Remapping the German Past: Grand Narrative, Causality, and . Washington, D.C.: GHI, Washington, D.C., 04.12.1997-07.12.1997.

Reviewed by Eckhardt Fuchs

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (May, 1998)

The eforts of the GHI to foster a transatlantic After some introductory remarks, Detlef exchange of ideas among scholars from Germany Junker read Otto G. Oexle's (Göttingen) keynote and the United States in the felds of historical lecture, which analyzed past and current trends theory and methodology started with a workshop in the study of in Germany. Drawing an in 1995 and continued on a broader scale with impressive picture of the history of German histo‐ this conference. It brought together about thirty riography since the nineteenth century, Oexle historians from Germany, Great Britain, and the tried to trace the origins and historical dimen‐ United States to discuss the epistemological conse‐ sions of the "cultural turn" in the Historische Kul‐ quences that have resulted from new approaches turwissenschaft. By comparing traditional and in contemporary and have had dif‐ cultural historians Oexle showed that the dividing fering impacts on historical scholarship in both line be tween and traditional his‐ countries. Linking specifc theoretical concepts torical scholarship could be found in both the ob‐ with empirical research, the meeting surveyed ject of study and the epistemological orientation. the common cognitive principles of historical un‐ He suggested an alternative to Ranke's historio‐ derstanding and methods of historical research. graphical and theoretical concept that is ofered The conference also aimed to investigate the ad‐ by the epistemology of cultural history, which vantages and limitations of diferent theoretical readdresses two challenges of the nineteenth cen‐ approaches and their transformations in histori‐ tury, namely, the relative status of historical ver‐ cal practice by comparing modern epistemologi‐ sus scientifc knowledge and the concept of objec‐ cal principles to postmodern theoretical concepts. tivity. Oexle then analyzed Troeltsch's books on The sessions therefore focused on three epochs in and made clear that German histori‐ German history: the German Empire, the Weimar ans of the 1920s and 1930s - in contrast to French Republic, and the events of 1989-90. However, in historians - did not accept the new challenges of contrast to academic debates that have taken cultural history - and probably were not even place in Germany over the past two decades, the aware of them, a development that has afected sessions did not center on interpretations of spe‐ German historiography to the present day. cifc developments in German history but rather The frst session of the conference, chaired by on three systematic concepts in particular: the ad‐ Ernst Breisach (Kalamazoo), dealt with the con‐ vantages and limits of grand narrative, the prob‐ cept of grand narrative, focusing on the possibili‐ lem of causality, and the issues of objectivity, ties of a synthetic historiography and its cognitive memory, and historical meaning. elements. H-Net Reviews

Deconstructing the book, The Peculiarities of been reached on the place of the Kaiserreich in a German History (1984) by David Blackbourn and new grand narrative. Geof Eley, Allan Megill (Charlottesville) discussed The second session, chaired by Ute Frevert the concepts of synthesis, necessity, and contin‐ (Bielefeld), concentrated on new approaches to gency in the narrative of German history. He dis‐ the history of the German Empire. In his paper, tinguished between four types of narratives: the "Problems with Culture: German History After the narrative simpliciter, the master narrative, the Linguistic Turn," Geof Eley (Ann Arbor) opposed grand narrative, and the metanarrative. Accord‐ Hans-Ulrich Wehler's attack on "culture" and "cul‐ ing to Megill, a postmodern approach denies a tural history." He argued especially against at‐ master narrative, on the one hand, but it cannot tempts to reconstruct a specifcally German lin‐ be replaced by the reduction of history to memo‐ eage of infuences since the nineteenth century, ry, on the other, because it makes history the ser‐ particularly by Dilthey and Weber, that both dein‐ vant of the interests and desires of particular ternationalize the debate on cultural history and groups. Arguing against a deterministic interpre‐ reconstitute a national-historiographical para‐ tation of history, he suggested that contingency digm. After a fundamental critique of the percep‐ and accident have their legitimate places within tions of cultural history by German social histori‐ the academic historical discourse. ans, Eley pointed out that the contemporary dis‐ In his talk, "Writing German : cussions among American cultural anthropolo‐ The Small Story and the Big Picture," David Black‐ gists, which are more pluralistic than the debates bourn (Boston) gave an overview of the broad on cultural history, were not recognized by the shift toward microhistory in the historical profes‐ Bielefeld school at all. Calling for a productive dia‐ sion since the late 1970s. He addressed the basic logue between historians and anthropologists, he assumption of this challenging approach and em‐ stressed the plurality of approaches and mutual phasized the skepticism that it faced in Germany. respect that led to an acknowledgment of each His evaluation of the advantages and disadvan‐ others production of history. tages of microhistory led to the conclusion that Wolfgang J. Mommsen (Düsseldorf), in his pa‐ German historians should continue to refect on per "Bourgeois Culture and Semi-Autocratic Rule the many diferent ways of interweaving the in Imperial Germany," took a diferent view of cul‐ small stories of microhistory and the big picture ture and cultural history. As he did in his book, of macrohistory as the basis of new synthesis. Bürgerliche Kultur und künstlerische Avantgarde Roger Chickering (Washington) addressed the top‐ (1994), he did not refer to the broader, anthropo‐ ic, "The Kaiserreich and the Grand Narrative." He logical notion of culture but to a more narrow demonstrated the changes in interpretations of defnition that was limited to high culture. There‐ and approaches to the history of the Kaiserreich fore, his main focus was the status of bourgeois in Germany. He especially emphasized the ideo‐ culture and its signifcance for the political order. logical implications of those narratives that He argued that even though bourgeois culture caused the "academic wars," which began in the was an important element in strengthening the 1960s and continue to this day. In investigating political and social position of the middle classes, the most important debates, such as the Fischer a clear dividing line between an aristocratic and a controversy, the rise and fall of the Sonderweg bourgeois culture could not be drawn. Mommsen theory, and the challenges of the modernistic in‐ pointed out that the relationship between culture terpretations of the Historische Sozialwis‐ and politics was very complex. But whereas bour‐ senschaft by practitioners of Alltagsgeschichte, geois culture was closely associated with the ideas Chickering made clear that no consensus has yet

2 H-Net Reviews of liberalism, it nevertheless did not have pro‐ the descent from democracy to dictatorship. "Un‐ found consequences for the political order, main‐ caused causes" are to be understood as those de‐ ly because of the change in the bourgeois ethos af‐ velopments that could not be accounted for in ter 1870 and the dissociation of the avant garde terms of the sorts of chains of causation accessible from the mainstream of bourgeois culture. to historians. In Turner's view, the failure of the In the fnal paper of this session, Alf Lüdtke frst German republic cannot be explained by his‐ (Göttingen) presented a "History of the Kaiserre‐ torical causation but rather by individual deci‐ ich as History of Everyday: People's Practices and sions, emotional attitudes, and actions. Hitler's Emotions Writ Large." Using examples from the survival of a car accident in 1930 is used by Turn‐ magazine Simplicissimus, he demonstrated how er as a classic example of an "uncaused cause." rudimentary our knowledge still is concerning Whereas structural history is essential to an un‐ readership and audience. Lüdtke analyzed the derstanding of the past, it cannot explain why the sentiments expressed in caricatures and cartoons Third Reich happened. In his paper, David Lin‐ and how they represent bourgeois culture in gen‐ denfeld (Baton Rouge) suggested a nonlinear mod‐ eral. Lüdtke made a strong plea to historians to el of causality based on chaos theory. He attempt‐ consider the study of feelings, emotions, and men‐ ed to distinguish the meanings and uses of key talities as part of Alltagsgeschichte and to link it terms and propo-sitions of complexity theory that with other historical approaches. are applicable to history and those that are not. He therefore investigated the various dimensions The third session, chaired by Detlef Junker, of chaos theory, such as linearity and nonlineari‐ focused on the problem of causality. At the center ty, sensitivity to initial conditions, similarity of all three papers presented were the specifc across diferences in scale, dissipative systems, question of why Hitler came to power and the re‐ phase space, and attractors, and demonstrated lated problems of causal development, historical how these concepts can lead to new perspectives proof, and varying interpretations. Hagen Schulze on causality regarding the rise of the Third Reich. (Berlin), in his paper "Explaining the Failure of Lindenfeld saw in their application and use for the Weimar Republic," started with a list of vari‐ historical narratives a way to prevent an "indis‐ ous factors that have been identifed in scholarly criminate pluralism" by counterfactual argu‐ debates as the causes for Weimar's failure. In re‐ ments. lating them to actual historical events, he suggest‐ ed a hierarchy of primary and secondary causes. The fourth session, chaired by Konrad H. Ja‐ Whereas the collapse of Weimar was probably rausch (Chapel Hill/Potsdam), dealt with the caused by certain necessary factors and condi‐ events of 1989-90 in East Germany and the ques‐ tions, it was not, as Schulze claimed through tion of whether a paradigm shift in German con‐ counterfactual arguments, inevitable. For him, temporary historiography has resulted from this causality does not refer to scientifc causal con‐ major historical break. Martin Sabrow (Potsdam), cepts, but it is used to reduce the complexity of in his paper "The Second Reality of GDR Historiog‐ phenomena. Therefore, the concept of causality is raphy," analyzed the diferent modes of historical to be used, from a heuristic point of view, as a reg‐ interpretation of the June 1953 uprising. He dis‐ ulative idea but not as a means to prove deter‐ tinguished between hagiographic, normative, and ministic causal laws in history. In contrast to pragmatic approaches before 1989 and exculpato‐ Schulze, Henry A. Turner (New Haven) closely an‐ ry or sympathetic (pragmatic) and accusatory alyzed the last thirty days of the Weimar Republic (normative) discourses for the post-1989 era. In in order to demonstrate the "uncaused causes" in suggesting a discursive reconstruction as a new paradigm, Sabrow showed that the normative and

3 H-Net Reviews pragmatic approaches before and after 1989 therefore tried to disclaim postmodernism as a shared one important element: the analysis and mode of coping with the events in Eastern Eu‐ evaluation of the second German historiography rope. For him the postmodernist aesthetic of "any‐ (East) within the auspices and categories of the thing goes" since 1989 has been replaced by focus‐ frst German historiography (West). These ap‐ ing on memories of the past. The most important proaches therefore do not sufciently explain the question is which agency governs the access to inner structures of GDR historiography. In order memory; that is to say, access to power corre‐ to understand the phenomenon of a "fettered his‐ sponds with archival access to the memory of tory," Sabrow suggested a model of discourse re‐ power. In analyzing the archival identity and construction that avoids the interpretation of memory of East Germany, Ernst stressed the prob‐ eastern scholarship within western categories lems that arose from the fact that digital memory and understands East Germany's modes of opera‐ in the form of electronic data banks were accessi‐ tion on its own terms, such as the concepts of ble only for those who knew the programs or scholarliness, historical truth, correctness, and so codes. The fact that many sources on the GDR are forth. Claus Leggewie (New York/Gießen) took the stored electronically raises methodological prob‐ events of 1989-90 as the starting point of his anal‐ lems for historians, who are mostly only skilled in ysis in "The Berlin Republic - What's New About working with print documentation. the New Germany?" He raised two questions: The third day's session opened with Jörn First, was 1990 a turning point in German history Rüsen's (Essen) paper, "Narrativity and Objectivi‐ such as 1933 and 1945, assuming a common histo‐ ty." He introduced various concepts of the two cat‐ ry since World War II; second, how do we assess egories of objectivity and narrativity, which were the place of Central Europe in the political, social, considered to be contradictory characterizations economic, and cultural history of the twentieth of historical studies. In order to realize a return of century? Leggewie stated that the new Berlin Re‐ truth claims to historical thinking, Rüsen rede‐ public was not only the result of a national revo‐ fned the meaning of objectivity and suggested a lution but also an unaccomplished refoundation new concept in which objectivity does not mean of the Bonn Republic. He suggested a multidimen‐ neutrality but, by contrast, includes the features sional scheme of periods in the Federal Republic of practical life in historical representation. His‐ between 1949 and 1990, narrowing it down to a torical narratives can therefore enforce experi‐ generational perspective that allowed him to ence and intersubjectivity in cultural orientation. show how long waves of social and cultural mod‐ Alexander Demandt (Berlin) concluded the ernization had converged with shorter cycles of conference with a paper titled "Finis Historiae?" political change. in which he gave a historical overview from Hes‐ The last paper of this session, Wolfgang iod to Fukuyama on how men had thought about Ernst's (Cologne) "The Archi(-ve)texture of 1989 in the end of history. He showed that people always a 'Postmodern' Perspective (A Disclaimer)," was identifed their own wishes with history's sup‐ presented in two parts. First, Ernst suggested dif‐ posed last stage. Regarding the new millennium, ferent postmodern ways to interpret the events of hopes will probably concentrate on a new age, but 1989-90, focusing on an "archivological" perspec‐ it will soon emerge that human events are always tive. Whereas he stated the diferent views of qualitatively historic. postmodern history, he also made clear how such As the variety of papers anticipated, the de‐ a perspective restrained itself from historical bates touched on a broad spectrum of historical imagination and dismembered any attempt at a theory and methodology. Opened with the com‐ coherent representation. In the second part, Ernst

4 H-Net Reviews ments of Jürgen Kocka (Berlin), Volker Berghahn (Prov-idence), Chris Lorenz (Amsterdam), Mary Fulbrook (London), and Thomas Haskell (Hous‐ ton), the discussions showed that recent chal‐ lenges to traditional historiography have broad‐ ened the historical perspective but have left cer‐ tain epistemological problems unresolved. The conference demonstrated how important these problems are not only for the historical practice but also for the public function of the historical profession and its ability to mediate between past and present and to meet a need for guidance in giving the present meaning. The debates also un‐ derscored the fact that academic discourse among historians does not difer according to geography but rather according to diferent theories and methodologies. An openness toward plurality and the mutual acceptance of diferent approaches to history are the only way to bridge these gaps.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Eckhardt Fuchs. Review of Remapping the German Past: Grand Narrative, Causality, and Postmodernism. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. May, 1998.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=28636

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5