The Lovejoy approach The historian
Arthur O. Lovejoy (1873–1962) coined the phrase
history of ideas, and initiated its systematic study, in the early decades of the 20th century.
Johns Hopkins University was a "fertile cradle" to Lovejoy's history of ideas; he worked there as a professor of history, from 1910 to 1939, and for decades he presided over the regular meetings of the
History of Ideas Club. Another outgrowth of his work is the
Journal of the History of Ideas. Aside from his students and colleagues engaged in related projects (such as
René Wellek and
Leo Spitzer, with whom Lovejoy engaged in extended debates), scholars such as
Isaiah Berlin,
Michel Foucault,
Christopher Hill,
J. G. A. Pocock, and others have continued to work in a spirit close to that with which Lovejoy pursued the history of ideas. The first chapter of Lovejoy's book
The Great Chain of Being (1936) lays out a general overview of what he intended to be the programme and scope of the study of the history of ideas. That the historian of ideas must be sensitive to the cultural context of the texts and ideas under analysis. Skinner's
historical method is based upon the theory of speech acts, proposed by
J.L. Austin. In turn, scholars criticized Skinner's historical method because of his inclination to
reify social structures and sociological constructs in place of the historical actors of the period under study. The philosopher
Andreas Dorschel said that Skinner's restrictive approach to ideas, through verbal language, and notes that ideas can materialize in non-linguistic media and genres, such as music and architecture. The historian
Dag Herbjørnsrud said that "the Skinner perspective is in danger of shutting the door to comparative philosophy, and the search for common problems and solutions across borders and time." The historian
Peter Gordon said that unlike Lovejoy's practise of the History of Ideas, the praxis of Intellectual History studies and deals with ideas in broad historical contexts. That unlike historians of ideas and philosophers (
History of Philosophy), intellectual historians, "tend to be more relaxed about crossing the boundary between philosophical texts and non-philosophical contexts . . . [Intellectual historians regard] the distinction between 'philosophy' and 'non-philosophy' as something that is, itself, historically conditioned, rather than eternally fixed." Therefore, intellectual history is a means for reproducing a historically valid interpretation of a philosophical argument, by implementation of a context in which to study ideas and philosophical movements. Foucault said that historians should reveal historical descriptions through the use of different perspectives of the "archaeology of knowledge", whose historical method for writing history is in four ideas. First, the archaeology of knowledge defines the period of history through philosophy, by way of the discourses among
thought,
representation, and themes. Second, that the notion of discontinuity has an important role in the disciplines of history. Third, that discourse does not seek to grasp the moment in history, wherein the social and the persons under study are inverted into each other. Fourth, that Truth is not the purpose of history, but the discourse contained in history.
Long period approach Global intellectual history In the 21st century, the field of
global intellectual history has received increased attention. In 2013,
Samuel Moyn and Andrew Sartori published the anthology
Global Intellectual History. In 2016, the Routledge journal
Global Intellectual History (edited by
Richard Whatmore) was established.
J. G. A. Pocock and
John Dunn are among those who recently have argued for a more global approach to intellectual history in contrast to
Eurocentrism. ==See also==