The situation of ITH (some basics)
Starting point of the discussion and the resultant proposals
was the finding that in Europe labour history is permanently outdated and
hardly present as an independent field of research, whereas in other regions
of the world (in particular in economically emerging regions, e.g. in South
America [Brazil], India, South Africa), under the influence of new social
movements, the interest in labour history undergoes a significant upturn,
including the posing of new questions.
The old function of ITH as a bridge between the political
systems of the “East” and the “West” seams as obsolete
as an approach towards labour history, which is led by partiality (both
in the sense of [either social democratic or communist] partisanship and
of a historiography which deals predominantly with party politics).
The labour movement (or, more precisely, its non-stalinist section) is not
present at all among those basic points of reference in European history
from which might arise a kind of common European memory. And this politics
of memory affects also the focus of historical research.
Strategic orientation
On the one hand ITH should not leave the field of labour history
(based on a concept of “labour” which transcends classic wage
labour) and history of related social movements, in order to maintain its
uniqueness as a worldwide pooling of associations and institutes which concentrate
their research activities on that field. But ITH should align its sphere
of action and the topics of its conferences in a more global way. ITH’s
function as a bridge which operated historically between “East”
and “West” should be renewed by a scholarly dialogue between
“North” and “South”.
ITH should try to take up the impulses of the emerging labour history of
the “South” and by that contribute to a renewal and enrichment
of European and North American historiography. Aim of this dialogue should
be the formation of a globally oriented community of labour historians,
within which an exchange of ideas between historians of old and new centres
of this historiography takes place.
To create such a meeting point would respond to a genuine desideratum: there
is no globally oriented network which could perform that task.
On the other hand ITH should reinforce its networking activities.
By doing that ITH can count on big member institutes (IISH, ISB Bochum,
FES, Centre d'Histoire Sociale, Paris), which should inject their own networks.
Such a meeting point could gain attraction also beyond the academic milieu
– given the diversified interest for economic development and labour
relations in “emerging countries”.
This connection of scholarly research to the level of implementation (expressed,
e.g., by the close link between ITH and organizations of the labour movement
[in Austria: of Chamber of Labour and Federation of Unions]) has been a
characteristic of ITH.
On the organizational level ITH’s network function should be reinforced
by intensifying the contacts to existing member institutes and by attracting
new members in the “South”. Also a reorganization and a more
frequent update of the website and the regular communication via Rundbrief/Newsletter
should provide a better network communication.
The necessary nodal points could be achieved on the international level
by a stronger involvement of the big member institutes and on the national
Austrian level by closer ties with university institutes (like the Institute
for Economic and Social History of the University of Vienna).
In order to realize such a perspective ITH should try the following:
ITH should maintain the conference organization in Linz – with people who work together as a good team – but this framework should be supplemented by the co-organization of conferences or workshops in between (“in-between-conferences”) at changing places. Maybe a two-years rhythm might be considered with alternating Linz conferences and “in-between-conferences”.
The programming of the conference themes should be accorded
with the big member institutes, in order to prevent a self-isolation of
ITH. This does not mean that conferences or trends should be copied. It
is necessary to organize original conferences which differ clearly from
existing projects of partner institutes. Essential is the coordination with
active member institutes. These institutes should communicate the content
of their projects to ITH, and they are ready to support ITH if common perspectives
become apparent.
On the other hand it is necessary that the preparatory committee for the
respective ITH conference (which has to be composed of experts who know
the fields of research on an international level) works that well that a
CFP has to be published, if at all, as a completion for an elaborated structure
of the conference. This requires a professional planning of the content
of the conference.
Arguments for a medium-term cycle of conference themes:
These pros seem to prevail cons like the discouragement of
ITH members who are not interested in the topic of the respective medium-term
cycle.
Superordinated topics for more than one (e.g. three subsequent) Linz conferences
might bind scholars to ITH for a longer period. Such medium-term topics
should also facilitate fundraising. Generally, financing of ITH activities
should be sought increasingly by project endowment, e.g. by subsidies of
European research funding institutions.
The conference themes should be embedded in a global perspective. Already this year’s Linz conference “Labour and Right-Wing Extremism” is led by the question whether the conceptions “right-wing extremism” and “labour movement” can be thought globally and if that makes sense. (The organization of this conference is, besides the tasks in connection with the new orientation of ITH, a focus of ITH activities in 2006.)
From 2007, a general topic for the next
three years, could be started: “Labour
history beyond borders”. Both Linz conferences and "in-between-conferences"
should be put into this framework.
Until 2009 the following topics should be themes of
conferences:
Summary of the proposals: