COMPARATIVE AND TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY Central European Approaches and New Perspectives

-=~~- -

Edited by Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jiirgen Kocka

~ Berghahn Books New York . Oxford ,'11':11 IlIiI,111:llI'd III :.!( )( )II by CONTENTS = /I""gl"i/III /I""l' ,1 www .berghahnl .uoks.ron,

(c:)2009 Heinz .. Gerh ard Haupt and Iurgcn Kocka

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book Preface vii may be repr oduced in any form or by any means , electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any informati on Comparison and Beyond: Traditions, Scope, and Perspectives of storage and retrie val system now known or to be invented, Comparative History 1 without writt en permi ssion of the publisher. Iurgen Kocka/Heinz-Gerhard Haupt

PART I ,rary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Comparative and Entangled History in Global Perspectives

nparative and transnational history: Central European appr oaches and new CH APT ER 1 spectives / edited by Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Iurgen Kocka. Between Comparison a nd Transfers-and What Now? p. cm. A French-German Debate 33 Includes bibliographical references and index. Hartmut Kaelble ISBN 978-1-84545-615-3 (hbk.: alk. paper) . Germ any (West)- Historiography. 2. Germany-Historiography. 3. Europe, CHAPTER 2 Itral-Historiography. 4. Germany-Social conditions-Historiography. A 'Transnational' History of Society: Continuity or mop e, Central-Social conditions- Historiography. 6. Transnationali sm­ New Departure? 39 toriography. 7 . Acculturation-Historiography. 8. Social history­ liirgen Osterhammel hodology. 9. Histor y-Methodology. 10. History-Comparative method. aupt, Heinz-Gerhard. II. Kocka, Iurgen. CHAPTER 3 86.C652009 Double Marginalization: A Plea for a Transnational Perspective )7.2--d c22 on German Hist ory 52 Sebastian Conrad 2009025428

CHAPTER 4 Entangled Histories of Uneven Modernities: Civil Society, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Caste Councils, and Legal Pluralism in Postcolonial India 77 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Shalini Randeria

~~~~~I~~G-;~::. ~ CHAPTER 5 ~~. \~ \\n l.!:- __ _ I~, ".. ~ - Print;a-m: :t~ e United States on acid-free paper. Lost in Translat ion? Transcending Boundaries in Comparative liMOJIliOT CKti '. History 105 Monica Iuneja / Margrit Fernau . a I· ? ~~: ; :'8-1-84545-615-3 Hardback ~ 1, ! b r . .%~. o --- .",. . ~ ~/. . :/.);:;------__ \,\ '\.. ~JC \ \ ! ~~~ --====-_.~ 1'1\ I~'J' 1/ PREFACE == TrallsnationnliznUol\ and lssucx ill European Bislory

CHAPTER 6 The Nation as a Developing Resource Community: A Generalizing Comparison 133 Dieter Langewiesche

CHAPTER 7 Birds of a Feather: A Comparative History of German and Comparative history deals with similarities and differences between his torical units, e.g., regions, economies, cultures, and national states. It.is ,Ilt' US Labor in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 149 Thomas Welskopp classical way of transcending the narrow boundaries of national history, Comparative history is analytically ambitious and empirically demanding. CHAPTER 8 The last decades have witnessed the rise of comparative history, but it s Visions of the Future: GDR, CSSR, and the Federal Republic of practitioners have remained a minority, and its critics have not been CO l li Germany in the 1960s 178 pletely convinced. /OrgRequate Entangled history deals with transfer, interconnection, and mutual ill fluences across boundaries. It can be another way of moving beyond tI\(' CHAPTER 9 limits of national history. Its rise is more recent. It has been fuelled by post ­ Comparisons, Cultural Transfers, and the Study of Networks: colonial perspectives, by a renewed interest in transnationalism, and by [hl' Toward a Transnational History of Europe 204 intellectual consequences of globalization. It has been practiced in diffe r­ Philipp Ther ent contexts, e.g., in the overlap between French and German history, ill

CHAPTER 10 the study of transnational migration, with respect to cultural transfer, or ill the expanding areas of global history. Germany and Africa in the Late Nineteenth and Twentieth There is much tension, but there is also productive and innovative co Centuries: An Entangled History? 226 Andreas Eckert operation between comparative history and entangled history. German­ speaking historians have dealt with these issues, over the last years, pro ­ CHAPTER 11 grammatically, empirically, and with new results. They were influenced by Losing National Identity or Gaining Transcultural Competence: the international discussions, but also could build on their own traditions. Changing Approaches in Migration History 247 Most of their research and debate has been conducted in German. Theil' Dirk Hoerder approaches and results deserve to be brought to the attention of readers who do not have access to this language. Notes on Contributors 272 It is the aim of this book to introduce readers to this type of research and debate. It presents a selection of unpublished and published articles Select Bibliography 276 and essays dealing with comparative and entangled history. The introduc­ tion surveys the field and discusses issues of theory and method. It pro­ Index 291 poses different ways of cooperation between comparative and entangled history. Five contributions follow whose authors play an important role in the German debate about comparative and entangled history. Finally, six case studies are presented, which apply and frequently combine compara­ tive and entanglement approaches. The focus is on European history in the twentieth century, but there is also attention to global contexts and their impact on European and German history. In one way or another, the con .. I'lH l'rcta«,

tributionx deal with the changing rolo ofnational hblory under tho present conditions of Europeanization and globalization.

The editors express their indebtedness to a large number of discussants Comparison and Beyond and commentators, particularly at the Berlin School for the Comparative History of Europe, the European University Institute Florence, and the Traditions) Scope) and Perspectives University of Bielefeld. They want to thank Britta Schilling, Oxford, for carefully translating most of the texts from German into English, as well as ofComparative History Nancy Wegner, Berlin for working on the index and the proofs.

Florence and Berlin, July 2009 JURGEN KOCKA and HEINZ-GERHARD HAUP'[ Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Iurgen Kocka

The discussion on comparative history (vergleichende Geschichte, histoir« comparee) is ongoing. Its value is praised; its benefits are acknowledged . But most historians are not interested in systematic comparison. Ind eed. there is no lack of old and new objections to comparative history, or at le,wl to certain types of comparative history. The topic remains controversial. I The current boom in transnational and transregional approaches-in 1Ill' form of 'entangled histories' (Verflechtungsgeschichte or histoire croisllc:) gives the issue of comparison a new timeliness. We can observe a certain upsurge in comparative history over the past decades; progress, how ever, has been limited, and comparison has remained a matter for a minority of historians." This introductory essay starts out with a discussion of what 'cornpurn tive history' means. We follow this up with a discussion of the different purposes and types of historical comparison in existence today, and we survey the role comparison plays in various narratives. We then discuss till: tension between some classical historical methods and the principles of historical comparison, which help to explain why comparison has had such a difficult time internationally in historical studies. From this, we develop the traits that are or should be specific to comparison in historical studies. Finally, we discuss recent changes in the field of comparative history: th u impact of cultural history, the changing units and spaces of cornpnrison, and the opportunities and problems of transnational approaches that rc ccntly have moved into the foreground. Particular attention is given to rhc relation between histoire comparee and histoire croisee, i.e., comparut ivi­ history and entangled histories (including connected and transfer history). ., WIl!t' 11 /\ 111 /,, 1 1/11" " "/11 ' i ;I' , I/rll " II."'liI t " 1I1/hll l\,'1/ ,1I,d /I" I'llIltI: 'I;" IIII /l tll ' ,\ , .'il ',II" ', """ / "'/ ,'/" '1III ''' .', ;1

'I I'/Iapl,'[' <'1(1,';" ,'; wlt h nu uvi -rvh-w o f Ihl ' (;'H III'II'lll loI H: 10 th is volum «. It" SO li , Oldy to sltllalt: varlou n 11l 1.\( 'd rO l'l ll S I>('IWI;(;II lht;sl ' mu ln Iy p l.: s ," ( lIlo We pay mos t. auenrio n to (/1(' (;1.: 1'1 11:\ 11 Iilt ~ r lllll r l.: und d('hal,'. l Iint zc mude a similar dlst luct lon already in 1 ~:2 Y : 'One <::111 co rn purc III nrdt'r to lind a gl'llCr'alily up on whi ch th at. which is com pared is based: 0111' ca n compare in ord er to more d earl y co mprehe nd o ne o f th e po ssibl e oh Definition and Goals of Comparison jcc ts in its individuality and to distinguish it from th e others:" Similarities and differences Comparative hi storians usually do both in differ ent co m bina tions. '1Ill' distinction made by O tto Hintze a nd othe rs, however, is fundamental, ;\ l1d In comparative hi story, two or more historical phenomena are syst emati­ co mpa rative studies ca n be differ entiated according to the wa y th ey CO ll i ca lly studied for similarities and di fferen ces in orde r to co ntribute to their bin c and weigh th ese two dimensions. better description, explana tion, and interpret ati on. By emphasizing the s tudy of the sim ilarities and differences of at least two comparati ve cases as centra lly cha racte ristic, co m para tive history is Methodological Fun ctions distinguish ed fro m stud ies devoting th emselves to th e ana lysis and inter­ O n a secon d level, whi ch allows a somewhat more pr ecise distincti on, W(' pretation of constellati on, as differentiated and co mprehe nsive as it may one can id entify differ ent m ethodological purposes th at are se rved by hi storical be. Th ere are excellent exa mples of transnational and tr anscultural works compa riso ns : th at ar e nev ertheless not co mpa rative.' When defined in this way, co m pa r­ at ive hist ory is also distingu ish ed from entangled histories (Verflechtungs­ a. In heuristic terms, compa rison allows scholars to identify problems geschichte, histoire croisee), wh ich does not seek sim ilarities and differ ences and quest ions that would oth erwise be impossible or difficult to pose. between tw o (or m or e) units of resear ch-e.g" between Fran ce and Ger­ Drawing from his own research, Marc Bloch provided an example from man y, between Christianity and Islam, or between three village co m m uni­ agrarian histor y to show what comparison is capable of uncovering, ties or se vera l dis courses-but, rather, insists on relationships, transfers, After investigating the English enclosures from the sixteenth to nine ­ and inter acti ons, i.e., th e entang lemen ts between th em. Howev er, it will be teenth centuries and assess ing their functions, he thought it likely that sh own th at histoire comparee and histoire croisee are co mpa tible and have comp arable processes could have taken place in France, even if schol­ man y points ofco n tact.' ars had not yet uncovered them. Proceeding from the assumptions of Studies th at ar e co m parative in th e full se nse of th e term sh ould also be French analogies or equivalents , as inspired by the English example, distingu ished from those in wh ich co mpa riso ns show up only en passant, Bloch uncovered corresponding, if not identic al, changes in agrarian by th e waysid e or implicitly. Su ch implicit co m pariso ns frequently ap pear. property structures in Provence in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seven­ In th e foll OWing, we will look at studies in which comparison plays a ce nt ral teenth centuries. In this way, he contributed to a profound revision of methodologi cal rol e and is a key eleme nt of research and narrati on. Fin all y, this region's history. This productive act of scholarly transfer was based th e abo ve definition indicates th at compari son in hist ory is seldo m an e nd on the conviction that the problems of agrarian societies were similar in itself, but usually serves othe r goals. on both shores of the English Channel. They called for parallel, if not O n th e m ost general level, one ca n distinguish bet ween two basic type s identi cal, solutions if cert ain innovations-in this case, the emergence of historical co mpa riso ns, namely, between th ose which are aimed mainly of a capitalistically managed agriculture-were to occur.' at we ighing contrasts, i.e., which are targeted at insi ghts into th e differences b. In descr iptive terms, historical comparison, above all, helps to apply between ind ivid ua l co m pa ra tive cases, and th ose whic h focus o n insights a clear profile to individu al cases and often to a single. parti cularly in­ into agreements, i.e., ge ne ralisa tion and, thus, th e understanding of ge ne ra l teresting case. For example, one discovers that the German workers' patterns. movement emerged as an independ ent force relatively early on only This distinction h as been discussed rep eat edly in th e literature. John when compared to other workers' movements, such as those in Eng­ Stuart Mill alread y co nt ras ted the 'method of difference' with th e 'method land or the United States. The unusually powerful position, remarkable of agreement: A.A. va n den Braembuss ch e refers to Mill, as do authors cohesion, and great historical impact of the German Bildungsburger­ suc h as Th ed a Skocpol and Charl es Tilly, in order to distingu ish between tum (educated middle classes) only becom e visible in comparison th e 'contrasting typ e' and th e 'universalising typ e' of historical co rnpa ri­ with other European socie ties. 'Th e delayed development of the West ., III/ ;ti l'll 1\ 1I 1 ' ~' if nun 11'111/1' ("fill /iill " l lu up ! ",III/i'll I {II ' " ,1//,1 11" \'1111'/" '/;1/,111/11 1/ :" S i ll/I" , " 1I r1 /"JI ,I/ II." ,'I" ',:-, i.

)1)('rh iHt~(i11 G Cl'lllll ll lll dll sl l'i ll 1city o j' l Oldy1J()('Ollh':llIPPIII'l,'ll( III cou I\S lohu H. 1 ~llioll put II: '1I1llIl'(' 1111 II compurat lvc appm ac h f'lII'l;l.'Sus III trast to other comp uruble places.' Hlsto rlcu] pccullnrIuo«ollly l>t'COI1W reconsider our assumpuu u» abo ut th e uniqueness of' our OWIl hlstllrl clearly visible when one refers to comparable examples, which arc suf­ cal explanation." ficiently similar in some respects, but differ in other respects. This has an impact on the atmosphere and style, the mood and culture c. In analytical terms, comparison makes an important contribution to of historical studies, including the way in which central term s arc used. the explanation of historical phenomena. On the one hand, it serves Frequently, comparison reveals their cultural specificiti es and hlsto­ to criticize pseudo-explanations. Again, Marc Bloch provided a good ricity. A broad-based comp arison with different, e.g., non -Western 01' example. When historians discovered by comparative studies that the historically remote, alien cultures can lead scholars to challenge tl1l' intensification of pressure by the medieval and early modern manorial most general of terms. In this way, it is possible to highlight the cultural system in most regions of Europe took place more or less simultane­ framework within which one works and which is often not discussed in ously (although in different forms), they took a sceptical look at all 10­ noncomparative studies. Comp arison encourages the histor ian to reflect cally specific explanations of this phenomenon that local and regional on his own cultural foundations and on the culture of his own scholarly historians had been quick to proffer. Instead of focusing on regional disciplin e.n explanations, historians using the comparative method looked for more general explanatory models and, in this case, arrived at the de­ clining ground rent and its causes." Comparison in different plots On the other hand, comparisons can serve as indirect experiments and can help to 'test hypotheses: In this respect, it is important to think Comparison is rarely practised in a pure form or for its own sake. Compari­ carefully about the 'experimental design: When a historian attributes sons are usually built into different narratives or plots. There, they serve the appearance of phenomenon 'b' in a society to condition or cause 'a; different functions within different contexts. Without an y claim for CO Ill­ he or she then can subsequently check this hypothesis by looking for pleteness, we shall examine four different cases. societies in which 'b' appeared without 'a; or 'a' existed without lead­ ing to 'b' In this way, one can either accept the hypothesis for the time being or continue refining it.!" To be sure, this procedure can run up Asymmetrical Comparison against tight limits, since historians-unlike natural scientists in their Frequently, one looks into another country, another society or an other cul­ laboratories-rarely find the ceteris paribus condition sufficiently ful­ ture in order to better understand one's own. One hopes to understand th e filled between the constellations they compare. peculiarities of one case by looking at others. Often the other case (cases) Along similar lines, comparison helps to find or check generalizations. is (are) used for purposes of background only, while intensive investiga­ Thus, the comparative observation of specific forms of social protest tion is reserved for the area or problem in th e centre of attention. This has in different societies can help determine the link between state power been the way in which proponents of the German Sonderweg thesis usually and social protest in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The com ­ looked into West European examples-or more generally 'the We st'-in parison of different national cases can also demonstrate that and how order to specify (and frequently criticize) 'German particularities: This has the organizational ability of specific industrial workers was influenced been the way in which proponents of the 'American exceptionalisrn' thesis by their system of work and by the structure of their communities.II used to compare their findings with other cases in order to pinpoint (and d. In paradigmatic terms, comparison can help to de-familiarize the fa­ frequently praise) particularities of US history. Max Weber's compar ativ e miliar. When examined in light of observable alternatives, a specific studies were not completely void of this attitude when he looked into no n­ development can lose the 'matter of course' appearance it may have Western religions and civilizations with the purpose of understanding bet ­ possessed before. Comparison opens our eyes for other constellations; tel' what he te rmed 'Western rationalization ' (or modernization)." it sharpens what Robert Musil has called our Mdglichkeitssinn (sense These are contrasting comparisons of an asymmetrical type. They arc of the possible). It transforms one case into one among many possible asymmetrical in that the cases used for the comparison merely get sketc he d cases. Comparison leads to de-provincializing historical observation. in as background. Instead of a full-blown comparison, we are usually kf't - • ••. "" ~ .. - ...,.- ··' ·T • ""'/'"' ( ill/"'/Hi rl lII l/ {{ lid /fI ',I'1I1 1ff1 t ramtnm s, ,~ " /l IJ(' , nun /'t·r ,v ".r lll" ',\' ,

with a national-historical analysis ina compuruttvc pcrspcctlv«. F,vl;n this 111 <.:11' llllll;ll:Ihillly, UIIe laic r-xruupl c of'thls was WIIlt W, RoSlow's lnllucutlul reduced form of comparison can be extraordinarily fruitful and has the :1I1d intri guing theory oflndustrlulizuttou . At its cor e lay tile convlctlon thut added benefit of greater feasibility. However, it also runs a risk of excessively every industrialized country passes through the same phases of dcvclu] stylizing the history of the 'comparative case' or of the 'comparative cases; mcnt with the same problems and similar solutions. Rostow's schem e Willi of homogenizing it or them without justification, and even systematically shored up with international comparisons at the beginning of t111 ~ I!J(l()s, missing the point. One should also point to the danger that, in this way, but it was later challenged by more systematic international comparisons, the comparative historian may implicitly fall victim to those 'asymmetrical Today, it is of only limited significance in scholarship, particularly since IhI' counterconcepts'15 with which the nations, classes, and groups he or she history ofindustrialization has continuously moved the notion ofcompurl studies distinguished themselves from others. Such a comparison may end son from the national to the regional level.18 up reproducing political and cultural self-definitions and stereotypes with­ out analysing the mechanisms that brought them into existence in the first place. This was one of the main arguments advanced against comparative Comparison and Typology history by Michel Espagne, when he promoted transfer history approaches If comparison is intended to lead to a typology, then it is essential that it instead." include at least three cases on a more or less equitable basis. One example But such comparative theses about specific patterns of national history for this approach is Theodor Schieders old, but still influential study of thl' frequently become starting points of challenging comparative question­ development of the nation state in western, central, and eastern Europe. By ing, leading into productive debate and research. This was the case when comparing national movements in Europe in the nineteenth century, he ar­ David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley started to criticize the German Sonder­ rived at the following typology: while the national movements in the West weg thesis, or when C.B.A. Behrens dealt with Franco-Prussian differences of the continent emerged in the frameworks of already existing territorial during the eighteenth century. Behrens argued that the French Revolution states, in central Europe, e.g., in Germany and Italy, these movements aimed should not only be seen as a heroic moment of French history, but, when at assembling smaller existing territorial units into nation states. In the East compared to the efficiency of Prussian politics, as the result of a failure of of the continent, they turned against existing supranational empires in or­ administration and governance during the eighteenth century. In another der to break them up and form nation states. According to Schieder, this example, Roger Brubaker reaffirmed the importance of traditional German was linked to profound differences in the national movements' respective and French particularities when he compared principles of citizenship and programmatic-ideological orientation and 'timing; which can be examined opposed the German ius sanguinis to the French ius solis; the first being through systematic comparison." A different typology can be arrived at if exclusive, the second more inclusive. But research done by Patrick Weill one does not look for structural types, but, rather, for types of outcomes. and Dieter Gosewinkel has shown that the differences between the two In his study of the small states of central, eastern, and northern Europe, countries are not as clear from the beginning, and that the idea of the ius Miroslav Hroch set different caesuras depending on the social bearers and solis is shifting to France due to German influences. The construction of the respective spread of national ideas, and distinguished three phases lead­ national differences or Sonderwege is questioned by these kinds of compar­ ing up to the development of mass movements." Both typologies have been ative studies, which in turn would not have come into being if the Sonder­ strongly criticized by empirical research over recent years and have been weg construction had not been presented in the first place. I? revised to some extent. Ulrike von Hirschhausen and lorn Leonhard sum­ marize the current state of research under the programmatic title: 'From Comparison and Stage Theories Typology to the Determination of Difference?' They also use comparative analysis, although not with the intention of typologizing, but, rather, in order Comparisons have long been central to stage theory and, thus, to diachronic to challenge conventional typologies. Today, the anti-typological mood pre­ arguments. These are based on the assumption that institutions, economic vails. But it is ultimately focused on what it rejects. The value of comparative systems, societies or even entire civilizations follow certain regular devel­ typologies lies not least in the way they provoke research and arguments opment patterns and, thus, are essentially comparable, even if they differ in with a critical thrust and thus contribute to the progress of knowledge. terms of space, time, and details. Stage theories have rightly fallen out of One could cite other examples of successful typological comparisons. fashion, not least because precise comparison has helped to demonstrate Scholars have examined variants of 'political modernization' of the nine­ Ii /1 1',1:1'/1 11111'1.. 11 .tnd I lrln t; O,',hll l'll llll lll JI ( ' 0 /11110/1 / 111/1 , /1 // 1111 ' )'1111'/: '/h " I1 I/I1 I1.\ , S(U/' I1 , 1II 1I /I " , ,. ,\/ J (! ~(/I " ' :' II

tccnt.h and twcn ti.-th cc ntu r ics, establishing lypolo g !l' ~ : I hut ('lI l11p ll lT Wl 'st­ Wil:: IIl'hie ved ill <';l: I'11Iilll)' h)' I ill' w ull uro state , was ul tc urpl cr! ill F I' i1I I<'I' hy ern Eu rope with Russia, India, ancl jap an ." Des pite decad es or rriticism IJleanS o r a soci ully ope II, mc rltocr uticully organized educa tio nal SyS IWII,'11i aimed at m odernization th eories and co ncepts, the h isto rlcal usc of th e terms 'modernizatio n' and 'modernity' has recently experienced a new Comparisons in Comprehensive A rguments boom , m odified by the pluralize d notion of 'm ultip le modernities." Suc h stud ies fre q uently work o n a co m parative basis. The tran sition from totali ­ Com pariso n Illay appear as th e ce ntre piece of analyses th at exclus ively tarian, au thoritarian, a nd o ther di ctat o rships int o various forms o f repre ­ rio not a rgue co m pa ratively, but also employ other ap p roaches. 'l hi » ,'I.' senta tive d emo cracy in th e second half of the twentieth ce ntu ry is being rl' l'S to com prehe ns ive, e mpi rica lly based, th eoret icall y o riented, hi st o rical researc hed fro m a historical perspective. Su ch stu dies ca n not d o without il}'stern Cl tic ana lyses with a comparati ve co re, which are aimed at II brund , co m pa ra tive typologies." Researc hers h ave rece n tly d iscov ered an interest hut spatially, chronologically, and th ematically lim ited su bject. '1hesc at'" in th e dev elopment of European civil so ciety in the period fro m th e eigh­ studies th at have traditionally been u ndertaken by social scientists ruther teenth to the twentieth ce nturies. Th ere are m an y d ifference s to be reg­ th.m by historians. Karl Polanyi's study is o ne outstand ing ex ample of th ls. istered and ex plained- not o nly in regard to thei r co nte n t, bearers, a nd Mi ch ael M ann pro d uces this type o f ambit ious a na lysis today." Alcxund o: forms, but also their successes and failures. 'Pa th de pe nde nce' pl ays an icrsche n kron wro te a co m p re he nsi ve ana lysis-o ne co uld perh aps say all important rol e, but so d oes th e mutual impact of th ese di fferent paths. A r-m plrically su pporte d th eory- of Europe's ind us trial developmen t, which, historical typ ology is the goal." while one would ce rta inly critici ze it em pirica lly today, remains a scicn ti lk: W h ile typ ol ogical co mpariso ns yield co ns iderable ben efits, they also m ast erpiece in its struc ture. At its ce ntre sta nds th e co m pariso n be tw een c reate pro blems. So metimes, th ey underestimat e th e multi-dimensionality, national in dustrialization processes in Europe . G ersch enkro n pr esent S a co ntinge ncy, and o pe n ness of historical si tua tions; th ey m arginalize resis­ list o f th eir fu ndamenta l sim ila rities and th eir significa n t differen ces, which ta nce to th e general trends a nd co ve r u p the non-reali zed alte rnatives th at he su m med up in the ph rase 'different so lutions for id entical pr oblems und m ay have been p resent in a historical situa tio n. Typol ogi cal co m pa riso ns lunctional eq uiva le nts : But G ersch enkron d id not stop there. H e co nce ive d privilege the hi st o r y o f th ose tr ends th at ultim ately asserte d themselves. (d' the com pa ra tive cases he stud ied as co mponen ts ofa co m prehens ive s}'s Th e ge ne ra lly accu ra te notion th at the nat ion sta te-and not th e city or th e tern of European industriali zat ion. He explai ne d th e difference s bctw cc» em pire -asserted it self as th e h ist orically m ost sig nifica n t form of la rge­ (hem by th ei r di ffe rent position in th e overa ll syste m ('re lati ve ba ckward scale polit ical o rganizati on in nin eteenth-century Europe also led Th eodo r ness'); by their d ifferent timing o n th e o ne hand a nd by their mutual inllu­ Schiede r and others to belittle all efforts d evi ating from th is goal as 'par­ «nee, i.e., th e hist o ry of th e relationship be tween th em, o n th e othe r." ticularist." Th e co mpara tive- ty pological approach fre q ue ntly focuses o n Another ou tsta nd ing exam ple for th e analysis o f a co m p re he ns ive proh ­ success and th e co nd it ions fo r success and not o n the cos ts and victims of lcmati c w it h a comparative co re is Barrington M o ore's m ast erly study o f st ruc tu ra l d ecisio ns and d evelopments. Fin ally, stud ies takin g a typological I he di ffe rent pa t hs to mode rnity tak en by Eng land, Fra nc e, th e US, C hina, ap proach tend to in sinuat e that certain d ev elo p m ents and str uctures are Japan, and In di a in regard to th e d ev elopm ent of d emocracy a nd d ictator 'norma l; suc h as Eng lish industrialization, Anglo -Saxon d emocracy, a nd ship. Th e ge neral descriptio n, causal analysis, and interpretation o f diller Western civil society. In th e pro ce ss, such phenomena a re ofte n reduced to cn t developments are ni cely linked up , th e 'co n necte d hi story' elements ,1I'1l a few characte ristic traits. They are eve n idealized and used as benchmarks a ll in place, a nd yet the co m pa riso n is th e ce ntra l m otor of a comp re hensive in th e study o f di ffe rent nati onal and reg ional cases." If o ne o nly m easures I heor etical-hist or ical Iine of argument ." the distan ce betwee n o ne case (which h as been stylized as a proto ty pe) a nd This also applies to recent works in the field of world history. The lar ge othe r national or regio na l cases, one fre q uently e nds up with th e th esis scale stud ies by Roy Bin Wong, David Landes, Gunder Frank, and Kennet h of the (allege d) backwardness of the one behind th e other. Su ch a char­ Pome ra nz pursue th e famous quest ion, o nce asked by M ax We be r a nd stili ac te riza tio n says a nd explains little. Th is m ethodological weak ne ss ca n be timely today, o f why a nd how th e West ac hieved its m oderniza tion head reduced if o ne uses the argu menta t ion mod el of th e 'fu nctio nal equivalent: start befo re other parts o f the world . But u nlike We ber, th ey are COn(;('11 Fo r exam ple, Arnold Heidenheimer not only exam ine d th e di fferent deve l­ tru ti ng on econom ic moderniza tion-self-s usta ini ng growth and ind us opment ra tes o f we lfare state str uctu res in Fr an ce and Germa ny, but also lri alil'.ation· and have co me to notice tha t th e Euro pean head sl;lrl only po inte d out that social pacificati on and th e creation of m ass lo yalty, which 1)l'C'am e manifest in th e eigh te e nth centu ry. For exa m ple, it is d irriclIll to ('/lIII/ ,,,r/'.,,'11 mul 1l 1 ' ~ I " " /l I ; 't' mdttunu: .'l(.'fll"', f / I /t! ""/ ',1/1/'1'1 11 '/''\ II l (I JI'II :'~( :/I [.;oc:/w (/1/(1 l lcln r-Gcrttart! lln.upt.

1",11 1iou, urbunizut lnn, and illdusl riulizutiou processes , 'Jhe mo re ~;l.roIlJl,ly speak of European superiority vis-a-vis China in previous ce n tu ries. 'This tlw ~ O(: models are exposed to crttlcism and crnpirical revision, th L' greater literature poses very complex causal questions, which are linked explicitly Ill(' chance that historical comparison can contribute to their sp cclficutton , and implicitly with assessments of the success and costs of Western mod­ n -vlsio n, and reformulation. The more rigid and Inflexible the I.h('orL:l icul ernization in relation to other civilizations. This literature does not rely arc, however, the greater is the danger that comparison will do on comparison alone, but, rather, is based on highly diverse approaches nxsumptions toward analysis and interpretation. Unlike Weber, it also examines the uol hln g more than turn up illustrations of similar cases." Large-scale comparisons with broad and even global reach can have lm interaction between the different regions of the world and enquires par­ ticularly into non-Western influences on the West's development. Com­ I'ortant functions. They can develop the distinctions and aspects thai art' parison, however, plays an important role all the same. The question of ni-ccssary for historical-political orientation and hypothesis formation, with out which individual studies would often remain systematically unlinked, which comparative units and benchmarks should be used becomes acute." \ '01' example, the successful large-scale global comparisons of B. Moore, Without systematic comparison, this kind of broad-based, comprehensive, Ie Ikndix, and others have, so to speak, pre-structured various Iicld» or ambitious 'wo rld history' would quickly fall prey to speculative and impres­ historical praxis and have thus served as systematic hypothesis-generators. sionistic commonplace. It revalorizes historical comparison. l lowcver, this sort of research also reveals the narrow limits within whi ch historians usually work. In globally conceived comparisons, empirical cvl The Whole and the Parts /k nee can become a mere illustration of theoretical pre-decisions and uSt'd In a way that confirms the validity of the opening premise by nccesslt y, Hartmut Kaelble, among others, has spoken in favour of global compari­ While a holistic view of societies may well enhance the coherence or \h« sons. He advocates the 'explicit and systematic comparison of two or more .Icmonstration, it can easily underestimate the highly differentiated co m historical societies in order to investigate differences and similarities, as well position of historical processes and structures. Particularly when applied to ' ~~ as processes of divergent and convergent development." Indeed, numer­ Europe as a whole, there is great danger of overemphasi zing the contincut ous comparative studies have adopted such a macro-historical approach, «ohcrence and homogeneity." But they have been criticized for concentrating too much on general so­ On the other hand, historical comparisons are often applied not to cutire cial structures and functional contexts, rather than on the perspectives of systems, but to partial aspects and partial areas that are clearly distingui sh affected and participating agents themselves. Increasingly, comparativists able in thematic, geographical, and chronological terms. The meaning or have learned to include the meso- and micro-historical levels." confessional identity in local elections, comparisons of various villages in One typical example of comparing global structures is the already men­ difterent settlement regions of a nation state or the agrarian movements o!' tioned classic work of Barrington Moore (1966). While more recent agrar­ various countries in the early phase of the European Revolution of 1HIJ,H -­ ian historical studies have tended to emphasize the variety of situations in these are examples of partial (limited) comparisons, which can be bol h the countryside, Moore was concerned with a comparison of entire societ­ international and intrasocietal." The meso-level also provides numerous ies. Within them, he traced various expressions of rural structures and their opportunities for comparative research. Social practices such as cooptation consequences for the democratization process. Hartmut Kaelble pursued a mechanisms, marriage, and social mobility patterns or association struc­ similar logic when he sought the social-historical substrate of the political IUl'CS can be profitably compared with one another in a chronologically integration process in twentieth-century Western Europe." On the basis of specific and locally transcendent manner." quantitative and qualitative evidence, Kaelble emphasized the tendencies To be sure, the whole and its parts do not always fit neatly together, toward convergence between European societies in fields such as urbaniza­ 'Ihcir relationship can be determined analytically as long as the parts- ,Io are tion, the family, and employment structures in contrast to the United States. quote a succinct formulation by Pierre Vilar'lO- interpreted as factors, It is preferred to use developmental-logical models or general theories in results or indicators of the overall social context. Case studies can be llsl;d comparative studies of large-scale structures. References to the bourgeois to find out 1.0 what: extent and in which way specific aspects or objrct s W('I'\' revolutions, within the framework of which individual revolutionary upris­ co nne cted with general processes and structures: whether they WI :/'(; lut ings are compared, belong just as much to the comparative historian's tool pact ed by the 111 , whether they CUll be se en in analogy to th em, or wh t.;tl\(' 1' kit as the recourse to corporative or bourgeois society, as well as modern­ they rea ct ed upon and changed them. '\ his broad anchoring or conlparaliv« fI /I :~ 1.'I 1 K iJrA ll "I/d " ,'Iil l n l!/ltil ll l llOIlIJl I. ( '!lll ll " " / \ 1/1/ " /11 1 11 /1\'1/1/1 11 '/ h " I/I /I/I/,I, S(li/./I'. 1/111 / / '/11'01/" '/ '1/1'(/,\ I il

~ ;Ill d k :i j studies is also dcslrublc {ill' co mparative local ,.llIn · II (' 11 11110 1 be as­ SO Il l"('('S as all uuussnllubl« prln ciplc o f the hlstorlcul \!I'ol'essloll, Stili, ( ; rlll: l c ~ : . 1 1 sumed that everythi ng that is local has excl usiv ely locHI Ol\(' has to dlll ( ~ l' ell ll a k, While it can be achieved ill specialized s tll dl (' ~ : , If indivi dua l ph enomena o r pa rtia l areas from various xoclcties are co m ­ it is much less feasible in grand syntheses, and its value must not ))(' pared with o ne anothe r (wh ich is the rul e), one sho uld realize th at a single onc-sidcdly emphasized vis-a-vis other fundamen tal principles of IIII' ph en omenon ca n have different mean ings in different co ntex ts. M utatis discipline, e.g., the goal of understanding broader historical contexts. mutandis, th is also applies to intrasocietal co m pa rison. For exa m ple, evi ­ b. Historians are always concerne d with comprehending the LI':ll\sI'OI' dence th at , befo re 1914, aristocra ts in man y central and western Eu ropean mation of reality over time. Our interests, explanations, and pres(H! co unt ries held lead ing positions in bu siness means little as long as one ig­ tational patterns (even if they are of a systematic and argumentat ive nor es th e different meaning of 'aristocracy' in, say, Galicia or Hungar y, in nature) generally display a 'before and after' structur e. The dlsclplhu­ Fran ce's largely de- ar istocr at iciz ed society, and, by contrast, in German so­ is characterized by its special relationship to tirne. To many historians, ciety, which was st rongly influe nced by aristocratic models. Behind what their discipline is fundamentally committed to comprehending chang« Arno M ayer ca lled the 'pe rsiste nce of the Ancien Regime' (1981), we can over time in terms of development. This means that while new events find hidden a wide ar ray of lifestyl es and strategies, channels of influence, occur over the passage of time, the new is not a repetition of the old, and development processes." That which looks identical can-depending but, rather, the new emerges from the old. The old already contains the on its co ntex t- m ean something very different. Comparative studies must new as a possibility. The historical meaning of empiri cal findings docs take thi s se riously. not become evident unless they are interpreted within their diachronic contexts. History is not a sum or sequence of cases that can be used to The Peculiarities of Comparison in Historical Studies exemplify general laws. In this way, the great significance of the indio viduality principle in historical studies becomes understandable. Comparisons play a large role in th e various social sciences and in the hu­ c. Historians assume that individual components of reality cannot be un­ manities-often m ore th an in history. W he the r in linguistics, law, sociology, derstoo d outside of their connection with other components of this re­ political science, ethnology or literary studies, international comparisons ality. TIle perspectivist view of the differently interpr eted whole is part are well kn own." Dep ending on th eir nat ional tr ad itions, historical stud­ of the understandin g of the components. In turn , unless these compo ies adopted internat ionally co mpara tive q uestions in different countries to nents are reconstructed, no accurate understandin g of the whole can varying exte nts . In G erman historical studies, internati onal comparison be possible. Historical findings gain their meanings from their relation­ has been generally mor e widesprea d th an in French or Italian scholarshi p. ships within synchro nic and diachronic contexts. Thus, the isolation or Today, the method is not limited to demographic or eco no mic hist o ry, as variables is less feasible and more limited in histor y than in economics in th e 1970s, or to social histo ry, as in th e 1980s and 1990s; there are also or empirical social research. numer ou s examp les of comparison in cultural hist ory." Does historical co m parison possess ce rta in peculiarities that distinguish Th e com pa ra tive approach maintains a somewh at tense relat ionsh ip (li it from co m para tive methods in other disciplines? We sho uld se t our sights th ese three pr inciples of th e hist orical method: on gradual and not funda me nta l differ ences." a. TIle more comparative cases are included, the smaller is the oppor ' a. Since the late Enlightenment, an attit ude has been spreading among tunity to adhere to the sourc es and the greater is one's dependence professional historians to the effect that historical research and presen­ on secondary literatur e. But the use of secondary literature for com, tation must adhere closely to the sources if they want to claim academic parative arguments is not without problems. If one does not want to validity. Such an approach, historians hoped, would be particularly au­ uncritically repeat the vision a certain historiography is presenting on thenti c. Since then, the critical reconstruction of past times from the a certain problem or country, one has to immerse oneself thorou ghly vast array of different Sources has been among the disciplinary stan­ in the historiographical debates. If one studies a Spanish topic of the dards of modern historical studies. Proceeding from the principle of nineteenth century on the basis of original materials and compares it proximity to the sources used, historians cultivate a healthy scepticism with a Japanese case of the same time, for linguistic reasons , the study toward quick generalizations. We too see proximity to the original of the Asian society may have to be based on secondary literatu re I II 1/11 :1:1'11 "lIdli II lit! 1ll'illz' (;crhrl/'ll Haupt Comparison and Beyond: Traditions, Scope, and Perspectives I;'

which, outside Japan, is published largely in English. A careful look at certain distance to the classical historicist tradition. So far it has been the English and American studies of Japan becomes necessary and a re­ concern of a minority.? flection between this vision of Japan and the state of Japanese studies But it also follows that historical comparisons should be ofa certain kind in the country itself would seem obligatory. that minimizes the tensions with the stated basic principles of historical b. The notion of comparison assumes that the subjects being compared studies. Historical comparisons differ and should differ from comparisons can be separated analytically, i.e.i.that the development context can, so in the systematic social sciences to some degree in regard to the following to speak, be chopped up. Units of comparison are not normally seen characteristics: Historical comparisons tend to limit themselves to only a as stages of one development or as moments of one complex constel­ few cases, often just two or three. They are usually situated on an interrnc­ lation, but, rather, as mutually independent cases that are placed into diate level ofabstraction and go by the rule: as much abstraction as nec es­ relation with one another via general questions-according to simi­ sary, as much concretion and contextuality as possible. They usually pla ce larities or differences in certain respects. Those who compare do not more value on contrasts than on generalizations and are more interested conceive of the objects of their investigation as individualities only, but in the differences than the commonalities of the comparative objects. They as exemplary cases of a general phenomenon (tertium comparationisi, strive to include changes in time and dynamics, whether by selecting pro­ which resemble each other in some respects and differ in others. Com­ cesses as objects of comparison, by classifying non-processual compara­ parison shatters continuities and interrupts the flow of a narrative. tive findings in terms of before and after, or by complementing comparison Comparison usually does not deal with the passage of time, but, rather, with other approaches. Finally, it is typical of historical comparisons thut with similarities and differences. t.hey frequently attempt to link structural-processual analysis with the re­ construction of experiences, perceptions and actions. c. One cannot compare phenomena in their multi-layered totality-as On the other hand, we find not only tensions, but also affinities be­ complete individualities-but only in certain regards. Comparison tween the principles of historical studies and the principles of comparison, thus assumes to some degree a selection, abstraction, and detachment '[he more analytical historical studies have become," the more they have from context. This necessity becomes particularly evident when one opened themselves up to comparison. There is a close and mutually help compares large numbers of cases. Someone who compares twenty in­ CuI relationship between comparison and the analytical orientation in his ­ dustrialization processes or slavery in sixty countries has no choice tory. After all, when it is understood correctly, history's approach is always but to examine the objects of investigation largely abstracted from dependent on points of view, whether comparative or not. It is always se­ their synchronic and diachronic contexts. Historians have reserva ­ lective and (re- )constructive. These attributes only become more manifest tions about this approach. The problem shrinks, but does not disap­ in comparison. As a matter of fact, historians always should define th eir pear altogether if one restricts oneself to just two or three comparative units of investigation sharply in order to avoid misunderstandings and to cases. In other words, comparison always means abstraction. Deborah achieve clarity. They only become particularly aware of this when making Cohen is concerned about the costs of this reduction: 'While national comparisons. For reasons of intellectual honesty, historians are called upon historians' arguments tend towards the rnultlcausal, drawing upon all to reflect on their choice of terms and their references to non-scholarly of the factors that can explain a particular phenomenon, comparat­ conditions and consequences anyway. Comparison only forces them to \11\­ ists are often caught in a mono -or bicausal trap." This argumentation dcrtake such a self-reflection in a particularly unavoidable way. overstresses the totality of arguments within national history and un­ Comparative history is theoretically ambitious. It should constantly 1'(' derstresses their selectivity. But it emphasizes the necessity for com­ (leer on the conditions underlying its own approach, Among the qucsrions parative historians to reflect on their selective procedures and the its practitioners must consider and pass judgment on ar e the followilll',: highly constructed status of their results. a. Which comparative unit s are appropriate (nation s, regions, cultures, This explains why, ever since the age of historicism, which helped bring epochs, crisis situations, institutions, groups)? Whil e the decision nwy the above-mentioned basic principles to the fore , historical studies have depend on the availahilit.y of source s, it particularly depends Oil til<' maintained a certain reserve toward comparison. Comparing is something guiding qucxtious. Take the history of the welfare sLall' us an exnmpl«. for conceptually explicit, theoretically orienrcd, analytical historian» with a \X!1H'il lis l~\dcl"ll', J!riJI( 'lpll'~; and its oril~il1s WI'J'(' to 1)(' analysed, 1111' II. Illt:lit'll Knrl;« II/1d /Il'im ' {)(,I'IIiI/'I{ 111111111 ( '///1 11"1/1"" 11 011/.1 11,1\iI I/I,{: ·l i'll,{IIIIIII.I, ,','('/)/ 11.', ,1I//l l b .' III'I'II 1·,·... 17

comparative unit would be the nation state. If we were interested 111 the L1ll'1I it makes SI' lI S(: tu Iw;( ~ I'( one's probe at a specific po int In tlnu-, implementation of particular social laws, then the local level would be such as 1818 or 1H~(), and thus to undertake a synchronic compurl more promising."? son ." If one wants to know how individual societies have solved COil b. With what, and with whom, should the comparison be made? One crete problems, then a time-staggered comparison may be 1H' (I'SS

Il\'l.wl:l~11 the way they perceived, influenced, stamped, and constituted one another. !'ilIIVl;l'gences and divergences the cases compared. 'I his hns been t\1 ;t cll~; sed Interest in the cultural relations between two national states, particularly th eoretically, and good con,parative studies hav e co nsidc rc d th ls Germany and France, has been one of the roots of such approaches. Inter­ III pructi cc.?" 'The rise of entanglement history has reconfirmed this mel h. est in the deeply asymmetric but entangled relation between colonial pow­ 'If\ologknl necessity, It is the task of the future to better combine co mpu ru ers and colonies, between metropolis and periphery, between the West and l ive and entanglement history." other parts of the world has been another source for such approaches. They II Is in this sense that we are moving 'beyond comparison: It means 10 " ~ 'lIt:r received an additional push by the recent upsurge of global history." embed comparison in other intellectual operations and to modify it The logic of comparison and the logic of entanglement history/histoire III this process . Historical comparison is changing and will continue 10 ad croisee clearly differ. While the comparative approach separates the units )11 :;1 lo new needs and tasks. It is becoming more subtle and self-reflective. of comparison (in order to bring them again together under the viewpoints ( :' II 11 parative history and entanglement history are being combined in new of similarity and difference), entanglement-oriented approaches stress the W;I)' S, '[his is demonstrated by the following contributions to thi s volume, connections, the continuity, the belonging-together, the hybridity of ob­ whic h show in which directions relevant work and debates of German his ­ servable spaces or analytical units and reject distinguishing them clearly 1III'IailS are moving. (although, contrary to their self-understanding, they cannot do without distinguishing between them, either). Some advocates of histoire croisee have rejected comparative history as The Contributions to this Volume too analytical, in the sense of drawing distinctions where they do not exist. They have stressed the incompatibility of histoire croisee and comparison. I he articles in this volume are either discussions on the scope and prob­ These positions are not convincing and have largely been given up." But \I,IIIS of comparative and transnational history or innovative case studies, there continue to be many examples of histoire croisee and entanglement 'l ilt: journal Geschichte und Gesellschaft in 2001 opened a discussion on I Ill' history that are satisfied with reconstructing relations and influences with­ ptlssibilities and limits of transnational history. Two of the most challcng­ i l l ~ out practising a clear-cut comparison. This is problematic, because it is :ll'ticies published in this context are reproduced here. Iurgcn Osler nearly impossible for transfer and entanglement historians to reach their II HIJtll1cl, who not only demands for more internationally oriented wr iting aims if they shy away from precise comparison. As Johannes Paulmann put nul research in Germany but is practising it, continues to defend the mcth­ it: 'In order, as a historian, to recognize what is happening during a transfer, ,)(\ological principles of comparative history, but would like to open so cial one must compare the following: the position of the object under investi­ hlslory research to broader transnational prospects. Migration history, (or gation in its old context with that in its new context, the social origins of «xumple, could be one of the more promising fields. In his article, O ster­ the intermediaries and of the affected parties in one country with those hummel does not abandon the national perspective, but wants to situate of another, terms in one language with those of another, and finally the I i l l a global context, as does Sebastian Conrad. \'qith a critical historic interpretation of a phenomenon within the national culture from which it J!, raph ic perspective, Conrad argues against the exclusion of colonialism comes with that in which it has been Introduced." Without explicit com­ from the main historical narratives, as well as against the assumption that parison, historical studies of transfers and of entanglements are in danger ( ;cr ll1 any's short colonial experience did not have any pertinent effects Oil of becoming airy and thin. ( icrman society. Andreas Eckert takes up this argument and, based olt rc­ On the other hand, comparative studies are not damaged, but improved ".'Ill studies on Africa, uncovers the layers of the historical relationship by considering connections between the units of comparison wherever and In:1 ween Germany and its colonies. One of the underlying assumptions or h cs~' whenever they exist. Apart from those interesting studies that compare so­ I approaches is the 'entanglement' of histories in- and outside of F,ll cieties very far removed from one another and unconnected/" comparative rop<\ Shall ni Randcria criticizes a Eurocentric approach by stressing I hr research can and must take connections between the compared cases into V:lri('\y of conce pts of modernity and civil society used outside 0(' Europe account. Such connections-i.e., mutual perceptions and influences, trans­ I hal also influenced European development. '[11C different. forms 'cJtlallgl(o' fers and travels, migrations and trade, interaction, relations of imitation 111 \:nl' call take ar c al the core of the article by Monica [unu]a and Mn rgrl: and avoidance, shared dependence from one and the same constellation or l'l:l'Jlall, wh erein th e authors stress th e importuncc of stuclyinj: I rallsl:\[iollr. common origin -Illay coutriburc lo l ~xpl;lil1in g similurit ics nud cllllcr cncc s. (d' l'()IICl:pl s, :\ S well as the Ii11('a)\\'s h('lw( 'CII ltiSlol'iographil's. Ifh ,~ 1/1 1 ", /<,'AII .u«! !!"h lt (; ,'1'11,IIi t t" "11'1 ( '0/111" " 1\,1/, ,' lId ll " I'II//(I: Ttru lli lou», .'i1'1I1"·, /1" '/ I "'/ ,IJ!" ,"," "' ," :La

Besides the de bate initiated and dev eloped by histo rians .uul :'lldologists 'L. Surveys in l luupt and I\ lll' kll , ,'/1:. ..

IlL C r. lurgen Kocka, 'Asym me trical historical com parison: till' (' :1::1' 01 II\(, Ger­ 'Civil Sod dy In NIiIl'I"('lllh L:l:Il I Ill'Y Em-ope: Contpal'ison and III,yolld: III man "Sonderw eg"; in History and Theory 38 (1999): 4.Q - 51 ; !Ut I.olberg, lllstortrnl Concepts 1,,'IIt't" !11 Hfl slel'll (/1/11 Weslcl'II I:'U I"I/IIC, (·d. Man('n·d IliI 'How many Exceptionallsms", in Working-Class Formation. Nineteenth­ dcrmcicr (New York/Oxford, ·J.007), 85- 100; Iurgcn Schmidt, /./l'llgl'sd/st'II"lt. Century Patterns in Western Europ e and the United States, eds. I. Katznelson Iw'r:'{t;rschaftliches Engagem ent von der Antike bls zur Gegeuwart. 'icxu: 1111'-/ and A.R. Zolberg (Princeton, 1986),397-455; Stephen Kalberg, Max Webers Kommentare (Reinbek, 2007) . comparative-historical sociology (Cambridge, 1994). " Cl, 'Ihecdor Schieder, 'Partikularism us und nationales Bcwusstseln 111\ 1)1'llk \'11 15. Reinhart Koselleck, 'Zur historisch-politischen Semantik asymmetrischer Ge­ des Vorrnarz; in Schieder, Nationalismus und Nationalstaat. Studicu ;; 1111/ III/ genbegriffe, in Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher tionalen Problem im modern en Europa (Gottingen, 1992), 166- %. Zeiten (Frankfurt, 1979), 211-59, ').7, Criticism of this approach can be seen in Jean Bouvier, 'Libres prop os :llIllII II ' 16. 'Sur les limites du comparatisme en histoire culturelle; in Geneses 17 (1994): d'une demarche revision iste; in Le Capitalisme francais. X/XC-XXI: S/,lt'I,'s, 112-21. Blocages et dynamismes d'une croissance, ed s. Patrick Fridenson and Aud r 17. David B1ackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities ofGerman History. Bour­ Strauss (Paris, 1987), 11-27. geois Society and Politics in 19th-Century Germany (Oxford, 1984); C.B .A. ~~ H . A.J. Heidenheimer, 'The Politics of Public Education, Health and Wclfan' III Behrens, Society, Government and the Enlightenment: The Experience ofEigh­ the USA and Western Europe: How Growth and Reform Potentials Huvu IHI'­ teenth Century FranceandPrussia (New York, 1985); A.R. Brubaker, Citizenship fered ' in British Journal ofPolitical Science 3 (1973): 315-40. Cf. the though tflll and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, 1992); D. Gosewinkel, essay of P. Baldwin, 'Com paring and Generalizing: Why all history is comnn P.Weill, and A.Fahrmeir, Citizens and Aliens: Foreigners and the Law in Britain rative, yet no history is sociology: in Cohen and O'Connor, Comparison, I -22, and German States 1789-1870 (New York, 2000). Especially when compari son of organizati ons is intended, one should 1101 lllst 18. W.W. Rostow, The Stages ofEconomic Growth (Cambridge, 1960); the regional look for corresponding institutions in an other society, but also ask how pro historical approach in Sidney Pollard, Peaceful Conquest. The Industrialisa­ blems to which specific institutions try to respond are resolved by other 1I11:all:, tion ofEurope (Oxford, 1981). Patrick K. O'Brien, 'Industrialisation, Typolo­ in other institutional, political, and cultural contexts. cr. Kiran Patel, ISo lt l il 'r ,~ gies and History of; in International Encyclopedia ofthe Social and Behavioral ofWork': Lab or Services in Na zi Germany and New Deal America, IY:l.'I 1<)1/ ;. Sciences, vol. 11 (London, 2001), 7360-67. (Cambridge, 2005) . 19. 1heodor Schieder, 'Typologie und Erscheinungsformen des Nationalstaates in ,),9 , Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Or/gills of Europa: in Historische Z eitschrift 202 (1966): 58-81. Our Tim es (1944) (Boston, 1957); Michael Mann, The Sources a/Social !'C!lt'I 'I'\', 20. Miroslav Hroch, Die Vorkampjer der nationalen Bewegung bei den klein eren 2 vols., (Cambridge, 1986, 1993). Volkern Europas (Prague, 1968). :10. Alexander Ger schenkron, Economi c Backwardness in Historical Perspective 21. Ulrike v, Hirschhausen and lorn Leonhard, 'Europaischer Nationalismus im (Ca m bridge, MA , 1962). In terms of criticism: P.K. O'Brien, 'Do We Have II Wcst-OstVergleich: Von del' Typologie zur Differenzbestimrnung; in Nati ona­ Typology for th e Study of European Industrialization in the XIXth Cenllll'y'{ : lismus in Europa. West- und Osteuropa im Vergleich, eds. Hirschhausen and in Journal ofEuropean Economic History 15 (1986 ): 291-334. Leonhard (Gottingen, 2001), 11- 45. :11 , Barrington Moore, Social Origins ofDictatorship and Democracy. Lord au «! 22. Cf. Reinhard Bendix, Nation-Building and Citizenship (Berkeley/Los Angeles, Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, 1966). 1977); Bendix, Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (Berkeley/Los :,2, Cf. Roy Bin Wong, China Transformed. Historical Change and the Limits I!lllllt'll Angeles, 1978). pean Experience (Ithaca/London, 1997); David S. Landes, The Wealth and ['01'''''/,)' 23. Cf. Paul Nolte, 'Modernization and Modernity in History; in International ofNations. W hy Some Are So Rich and Som e So Poor (New York, 1998); Gunder Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15 (London, 2001) , Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley/Los AlIgdl:NI 9954-61; D. Sachsenmaier and J. Riedel, eds., Reflection s on Multiple Moder­ London, 1998); Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, China, Europe aut! nities. Europ ean, Chinese and Other Interpretations (Leiden, 2002) (including the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton University Press, :WOO), a seminal contribution by S.N. Eisenstadt). Still important: H.-U. Wehler, Mo­ Cf. Peer H.H . Vries, 'Govern ing Growth: A Comparative Analysis of the Rol« o( derni sierungstheorie und Geschichte (Gottingen, 1977). the State in the Rise of the West: in Journal of World History 13 (2002): C!7 - 1:IH, 24. Cf. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transiti on and :B. Kaelble, Der Historische vergleich, 12. Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europ e :H . Cf. Th. Welskopp, 'Die Sozialgeschi chte del' Vater. Grenzen und Per spekllvc» (Baltimore/London, 1996). del' Historischen Soz ialwi ssenschaft; in Geschichte und Gesellscha]t '2/1 (I ~' ) I i ): 25. Cf. Manfred Hildermeier et al., eds., Europdische Zivilges ellschaft in Ost und 173-98; Jacques Revel, [eux d echelles. l.a micro-analyse Cl. lexp cricna: (l'urls: West. BegrijJ, Geschichte, Chan cen (Frankfurt/New York, 2000); Iurgen Kocka, I.e Scull, 1996). " i' II'/" ~I 'I/ 1" ,/"1.." ,1111 1Ill'll/! ( h'rlll ll '" Iltlllill ( '/11111" " /..." IIIiii 11" 1'111 /'/1Tra.lltlon», ,':rll/ J1 '. ' 1IIrl l " ·(.I/,,·('tll',.'.\ '),7

r, ~l', : dlllly " H() ~ ; , : l~ " II. Kuclblc, /sufdcm W(:g z u einer europiiischen Gcscltsctuijt, mil ,' ,~· II :i rtlg c · IH, III till' I 'J'i'Os 1\ 11 .1 I U . <';I 'OI'g Ci. Iggl'l's. M '1l' D ln-ctton« III 1:11 schichte West europas, 1H8U-198U (Munich, 1987). Cf. Kaclblv, 'Europ iiischc / 'IIIWIIII I list.or!lIgmI'/ty, n -v, ('d, (Middletown, C'I', 19H1.), lur II ~ p i l' i l l. ~d aurl Geschichte aus westeuropaischer Sicht?; in Gunilla Budde et al., cds. , Tran s­('(lIlviud ng statem ent in favour' of analytical (not ne cessarily quuntiuu lvc) up­ nationale Geschichte. Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Gottingeu , 2006), pro ,ll:hcs ill history, d . Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Literarische I:r:tiih!l(./)g oil,,/, 1\/,11 105-17. Most recently: Hartmut Kaelble , Sozialgeschichte Europas. 1945 bis g i ll; A na lyse? tin Du ell in del' gegen wartigen Geschichtswlssenschait (Vlenn a, zur Gegenwart (Munich, 2007). But see P. Baldwin, The Narcissism ofMinor :J..O( 7). Differences. How America and Europe Are Alike (Oxford, 2009). I'), Ct. P. Baldwin , The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases o] till: 1~lll'/Illl 'rl/l 36. Cf. H.-G. Haupt, 'Historische Komparatistik in del' internationalen Geschichts­ Welfare State, 1875-1975 (New York, 1999); G. Espin g-Andersen , 'lhc '1Im'I' schreibung; in Budde et al., eds., Transnationale Geschichte, 142f.; ]. Oster­ VVorlds ofWelfare Capitalism (Princeton, 1990); D. Cohen, The War COllie I luun: harnmel, 'Sozialgeschichte im Zivilisationsvergleich. Zu kunftigen Moglich­ Disabled Veterans in Britain an d Germany, 1914-1939 (Berkeley, 20()I). keiten komparativer Geschichte, in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22 (1996) : \(), Cf G. Sluga, 'The Nation and the Comparative Ima gination; in Cohen .uul 143-64. O'Conno r, Comparison, 103-14, 37. Cf. S.N. Serneri, 'L'Europa: identita e storia di un continente, in Contempora­,I . Iurgen Kocka, 'The European Pattern and the German Case; in Bourgco!» ,""0 nea 2 (1999): 79-102. ciety in Nineteenth-Century Europe, eds. ]ilrgen Kocka and Allan Mit<'i H'1I 38. Cf. Deborah Cohen, 'Comparative History: Buyer Beware; in Bulletin of th e (Oxford/Providence, 1993), 21-39. German Historical Institute 29 (2001): 23-33. See also ].L. McClain et al., eds ., ,:.! . See D. Dowe , H.-G. Haupt, and D. Langewiesche, eds ., Europa 1818. Rcvolu Edo and Pari s. Urban Life and th e State in th e Early M odern Era (London, tion und Reform (Bonn, 1998), 1994); D. Lehnert, Kommunale Politik: Parteien system und Interessenkonflikte ! ~ : l. Cf. lens Alber, Yom Armenhaus zum Wohlfahrtsstaat. Analysen zur Eutwirk in Berlin und Wien 1919-1932 (Berlin, 1991) . lung del' Sozialversicherung in Westeuropa (Frankfurt, 1982); S. Rudischhuu 39. H.-G . Haupt, ed ., 'Les rnobilites dans la petite bourgeoisie du XIXe siecle' ser and B. Zimmermann, "'bffentliche Arbeitsvermittlung" und "placeme nt Spec . Issue of the Bulletin du Centre Pierre Leon d'Hi stoi re econom iq ue et so­public" (1890-1914). Kategorien del' Intervention del' offentlichen llund. ciale (1993). Reflexionen zu einem Verglei ch' in Comparativ 5 (1995) : 93-120. Christoph 40. P. Vilar, 'Croissan ce economique et analyse historique, in Premiere Conference Conrad, 'Wohlfahrtsstaaten im Vergleich: Historische und sozialwissenschalt internationale d'Hlstoire econom ique, vol. 1 (Sto ckholm, 1960), 35-82. liche Ansatze, in Haupt and Kocka , Geschichte und vergleich, 155-80. 41. Marc Bloch,'Pour une histoire comparee: C. Fumian, 'Le virtu della cornpara­ ~ , ( I" Cf. Christian Meier, 'Aktueller Bedarfan historisch en Verglei chen. Uberlcgun zione; in Meridiana 4 (1988 ): 197-221. gen aus dem Fach del' Alten Geschichte, in Kocka and Haupt, Geschiclite 1/1/,/ 42. A. Mayer, ThePersistence ofthe Old Regime. Europe to the Great War (London, vergleich, 239-70. 1981) . ;,:i, Cf. also the argument in Haupt, 'Historische Komparatistik; 137-50, 43. See the bibliographies in Ernst Wilhelm Muller, 'Pladoyer fur die komparati­ ~ ) () . Cf. the bibliography of comparative works by European historians put tog('llwr ven Geisteswissenschaften, in Paideuma 39 (1993): 7-23. by Hartmut Kaelble in Haupt and Kocka, Geschichte und vergieich, 111- :10 . 44. Overviews of comparative historical literature in Germany, England, and !i7. This story has often be en told. Cf. e.g., Lutz Raph ael, Geschichtswissensclu!fi Fran ce can be found in: Haupt and Kocka , eds., Geschichte und vergleich, 47­im Z eitalter del' Extreme. Theori en, Methoden, Tendenzen VOn 1900 his W I' 90; here, 91-130, a report by Hartmut Kaelbl e on comparative social history in Gegenwart (Munich , 2003), chs. IX, XIII; Rolf Tor stendahl, ed ., An Assessment the research of European historians. of 20th-Century Historiography. Professionalism, M ethodologies, Writings 45. On this issue, see also Kaelble, Del' historische vergteich, 93-113. (Stockholm, 2000); Doris Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns. Neuorientlc 46. D. Cohen, 'Comparative History: Buyer Beware; in Cohen and O'Connor, rungen in den Kulturwissenschaften (Reinbek, 2006). Comparison, 63. !' H. Cf. Nancy Green, 'Forms of Comparison; in Cohen and O'Connor, Comport 47. Some new developments within th e discipline have not promoted the trend son, 41 -56; Green, 'Religion et ethnicite, De la comparaison spatia Ie et 1('111 toward comparison. Alltagsgeschichte, which was discussed so exhaustively porelle, in Annales HSS (2002 ), 127-44; Green, 'Th e Comparative Method in the 1980s, and which concentrated on the reconstruction of experiences and Poststructural Structuralism-New Perspe ctives for Migration Studies, iu and lifestyles within a micro-historical framework, remained sceptical tow ard Journal ofAmerican Ethnic History 13(4) (Summer 1994): 3- 22. analytical approaches and produced few comparisons. Alf Ludtke, ed ., All­S9. Cf. C. Tacke, Denkmal im sozialen Raum. Nationale Symbole in Deutschland tagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Leb ensweisen und Frankreich im 19. [ahrhundert (Gottingen, 1995 ); Tacke, 'Festc del' Rc­ (Frankfurt, 1989). The mo st recent emphasis on 'entangled histories' and hi­volution in Deutschland und Italien, in Europa 1848. Revolution und R~/i}/'J/I. stoire croisee has led to a situation where scholars have shown less interest in eds. D. Dowe et al. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 1998), 1045--88; H, Rausch, {(1I 11 similarities and differences than in relationships and transfers . jigur und Nati on. Oifentliche Denkmdler in Paris, Berlin and l.ondon 1M,'; 'J.H It'lJgt'/I I\ockfl and Hein s-Gerhard Jlattpt Compa rison and Beyond: Traditions, Scope, and Perspectives 29

1914 (Munich. 2006) ; j. Boutier and D. juli a, eds., Passes recomposes. Champs OIl . O n tr an sfer history see M . Espagne and M. W erner, eds ., Transferts cultu et chan tiers de l'histoire (Paris: Autrernent, 1995); M. Ieisrn ann, Da s Vater­ rels. Les relations interculturelles dan s l'espace fran co-allem and (X VII-XXI! land der Feinde. Studien zum nationalen FeindbegrijJ und Selbstverstdndnis siecles) (Paris, 1988); M. Espagne , Les transferts culturels f ranco-allemands in Deutschland und Frankreich 1792-1918 (Stuttgart, 1992); E. Francois et al., (Paris, 1999); H. Losebrink and R. Reich ardt, eds., Kulturtran sfer im Epoche­ eds. , Na tion und Emotion. Deutschland und Frankreich im Verglei ch. 19. und num bruch. Frankreich-Deutschland 1770 bis 1815 (Leipzig, 1997); L. jordan 20. lahrhundert (Gottinge n, 1995 ); Arno M ayer, The Furies. Violence and Ter­ and B. Kortlander, eds., Nationale Grenzen und internationaler A usta usch, ror in the French and Russian Revolutions (Pri nce to n, 2000); A. Lieske, Arbei­ Studien zum Kultur- und Wissenschaftstransfer in Westeuropa (Tubingcn, terkultur und biirgerliche Kultur in Pilsen und Leipzig (Bonn, 2007). 1995); R. Muhs et al., ed s., Aneignung und Abwehr. Int erkultureller Transfer 60. R. Kos elle ck et al., 'Drei biirgerlich e Welten? Zur verg leichenden Semantik der zwischen Deutschland und Groflbritannien im 19. [ahrhundert (Bodenheim, biirg erlichen G esellschaft in Deutschl and, England und Frankreich, in Burger 1998). Seba stian Conrad and Shalini Randeria, eds ., Ienseits des Eurozentris in der Gesellschaf t der Neuzeit. Wir tschaft-Politik-Kultur, ed. H.j. Puhle (Got­ m us. Postkoloniale Perspekt iven in den Geschichts - und Kulturwissenschaftcn tingen, 1991), 14- 58; W. Steinmetz , 'Introd uctio n. Towards a Comparati ve (Fran kfurt/Main, 2002); R.j.C. Youn g, Postcolonialism. An Historical lntro duc History of Legal Cultures 1750-1950; in Private Law and Social Inequality in tion (O xford, 2001); A.L. Sto ler and F. Cooper, 'Between Metropole and Col the Industrial Age, ed. W. Stei nmetz (Oxford, 2000), 1- 41; I. Hamsh er -Monk, ony. Rethinkin g a Research Agenda; in Tensions ofEmpire, ed. A .L. Stol er and K. Tilmans, and F. van Vree, ed s., History ofConcepts: Comparative Perspec­ F. C oop er (Berkeley, 1997); H. Bhab a, The Location ofCulture (Lo ndon, 1991) . tive s (Amsterdam , 1998); P. Wagner, ed. , The Languages ofCivil Society (New Iurgen Osterham mel, 'Transnationale G esellschaftsgeschichte: Erweiterunu York/Oxford, 2006). oder Alternati ve; in Geschichte und Gesellschajt 27 (200 1): 464- 79; S. Co nrad, 61. Cf. Hartmut Kaelble, 'Soz ialer Au fsti eg in den USA und Deutschl and, 1900­ 'Doppelte Margin alisierung. Pladoyer fur eine transn ationale Perspektive auf 1960. Ein vergleichender Forschungsbericht; in Sozialgeschichte Heute. Fest ­ di e deutsche Geschi chte, in Geschichte und Gesellschaf t 28 (2002): 145- 6'J; schrlft fiir Hans Rosenberg, ed. Han s-Ulrich Wehler (Go ttingen, 1974), 525-42; Co nrad, Globalisieru ng und Nation im Deutschen Kaiserreich (Munich: Beck, C hristoph Conrad et aI., eds ., Writing National Histories. Western Europe 2006); S. Conrad and J. Osterhamrnel, eds. , Das Kaiserrei ch tran snational. since 1800 (Lo ndon/New York, 1999); Id a Blom, 'Das Zusammenwirken vo n Deutschland in der Welt, 1871-1914 (Gottin gen, 2004); Matthias Middell, Nationalismus und Feminismus urn die jahrhundertwende. Ein Versu ch zur ed., Globalisierung und Weltgeschichtsschreibung (Le ipz ig. 200 3). C hristo ph vergleic he nden G esc hlec htergeschichte; in Haupt and Kocka, Geschichte und Charle, La crise des societes imperiales. Allem agne, France, Grande-Bretugnc Vergleich, 315-38. 1900-1 914 (Pa ris, 2001). S. Spiliotis, 'Wo find et G eschichte sta tt? oder Dux 62. Hartmut Kaelbl e, Sozialgeschichte Europas. 1945 bis zur Gegen wart (M un ich, Konzept der Tran sterritorialitat; in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27 (200 1): 2007). 480ff. 63. Michael G eyer, 'Historical Fictions of Autonomy and the Euro pea niza tion 1,7. Cf. th e early works by Esp agne and W erner in footnote 66 ab ove with th e more of National Hi st ory; in Central European History 22 (1989): 316- 42; lurgen recent a rticle by Michael Werner and Ben edicte Z im merma nn, 'Verglcich, O ste rham mel, Geschichtswissenschaft jenseits des Nationalstaats. Studien Tr ansfer, Verfl echtung. Der Ansat z der Histoire cro isee und di e Herausfordv z u Beziehungsgeschichte und Z ivilisationsvergleich (Gottinge n: Vandenhoeck rung des Tran sn ati onalen' in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28 (200 2): 607 - 2 (l . & Ruprecht, 2001); Patrick M anning, Na vigating World History. Historians (.H. johannes Paulm ann , 'Internationaler Vergleich und interkultureller Tran sfer. Crea te a Global Past (Ne w York, 2003) ; C. A . Bayly, The Birth of th e M odern Zwei Fo rsc hungs ansatze zur europaischen Gesc hichte des 18. bis 20. Iahrhun World 1780-1 914 (O xfo rd, 2004); F. Osterhammel, Die Verwandlung der Welt. derts; in Historische Z eitschrift 267 (1998): 649 - 85. Eine Geschichte des 19. fahrhunderts (M unich, 2009). (,9. A classic exam ple is Otto Hintze's co m pa rison of feudalism in Euro pe and Ja 64. Bloch, 'Po ur une histoire compare; 37. pan . C f. Hintze, 'Wesen und Verbreitung des Feudalismus' (1929), in Hin tz", 65. C f. the contributions to Budde et al., Tran snationale Geschichte, Iurgen Oster­ Sta a t und verfassung, vol. 1, Gesammelte Abhandl ungen (Go ttingcn. 1%:0, hamrnel, 'Transkulturell vergleichende Geschichtswissenschaft; in Haupt and 84·-119. Ano the r exa m ple is james L. McClain e t aI., eds ., Edo and Paris: III' Kocka, Geschichte und Verglelch, 271-314 (with many references) ; S.N . Eisen­ ba n Life and the State in the Early Modern Era (Ith ac a: Corne ll Univrrslty stad t, 'Die Dimensionen komparati ver Analyse und di e Erfor schung sozialer Press , 1991.). An interesting di scu ssion of thi s typ e o f co m pa riso n in Nutalk: Dynamik. Von der vergleiche nden Politikwissensch aft zum Zlvillsa tionsver­ Zc m o n Davis, 'Beyond Comparison : Co m pa ra tive Hist ory and its ( joa ls; III gleich; in Diskurse und Ent wicklungspf ade. Der Gesellschaftsvergleich in den Swin t historii, cd. Wojciccha Wrzos ka (Poznan: ln st ytut Hist orii Ui\M, I') ~)H ), Geschichts- und Soz ialwissenschaften, eds. H. Kaelble and I.Schric we r (Fra nk­ 11\-9 - 57, csp, I:':Ur.; it is interestin g th at Georg« M. Fredrick son ('o n"" I1 II'1l lt' c1 furt/New York , 1999), 3-28; Hartmut Kaelble, 'Der histori sche Zivilisati ons ­ hls review of couiparauvc history Hr crutu rc o n llw 'smull but sigllilil'a lll hody vergleich; in Kaelble, Der historische vergleich, 29- :'2. 'o r sd \o li\l'shlp lhnl ha s as lIs main Objl'('llv!' ll\(' Sysll'lllal !l: ('llillparlsllil ll!'Slllll(' .10 /l" ~~1' 1I '\111'1,0 II/III I lcln«.( ;,·r/ ltm i l lil ll /Il

pro cess or institution in two or more societies that are not IIslI:t1ly conjoined with in one of the traditional geographical areas of historical specialization: Cf. Fredrickson, 'Comparative History: in The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writings in the United States, ed. M. Karnmen (Ithaca, NY, 1980), _ PART 1 ­ 457-73, esp. 458. 70. Cf. H. Kleinschm idt, 'Galton s Prob lem . Bemerkungen zur Theorie der trans­ kultur ell vergleichenden Geschichtsforschung; in Zeitschrift fur Geschichts­ .omparative and Entangled History wissenschaft 39 (1991): 5-22. As a pra ctical example: Kaelble, Sozialgeschichte Europas; clearly, the author explains th e observed convergences and diver­ in Global Perspectives gences between the national societies of Europe by takin g mutual perceptions and influences between them into account (among other factors). 71. Cf. Kocka, 'Comparison and Beyond: J. Os terhammel is more sceptical about the fruitfulness of the linke age in: J. Oster hammel, 'Transferanalyse und Ver­ gleich im Fern verh altnis; in H. Kaelble an d J. Schriewer, eds., Vergleich un d Transfer. Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften (Frank furt a.M., 2003), 439- 66, esp. 466.