Abstract
In his book Regimes of Historicity: Presentism and Experiences of Time (2003; Engl. trans. 2015), Hartog develops a new notion, that of the 'regime of historicity', with a view to describing the different relations societies entertain with their own historicity, their different 'experiences of time'. He applies this concept to our present epoch, which, according to him, makes available a new experience of time, founded in the primacy of the present: presentism. This diagnosis is advanced as a hypothesis which itself exhibits two sides, depending on whether presentism is thought as a provisional phase or whether, on the contrary, it is taken to be a durable state, our new 'regime of historicity'. In this article, I want to come to terms with the epistemological and semantic status of the concept of a 'regime of historicity', situated at the intersection of anthropology (1) and of the theory of history developed in the German tradition (Reinhart Koselleck) (2). Then, I would like to examine the way in which Hartog makes use of this concept as a methodological instrument, making it possible for him to distinguish several regimes of historicity and to lay them out periodically (3). Finally, I would like to discuss the thesis of a contemporary 'presentism' in both of its two versions, 'stopgap' or 'new state' (4). Hence my question: how far can our contemporary experience of time be reduced to the category of 'presentism'?