Online submission: Articles for publication in Journal of the Philosophy of History can be submitted online through Editorial Manager, please click here.

Download Author Instructions (PDF).
Chiel van den Akker, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Founding Editor-in-Chief
Frank R. Ankersmit, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Giuseppina D’Oro, Keele University, UK
Allan Megill, University of Virginia, VA, USA
Marek Tamm, Tallinn University, Estonia
Verónica Tozzi Thompson, University of Buenos Aires, National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET)

Review Editor
Eugen Zeleňak, Catholic University, Ruzomberok, Slovakia

Editorial Assistant
Georg Gangl, University of Oulu, Finland

Advisory Board
Berber Bevernage, University of Ghent, Belgium
Mark Bevir, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
David Carr, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Jonathan Gorman, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK
Nicholas Jardine, Cambridge University, UK
Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, University of Oulu, Finland
Jeff Malpas, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Herman Paul, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Joe Rouse, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA
Quentin Skinner, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Hans Sluga, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Karsten Stueber, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA
Georgia Warnke, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
John H. Zammito, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault: A Comparison of their Historical Methodologies

The status of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault as theorists have never been higher, to the extent that both thinkers now have journals dedicated solely to their thought. Furthermore, scholars have to some extent begun to explore the potential common ground between them, in particular focusing on the different ways in which Arendt and Foucault conceptualize power, subjectivity, and the self. Much less, however, has been said about the possible comparison of Arendt and Foucault’s thoughts on the nature of tradition, modernity, history, politics, and the Enlightenment, or their common intellectual influences – notably Kant and Nietzsche. But drawing the two together makes considerable sense, both for contemporary reasons, and, relatedly, for more scholarly ones.

In contemporary terms, Arendt and Foucault both addressed questions that are of considerable current relevance, notably the impact of technology on the possibility for creating a common ‘world’ for humans to inhabit and make authentic individual choices, and on the conditions that enable there to be a flourishing public space for dialogue. On a more scholarly level, this raises questions which both tackled about how much ‘emancipation’ is possible in modernity and its aftermath – to what degree is ‘authentic’ (political) action still a worthy and plausible goal? This in turn suggests enquiries, undertaken by both theorists, about how to investigate a Western ‘tradition’ that they see as much defined by discontinuity as by continuity - not least to see the degree to which its concepts (such as ‘liberty’ and ‘authority’) can still be fruitfully used, and the extent to which they retain their original meanings. More specifically, this also raises questions about how both theorists conceptualize the Enlightenment: to what extent can it be said that both Arendt and Foucault seek to retain aspects of its modernizing program, while jettisoning its metaphysical commitments and its more naïve progressive assumptions? The following questions may help to sharpen these points:

How far can Arendt and Foucault’s stress on historical discontinuity bring them fruitfully into dialogue? To what extent can Arendt’s emphasis on the ‘breakdown’ of the Western tradition and its implications for history be usefully compared to Foucault’s conception of genealogy? How far can Arendt and Foucault’s approaches to intellectual history be tied to their common interest in Kant and/or Nietzsche? To what extent do Arendt and Foucault try to uphold aspects of the Enlightenment while rejecting its metaphysical foundations? Do the turn of both Arendt and Foucault to ancient Greece reveal commonalities or differences in the way that they view Western history?

The Journal of the Philosophy of History plans a special issue to explore Arendt and Foucault’s approaches to historical method (broadly conceived) and intellectual history, and, relatedly, their approaches to modernity and ‘critique’ in general.

Papers (c.8,000 words) are to be submitted by 1st February 2024. Papers will be reviewed by the editor of the special issue and at least one external reviewer. The final revised papers are due 1st June 2024. Guidelines can be found on the journal’s webpage. The special issue will be edited by Dr Edmund Neill (Associate Professor of Modern History, Northeastern University, London).

Potential participants are invited to send abstracts of up to 500 words emailed as an attachment by 1st May 2023. Authors will be notified of decisions within one month of this deadline.

Suggestions for papers might include (but are not limited to):

Arendt and Foucault on Modernity and Post-Modernity
Arendt and Foucault on the Enlightenment
Arendt and Foucault – Intellectual History and Critique
Arendt and Foucault – Debts to Marx and/or Nietzsche
Arendt and Foucault and the ancient Greeks
Arendt and Foucault on Tradition and Critique
Arendt and Foucault as ‘Conservatives’
Arendt and Foucault on the relationship of History, Social Sciences and other Discourses
Arendt and Foucault on the History of Resistance
Arendt and Foucault on the history of power relations

Edmund Neill:
Arts and Humanities Citation Index
Current Contents/Arts & Humanities
Current Abstracts
Humanities International Complete
Humanities International Index
Humanities Source
Humanities Source Ultimate
International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB)
International Review of Biblical Studies
TOC Premier (Table of Contents)
Web of Science
Chiel van den Akker is Associate Professor in Philosophy of History at the Department of Art and Culture, History and Antiquities at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He is the author of The Modern Idea of History and its Value. An Introduction (2020) and The Exemplifying Past. A Philosophy of History (2018).

Journal of the Philosophy of History

Chiel van den Akker
Search for other papers by Chiel van den Akker in
Current site
Google Scholar
For Brill's Open Access policy, please click here.

The Journal of the Philosophy of History (JPH) is devoted to the philosophical examination of history as a mode of thought and our existence in time.

The journal assumes that epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy are incomplete if they ignore history. Once we historicize the relationship of mind and world, we raise a number of philosophical problems that call for a deeper analysis and that are of the greatest significance for an adequate understanding of how knowledge and self-understanding are possible.

The journal covers a wide range of questions: questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge, the metaphysics of historical existence, the intelligibility of the historical process, and questions concerning the value, ethics and politics of history-writing.

The Journal of the Philosophy of History is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and welcomes contributions from all the branches of philosophy. It also welcomes the writing of history in so far as it elucidates and possibly solves philosophical problems.
  • Print Only
  • Print + Online
  • Online only
  • To place an order, please contact
  • Print Only
  • Online only
  • To place an order, please contact

Latest Articles

Restricted Access
Restricted Access
Restricted Access