Search results

This essay explores the links among intellectual history, social history and cultural history. It suggests that the recent turn in American historiography to cultural history is vitally important for communication studies because communication has now been thrust to center stage in virtually every subfield of history. But it warns that communication historians should not rashly and heedlessly jump into cultural history before an adequate foundation has been laid in the economic and institutional social history of mass media.

Books reviewed in this article:Shawn Johansen, Family Men: Middle–Class Fatherhood in Industrializing AmericaMartin A. Berger, Man Made: Thomas Eakins and the Construction of Gilded Age ManhoodMatthew Basso, Laura McCall and Dee Garceau (eds), Across the Great Divide: Cultures of Manhood in the American West

Germany and all things German have long been the primary concern ofCentral European History(CEH), yet the journal has also been intimately tied to the lands of the former Habsburg monarchy. As the editor stated in the first issue, published in March 1968,CEHemerged "in response to a widespread demand for an American journal devoted to the history of German-speaking Central Europe," following the demise of theJournal of Central European Affairsin 1964. The Conference Group for Central European History sponsoredCEH, as well as the recently mintedAustrian History Yearbook(AHY). Robert A. Kann, the editor ofAHY, sat on the editorial board ofCEH, whose second issue featured a trenchant review by István Deák of Arthur J. May'sThe Passing of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914–1918. The third issue contained the articles "The Defeat of Austria-Hungary in 1918 and the Balance of Power" by Kann, and Gerhard Weinberg's "The Defeat of Germany in 1918 and the Balance of Power." That same year,East European Quarterlypublished its first issue.

This article discusses the challenges and constraints on the way toward more ecumenical forms of world historical scholarship. Refuting the charge that world history is necessarily Eurocentric in nature, the article points out that it is impossible to discuss intercultural conceptions of world history without touching on the international structures, flows, and hierarchies that characterize the field. The article argues that several transformations within the social sciences and humanities may prove to be relevant for transcultural and world history. The article concludes that internationally convincing perspectives can be gained only if the international landscapes of historiography become more ecumenical.

As Fritz Redlich has had occasion to point out, business history is neither of American nor of recent vintage–that interest in company histories which began on the Continent early in the nineteenth century had by 1900 prompted at least one prominent German scholar to suggest how a study of business might be developed into an academic discipline. What was new in the United States was the term "business history," and what is more relevant for my comments in this paper were the circumstances that led to its emergence as a special field and the effect that this separation has had on the relationship between business history and economic history.

A historical retrospective of the interrelationships of social & conceptual history is presented, particularly their basis in linguistic expressions, ie, speech & writing. Both histories presuppose a connection between synchronic events & diachronic structures. The example of marriage is detailed using two models, one oriented toward events, actions in speech, writing, & deed, & another toward diachronic presuppositions & long-term transformation. It is concluded that the two histories need & refer to one another without being able to coincide with each other; they have different rates of change, & are based in different repetitive structures, but both must be considered in any study of history. M. Malas

The ensuing remarks are addressed to two topics which seem to me important: (a) what conflicts, if any, are there between business history and economic history; and (b) how can research in the two areas be mutually helpful.