This review essay aims to reconstruct the main tenets of the “narrative constructivist” position defended by Kalle Pihlainen in his book titled Historia fallida and to lay out some of the ambiguities this position generates. I begin by exposing the core commitments underwriting this theoretical project and insist upon the centrality of the distinction between constructivism and constructionism and upon the arguments he advances against the contemporary approaches in the theory of history that advocate the idea of an experience or a presence of the past. Then, I outline the criticism he levels against the understanding of historians’ work as a “conversation with the past” and highlight that, on Pihlainen’s account, a responsible historical enterprise must necessarily assume the unavailability of the past and, hence, the ontological distinction between the present and the past. In the final part of the essay, I formulate three interrogations with regard to the overall orientation of this project. First, drawing on Reinhart Koselleck’s concept of a “historical nonsynchronicity,” I question the possibility of establishing a clear-cut separation between the past and the present and show that the present is never a homogenous field, for it entails different levels of temporality and a plurality of conflicting registers of meaning. Then, I challenge the description of the past as “a closed domain with no room for interaction.” Finally, I point out that the gap Pihlainen introduces between historical narratives and existential narratives cannot be maintained insofar as the historian’s practice must be anthropologically grounded—that is, it must be understood as drawing on a narrative capacity (narrativeness) that belongs to the human life-form.
[LINK]