Suchergebnisse

Nineteenth century historiography has set up the fundamental skills' repertoire of the professional historian. Such a repertoire was explicitly oriented towards scientific purposes – critical stance, exhaustiveness, empiricist approach with regard to the sources, etc. –, but left generally aside the issue of the social, political and religious bias of historian's self. This issue is sometimes taken into account under the label of subjectivity, but – as far as I know – never as well problematized as the skills which build up historian's scholarly persona. It is such obstacles to the full development of a scholarly persona, which are embedded in a particular context, national but also ideological, that I want to investigate in my contribution. It tends to look at the tensions between a kind of "counter-scholarly persona" and the scientific ideal type historians were striving for. Such a "counter" or a "reverse" to the scientific persona should not only be understood as expressing historian's ideological (political or religious) intentions, which comes out of his narrative. It shall also be seen as a "matter of fact", a reality linked to historian's social or religious belonging. It is for instance the case of German Jewish historians who had less chance to get a position as ordinarius professors in Wilhelminian Germany, particularly in Prussia. They were not perceived, mainly by public officers, as endowed with the capacities to understand properly German history and to teach it; consequently, they were very often denied their nomination, even if they were supported by university's authorities. To pursue an academic career for German historians with a Jewish ascendency, mainly three options were at stake: to convert to Protestantism; to apply in foreign universities or to work as independent scholars. To tackle the conflicting question between the academic historian and the independent historian and look at the models of scientific persona they both refer to, I use several cases studies on Jewish German historians: mainly that of the surprisingly neglected historian Martin Philippson (1846-1916), who served as a scientific intermediary between Belgium, France and Germany during the years 1879-1914 and worked as a cofounder of Jewish scientific institutions like the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums. I compare him to other German Jewish historians like Ernst Bernheim (1850-1942), the well-known author of the Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (1889), who embraced Protestantism and was more successful in his academic career.

Nineteenth century historiography has set up the fundamental skills' repertoire of the professional historian. Such a repertoire was explicitly oriented towards scientific purposes – critical stance, exhaustiveness, empiricist approach with regard to the sources, etc. –, but left generally aside the issue of the social, political and religious bias of historian's self. This issue is sometimes taken into account under the label of subjectivity, but – as far as I know – never as well problematized as the skills which build up historian's scholarly persona. It is such obstacles to the full development of a scholarly persona, which are embedded in a particular context, national but also ideological, that I want to investigate in my contribution. It tends to look at the tensions between a kind of "counter-scholarly persona" and the scientific ideal type historians were striving for. Such a "counter" or a "reverse" to the scientific persona should not only be understood as expressing historian's ideological (political or religious) intentions, which comes out of his narrative. It shall also be seen as a "matter of fact", a reality linked to historian's social or religious belonging. It is for instance the case of German Jewish historians who had less chance to get a position as ordinarius professors in Wilhelminian Germany, particularly in Prussia. They were not perceived, mainly by public officers, as endowed with the capacities to understand properly German history and to teach it; consequently, they were very often denied their nomination, even if they were supported by university's authorities. To pursue an academic career for German historians with a Jewish ascendency, mainly three options were at stake: to convert to Protestantism; to apply in foreign universities or to work as independent scholars. To tackle the conflicting question between the academic historian and the independent historian and look at the models of scientific persona they both refer to, I use several cases studies on Jewish German historians: mainly that of the surprisingly neglected historian Martin Philippson (1846-1916), who served as a scientific intermediary between Belgium, France and Germany during the years 1879-1914 and worked as a cofounder of Jewish scientific institutions like the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums. I compare him to other German Jewish historians like Ernst Bernheim (1850-1942), the well-known author of the Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (1889), who embraced Protestantism and was more successful in his academic career.

During the last two decades of the nineteenth century protection for agriculture became an important feature of the economic and political landscape in Germany. The large landlords, who specialized in arable agriculture, used their political power to get high levels of protection. Peasants, who specialized in animal husbandry, received lower but substantial and rising levels of protection. Material interest can thus help explain the peasants' political alliance with the landlords. Protection encouraged German agriculture to modernize along intensive lines, bringing to the countryside the social and political developments dreaded by the same conservative elites who promoted protection.

The age of nationalism in nineteenth-century Germany generally conjures up images of the Prussian military, Fürst Otto von Bismarck, and Hohenzollern kings who welded together a nation out of disparate principalities through war and domestic social policy. Good Girls, Good Germans looks at how girls and young women became "national" during this period by participating in the national community in the home, in state-sponsored Töchterschulen, and in their reading of Mädchenliteratur. By learning to subordinate desires for individual agency to the perceived needs of the national community -- what Askey calls "emotional nationalism" -- girls could fulfill their class- and gender-specific roles in society and discover a sense of their importance for the progress of the German nation. Informed by recent historical research on nineteenth-century nationalism, Good Girls, Good Germans demonstrates how the top-down construction of a national identity, especially in girls' education, came to be experienced by reading girls. Chapters in this book examine literature published for and taught to girls that encouraged readers to view domestic duties -- and even romance -- as potential avenues for national expression. By aligning her heart with the demands of the nation, a girl could successfully display her national involvement within the confines of the private sphere. Jennifer Drake Askey is Coordinator of Academic Program Development at Wilfrid Laurier University

The German Jewish historian Martin Philippson can be viewed as an authentic representative of a "Germany transnational". As an historian, he always tried to build a bridge between the Belgian, French and German historical science. He also considered history as being best understood from a transnational point of view. As a Jew, he was probably helped by his family's network to get a chair at the University of Brussels. Moreover, he viewed his Belgian experience as a tool for a better understanding of the Jewish condition in Wilhelminian Germany. It is upon this experience that he committed himself to improving the Jews' social and political situation after his return to Berlin. Last but not least, Martin Philippson's language abilities and openness of mind towards foreign cultures were the precondition of his successful mediating activities.

The German Jewish historian Martin Philippson can be viewed as an authentic representative of a "Germany transnational". As an historian, he always tried to build a bridge between the Belgian, French and German historical science. He also considered history as being best understood from a transnational point of view. As a Jew, he was probably helped by his family's network to get a chair at the University of Brussels. Moreover, he viewed his Belgian experience as a tool for a better understanding of the Jewish condition in Wilhelminian Germany. It is upon this experience that he committed himself to improving the Jews' social and political situation after his return to Berlin. Last but not least, Martin Philippson's language abilities and openness of mind towards foreign cultures were the precondition of his successful mediating activities.

In his Habillitationschrift, Strukturwandel der Öffentlicheit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1961), Jürgen Habermas described the emergence of a bourgeois public sphere in England, France and Germany at the end of the 18th century, characterized by the accessibility to literature, the growing number of newspapers and the apparition of discursive areas (Britain's coffee houses, France's salons and Germany's Tischgesellschaften). He pointed out three institutional criteria, which are preconditions for the emergence of a public sphere (Öffentlichkeit): disregard of status among the participants to the public sphere; domain of common concern; and inclusivity in the sense that everyone is able to have access to the discussed issues (which have significance for the society as a whole). If such sphere of rational and universalistic politics, free from both the economy and the State, was partly destroyed by the growth of capitalism in the 19th century and by the recurring attempt of the State to limit its influence (like in France under Napoleon III or in Germany under the Wilhelm II), it can be said that there still were some intellectuals or scholars who resisted! Here I deal with two of them, Ferdinand Tönnies and Friedrich Paulsen, who contributed, as I will shortly outline, to the building or strengthening of a public sphere in Wilhelminian Germany in the sense of Habermas' definition. Their main focus is related to two ideas or programs they developed: the formation of The public opinion and the definition of Bildung as moral and civic education. I will also briefly link these ideas and programs to their role as agent, mainly as university professor and as Publizist, by addressing some of their achievements, and by showing strategic and discursive aspects of their writings and by indicating some of the main topics they dealt with.

In his Habillitationschrift, Strukturwandel der Öffentlicheit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1961), Jürgen Habermas described the emergence of a bourgeois public sphere in England, France and Germany at the end of the 18th century, characterized by the accessibility to literature, the growing number of newspapers and the apparition of discursive areas (Britain's coffee houses, France's salons and Germany's Tischgesellschaften). He pointed out three institutional criteria, which are preconditions for the emergence of a public sphere (Öffentlichkeit): disregard of status among the participants to the public sphere; domain of common concern; and inclusivity in the sense that everyone is able to have access to the discussed issues (which have significance for the society as a whole). If such sphere of rational and universalistic politics, free from both the economy and the State, was partly destroyed by the growth of capitalism in the 19th century and by the recurring attempt of the State to limit its influence (like in France under Napoleon III or in Germany under the Wilhelm II), it can be said that there still were some intellectuals or scholars who resisted! Here I deal with two of them, Ferdinand Tönnies and Friedrich Paulsen, who contributed, as I will shortly outline, to the building or strengthening of a public sphere in Wilhelminian Germany in the sense of Habermas' definition. Their main focus is related to two ideas or programs they developed: the formation of The public opinion and the definition of Bildung as moral and civic education. I will also briefly link these ideas and programs to their role as agent, mainly as university professor and as Publizist, by addressing some of their achievements, and by showing strategic and discursive aspects of their writings and by indicating some of the main topics they dealt with.

Mit seiner Längsschnittstudie wird eine ´Globalanalyse´ für das gesamte
Reich in seiner regionalen Vielfalt angestrebt, um auf der Grundlage
statistisch gesicherter Basisinformationen zur Sozialstruktur
Zusammenhänge zwischen regionalen Traditionen und politischer
Situationen analysieren zu können. Dieser Zusammenhang läßt sich selbst
in Phasen des raschen sozialen Wandels nur über einen langen Zeitraum
hinweg verfolgen. Die von J. Schmädeke durchgeführten Analysen umfassen
den Zeitraum der sechs Reichstagswahlen von 1890 bis 1912. Beschreibende
Daten liegen in Form einer genauen Auszählung der Stimmen für die
einzelnen Kandidaten und Parteien vor. Der Langzeitvergleich, der das
gesamte Deutsche Reich in den Jahren 1890 bis 1912 umfasst (also die
Epoche des ´Wilhelminischen Deutschland´), beruht auf den regionalen
Unterschieden: Sie werden differenziert erfasst und bilden die
Grundlage für die Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Wählerverhalten, Merkmalen
der Sozialstruktur und den historisch-regionalen Besonderheiten).

Themen:
Im einzelnen wurden folgende Merkmale zur Sozialstruktur
erfasst: Region, Provinz/Bundesstaat (nominal), Wahlkreisgröße,
Wahlberechtigte (in Tausend), Wahlbeteiligung (abgegebene Stimmen in %),
Evangelischer Bevölkerungsanteil in %, Katholischer Bevölkerungsanteil
in %, Wohnhafte Bevölkerung (absolut), Berufstätige Bevölkerung
(absolut), Landwirtschaft, Anteil der Erwerbstätigen in %,
Industrie/Gewerbe, Anteil der Erwerbstätigen in %,
Handel/Dienstleistung, Anteil der Erwerbstätigen in %, Ortsgröße <
2.000, Wahlberechtigtenanteil in %, Ortsgröße 2000 bis < 10.000,
Wahlberechtigtenanteil in %, Ortsgröße mindestens 10.000,
Wahlberechtigtenanteil in %.