Epistemolojiden Temsile, Temsilden Tarihsel Deneyime: Ankersmit’in Tarih Felsefesi Üzerine Eleştirel Bir Çözümleme

Öz

Bu makale, Frank Ankersmit’in epistemolojiden temsile ve temsilden tarihsel deneyime uzanan kavramsal izleğini, tarihsel bilginin geçmişle ve gerçeklikle olan bağını temellendirmek bakımından yeterli bir çerçeve sunup sunamadığı sorusu etrafında eleştirel biçimde incelemektedir. Ankersmit, tarih felsefesinin gelişimini betimleme/açıklama, anlam/yorum ve temsil olmak üzere birbirini izleyen üç aşamanın hâkimiyeti olarak okur ve temsili bu gelişimin yeni kavramsal çerçevesi olarak önerir. Bu öneride tarihsel anlam, tekil önermelerin doğruluğuna değil anlatı tözlerinin oluşturduğu temsil bütünlerine bağlanır ve anlamın kaynağı temsil edilen şeyden temsil eyleminin kendisine taşınır. Makale, söz konusu kavrayışın epistemolojinin tarihsel temsil düzeyindeki yapısal yetersizliğini görünür kıldığını kabul etmekle birlikte, temsil kuramının kendi kavramsal yapısının epistemolojiden kazanılan mesafeyi yeniden kapatan gerilimler ürettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ankersmit’in kopuş ve kayıp düşüncesiyle bağlantılı olarak Burke ve Kant’ın yüce kavramı üzerinden geliştirdiği tarihsel deneyim anlayışı, kendi düşünsel çerçevesi içinde tutarlı bir yönelim oluşturmakla birlikte, dil ile deneyimi birbirini dışlayan alanlar olarak kurması nedeniyle doğruluk-öncesi deneyimin tarihyazımı pratiğine hangi yollarla dâhil olabileceğini belirsiz bırakmakta ve tarihsel deneyim ile tarihyazımı arasında kurulması gereken bağı geri plana itmektedir. Temsil kuramında geçmişle ve gerçeklikle ilişkinin statüsü, tarihsel deneyim anlayışında ise deneyimin tarihyazımına dâhil edilme yolları bakımından ortaya çıkan güçlükleri Ankersmit’in metinleri ile bu metinlere ilişkin eleştirel ve geliştirici değerlendirmeler üzerinden karşılaştırmalı biçimde çözümleyen makale, tarihsel bilginin temellendirilmesi sorununun her iki aşamada da ortadan kalkmayıp farklı bir düzlemde yeniden belirdiğini ileri sürerek tarih felsefesi ile tarihyazımı arasındaki ilişkinin nasıl kurulması gerektiğini tartışmaya açmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Frank Ankersmit
• Tarihsel temsil
• Tarihsel deneyim
• Epistemoloji
• Yüce.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, insan katılımcılar, hayvanlar veya kişisel veriler üzerinde herhangi bir veri toplama süreci içermeyen, tamamen teorik ve literatüre dayalı bir araştırma niteliğindedir. Bu nedenle etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir.

From Epistemology to Representation, from Representation to Historical Experience: A Critical Analysis of Ankersmit’s Philosophy of History

Öz

This article critically examines Frank Ankersmit’s conceptual trajectory from epistemology to representation and from representation to historical experience, addressing the question of whether this trajectory offers an adequate framework for grounding the connection between historical knowledge and both the past and reality. Ankersmit reads the development of the philosophy of history as the successive predominance of three phases—description/explanation, meaning/interpretation, and representation—and proposes representation as the new conceptual framework of this development. In this proposal, historical meaning is tied not to the truth of singular statements but to the representational wholes constituted by narrative substances, and the source of meaning is relocated from the represented to the act of representation itself. While acknowledging that this conception exposes the structural inadequacy of epistemology at the level of historical representation, the article demonstrates that the conceptual structure of representation theory itself generates tensions that close off the very distance gained from epistemology. Ankersmit’s conception of historical experience, developed through Burke’s and Kant’s concept of the sublime in connection with his notions of rupture and loss, constitutes a coherent orientation within his own framework; yet, by construing language and experience as mutually exclusive domains, it leaves unclear the ways in which an experience prior to truth and falsity can be incorporated into the practice of historiography, and pushes into the background the connection that must be established between historical experience and historiography. The article analyzes these difficulties comparatively, drawing on Ankersmit’s texts together with critical and constructive assessments of them: in representation theory, the difficulty concerns the status of the connection with the past and reality; in the conception of historical experience, it concerns the ways experience can be incorporated into historiography. On this basis, it argues that the problem of grounding historical knowledge does not disappear at either stage but reemerges on a different plane, thereby opening for discussion the question of how the relationship between the philosophy of history and historiography ought to be constituted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Frank Ankersmit
• Historical Representation
• Historical Experience
• Epistemology
• The Sublime

Etik Beyan

This study is a purely theoretical and literature-based research that does not involve any data collection process involving human participants, animals, or personal data. Therefore, it does not require ethics committee approval.

Kaynakça

1. Ankersmit, F. R. (1983). Narrative logic: A semantic analysis of the historian’s language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
2. Ankersmit, F. R. (1988). Historical representation. History and Theory, 27(3), 205-228.
3. Ankersmit, F. R. (1989). Historiography and postmodernism. History and Theory, 28(2), 137-153.
4. Ankersmit, F. R. (1995a). Historicism: An attempt at synthesis. History and Theory, 34(3), 143-161.
5. Ankersmit, F. R. (1995b). Reply to Professor Iggers. History and Theory, 34(3), 168-173.
6. Ankersmit, F. R. (1998a). Danto on representation, identity, and indiscernibles. History and Theory [Special issue: Danto and His Critics: Art History, Historiography and After the End of Art], 37(4), 44-70.
7. Ankersmit, F. R. (1998b). Hayden White’s appeal to the historians. History and Theory, 37(2), 182-193.
8. Ankersmit, F. R. (2000). Representation as the representation of experience. Metaphilosophy, 31(1–2).148-168.

9. Ankersmit, F. R. (2001). The sublime dissociation of the past: Or how to be(come) what one is no longer. History and Theory, 40(3), 295-323.
10. Ankersmit, F. R. (2005). Sublime historical experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11. Ankersmit, F. R. (2006). Presence and myth. History and Theory, 45(4), 328-336.
12. Ankersmit, F. R. (2007). Political representation and political experience: An essay on political psychology. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 11(1), 21-44. DOI: 10.7227/R.11.1.3
13. Ankersmit, F. R. (2011). The transfiguration of distance into function. History and Theory, 50(4), 136-149. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2011.00608.x
14. Ankersmit, F. R. (2024). Representation: The birth of historical reality from the death of the past. New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Ankersmit, F. R. (2026) “Historical Reality: A Manifesto,” History and Theory 65 (1), 83-114. DOI: 10.1111/hith.70028
16. Burke, E. (1824). A philosophical inquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful: With several other additions. London: Thomas M’Lean.
17. Clark, J. O. (2013). Aesthetic experience, subjective historical experience and the problem of constructivism. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 7(1), 57-81. DOI:10.1163/18722636-12341244
18. Collingwood, R. G. (1996). Tarih tasarımı (Çev. K. Dinçer). Ankara: Gündoğan Yayınları.
19. Croce, B. (1909). Aesthetic as science of expression and general linguistic (Trans. by D. Ainslie). London, UK: Macmillan.
20. Domanska, E. (2009). Frank Ankersmit: From narrative to experience. Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice, 13(2), 175-195. DOI: 10.1080/13642520902833809
21. Dilthey, W. (2012). Hermeneutik ve tin bilimleri (Çev. D. Özlem). İstanbul: Notos Kitap.
22. Ghosh, R. (2007). Interdisciplinarity and the ‘doing’ of history: A dialogue between F. R. Ankersmit and Ranjan Ghosh. Rethinking History, 11(2), 225-249.
23. Kant, I. (2002). Critique of the power of judgment (Trans. by P. Guyer & E. Matthews). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Jameson, F. (1972). The prison-house of language: A critical account of structuralism and Russian formalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Jay, M. (2005). Songs of experience: Modern American and European variations on a universal theme. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26. Jay, M. (2018). Sublime historical experience, real presence and photography. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 12(3), 432-449. DOI: 10.1163/18722636-12341406
27. Jay, M. (2026). Origami philosophy of history. History and Theory, 65(1), 115-132. [Review of Representation: The Birth of Historical Reality from the Death of the Past, by F. R. Ankersmit]. DOI: 10.1111/hith.12386
28. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Lorenz, C. (1998). Can histories be true? Narrativism, positivism, and the “metaphorical turn”. History and Theory, 37(3), 309-329.
30. McCullagh, C. B. (1984). Review of Narrative logic: A semantic analysis of the historian’s language, by F. R. Ankersmit. History and Theory, 23(3), 394-403.
31. Moskalewicz, M. (2007). Sublime experience and politics: Interview with Professor Frank Ankersmit. Rethinking History, 11(2), 251-274.
32. Roth, P. A. (2013). Whistling history: Ankersmit's neo-Tractarian theory of historical representation. Rethinking History, 17(4), 548-569.
33. Runia, E. (2006). Presence. History and Theory, 45(1), 1-29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2006.00346.x
34. Iggers, G. G. (1995). Comments on F. R. Ankersmit’s paper, “Historicism: An attempt at synthesis”. History and Theory, 34(3), 162-167.
35. Zammito, J. (2005). Ankersmit and historical representation. History and Theory, 44(2), 155-181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00316.x
36. Zeleňák, E. (2013). Semantics of historical representation in terms of aspects. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 7, 244-256. DOI: 10.1163/18722636-12341252
37. White, H. (1984). Review of the book Narrative logic: A semantic analysis of the historian's language, by F. R. Ankersmit. The American Historical Review, 89(4), 1037-1038.