How do you feel contemporary history, particularly of social movements, can be considered distinct from other disciplines that treat contemporary events (political science, sociology, anthropology, etc.), and how do you draw on other disciplinary methodologies and insights in your work? 96 A & Q 3. How would you define the chronology of “contemporary history” in your field, and how do you think that responds to ideas about national, regional, or global history? 2. Contributors were asked to respond to one or more of the following questions: 1. This A&Q brings together five scholars working on contemporary (and often contested) Asian and Asian American histories of social movements to consider the diverse approaches that define a historian’s engagement with the recent past. All these factors can become even more complex when the historian writes about recent social movements, the legacies of which are still very much alive and the stakes of which extend far beyond academe. Those who choose to use oral histories find that the methodology creates its own issues, engaging historians in difficult questions concerning ethnography, language, memory, and narrative. Furthermore, the subjects of contemporary history are often living, and contemporary historians must consider the ethical implications of how their work intersects with individual lives and recent events.

It is a contested and contingent set of fields in dialogue with other disciplines, such as political science, sociology, anthropology, and legal studies. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Ī & Q 95 A&Q Contemporary History/Contended History Contemporary history explores a past very close to the present and responds directly to current political, social, and economic formations, but the definition of “contemporary history” itself depends on the genealogy and definitions assigned by historiography, which vary depending on national and global conventions of historical chronology.

The Historian's Craft by Marc Bloch