is decentralized from the European core, it seems that today it has taken on the prominence that the analytical philosophy of history and the linguistic turn once had in the field of historical theory. However, in various academic areas it is also possible to find studies that deepen and develop the narrativist program, extending its reach to other forms of constructing historical knowledge and representing events from the past, such as cinema and digital media, but which also do not renounce the epistemological-cognitive power of historiography. In this sense, this proposal is intended as a memorial to these discussions, but not as an obituary, assessing the vitality that these debates can still bring to the field of theory and history as a whole. Thus, it is hoped that the dossier will be a valuable opportunity for different perspectives to be expressed and put into dialogue, beyond (or alongside) the theoretical and thematic currents that may be defining the direction and/or agenda of research in the field today.