In 3 Maccabees, kingship as a form of rule is addressed on two levels: On the political level the question about a good king is addressed against the background of Hellenistic understandings of kingship, using the example of Ptolemy IV Philopator. This king is portrayed at the beginning of 3 Maccabees as a successful, positive, Hellenistic ruler, but one whose good rule goes off the rails. This analysis of the ideal of Hellenistic rule (cf. 3 Macc. 3:12-29; 6:24-28; 7:1-9) is then taken to a theological level: the God of Israel is portrayed as the true good king, the Soter who saves his people in their time of greatest trial (6:29, 32; 7:16). By these means the many divine epithets that are a striking feature of 3 Maccabees are incorporated into the narrative (cf. 2:2-3). Thereby 3 Maccabees not only thematises the conflict with a Hellenistic king who exploits his power in diverse ways but also focuses in a concentrated way the notion of a good (Hellenistic) king into the notion of God as king and ruler.
The nucleus of statehood is situated at the local level: in the village, the neighborhood, the city district. This is where a community, beyond the level of the family, first develops collective rules that are intended to ensure its continued existence. But usually this is not the only level of governance at play. Above it, there are supralocal formations of power, varying in scope from regional networks to empires, which supplement the local orders or compete with them. The premise of this Research Unit is that local forms of self-governance are especially heterogeneous and prominent, wherever supralocal statehood exists in the mode of weak permeation. The central question of our approach is how local forms of self-governance work in this context. We will examine the relations to the state level as well as to other local groups as they develop over time; the scope and spatial contingency of forms of self-governance; their legitimization and the interdependency with the organization and collective identity of those groups which carry them out; finally, we will turn our attention to the significance of self-governance for the configuration of weak statehood. The empirical focus will be at the local level, which has so far been largely neglected in the research on governance beyond the state. In order to achieve this, we will work with case studies that are structured by categories and situated in geographical areas and time periods that lie outside of modern Europe with its particular development of statehood since the Late Middle Ages: in Antiquity, and in the Global South of the present. By incorporating these different time frames, we hope to contribute to overcoming the dichotomy between the modern and pre-modern era, which is often given canonical status. Our goal is to create a comparative analysis of different configurations of order as well as the development of a typology of patterns of local governance. The structure of the empirical comparison itself promises methodological insights, since it will entail recognizing, dealing with, and overcoming disciplinary limitations. Starting with the identification of typical patterns and processes, we hope to gain a better grasp of the mechanisms by which local configurations of order succeed, while at the same time advancing the theoretical debate. This will allow us to make an interdisciplinary contribution to the understanding of fundamental elements of statehood and local governance that are of central importance, especially in the context of weak statehood. The insights we hope to gain by adopting this historical perspective will contribute to understanding a present that is not based exclusively on its own, seemingly completely new preconditions, and will thus significantly sharpen the political analysis of various forms of governance.
Der Nucleus von Staatlichkeit liegt auf der lokalen Ebene, im Dorf, im Viertel, in der Nachbarschaft. Hier entwickelt eine Gemeinschaft jenseits der Familie zuerst kollektive Regeln, die ihren Fortbestand sichern sollen. Meist ist aber nicht nur diese Regelungsebene vorhanden. Über ihr stehen überlokale Herrschaftsformationen – von regionalen Verbünden bis zum Imperium –, welche die Ordnungsangebote vor Ort ergänzen oder mit ihnen konkurrieren. Örtliche Selbstregelungen sind, so die Prämisse dieser Forschungsgruppe, dann besonders vielfältig und ausgeprägt, wenn überlokale Staatlichkeit im Modus der schwachen Durchdringung existiert. Wie lokale Selbstregelungen in diesem Kontext funktionieren, ist unsere zentrale Forschungsfrage. Wir untersuchen die Relationen zu den staatlichen Ebenen wie zu anderen lokalen Gruppen in ihrem zeitlichen Verlauf, wir analysieren die Reichweite und die räumliche Bedingtheit von Selbstregelungen, fragen nach ihrer Legitimierung sowie nach der Interdependenz zu Organisation und kollektiver Identität der sie tragenden Gruppen; schließlich wenden wir uns der Bedeutung der Selbstregelungen für die Ordnungsform der schwachen Staatlichkeit zu. Der empirische Fokus liegt auf der lokalen Ebene, die in der bisherigen Forschung zum Regieren jenseits des Staates wenig beachtet wurde. Dazu wird in kategorial strukturierten Fallstudien gearbeitet, die in räumlichen und zeitlichen Bereichen außerhalb der europäischen (Sonder-)Entwicklung von Staatlichkeit seit dem Hochmittelalter situiert sind: in der griechisch-römischen Antike und im Globalen Süden der Gegenwart. Mit der unterschiedlichen Zeitstellung möchten wir zur Überwindung der oft als kanonisch geltenden Dichotomie zwischen Moderne und Vormoderne beitragen. Angestrebt wird sowohl die komparative Analyse der verschiedenen Ordnungsarrangements als auch die typologische Erfassung lokaler Regelungsmuster. Allein von der Anlage des empirischen Vergleichs erwarten wir methodischen Ertrag, denn es gilt disziplinäre Beschränkungen zu erkennen, mit ihnen umzugehen und sie zu überwinden. Ausgehend von der Identifizierung typischer Muster und Prozesse, möchten wir theoriebildend die Mechanismen für das Gelingen lokaler Ordnungsarrangements im Ganzen besser abschätzen. Somit leisten wir einen entscheidenden interdisziplinären Beitrag zum Verständnis basaler Elemente von Staatlichkeit, die gerade im Kontext schwacher Staatlichkeit von elementarer Bedeutung sind. Diese in historischer Perspektive gewonnenen Erkenntnisse sollen helfen, die Gegenwart nicht nur aus ihren eigenen, scheinbar völlig neuartigen Voraussetzungen heraus zu begreifen, und so die politische Analyse diverser Governance-Formen erheblich schärfen. ; The nucleus of statehood is situated at the local level: in the village, the neighborhood, the city district. This is where a community, beyond the level of the family, first develops collective rules that are intended to ensure its continued existence. But usually this is not the only level of governance at play. Above it, there are supralocal formations of power, varying in scope from regional networks to empires, which supplement the local orders or compete with them. The premise of the research unit is that local forms of self-governance are especially heterogeneous and prominent, wherever supralocal statehood exists in the mode of weak permeation. The central question of our approach is how local forms of self-governance work in this context. We will examine the relations to the state level as well as to other local groups as they develop over time; the scope and spatial contingency of forms of self-governance; their legitimization and the interdependency with the organization and collective identity of those groups which carry them out; finally, we will turn our attention to the significance of self-governance for the configuration of weak statehood. The empirical focus will be at the local level, which has so far been largely neglected in the research on governance beyond the state. In order to achieve this, we will work with case studies that are structured by categories and situated in geographical areas and time periods that lie outside of modern Europe with its particular development of statehood since the Late Middle Ages: in Antiquity and in the Global South of the present. By incorporating these different time frames, we hope to contribute to overcoming the dichotomy between the modern and pre-modern era, which is often given canonical status. Our goal is a comparative analysis of different configurations of order as well as the development of a typology of patterns of local governance. The structure of the empirical comparison itself promises methodological insights, since it will entail recognizing, dealing with, and overcoming disciplinary limitations. Starting with the identification of typical patterns and processes, we hope to get a better grasp of the mechanisms by which local configurations of order succeed, while at the same time advancing the theoretical debate. This will allow us to make an interdisciplinary contribution to the understanding of fundamental elements of statehood and local governance that are of central importance, especially in the context of weak statehood. The insights we hope to gain by adopting this historical perspective will contribute to understanding a present that is not based exclusively on its own, apparently completely new preconditions, and will thus significantly sharpen the political analysis of various forms of governance.
Interdisziplinarität markiert ein Forschungsprogramm, das unterschiedliche Konjunkturen erlebt hat. Auch wenn es aktuell wieder an Zuspruch gewinnt, bleiben oftmals die Konturen der Vorstellung von Interdisziplinarität verschwommen. Wenn eine Forschungsgruppe dezidiert die interdisziplinäre Perspektive aufgreift, ist es daher zwingend geboten, sich über den Begriff und seine Implikationen zu verständigen. Darauf aufbauend zeigen wir, wie sich die DFG-Forschungsgruppe 2757 interdisziplinär aufstellt und vernetzt, um eine komplexe Fragestellung zu klären, die durch Einzelforschung nicht befriedigend behandelt werden kann. Dazu erläutern wir zunächst die in interdisziplinärer Reflexion gewonnenen und ausgewählten begrifflichen Grundlagen, Theorien und Methoden und präsentieren die entsprechenden Grundideen unserer Forschungsgruppe. Auf dieser Basis beschreiben wir deren organisatorische Tektonik sowie die inhaltlichen und methodischen Verbindungen der einzelnen Teilprojekte. Somit präzisieren wir unsere Vorstellung von interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit im Sinne einer vernetzten Forschung. Wir erarbeiten mit unserem Vorgehen in interdisziplinärer Hinsicht einen angemessenen Zugang zur Thematik, der es erlaubt, die grundlegenden Fragen aus unterschiedlichen epistemologischen Perspektiven zu beleuchten und damit umfassender zu erfassen, als es aus einer rein disziplinären Sicht möglich wäre. Weiterhin streben wir eine Erweiterung und Vertiefung unseres methodischen Vorgehens an, indem verschiedene fachspezifische Methoden verwendet und kombiniert werden. Auf dieser Grundlage versprechen wir uns innovative Ergebnisse, die theoretische und methodologische Aspekte betreffen. ; Interdisciplinarity has experienced cyclical fluctuations. Even though it is currently gaining popularity again, the contours of the notion of interdisciplinarity often remain blurred. For a Research Unit that is adopting an interdisciplinary perspective it is therefore imperative to reach a consensus regarding the underlying concept and its implications. We therefore explain how the interdisciplinary setup and interconnectedness of the DFG Research Unit 2757 contribute to approaching a complex research agenda that lies beyond the scope of individual disciplines. To this end, we first elucidate the fundamental terms, theories and methods, developed and selected through interdisciplinary reflection, and present the basic ideas of our Research Unit. Furthermore, we describe the organizational structure and explain how the subprojects are connected both in terms of content and methodology. This allows us to more precisely define our understanding of interdisciplinary cooperation in the sense of networked research. We are thus aiming at an adequate interdisciplinary approach to our subject matter that allows us to shed light on the fundamental questions from different epistemological perspectives and thereby grasp them more comprehensively than would be possible from a purely disciplinary vantage point. Furthermore, we aspire to broaden and deepen our methodology by implementing and combining different subject-specific approaches. We thereby aim to achieve innovative results regarding theoretical and methodological aspects.
