Suchergebnisse

Gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts wurde der Ruf nach einer Erziehung für den Staat durch die Schule immer lauter. Der Beitrag der Geographie hing davon ab, wie sie mit der damals gefestigten Zweiteilung der Wissenschaftskultur umgehen würde: Die Naturwissenschaften kümmerten sich um die Natur, die Geisteswissenschaften um den Geist nebst Artefakten. Die Geographie, die beide Seiten bediente, stand somit vor dem Problem, entweder einen Dualismus zu akzeptieren oder diesen Gegensatz zu überbrücken. Letzteres wollte die Länderkunde, die auch bildungspolitisch abgesegnet wurde. Allerdings führte ihr Weg primär über die Natur zur Seite des Geistes. Der Beitrag der Geographie zur politischen Bildung sollte folglich zeigen, dass alles menschliche Leben, auch das politische, von der Natur der Erdoberfläche mitbestimmt wurde und sich an ihr als Norm ausrichten sollte. So wurde in einem naturalistischen Fehlschluss vom Sein auf ein Sollen geschlossen und Politik zum Vollzug von Naturgeboten, wofür es keine persönliche Verantwortung gab. Das zentrale Medium zur Durchsetzung dieses Weltbildes war die Karte. Die heutige Geographie hat sich von dieser naturlastigen Version, die fachlich sein wollte, aber parteilich war, verabschiedet. Im populärwissenschaftlichen Bereich lebt sie fort. Aus der Beschäftigung mit der Disziplingeschichte kann gelernt werden, wie problematisch solch ein Ansatz ist, der aus physischen Objekten normative Empfehlungen für die Politik ableitet, statt Politik als Zusammenspiel von Raumimaginationen, Interessen und Machtansprüchen zu verstehen. ; At the end of the 19th century the call for education for citizenship in school education became more and more heard. The contribution of the subject of geography depended on how it decided to deal with the consolidated scientific cultures that were characterized by a divide between the natural sciences concerned with nature and the humanities concerned with ideas including artefacts. Serving both cultures, the subject of geography had to decide to either accept the dualism or to bridge the dichotomy. The latter was the aim of regional geography, which was also supported by education policies. However, the path chosen mainly led from nature to spirit. Consequently geography's contribution to political education was seen in demonstra ting, that all human life including politics was determined by the natural features on the surface of the earth, which should thus also be accepted as a normative guideline. Hence, by way of a naturalistic fallacy, it was concluded, that the being implied the norm and that politics was nothing but a way to translate natural norms into action without any recurrence to personal responsibility. The central means to promote this view was the map. Although today's scientific geography has dismissed the naturalistic view that claimed to be purely content-based, but was nonetheless biased, it still thrives in the realm of everyday knowledge. Disciplinary history can show the problematic implications of an approach that wants to deduce political decisions from physical objects, instead of understanding politics as interplay of spatial imaginations, political interests and claims to power. ; Peer Reviewed

In German-speaking cultural geography, Europe's borders have always been subject to dispute. This was particularly true for the question where Europe ends and Asia begins. The search for the 'right' concept of Europe cannot be successful: all geographical concepts of space, including the continents and their subspaces, are constructs tied to a particular time or purpose. Adapted from the source document.

Regions do not exist in a prescribed, actual sense, they are constructed. This also applies for regions in traditional geography, which itself was convinced of the opposite. A good example of this is "Central Europe". At the end of the 18th century, the transition was made in geography towards dividing Europe into major regions. In a typical sense of the ideals used, three various schemes can be differentiated, these being a North-South, a West-East and a Diagonal Scheme. The first two also left space for "Central urope", either in the form of a strip running from est to East or from North to South. If one combines these schemes, then the possibilities for division are increased manifold. It would then be possible to consider "Central Europe" as being a centre, surrounded by a periphery. The "Central Europe" would fuse (first outside of, then inside of geography) with a different construction, the "natural Germany". This concealed the idea that nature contained a type of genetic code in the form of "natural borders", by means of which the scope of the nations, at least the larger ones, could be determined permanently. Science was intended to develop and politics to realise this scope. This therefore meant that, in the course of the 19th century, the originally cognitive "Central Europe" construction had become a normative construction. The ideas of "natural borders" first acted as a state doctrine in revolutionary France, where the claim was made that the Rhine had been the border with Germany, intended by nature. As a reaction to this, German scholars attempted to prove the general unsuitability of rivers to act as "natural borders". They propagated that, unless they regarded the language as being the sole permissible criterion of delimitation, instead river basin systems and watersheds should be taken as being nature's hint for politics. It goes without saying that their "natural Germany" was always larger than its political counter part. This also applies for the comparatively moderate versions proposed within traditional geography, which was a part of this entire border discourse. The concept of "natural Germany" and subsequent "Central Europe" became all the more explosive through the oldest component of German self-conception, the Centralist Motive, which was reinterpreted to serve nationalist intentions. Germany, located in the "centre" of Europe, had the inherent task of reconciling the conflicts with in Europe and therefore the world. This sense of mission, which is also to be fo und in other national ideologies, which originally and primarily denoted an intellectual-cultural superiority, was transformed in t he course of the 19th century to become an imperial claim to the throne. The attempt which took place at times to legitimise Bismarck's establishment of the "Reich" (Empire) in a geographic sense and to define the German nation as a territorially saturated, sovereign nation, failed. The insight that delimitations are always also ex clusions is important for today's world. If similarities are disregarded, then xenophobic reactions are pre-programmed.