Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:14:42.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Social History of Experience: Postmodern Predicaments in Theory and Interdisciplinarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Konrad H. Jarausch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last generation the writing of social history has taken an ironic turn. In the 1960s and much of the 1970s, it literally exploded across the scholarly landscape as the most dynamic and innovative form of historiography. Many competing conceptions including the French Annales school, the American quantitative social science history (QUASSH), the British Marxist history of society, and the emerging German Gesellschaftsgeschichte combined to overthrow the Rankean paradigm. These diverse programs, nevertheless, showed broad agreement in exploring the mute masses, expanding the scope of inquiry to new topics such as family and education, seeking a theoretical orientation, experimenting with fresh methods such as quantification or oral history, and supporting some form of progressive politics. This agenda was even reflected in T-shirt slogans such as “history from the bottom up,” showing a fat behind, or “bottoms-up history,” depicting raised beer steins. For many of the participants, there was an exciting sense of fresh departures and of camaraderie in an effort at once intellectually daring and politically committed.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 22 , Issue 3-4 , September 1989 , pp. 427 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Iggers, G. G., New Directions in European Historiography, rev. ed. (Middletown, Conn., 1984)Google Scholar, especially the new epilogue, 175ff. Instead of pretending to be comprehensive, the notes are merely intended to be illustrative of some of the debates behind these reflections.

2. For some of the initial excitement, see the essays of Goff, J. Le, Hobsbawm, E. J., and Mommsen, H. in Daedalus 100 (1971), nos. 1 and 2Google Scholar; as well as Wehler, H.-U., “Historiography in Germany Today,” in Habermas, J., ed., Observations on “The Spiritual Situation of the Age” (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar, and Jarausch, K. H., “German Social History-American Style,” Journal of Social History 19 (1985): 349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Stearns, P., “Towards a Wider Vision: Trends in Social History,” in Kammen, M. H., ed., The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States (Ithaca, N. Y., 1980), 205ffGoogle Scholar.; and Jarausch, K. H., “The Old ‘New History of Education’: A German Reconsideration,” History of Education Quarterly 26 (1986): 225ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Maier, C. S., “Marking Time: The History of International Relations,” in The Past Before Us, 355ff.Google Scholar, and the International History Review.

5. Himmelfarb, G., The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals (Cambridge, Mass., 1987)Google Scholar; and Hamerow, T. S., Reflections on History and Historians (Madison, Wis., 1986).Google Scholar

6. Stone, L., “The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History,” Past and Present 85 (1979): 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “History and the Social Sciences in the Twentieth Century,” in Delzell, C. F., ed., The Future of History (Nashville, 1977).Google Scholar

7. Kramer, L., “Intellectual History and Reality: The Search for Connections,” Historical Reflections 13 (1986): 517ffGoogle Scholar.; Toews, J., “Intellectual History after the Linguistic Turn,” American Historical Review 92 (1987): 879ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Blackbourn, D. and Eley, G., The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Oxford, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, attacking Wehler's, H.-U.The German Empire 1871–1918 (Leamington Spa, England, 1985)Google Scholar. See also the summaries by Fletcher, R., “Recent Developments in West German Historiography,” German Studies Review 7 (1984), 451ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Moeller, R., “The Kaiserreich Recast?” Journal of Social History 17 (1984): 655ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Fletcher, R., “‘History From Below’ Comes to Germany: The‘New History Movement’ in the Federal Republic of Germany,” (MS, Kingston, 1988)Google Scholar, and Eley, G., “Labor History, Social History, Alltagsgeschichte: Experience, Culture and the Politics of the Everyday–a New Direction for German Social History?” Journal of Modern History 61 (1989): 297ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Evans, R. J., “The New Nationalism and the Old History: Perspectives on the West German Historikerstreit,” Journal of Modern History 49 (1987): 761ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Eley, G., “Nazism, Politics and Public Memory: Thoughts on the West German Historikerstreit, 1986–1987,” Past and Present 121 (1988): 171ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; and Jarausch, K. H., “Removing the Nazi Stain? The Quarrel of the German Historians,” German Studies Review 11 (1988): 285ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Wehler, H.-U., “Alltagsgeschichte: Königsweg zu neuen Ufern oder Irrgarten der Illusionen?” in his Aus der Geschichte lernen? (Munich, 1988), 130ffGoogle Scholar., and “Selbstverständnis und Zukunft der westdeutschen Geschichtswissenschaft” (MS, Bielefeld, 1990)Google Scholar, in contrast to Kocka, J., Sozialgeschichte, 2d ed. (Göttingen, 1986), 152ff.Google Scholar

12. Iggers, Georg G., Social History in the GDR (Oxford, 1991)Google 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

13. See Levine, L. W., “The Unpredictable Past: Reflections on Recent American Historiography,”Google ScholarScott, J. W., “History in Crisis? The Others' Side of the Story,”Google Scholar and Toews, J. E., “Perspectives on ‘The Old History and the New,’“ American Historical Review 94 (1989): 671–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Winkler, K. J., “Dispute over Validity of Historical Approaches Pits Traditionalists Against Advocates of New Methods,” Chronicle of Higher Education 35 (1989): A5–7.Google Scholar

14. Maier, C. S., The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 168ffGoogle Scholar; and J. Caplan, “Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, and Deconstruction,” and other papers in this issue.

15. Harlan, D., “Intellectual History and the Return of Literature,”Google Scholar as well as Hollinger, D. A., “The Return of the Prodigal: The Persistence of Historical Knowing,” American Historical Review 94 (1989), 581–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Hull, I. V., “Feminist and Gender History Through the Literary Looking Glass: German Historiography in Postmodern Times,” in this issueGoogle Scholar.

17. Lüdtke, A., “Was ist und wer treibt Alltagsgeschichte?” in his volume on Alltagsgeschichte: Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt, 1989), 9ff.Google Scholar

18. This term seems preferable to N. Davis's somewhat awkward label of “new ‘new social history.’ “ See her comment on “The Shapes of Social History” at a session of the American Historical Association on social history in international perspective, Cincinnati, December 1988. For another diagnosis cf. Veit-Brause, Irmline, “Paradigms, Schools, Traditions? Conceptualizing Shifts and Changes in the History of Historiography,” Storia della Storiographia 17 (1990): 50–65.Google Scholar

19. Iggers, G. G., ed., The Social History of Politics: Critical Perspectives in West German Historical Writing since 1945 (Leamington Spa, England, 1985), introduction.Google Scholar

20. Kocka, J., “Theorienorientierung und Theorieskepsis in der Geschichtswissenschaft,” Historical Social Research 23 (1982): 4ffGoogle Scholar.; and “Theories and Quantification in History,” Social Science History 8 (1984), 169ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Best, H., “Quantifizierende Historische Sozialforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” Geschichte in Köln 9 (1981): 121ff.Google Scholar; and Kousser, J. M., “Quantitative Social Scientific History,” in The Past Before Us, 433ff.Google Scholar

22. Stürmer, M., ed., Das kaiserliche Deutschland: Politik und Gesellschaft 1870–1918 (Düsseldorf, 1970)Google Scholar; Winkler, H.-A., ed., Organisierter Kapitalismus: Voraussetzungen und Anfänge (Göttingen, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jarausch, K. H., “Illiberalism and Beyond: German History in Search of a Paradigm,” Journal of Modern History 55 (1983), 268ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Wehler, H.-U., Modernisierungstheorie und Geschichte (Göttingen, 1975)Google Scholar. This perspective still informs his Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, vols. 1–2 (Munich, 1987).Google Scholar

24. See literature cited above in n. 8.

25. Welsch, W., Unsere postmoderne Moderne, 2d ed. (Weinheim, 1988)Google Scholar, and discussion summary by J. Link, in this issue.

26. Scott, J. W., Gender and the Politics of History (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

27. Lüdtke, “Was ist und wer treibt Alltagsgeschichte?” 9ff., and Crew, D., “Alltagsgeschichte: A New Social History ‘From Below’?” in this issueGoogle Scholar.

28. Berdahl, R. et al. , eds., Klassen und Kultur: Sozialanthropologische Perspektiven in der Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt, 1982)Google Scholar, introduction, versus Kocka, J., “Sozialgeschichte zwischen Struktur und Erfahrung: Die Herausforderung der Alltagsgeschichte,” in his Geschichte und Aufklärung (Göttingen, 1989), 29ff.Google Scholar

29. See the entry “theory” in Webster's Third International Dictionary (Springfield, Mass., 1968), 2371.Google Scholar

30. Caplan, “Postmodernism,” and Link summary of debate.

31. Koshar, R., “Playing the Cerebral Savage: Notes on Writing German History Before the Linguistic Turn,”Google Scholar and Jelavich, P., “Contemporary Literary Theory: From Deconstruction Back to History,” in this issueGoogle Scholar.

32. Brunner, O. et al. , eds., Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Stuttgart, 1972ff.)Google Scholar, and Rudy Koshar's comments in this issue.

33. See Tilly, Louise, “Gender, Women's History, and Social History,” Social Science History 13 (1989): 439Google Scholar, and the comments by G. Gullickson and J. Bennett, 463–78.

34. See I. Hull's essay in this issue.

35. Medick, H., “‘Missionare im Ruderboot’? Ethnologische Erkenntnisweisen als Herausforderung an die Sozialgeschichte,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 10 (1984): 295ff.Google Scholar; and Lindenberger, T. and Wildt, M., “Radikale Pluralität: Geschichtswerkstätten als praktische Wissenschaftskritik” (MS, 1989).Google Scholar

36. Niethammer, L. and Plato, A. von, Lebensgeschichte und Sozialkultur im Ruhrgebiet 1930 bis 1960, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1983–1985)Google Scholar; and Klewitz, M., Lehrersein im Dritten Reich: Analysen lebensgeschichtlicher Erzählungen zum beruflichen Selbstverständnis (Weinheim, 1987).Google Scholar

37. McClelland, C. E., “Zur Professionalisierung der akademischen Berufe in Deutschland,” in Conze, W. and Kocka, J., eds., Bildungsbürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1985) 1: 233ff.Google Scholar; and Jarausch, K. H., “The German Professions in History and Theory,” in Cocks, G. and Jarausch, , eds., German Professions, 1800–1950 (New York, 1990), 9–24.Google Scholar

38. Kater, M. H., Doctors Under Hitler (Chapel Hill, 1989)Google Scholar; and Jarausch, K. H., The Unfree Professions: German Lawyers, Teachers, and Engineers, 1900–1950 (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

39. Strath, Bo, ed., Language and the Construction of Class Identities (Gothenburg, 1990).Google Scholar

40. Wehler, H.-U., introduction to Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte (Munich, 1987), 1: 6ff.Google Scholar, and his essay on “Was ist Gesellschaftsgeschichte?” in Aus der Geschichte Lemen, 115ff.

41. Lüdtke, Alltagsgeschichte, passim.

42. See Kaes, A., “New Historicism and the Study of German Literature,” German Quarterly 62 (1989): 210ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hohendahl, P. U., “Interdisciplinary German Studies: Tentative Conclusions,”Google Scholaribid., 227ff.

43. J. A. Helm, “Comparative Politics and German Studies,” as well as Markovits, A. S., “Comparative Politics and Post-Modern Muddling Through: Achievements and Deficits in the Realm of German Studies,” German Studies Review, DAAD Special Issue 1990.Google Scholar

44. For instance, M. J. Maynes's work on French and German schooling, and Kaelble, H., Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Gesellschaft: Eine Sozialgeschichte Westeuropas, 1880–1980 (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar, now translated as A Social History of Western Europe, 1880–1980 (Totowa, N.J., 1990).Google Scholar

45. Sheehan, J. J., “What is German History? Reflections on the Role of the Nation in German History and Historiography,” Journal of Modem History 53 (1981); 10ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Eley, G., From Unification to Nazism (London, 1986), 61ff.Google Scholar

46. P. Mog letter to K. H. Jarausch, 1 Jan. 1986. Some of the participants were H. Bausinger, G. Endruweit, K. Jarausch, D. Langewiesche, G. Pagel, and H. Rittberger. The manuscripts produced by the Tübingen project will soon be published with the Langenscheidt-Verlag as two volumes, on theoretical foundations and didactic implementation.

47. Kocka, J., ed., Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich, 3 vols. (Munich, 1988)Google Scholar, reproducing the work of about forty historians, Germanists, and political scientists, from Germany, Austria, France, England, the U.S., Poland, etc. Cf. the feuilletonist critique by Leonhardt, R. W., “Ruhm und Schimpf des Bürgertums,” Die Zeit, 12 05 1989Google Scholar, and J. Kocka's subsequent letter to the editor.

48. Jarausch, K. H., “Deutschlandkunde, Europastudien oder German Studies? Vorüberlegungen aus der Sicht eines amerikanischen Historikers,” in Althof, H., ed., Deutschlandstudien international (Bonn, 1990) 1: 177–86.Google Scholar

49. Jarausch, , “German Social History-American Style,” Journal of Social History 19 (1985): 349–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Berghahn, V., “Deutschlandbilder 1945–1965: Angloamerikanische Historiker und moderne deutsche Geschichte,” in Schulin, E., ed., Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, 1945–1965 (Munich, 1989), 239–72Google Scholar. Cf. also F. Trommler, “Über die Lesbarkeit der deutschen Kultur,” in idem, ed., Germanistik in den USA (Opladen, 1989), 222ff.

50. The recent essay collections of such historians as Nipperdey, T., Nachdenken über die deutsche Geschichte (Munich, 1986)Google Scholar; Graml, H., ed., Nach Hitler: Der Schwierige Umgang mit unserer Geschichte: Beiträge von M. Broszat (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar; and Stürmer, M., Dissonanzen des Fortschritts (Munich, 1986)Google Scholar, seem oblivious to this change. Partial exceptions are Blackbourn, D., Populists and Patricians (London, 1987)Google Scholar; and Kocka, J., SozialgeschichteGoogle Scholar.

51. The warnings against the problems of the new prescriptions raised by Hollinger, D., “The Return of the Prodigal,” 588ffGoogle Scholar; Tilly, L., “Gender, Women's History and Social History,” 439ff.Google Scholar; and Kocka, J., Geschichte und Aufklärung, 29ff.Google Scholar, need to be kept in mind.

52. For a parallel effort to emphasize experience within social history see Becker, Ursula, “Sozialgeschichte der Lebensformen als Forschungsproblem,” in Jarausch, Konrad, Rüsen, Jörn, and Schleier, Hans, eds., Geschichtswissenschaft vor 2000, forthcoming in 1991.Google Scholar

53. See the entry “experience” in Webster's Third International Dictionary, 800.

54. See the papers by Blackbourn, D., Maynes, M. J., Canning, K., and Crew, D. at the conference on “The Kaisserreich in the 1990s,” at the University of Pennsylvania, 02 1990Google Scholar. Cf. also Karin J. McHardy, “The Boundaries of History and Literature,” in idem and Gisela Brude-Firnau, eds., Fact and Fiction: German History and Literature, 1848–1924 (Bern, 1990), 11–25.

55. Bödeker, H. et al. , eds, Aufklärung und Geschichte: Studien zur deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1986)Google Scholar; Wehler, H.-U., “Geschichtswissenschaft heutzutage: Aufklärung oder ‘Sinnstiftung’?” in Honneth, A. et al. , eds., Zwischenbetrachtungen im Prozess der Aufklärung (Frankfurt, 1989), 775ffGoogle Scholar; and Kocka, J., “Geschichte und Aufklärung,” in his Geschichte und Aufklärung, 140ff.Google Scholar