1. Benz, Wolfgang, ed., Die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Frankfurt, 1989) esp. vol. 3: Gesellschaft and vol. 4: KulturGoogle Scholar. Bark, Dennis L. and Gress, David R., A History of West Germany, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar

2. Maier, Charles S., The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German Identity (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1988), 168–72Google Scholar. To be sure, Maier leaves the issue undecided. Behind the mask of the carnevalesque lurks Baktin, Mikhail, Rabelais and His World, trans. Iswolsky, H. (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar, and the rediscovery of alterity.

3. Especially Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix, Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Masumi, B. (Minneapolis, 1987)Google Scholar. On the (very different) German turns against hyperrealist theories see van Reijen, Willem, ed., Die unvollendete Vernunft: Moderne vs. Postmoderne (Frankfurt, 1982).Google Scholar

4. Jolles, André, Einfache Formen: Legende, Sage, Mythe, Rätsel, Spruch, Kasus, Memorabile, Märchen, Witz, 2d ed. (Halle, 1956).Google Scholar

5. During a memorable lecture on film and memory Anton Kaes (see n. 53) showed a film clip from Monty Python's “Holy Grail” in which Lancelot is lost in the fog of a medieval forest only to end up on a modern English street. Lancelot is frisked by two policemen who find a character dressed up in medieval clothes highly suspicious. Is this the fate of the Rankean historians' search for veracity, asked Kaes.

6. Stürmer, Michael, “Mitten in Europa: Versuchung und Verdammnis der Deutschen,” Dissonanzen des Fortschritts: Essays über Geschichte und Politik in Deutschland (Munich and Zurich, 1986), 314Google Scholar, in which the (cultural) conditio becomes the (geographic) site and vice versa.

7. Kocka, Jürgen, Geschichte und Aufklärung (Göttingen, 1989).Google Scholar

8. See generally Maier, Unmasterable Past, passim. Merkel, Reinhard, “Wahnbild Nation,” Die Zeit (16 03 1990), 18Google Scholar, is a gloss on recent publications. Our use of the “imaginary” (l'imaginaire social) reflects the oeuvres of Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort who both emphasize the creative/constructive core of the social historical world. See the brief summary in Thompson, John B., Studies in the Theory of Ideology (Berkeley, 1984), 16–41Google Scholar. The most powerful recent statement on this issue is Meszaros, Istvan, The Power of Ideology (New York, 1989)Google Scholar. The most successful historiographic rendition of the social imaginary is Veyne, Paul, Writing History: Essay on Epistemology, trans. Moore-Riuvolucri, M. (Middletown, Conn., 1984).Google Scholar

9. Taylor, A. J. P., The Origins of the Second World War (London, 1961)Google Scholar, and his The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar, are good examples of this older national historiography. The debate on the Taylor thesis shows how this paradigmatic view is replaced. See Louis, William Roger, ed., The Origins of the Second World War: A J. P. Taylor and His Critics (New York, 1972)Google Scholar. The most popular alternative text was Stern, Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology (Berkeley, 1961)Google Scholar. The rediscovery of “national character” since the late 1970s is a German preoccupation. See among the “makers” of such imaginaries Weidenfeld, Werner, ed., Die Identität der Deutschen (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar, and among the dissectors Drews, Axel, Gerhard, Ute, and Link, Jürgen, “Moderne Kollektivsymbolik: Eine diskurstheoretische orientierte Einführung mit Auswahlbibliographie,” Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur (1985), Sonderheft 1, 256–374Google Scholar. By far the most successful analysis of this syndrome is the special issue of the South Atlantic Quarterly 87 (1988), no. 3: “Postmodernism and Japan.”Google Scholar

10. Stern, Fritz, “German History in America, 1884–1984,” Central European History 19 (1986):131–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the basic assessment by Krieger, Leonard, “European History in America,” History, ed. Higham, John (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965), 233–313.Google Scholar

11. Berghahn, Volker, “Deutschlandbilder 1945–1965: Angloamerikanische Historiker und moderne deutsche Geschichte,” Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg 1945–1965, ed. Schulin, Ernst (Munich, 1989), 239–72.Google Scholar

12. Geyer, Michael, “Deutsche—Europäer—Weltbürger: Eine Überlegung zum Aufstieg und Fall des Modernismus in der Historiographie,” Deutschland und Europa in der Neuzeit: Festschrift für K.O. Freiherr von Aretin, ed. Melville, R. et al. (Stuttgart, 1988), 27–47Google Scholar; and the introduction of Jarausch, Konrad H. and Jones, Larry Eugene to In Search of a Liberal Germany: Studies in the History of German Liberalism (Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar

13. Schulze, Winfried, Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1945 (Munich, 1989)Google Scholar; Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “Historiography in Germany Today,” Observations on “The Spiritual Situation of the Age,” ed. Habermas, Jürgen, trans. Buchwalter, A. (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1987), 221–59Google Scholar. Faulenbach, Bernd, ed., Geschichtswissenschaft in Deutschland (Munich, 1974)Google Scholar; Mommsen, Wolfgang J., “Gegenwärtige Tendenzen in der Geschichtsschreibung der Bundesrepublik,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 7 (1981): 149–88.Google Scholar

14. Rüsen, Jörn, Grundzüge einer Historik, 3 vols. (Göttingen, 1983–1989)Google Scholar; Koselleck, Reinhart, Hermeneutik und Historik (Heidelberg, 1987).Google Scholar

15. Krieger, Leonard, Ranke: The Meaning of History (Chicago and London, 1977)Google Scholar, and his Time's Reasons: Philosophies of History Old and New (Chicago and London, 1989)Google Scholar. From within Germany, it looks as if the two were radically opposed. See Weber, Wolfgang, “The Long Reign and the Final Fall of the German Conception of History: A Historical-Sociological View,” Central European History 21 (1988): 379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Kocka, Jürgen and Nipperdey, Thomas, Theorie und Erzählung in der Geschichte (Munich, 1979)Google Scholar; Koselleck, Reinhart, Lutz, Heinrich, and Rüsen, Jörn, eds., Formen der Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1982).Google Scholar

17. Compare Hans-Ulrich Wehler's old with his new magnum opus: Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne and Berlin, 1969)Google Scholar and his recent Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, vols. 1 and 2 (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar. See also Habermas, Jürgen, Kleine politische Schriften, I-IV (Frankfurt, 1981)Google Scholar, Die neue Unübersichtlichkeit: Kleine politische Schriften V (Frankfurt, 1985)Google Scholar, with discussions on politics and modernity, culminating in “Geschichtsbewusstsein und posttraditionelle Identität:Die Westorientierung der Bundesrepublik,” EineArt Schadensabwicklung: Kleine politische Schriften VI (Frankfurt, 1987).Google Scholar

18. Hildebrand, Contrast Klaus, “Geschichte oder ‘Gesellschaftsgeschichte’? Die Notwendigkeit einer politischen Geschichtsschreibung von den internationalen Beziehungen,” Historische Zeitschrift 223 (1976): 328–75Google Scholar, with Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Geschichtswissenschaft jenseits des Historismus (Düsseldorf, 1971)Google Scholar. A polemical record of the academic wars informing this division is Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit? Ein polemischer Essay zum “Historikerstreit” (Munich, 1988).Google Scholar

19. See the outline of a discipline by Kocka, Jürgen, Sozialgeschichte: Begriff, Entwicklung, Probleme, 2d ed. (Göttingen, 1986)Google Scholar, and the germanocentrism of comparative history in idem, ed., Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich (Munich, 1988)Google Scholar—a project which could take its intellectual premises from Stern, Fritz, A German-American Century: Complementarity, Conflict, Collaboration, a speech delivered on the occasion of the German-American day, 10 6, 1988 (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

20. Rüsen, Jörn et al. , Die Zukunft der Aufklärung (Frankfurt, 1988)Google Scholar, and his earlier “Geschichte als Aufklärung? Oder das Dilemma des historischen Denkens zwischen Herrschaft und Emanzipation,“ Geschichte und Gesellschaft 7 (1981): 189–218Google Scholar. Most recently, Iggers, Georg G., “Rationality and History” (Buffalo, 1990, MS).Google Scholar

21. One can follow this trend both in journals like Freibeuter with its strong Italo-French leanings (including the Italo-French undercurrents of Americanism) and in the delayed reception of historians like LaCapra, Dominick, Geschichte und Kritik (Frankfurt, 1987)Google Scholar, or Geschichte Denken: Neubestimmung und Perspektiven moderner europäischer Geistesgeschichte (Frankfurt, 1988)Google Scholar. The German focus is still on mentalité. See Sellin, Volker, “Mentalität und Mentalitätsgeschichte,” Historische Zeitschrift 241 (1985): 556–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The subjectivist notion of consciousness hovers on the margins of literary-historical analysis. See Schöttler, Peter, “Sozialgeschichte, ‘Erfahrungsansatz’ und Sprachanalyse,” KultuRRevolution 11 (1986): 56–60.Google Scholar

22. Niethammer, Lutz, ed., “Die Menschen machen ihre Geschichte nicht aus freien Stücken, aber sie machen sie selbst”: Einladung zu einer Geschichte des Volkes in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar; and especially the three-volume series on the Ruhrgebiet: “Die jahre weiss man nicht, wo man die heute hinsetzen soil”: Faschismus-Erfahrungen im Ruhrgebiet (Bonn and Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar; “Hinterher merkl man, dass es richtig war, dass es schiefgegangen ist”: Nachkriegserfahrungen im Ruhrgebiet (Berlin and Bonn, 1983)Google Scholar; (together with A. von Plato), “Wir kriegen jetzt andere Zeiten”: Auf der Suche nach der Erfahrung des Volkes in nachfaschistischen Ländern (Bonn and Berlin, 1985)Google Scholar; Brüggemeier, F. J., Leute vor Ort: Ruhrbergleute und Ruhrbergbau 1889–1914 (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar. For the contrasting strategies of scientification see Kocka, Jürgen, “Klassen oder Kultur: Durchbrüche oder Sackgassen in der Arbeitergeschichte,” Merkur 36 (1982): 955–65Google Scholar; Tenfelde, Klaus, Sozialgeschichte der Bergarbeiterschaft an der Ruhr im 19. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1977)Google Scholar. Compare further the Volkskunde approach of Kaschuba, Wolfgang and Lipp, Carola, Dörfliches Überleben: Zur Geschichte der materiellen und sozialen Reproduktion ländlicher Gesellschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 1982)Google Scholar, with Mooser, Josef, Ländliche Klassengesellschaft 1780–1848: Bauern und Unterschichten, Landwirtschaft und Gewerbe im östlichen Westfalen (Göttingen, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Rather than fastening on Hans-Ulrich Wehler's legendary footnote on Frauengeschichte in his Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte (Munich, 1987), 1: 553Google Scholar, it is worth pointing to the rift between Koonz, Claudia, Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family, and Nazi Politics (New York, 1987)Google Scholar, and Bock, Gisela, “Die Frauen und der Nationalsozialismus: Bemerkungen zu einem Buch von Claudia Koonz,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 15 (1989): 563–79Google Scholar, which reflects the distance between two academic cultures.

24. This is not necessarily the agenda of every-day history, but it is surely the aim of Lüdtke, Alf, Alltagsgeschichte: Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt and New York, 1986)Google Scholar. The “classic” German text on this issue is quite unrelated to Alltagsgeschichte. It is Kluge, Alexander and Negt, Oskar, Geschichte und Eigensinn: Geschichtliche Organisation der Arbeitsvermögen; Deutschland als Produktionsöffentlichkeit; Gewalt des Zusammenhanges (Frankfurt, 1981).Google Scholar

25. The most formidable example of an integral approach is Maier, Charles S., Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar. See also Feldman, Gerald and Winkler, Heinrich A., ed., Organisierter Kapitalismus: Voraussetzungen und Anfänge (Göttingen, 1974)Google Scholar. In his contribution to this volume Feldman already indicates his turn to a historiographic hyperrealism which becomes overwhelming in his Iron and Steel in the German Inflation (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar. It is a most telling exercise to compare the latter with his Army, Industry, and Labor in Germany 1914–1918 (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar as one the foremost examples of a postwar American historical narrative. Note especially the economy of documentation and the paradigmatic quality of the narration in the earlier work.

26. Jarausch, Konrad, “German Social History—American Style,” Journal of Social History 19 (1985): 349–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his introduction to German Professions, 1800–1950, ed. Cocks, Geoffrey and Jarausch, Konrad (New York and Oxford, 1990), 9–24.Google Scholar

27. Evans, Richard J., ed., Society and Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (London and New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Blackbourn, David and Eley, Geoff, The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth Century Germany (New York and London, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Evans, Richard J., Rethinking German History: Nineteenth-Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich (London and Winchester, Mass., 1987).Google Scholar

29. Eley, Geoff, From Unification to Nazism: Reinterpreting the German Past (Boston and London, 1986).Google Scholar

30. Blackbourn, David, Populists and Patricians: Essays in Modern German History (London and Boston, 1987).Google Scholar

31. Kennedy, Paul, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (London and Boston, 1980)Google Scholar; Faulenbach, Bernd, Ideologie des deutschen Weges: Die deutsche Geschichte in der Historiographie zwischen Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus (Munich, 1980).Google Scholar

32. “Debate: Abraham's, DavidThe Collapse of the Weimar Republic,” Central European History 17 (1984): 159–293.Google Scholar

33. Stern, Fritz, Dreams and Delusions: The Drama of German History (New York, 1987)Google Scholar, and Craig, Gordon, The Germans (New York, 1982)Google Scholar. For Germany the same issue appears as a revival of museums and historical exhibitions. See Boockmann, Hartmut, Geschichte im Museum (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar; Frei, Alfred, “Der neue Museumsboom—Kultur für alle,” Neue Politische Literatur 32 (1986): 385–97Google Scholar; Zacharias, W., ed., Zeitphänomen Musealisierung: Das Verschwinden der Gegenwart und die Konstruktion der Erinnerung (Essen, 1990)Google Scholar. As alternative interpretation: Lübbe, Hermann, “Der Fortschritt und das Museum,” Dilthey Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Geschichte der Geisteswissenschaften 1 (1983): 39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar against the background of his analysis of contemporary culture Zeit-Verhältnisse: Zur Kulturgeschichte des Fortschritts (Graz and Vienna, 1983).Google Scholar

34. We have no desire to complicate an already complicated debate (summarized in Huyssen, Andreas, “Mapping the Postmodern,” After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism [Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1986], 179–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar), but it seems appropriate to think of the historicist multiplication effects and the “universal abandon” of postmodernism (Ross, Andrew, ed., Universal Abandon: The Politics of Postmodernism [Minneapolis, 1988]Google Scholar) as only one trend in the process of the reorganization of cultural capital. The other is very much a discussion with our ancients, partly because their agenda has become visible again, partly because this discussion helps formulating the difference of the present. The problem with this strategy consists in the dual challenge of (a) going back critically to the European sources for knowledge and (b) critically assessing the American organization of European cultural capital in the 1930s and 1940s. The fatal flaw of the postmodernist debate consists in its unwillingness to deal with the American configuration of cultural capital. The result is an evasive historicism.

35. On the German-French intellectual debate see among others Raulet, Gerhard, Gehemmte Zukunft: Zur gegenwärtigen Krise der Emanzipation (Darmstadt and Neuwied, 1986)Google Scholar, and especially Welsch, Wolfgang, Unsere Postmoderne Moderne (Weinheim, 1987)Google Scholar; Huyssen, Andreas, “Postmoderne-eine amerikanische Internationale?” Postmoderne: Zeichen eines kulturellen Wandels, ed. Huyssen, Andreas and Scherpe, Klaus R. (Reinbek, 1986)Google Scholar; and Welsch, Wolfgang, “Vielheit oder Einheit? Zum gegenwärtigen Spektrum der philosophischen Diskussion um die ‘Postmoderne’: Französische, italienische. amerikanische, deutsche Aspekte,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 94 (1987): 14–142.Google Scholar

36. The Holocaust as test for any and all postmodern strategies is discussed by Friedlander, Saul, “Some Reflections on the Historicization of National Socialism,” Reworking the Past: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Historians' Debate, ed. Baldwin, Peter (Boston, 1980), 88–101Google Scholar, and Dan Diner, “Between Aporia and Apology: On the Limits of Historicizing National Socialism,” ibid., 135–44.

37. Iggers, Georg, “The ‘Methodenstreit’ in International Perspective: The Reorientation of Historical Studies at the Turn of the Nineteenth to the Twentieth Century,” Storia della Storiografia 6 (1984): 21–32Google Scholar, contains a very condensed summary of the arguments that reappear, enriched with a heavy dose of American pragmatism, in Hollinger, David, “The Return of the Prodigal: The Persistence of Historical Knowing,” American Historical Review 94 (1989): 610–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. On the simulacrum see Deleuze, Gilles, “Plato and the Simulacrum,” October 27 (1983): 45–56Google Scholar, and the ever provocative Baudrillard, Jean, Simulations (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

39. Derrida, Jacques, The Postcard from Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans. Bass, A. (Chicago and London, 1987).Google Scholar

40. For the American critique see White, Hayden, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore and London, 1973)Google Scholar, and his Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore and London, 1978)Google Scholar. Among the newer interpretations see Toews, John E., “Intellectual History after the Linguistic Turn,” American Historical Review 92 (1987): 879–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berkhofer, Robert F., “The Challenge of Poetics to (Normal) Historical Practice,” Poetics Today 9 (1988): 435–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orr, Linda, “The Revenge of Literature: A History of History,” New Literary History 18 1986): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Lyotard, Jean-François, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Bennington, G. and Massumi, B. (Minneapolis, 1984), xxiv.Google Scholar

42. Ibid.

43. Smith, Paul, “The Will to Allegory in Postmodernism,” Dalhousie Review 62 (1982): 17–25.Google Scholar

44. Following Leonard Krieger, Time's Reasons, we put two traditions together as expressions of a singular (modernist) conjuncture, which, in Germany, are professionally and politically hostile.

45. On posthistoire and its tradition see the reflections by Niethammer, Lutz, “Afterthoughts on Posthistoire,” History and Memory 7 (1989): 25–54.Google Scholar

46. Turner, Henry A. Jr., German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (New York, 1985).Google Scholar

47. Nipperdey, Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte, 1800–1866 (Munich, 1986)Google Scholar; Stern, Dreams and Delusions; Wehler, Gesellschaftsgeschichte.

48. On this Foucaultian strategy see White, Hayden, “Foucault Decoded: Notes From Underground,“ Tropics of Discourse, 230–60Google Scholar; Veyne, Paul, “Foucault révolutionne l'histoire,” in his Comment on écrit l'histoire (Paris, 1979)Google Scholar; Megill, Allan, “The Reception of Foucault by Historians,” Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987): 117–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Goldstein, Jan, “Foucault among the Sociologists: The ‘Disciplines’ and the History of Professions,” History and Theory 19 (1984): 170–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. With a strong psychohistorical bias, Weinstein, Fred, History and Theory after the Fall: An Essay on Interpretation (Chicago and London, 1990Google Scholar), is one of the first to discuss the problematic of historical heterogeneity beyond relativism and historicism. See also the brief and informative philosophical discussion by Norris, Christopher, The Contest of Faculties: Philosophy and Theory after Deconstruction (London and New York, 1985)Google Scholar, and Hayles, N. Katherine, Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science (Ithaca and London, 1990)Google Scholar. A concrete application is Terdieman, Richard, Discourse/Counter-Discourse: The Theory and Practice of Symbolic Resistance in Nineteenth-Century France (Ithaca and London, 1985).Google Scholar

50. Among the most recent American discussions see Kellner, Hans, Language and Historical Representation: Getting the Story Crooked (Madison, Wis., 1989)Google Scholar. About German-French approaches, Schöttler, Peter, “Sozialgeschichtliches Paradigma und historische Diskursanalyse,” Diskurstheorie und Literaturwissenschaft, ed. Fohrmann, Jürgen and Müller, Harro (Frankfurt, 1988):159–99 is informative.Google Scholar

51. Märthesheimer, Peter and Frenzel, Ivo, eds., Im Kreuzfeuer, der Fernseh film “Holocaust”: Eine Nation ist betroffen (Frankfurt, 1979)Google Scholar; Ahren, Yizhak et al. , Das Lehrstück “Holocaust”: Zur Wirkungspsychologie eines Medienereignisses (Opladen, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knilli, Friedrich and Zielinski, Siegfried, eds., Holocaust zur Unterhaltung: Anatomie eines internationalen Bestsellers (Berlin, 1982).Google Scholar

52. Hugo, Richard, The Hitler Diaries (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

53. See Kaes, Anton, From Hitler to Heimat: The Return of History as Film (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).Google Scholar

54. An interpretation of this crisis is presented in Jameson, Frederic, “The Politics of Theory: Ideological Positions in the Postmodern Debate,” in his The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971–1986, vol. 2: Syntax of History (Minneapolis, 1988), 103–13Google Scholar, as well as his two essays on “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review 146 (1984): 52–92Google Scholar, and “Marxism and Postmodernism,” New Left Review 176 (1989): 31–45Google Scholar; see also the summary of Kellner, Douglas, ed., Postmodernism/Jameson/Critique (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar. Last but not least, the catalogues of two exhibitions discuss history: The Art of Memory: The Loss of History (The New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York, 1985)Google Scholar and A Brokerage of Desire (Otis Art Institute of Parsons School of Design, Los Angeles, 1986)Google Scholar, the latter with a plea for “ruinism.” A German echo is Böhringer, H., “Die Ruine in der Posthistoire,” in his Begriffsfelder: Von der Philosophic zur Kunst (Berlin, 1985): 23–37.Google Scholar

55. Weidenfeld, Werner, ed., Geschichtsbewusstsein der Deutschen (Cologne, 1987).Google Scholar

56. Jauss, Hans-Robert, “Der Gebrauch der Fiktion in Formen der Anschauung und Darstellung der Geschichte,” Formen der Geschichtsschreibung, 415–51Google Scholar. Typically, a history of realism in German historiography is missing. On rupture and history see Schulin, Ernst, Traditionskritik und Rekonstruktionsversuch: Studien zur Entwicklung von Geschichtswissenschaft und historischem Denken (Göttingen, 1979).Google Scholar

57. Much of the argument during the symposium centered on the issue of the limits of deconstruction that denies referentiality. See as critical introduction Norris, Christopher, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (London, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the exchange “Jacques Derrida's ‘Paul de Man's War,’” Critical Inquiry 15 (1989)Google Scholar. See also Bennett, Tony, “Texts in History: The Determinations of Reading and Their Texts,” Post-Structuralism and the Question of History, ed. Attridge, Derek et al. (Cambridge and New York, 1987).Google Scholar

58. Particularly contemporary historians would do well to reconsider the issue of archives and their use, because these archives no longer fit nineteenth-century notions of collectors and collections. In imitating nineteenth-century practices and methodologies twentieth-century historians have lost their methodological ground long before the on-going information revolution has radically severed the link between originality-preservation-collection. If the central concern of a now past contemporary history has been a scarcity of information within an abundance of data (which is the modernist syndrome), today's contemporary history faces the issue of reincoding information (and thus annihilating the notion of originality) and of creating virtual pasts (and thus collapsing the distance between past and present). As a useful introduction see Poster, Mark, The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context (Chicago and London, 1990).Google Scholar

59. Niethammer, Lutz, ed., Lebenserfahrung und kollektives Gedächtnis: Die Praxis der “Oral History “ (Frankfurt, 1980).Google Scholar

60. The current debate on the geopolitical place of Germany in the authentic center of Europe (M. Stürmer) vs. the derivation of this “place in the middle” from (false) consciousness (H.-U. Wehler) is reflected in the essay by Schultz, Hans-Dietrich, “Deutschlands ‘natürliche’ Grenzen:‘Mittellage’ und ‘Mitteleuropa’ in der Diskussion der Geographen seit dem Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 15 (1989): 248–81Google Scholar. On the history of Begriffsgeschichte see Oexle, Otto G., “Sozialgeschichte—Begriffsgeschichte—Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Anmerkungen zum Werk Otto Brunners,” Vierteljahrshefte für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 71 (1984): 303–41Google Scholar, Koselleck, Reinhart, “Begriffsgeschichte und Sozialgeschichte,” Soziologie und Sozialgeschichte: Aspekte und Probleme (Cologne, 1972), 116–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Koselleck, Reinhart, ed., Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1978).Google Scholar

61. For the German-French (para)academic discourse see the journal Geschichtswerkstatt (in history) and KultuRRevolution (in litcrit). See also the useful bibliography in Geier, Manfred and Woetzel, Harold, eds., Das Subjekt des Diskurses (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar. The Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies has been a guiding light for Great Britain and the United States.

62. Thompsen, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1966)Google Scholar, and his The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, Eric, Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movements in the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, and his Worlds of Labour: Further Studies in the History of Labour (London, 1984)Google Scholar. For the History Workshop movement see Samuel, Raphael, ed., People's History and Socialist Theory (London, 1981).Google Scholar

63. Ross, Andrew, No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture (New York and London, 1989)Google Scholar. A good example is Kaschuba, Wolfgang, “Volkskultur und Arbeiterkultur als symbolische Ordnung: Einige volkskundliche Anmerkungen zur Debatte von Alltags- und Kulturgeschichte,” in Alltagsgeschichte (n. 24), 191–223.Google Scholar

64. Johnson, Eric A., “Quantitative German History in the United States and the United Kingdom,” Central European History 21 (1988): 396–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Jarausch, Konrad H. and Hardy, Kenneth, Quantitative Methods for Historians: A Guide to Research, Data, and Statistics (Chapel Hill, 1991), 199–208.Google Scholar

65. Medick, Hans, “‘Missionare im Ruderboot?’ Ethnologische Erkenntnisweisen als Heraus-forderung an die Sozialgeschichte,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 10 (1984): 295–319Google Scholar, or Cohen, Bernard S., An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays (New Dehli, 1987)Google Scholar. A less glamorous aspect of every-day history is the revival of Landesgeschichte as Regionalgeschichte. See Zang, Gert, Die unaufhaltsame Annäherung an das Einzelne: Reflexionen über den theoretischen und praktischen Nutzen der Regional- und Alltagsgeschichte (Konstanz, 1985).Google Scholar

66. The tantalizing remarks by Trommler, Frank, “Über die Lesbarkeit der deutschen Kultur,” Germanistik in den USA: Neue Entwicklungen und Methoden (Opladen, 1989), 222–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rethinking Benjamin, Walter and writing on historical performance is Michael Taussig, Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing (Chicago and London, 1987)Google Scholar. A different, practical aspect of performative history is discussed in Frei, Alfred and Baier, Ernst, Geschichte spielen: Ein Handbuch für historische Stadtspiele (Pfaffenweiler, 1990).Google Scholar

67. LaCapra, Dominick, History and Criticism (Ithaca and London, 1985)Google Scholar; Ginzburg, Carlo, Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, trans. J., and Tedeschi, A. (Baltimore, 1989)Google Scholar. But see also the unbound subjectivism of Duerr, Hans Peter, ed., Der Wissenschaftler und das Irrationale, 2 vols. (Frankfurt, 1981)Google Scholar and his Dreamtime: Concerning the Boundary between Wilderness and Civilization, trans. Goodman, F. (Oxford and New York, 1985).Google Scholar

68. Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Toward a Radical Democratic Politics, trans. Moore, W. and Cammad, P. (London, 1985).Google Scholar

69. For responses see Frei, Alfred, “Erinnern-Bedenken-Lernen: Über den Versuch das Unbeschreibliche zu beschreiben,” Erinnern, Bedenken, Lernen, ed. Frei, A. and Runge, J. (Sigmaringen, 1990)Google Scholar, and his “Geschichtswerkstätten als Zukunftswerkstätten: Ein Plädoyer für aufklärerische Geschichtsarbeit,” Die andere Geschichte, ed. Paul, Gerhard and Schossig, Bernhard (Cologne, 1986), 258–80 on the one hand, andGoogle ScholarLübbe, Hermann, Geschichtsbegriff und Geschichtsin-teresse: Analytik und Pragmatik der Historie (Basel, 1977), on the other.Google Scholar

70. It is intriguing to see how historians are fixated on the “high-cultural” film, while they neglect TV. However, more history “happens” on TV than anywhere else, notwithstanding the pretensions of the American Historical Review! See Dotterweich, Helmut, “Fernsehen und Geschichte: Die Bedeutung des Erzählerischen-auch das unterhaltende Fernsehspiel kann Historie vermitteln,” Die Zeit (11 01 1985), 14Google Scholar. On film see Aurich, Rolf, “Film in der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft,” Geschichtswerkstatt 17 (1989): 54–66.Google Scholar

71. Among others Cohen, Sande, Historical Culture: On the Recoding of an Academic Discipline (Berkeley, 1986).Google Scholar

72. For some sample reactions see Diwald, Helmut, Deutschland einig Vaterland (Frankfurt, 1990)Google Scholar; Nipperdey, Thomas, “Die Deutschen wollen und dürfen eine Nation sein,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 13 07 1990Google Scholar; Gall, Lothar, “Bismarck-Preussen, Deutschland und Europa,” in the catalogue of the exhibition with the same name (Berlin 1990), 25ff.;Google ScholarMommsen, Wolfgang J., “Die Idee der deutschen Nation in Geschichte und Gegenwart,” Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte (Spring 1990).Google Scholar

73. For GDR responses see Wroblewsky, Clement von, “Die Lüge zur Weltordnung gemacht,” Temps modernes (Spring 1990)Google Scholar; Schulze, Winfried, “Die zweigeteilte Geschichte,” Die Zeit, 7 09 1990Google Scholar; and Jarausch, Konrad H., “The Failure of East German Anti-Fascism: Some Ironies of History as Politics,” forthcoming in the German Studies Review, 02 1991.Google Scholar

74. Mearsheimer, John, “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” The Atlantic Monthly (08 1990), 35–50Google Scholar. See also Ash, Timothy Garton, The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague (New York, 1990)Google Scholar, and Dahrendorf, Ralf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

75. Kocka, Jürgen, “Revolution und Nation 1989: Zur historischen Einordnung der gegenwärtigen Ereignisse,” Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte 19 (1990): 479–99Google Scholar. In spite of constant references to the historicity of the changes, historians have been surprisingly reluctant to comment on the upheaval in the GDR.

76. Geyer, Michael, “On Sovereignty as a German Problem” (Chicago, 03 1990, MS).Google Scholar

77. Jarausch, Konrad H., “Old Fears and New Hopes: Historical Reflections on German (Re-)unification” (Chapel Hill, 04 1990, MS)Google Scholar. For a first English-language summary see Pond, Elizabeth, After the Wall: U.S. Policy toward Germany (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

78. Gransow, Volker and Jarausch, Konrad H., eds., Die deutsche Vereinigung: Dokumente zu Bürgerbewegung, Annäherung und Beitritt (Cologne, 1991)Google Scholar. Although there has been a tremendous amount of journalistic commentary on the recent events, the conceptual implications of the revolution of 1989 have been entirely neglected so far.

79. Leggewie, Claus, “Heimat Babylon: Über die Zukunft eines schönen Traumes: Politische Immigranten, Arbeitsuchcnde aus allen Erdteilen, offene Grenzen innerhalb des Kontinents: Europa ist auf dem Weg zu einer ‘multikulturellen’ Gesellschaft: Doch wie realistisch ist die Utopie von der bunten Völkergemeinschaft,” Die Zeit 32 (31 07 1987)Google Scholar. See also Bocklet, Peter, ed., Aussiedler, Gastarbeiter, Asylanten: Zu viele Fremde im Land? (Düsseldorf, 1990).Google Scholar