Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of...

8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 1/29

Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study ofIntercultural InterdependenciesAuthor(s): Hannes SiegristReviewed work(s):Source: Comparative Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, Special Issue (32): Comparative Methodologies inthe Social Sciences: Cross-Disciplinary Inspirations (Aug., 2006), pp. 377-404Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29727792 .Accessed: 19/12/2011 04:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative

Education.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29727792?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29727792?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis



Comparative

Education

Vol.

42,

No.

3,

August

2006, pp.

377-404

O

Routledge

j?

^^

Taylor

Francisroi

Comparative

history

of cultures

and

societies.

From

cross-societal

analysis

to

the

study

of intercultural

interdependencies

Hannes

Siegrist*

University

of

Leipzig,

Germany

The

key

element

in

comparative

history

is

the

problem

of

cultural and social differentiation and

difference

on

the

one

hand,

assimilation and

similarity

on

the

other.

Comparative

historical science

relativizes

local,

national and

regional conceptions

of

history

and

interpretations

of self and

other

by

systematically

linking

historical

experiences,

paths

of

development

and socialization

processes.

The

historical

comparison

of

societies and cultures

is

a

specific, multi-perspective

and

interactive

way

of

reconstructing

and

representing

the

past.

The article

presents

an

outline

of

the

history

of

comparative

historical science

and

discusses

its

epistemological

basis,

research

topics,

main

concepts

and meth?

ods. It

analyses

the shift

from cross-societal

analysis

to

the

study

of intercultural

interdependence

and shows

why

comparative

social

history

became

a

pioneer

of cultural and

international

history

in

Europe.

The author concludes that

comparative

historical science

should

concentrate

on

the

problems

of

spatializing

social and

symbolic

organizations

and

institutions and the

problems

of

inter

societal and intercultural interactions

and relations.

Introduction

Comparative

historical science

relativizes

local,

national and

regional conceptions

of

history

and

interpretations

of self and

other

by

systematically linking

historical

expe?

riences,

paths

of

development

and

socialization

processes

(Rossi,

1990;

Haupt

Kocka,

1996a;

Kaelble

Schriewer,

1998, 1999;

Kocka,

1998;

Sewell, 1998;

Spohn,

1998;

Kaelble, 1999; Middell, 2000a;

Haupt,

2001;

Osterhammel, 2001;

Kaelble

Schriewer,

2003).

The

historical

comparison

of

societies and

cultures

is

a

specific,

multi-perspective

and interactive

way

of

reconstructing

and

representing

the

past.

This

approach

differs,

on account of its inter-societal and intercultural

perspectives

*

University

of

Leipzig,

Institut

f?r

Kulturwissenschaften,

Beethovenstra?e

15,

04107

Leipzig,

Germany.

Email:

[email protected]

ISSN

0305-0068

(print)/ISSN

1360-0486

(online)/06/030377-28

? 2006

Taylor

Francis

DOI:

10.1080/03050060600890245



378

H.

Siegrist

of

social,

symbolic

and

spatial

structures

and

processes,

from

mono-perspective

and

singularizing approaches,

which

are

classically

represented

in

the

field of

history by

genetically individualizing

historicism,

which concentrates on

reconstructing

the

history

of

a

single

society,

a

single

culture and

a

single

area.

From

a

methodological

and

epistemological standpoint,

comparative

historical

science

can

draw

support

today?in

the

age

of

Europeanization

and

globalization,

delimiting

of scientific

disciplines

and methodical

pragmatism?from

the minimum

consensus

prevalent

in the social and historical sciences

and the

arts:

analysing

pecu?

liarities

and differences is considered

to

be

as

important

and

legitimate

in

principle

as

analysing

similarities

and

commonalities.

Good science

must

reflect

on

the limits of

generalizations

just

as

much

as on

processes

which substantiate

statements

regarding

what is

singular

and

specific. Comparative

historians

using

methods of social and

cultural sciences

in

order

to

obtain

insights

into

extensive,

international and intercul?

tural

processes

and

structures

no

longer

have

constantly

to

defend

themselves

against

the

objections

of

supporters

of historicism. Those

tended

to

reject comparative

science

primarily

on

the

assumption

that

everything

is

to

a

certain

extent

unique,

unrepeatable

and

thus

incomparable.

However,

comparative

history

has ceased

to

be

tied

so

closely

to

the methodical

guidelines

of the

systematic, analytical

and

theory

led social

sciences. Social scientists themselves

increasingly

criticize the limits of

scientism and

are

prepared

to

be involved

in

the sense-based

qualitative

methods

common

among

historians

and cultural scientists.

In recent

decades,

classic borders

of

content

and

epistemologically

motivated lines

of

conflict between the

disciplines

have faded

(Charle

et

al,

2004, pp.

9-14;

Kogan,

2005).

Since,

in

the

age

of

Europeanization

and

globalization,

borders which

once

acted

as

cognitional

barriers between

states,


are

also

forfeiting

their

meaning,

some

certainties

and truths whose scholarliness had

primarily

been

politi?

cally

substantiated

and

implemented

are

losing

their

plausibility.

National

political

standards and

preferences

which have

previously

been instrumental

in

defining

the

plausibility

of

knowledge

in the

social, historical,

state

and

legal

sciences

and the

arts

are

coming

under

pressure.

Ever since the end of Marxist-Leninist

scientific

politics,

there has been

a

radical

change

in

how the

past

is

represented

and evaluated

in

the

former

eastern

bloc

states.

It is

against

this

background

that the

central

aims,

motives,

problems

and

challenges

of historical

social and cultural

comparisons

in

the last 40

to

50

years

will be resumed.

The

present

article will

begin

by

outlining

the

history

of

comparative

historical

science. It will discuss its

epistemological

basis,

research

topics,

main

concepts

and

methods. It will

plead

for

greater

inclusion and

a

clearer

explanation

of the

spatial

dimension

in

comparative

social

and

cultural

history.

Historical

comparativism

should

not

be understood

primarily

as a

champion

of the intellectual

process

and

comparative

method

in

general.

It

was

assigned

this role

in

the nineteenth and

twen?

tieth centuries

on

account

of

the content-related

and

epistemological

conflicts which

were

associated with the

history

of

differentiating

the

sciences and

institutionalizing

them in

specialist disciplines;

for

instance,

the

disputes

between so-called

idiographic

and nomothetic sciences.

Today,

in

the

age

of methodical

pluralism

and

a

certain



Comparative history of

cultures and

societies

379

degree

of

de-disciplining

of

science

(or

shifting

and

blurring

of

traditional

disciplinary

boundaries),

attention

must

be

focused

on

problems

which need

to

be

detected,

anal?

ysed

and resolved

together.

In

highly developed

and

pluralistic

scientific

systems,

the

emphasis

is

being

shifted

from

a

method-centred

to

a

problem-centred

approach.

In

these

circumstances,

comparative

historical

science

can

and should

concentrate

on

the

problems

of

spatializing

social and

symbolic

organizations

and institutions and the

problems

of inter-societal and

intercultural interactions

and relations. Due

to

its

longer specialization

and

tradition,

it is

equipped

with

a

suitably high

level

of

system?

atic and

empirical expertise

for

these

fields

which

will be

a

key

to

understanding

the

historical basis

of

previous

and

current

processes

of

constructing,

institutionalizing,

organizing

and

limiting

or

delimiting

social and cultural orders and

organizations.

Problems and aims

of

historical

social and cultural

comparisons

Historical

comparativism inquires

how

cultural

and

social differences

and

similarities

were

constructed,

institutionalized and

represented

in the

past.

It examines

compar?

atively

historical

experiences,

recollections,

views of

history,

master

narratives,

paths

of

development

and structural

patterns,

in

order

to

comprehend,

understand and

explain

past

and

present

differences

and

similarities

between

different societies

and

cultures. Historical

comparativism

uses

comparisons

of societies and cultures with

the aim

not

only

of

substantiating

universally

valid

statements

concerning

the deter?

mining

power

of

social

structures

and

cultural

discourses;

in

contrast

to

traditional

social

scientific

conceptions,

it also aims

to

relativize the

range

and

validity

of theories

spatially

and

temporally

as

well

as

socially

and

culturally.

It

is

involved

in

organizing

thinking

and

acting,

but

additionally

extends the

scope

and

the

sense

for

ambiguities,

alternative

courses

of action and functional

equivalents.

Comparative

social and cultural

history

is

a

special

branch

of

historical

comparat?

ivism. It

is

focused,

firstly,

on

the

systematic

historical

comparison

of

processes

in

social and cultural

differentiation,

de-differentiation and assimilation

in

space

and

time;

secondly,

on

spatial

and

temporal

comparisons

of social institutions

and

struc?

tures;

and

thirdly,

on

comparisons

of

ways

of

organizing meaning

and

knowledge,

symbolic

forms and discourses.

Comparative

social and cultural

history

does

not

only

analyse

structural similarities and differences but also

processes

and the

motives,

inter?

ests,

conflicts,

decisions and

actors

associated with them.

Historical

social and cultural

comparisons generally

focus

on

analysing

selected

processes,

structures,

actor

groups,

options

for

courses

of

action,

decisions

and

events

in

several societies and cultures.

Most

comparative

studies

concentrate

on

a

special

topic

or

problem

and examine it

in

the

context

of several

relatively

static units

of

comparison,

such

as

regions,

nations and civilizations.

Increasingly,

the authors of

long-term

comparative

studies

are

also

taking

into

account

the

dynamics

of units

of

comparison

whose internal

properties

and

external boundaries

change

in

the

course

of

history

on

account

of

intrasocietal,

intersocietal and intercultural

processes.

Consequently,

the units

of

comparison

or

the

scale of the units of

comparison

are

revised

in

accordance with time and formulated

questions.



380 H.

Siegrist

Comparative

historians

inquire,

in the

context

of

a

self-reflexive,

multi-perspective

and intercultural

form of

historical

science,

into

how and

why

conceptions

of

history

and

stereotypes

of self and other

impact

on the construction and institutionalization

of

action within the boundaries of

a

country

and

on

interaction with

the

members of

other countries.

Comparative historiography

is

generally

aware

that it is

itself,

as

a

producer

of

historical

representations,

a

part

of that cultural

apparatus

which is

responsible

for

producing

and

reproducing

social

peculiarities

and cultural

differ?

ences.

The narratives

and

horizons of

interpretation

which it

produces

and mediates

substantiate

feelings

of

belonging

to

a

specific

society

and

culture but

equally

differences,

tensions and conflicts between

self and other.

Comparative

historical

science

differs,

on

account

of its

multiperspectivity

and

interculturality

on the one

hand,

from

genetically individualizing, monoperspective

and monoculturalistic forms

of

historiography

which

focus

on a

region,

nation

or

civi?

lization. The latter focus

on

peculiarities,

which

are

understood

as an

expression,

prerequisite

or

effect

of the

relevant collective

conceptions

of

identity.

On the

other

hand,

however,

comparative

historical science differs

from

those tendencies

in

the

social and cultural sciences which

are

primarily

aimed

at

checking

universalistic

statements

and

developing universally

valid theories

indifferent

to

space

and

time.

Whereas

genetically

individualizing approaches

in

historical science focus

on

detect?

ing

and

representing

the

particular

and thus

frequently

nurture

a

cult of what is

unique

and

special,

systematic

sociology

frequently

focuses on

identifying

institutions

and

regularities

which

are

independent

of

space

and time.

Systematically comparative

historical

science

rather stands

between

these

two

poles, examining, theoretically,

the

tension between

the

general

and

the

particular,

the

interdependence

of the local and

the

universal

and the relation between

identity

and

hybridity,

by

means

of several

comparative

cases,

using quantifying

and

qualitative

methods.

The

key

element

in

comparative

social and cultural

history

is the

problem

of

cultural and social

difference

(Wieviorka,

2003).

Historical

social and

cultural

comparisons

work

on

the

assumption,

firstly,

that there

are

to

a

certain

extent

univer?

sal

human relational

models,

cognitive

and emotional

abilities

and

needs,

and

finally

transnational

and

transcultural

forms of

symbolic

and social action.

Secondly, they

are

based

on

the

premise

and

certainty

that much

of what is

considered

to

be universal

and

human is

developed,

institutionalized,

perceived

and

interpreted

on

the basis of

specific

cultural and

social

developments,

structures

and

models of

interpretation,

specific

namely

to

a

certain

context

or

constellation.

Since

social

relations,

institu?

tions

and cultural artefacts

thus

acquire,

to

a

certain

extent,

a

culturally

and

socially

specific

or

space-

and

time-specific

form and

significance,

there is

an

urgent

need for

scientific

methods and

modes of

interpretation

which

are

able

to

detect,

evaluate and

represent

the

general

and the

particular,

what

connects

and what

separates.

This is

precisely

what

systematic

historical

comparisons

achieve in

combination

with

complementary

approaches

such

as

cultural transfer research

and

research into

international relations

and

interculturality.

When

experiences

and

recollections

are

deposited

in diverse

ways

in

the collective

cultural

memory,

and reinforce and articulate themselves

in

mentalities,

rules of action




cultures

and

societies 381

(institutions),

rights

of

action, roles,

symbols

and historical

master

narratives,

'history'

itself becomes

a

cultural instance which

defines?and

enables?the

production,

detec?

tion and

interpretation

of similarities and

differences.

Comparative

historical

science,

as a

self-reflexive scientific

discipline,

has

at

its

disposal

a

wide

variety

of

instruments

in intellectual

strategies

and

analytical procedures

which

ensure

that

an

intellectual

distance is

guaranteed

between

historians and their

narratives,

theories and

topics.

A

systematic

historical

comparison

of


first

analyses

similari?

ties and differences?for

example,

with

regard

to

the

regulation

of

social relations

or

regarding

the

way

a

culture

or

society

deals with

specific problems

and

artefacts?in

different social constellations

and

cultural

contexts.

Both

comparative

historians

and

social

and cultural scientists

generally

work

on

the

premise

that

the

units

of

comparison they

have

chosen?such

as

regions

and nations?can

clearly

be

distin?

guished

and

isolated,

at

least

in

certain

relevant

respects;

therefore

they

neither

belong

definitely

to

the

same

collective

system

of action

(i.e.,

to

a

'society',

for

instance,

or a

supranational

block)

nor

are

subordinate

to

the

same

cultural horizon

of

meaning

and

apparatus

of

interpretation.

However,

the

scientific

commandment

of

analytical differentiability

for units of

comparison

should

not

tempt

us

to

ignore

the

pragmatic

knowledge

that members and

subsystems

of

specific

'societies' and 'cultures'

actually

interact and

communicate

in

various

ways.

They

thus

also

participate

in

certain

respects

in

shared cross-societal

and

cross-cultural

contexts

of

action

and

meaning. Knowledge

of intercultural

experiences

and

knowledge

and

experiences

obtained

from intersocietal

contact

substantiates

conceptions

and

depictions

of

large

historical

areas

such

as

'eastern

central

Europe'

(Kocka,

2000a;

Troebst,

2003),

the

'Mediterranean

region'

and

'Europe' (Haupt,

2003;

Petri

Siegrist,

2004).

On

account

of

historical

and

present

relations

of

exchange,

influence and

recep?

tion,

comparative

social and cultural

history

considers 'societies' and 'cultures'

respectively

in

terms

of

viewpoint,

time and

place

(a)

as

closed,

homogeneous,

coher?

ent,

functionally integrated

systems

which

are

anchored

in

a

territory,

characterized

by

shared

dealings

with

time and

conceptions

of time and

only

cooperate

at

selected

points

with the

outside

world;

(b)

as

relatively

open,

hybrid

and

fragmented

social

organizations

and

symbolic

orders whose

spatial

structure

is

in

a

state

of

flux

and

whose

components

derive

from

different

historical

periods

(non-simultaneity

of the

simultaneous);

or

(c)

as

components

of

a

higher

trans-societal

cooperation

network

and

transcultural

context

of communication

and

meaning

with

diffuse boundaries.

In

whichever

way,

the task of

comparative

social

and cultural

history

consists of

analysing

social,

symbolic

and material

phenomena

with

regard

to

similarities,

differ?

ences,

interaction

processes

and

the

negotiation

of

meanings.

Comparative

research

was

occupied

with

this task from

the 1960s

to

the

1980s,

for

example,

with

regard

to

industrial societies

and industrialization

processes

(Pollard,

1981; Fischer, 1985;

Kaelble, 1987;

Kiesewetter, 2000; Landes,

2005);

at

that

time,

this made

a

significant

contribution

to

the rise of

comparative

historical

science and

international and

interregional historiography.

It

not

only compared

the

development

of

structures,

indicators and

institutional models

but also examined

the

international



382 H.

Siegrist

exchange

of

goods, capital, employers

and

workers,

knowledge

and

models

of

taste

together

with the

processes

of

economic,

social

and cultural

change accompanying

these in the

individual

countries and

regions.

The

empirical

fact that 'societies' and

'cultures'

are

always

somewhat

permeable

and

delimited,

and that cultural models

come

into

being through

processes

of

transfer,

reinterpretative appropriation

and

mixing,

was

certainly

very

clear

to

the

comparative

historians ofthat time.

However,

since

they primarily

discussed

comparative

methods and theories but

were

often less

explicit

in

commenting

on

and

modelling

the intersocietal and intercultural transfer

of

goods,

information,

people

and cultural

artefacts,

they

are

occasionally

labelled

as

anachronistic

by

advocates

of the

new

cultural

history

and cultural

transfer research

in

recent

historiographical history.

In

many

historiographical portrayals

of the

recent

history

of culture

and

intercultural transfer since the

1990s,

comparative

historians

appear

in

the

most

favourable

case

as

forerunners of transnational

historiography,

in

the

worst

case as

the

representatives

of

an

ideologically

very

refined

and

therefore

extremely

opaque

variant

of national

history

which could

only

be

exposed

with the

intellectual

means

provided

by

cultural transfer

research

(Espagne,

2003).

Many

exponents

of the

new

cultural

history

and

the research

on

cultural

transfers

and

interculturality

which has been

redeveloped

over

the last

two

or

three

decades

are

barely,

if

at

all,

acquainted

with

the work of

comparative

historical

research.

Some

of

the old and

new

critics

of

comparative

historical research

from the historical

camp

ignore

comparative

cultural and social

history

because

they

consider it

to

be

a

special

form of structuralist

social

history

or

historical social science. It

set out

to

overcome

traditional

historical

science

in

the 1960s. Once

it

had

itself become

established

in

the

1990s, however,

it

equally

became

one

of the

most

popular

targets

of

criticism

during

the cultural

turn.

For

a

long

time,

comparative

historical science

only

continued

to

be involved

very

reservedly

in

the

programmatic

debates. Its advocates devoted

their

energy

in

the

1980s and 1990s

mainly

to

producing exemplary empirical comparative

studies

in

which

they compared phenomena

from

two

or

more

territorialized

or

spatialized

'cultures',

'societies' and 'historical

areas' from

specific

viewpoints,

in

order better

to

understand

and

explain

the

development

and articulation

of

a

topic

or

problem

in the

relevant societies and cultures.

In

so

far

as

they

were

involved

in

discussions

of theories

and

methods,

they

focused

on

discussions

of

how,

by

means

of the

complexity-reduc?

ing

strategy

of scientific

comparison,

concrete

isolated

occurrences

could be related

to

more

abstract basic

forms,

models of

action,

values

and

meaning

structures;

and

how

to

escape

concrete

and additive

descriptions

and linear

forms of historical

narra?

tion;

and what forms of

representation

are

suitable

to

comparative

historical science.

Historical

comparativism inquired

on

the

one

hand

into the

particular

articulation,

development,

function and

significance

of

a

similar

phenomenon

in

the

context

of

the relevant

region

or

nation;

on

the other

hand,

into the

significance

and function

of

the

phenomenon

under

investigation

in

the

predominant

and

higher

context

of

a

transnational

or

transcultural

sense-related and social

organization,

or

in the

light

of

a

universally

valid social and cultural historical

theory

indifferent

to

space

and

time.

The

development

of

a

phenomenon

was

typically 'explained'

by

certain

social,



Comparative

history

of

cultures and

societies 383

economic,

political,

cultural

and

legal

processes

and

structures

in

the relevant

region,

nation

or

civilization

society.

It is to be maintained at this

point

that

comparative

social

and cultural

history

performs methodically

controlled,

systematically

and

empirically

founded

research

into the

spatialization

and

temporalization

of

social,

economic,

political, legal

and

cultural

organizations

and

paths

of

development

in

Europe

and the

world.

Concep?

tual

developments,

abstractions and

syntheses

occur

from

a

social and cultural

comparative perspective

and

ideally

rest

on

intercultural

processes

of

negotiation

and

communication. Several

histories,

paths

of

development,

worlds of

experience,

social

constellations and cultural

contexts

are

analysed by

means

of

a common

inquiry

and

theory.

The

object

of the social and cultural

historical

comparison

is

to

understand

and

explain

the

general, predominant

and various

special

forms,

meanings

and

functions of

a

phenomenon

in

space

and

time.

From

a

historico-sociological comparison

of

societies

to

a

comparative

and interwoven historical

analysis

of

social and cultural

processes

and

structures

Historical and

social scientific

comparative

research has

traditionally

focused

on

systematically analysing

internal

structures

and

processes

of several units of

compar?

ison whose differences and similarities

are

of interest. In

recent

decades,

greater

consideration has been taken

of

input

and

output

relations,

overlapping

processes

and

the

problems

of

perceiving, interpreting, processing

and

internalizing

external

phenomena

in

far

more

qualitatively

orientated

historical

comparative

studies

of

two

or

three

countries.

Both

socio- and cultural-historical examinations of cultural

transfer and intercultural transfer and

literary-historical

and arts-based research into

interculturality

and

transculturality,

which

concentrate

on

exchanging symbolic

and

material artefacts and

negotiating

their

meaning

and function in the

relevant

context,

generally analyse

the

symbolically

mediated interaction and communication

on

the

level of

symbols

and

texts.

Most

recently,

different variants of

approaches

from

histor?

ical

comparativism

have

been combined?with

a

programmatic

intention?with

approaches

from transfer and

interculturality

research.

They

are

traded around

as

'shared

history',

'interwoven and

entangled history' (Conrad

Randeria,

2002)

or

'intersecting history'

(Werner

Zimmermann,

2002,

2004),

yet

are

still

really

at

the

embryonic

stage

of

empirical

research.

In

the

age

of

Europeanization

and

globalization,

it

has

become clear

to

many

that

national

historiography

must

be extended

to

include

international and

transnational

historiography

and that reliable methods

and

approaches,

which enable the

complex?

ity

to

be

handled

in

a

controlled

manner,

must

be combined

for

this

purpose

(Haupt,

2003;

Petri

Siegrist,

2004; Charle,

2005).

Historical

comparativism,

due

to

its

tradition and

institutionalization

in

research and due

to

the

quantity

and

quality

of

theoretical and

empirical

research work available

on

international and transnational

historiography,

can

already

boast

greater

experience

and countless

convincing

studies. Alternative and

complementary

research

approaches,

which focus

on

the



384

H.

Siegrist

interaction

and

communication

between social and cultural

actors

and

units,

can

above

all

clarify

and

systematically comprehend

the forms

of

interaction,

interdepen?

dence

and communication between

actors and

units

of

comparison.

Naturally,

there

are

always

certain

calls

to

restrict the thematic view

or

to

wear

methodical blinkers

with

regard

to

the

intensified

competition

for

positions, interpretational

authority

and

resources.

However,

considering

the

complexity

of transnational and

intercultural

historiography, they

are

not

particularly helpful.

What

should

instead be

aspired

to

is

a

problem-orientated

combination

of the various

approaches

and

empirical

results.

The

following

historical outline will

briefly

present

this

from

selected

viewpoints

and

at

the

same

time revise the

most

recent

master

narratives

and

myths

concerning

the

history

of historical

comparativism.

Topics,

key

interests and

approaches

in

comparative

historical

science

from

the

1960s

to

the

present

The

most recent

history

of

comparative

historical

science

begins

in

the 1960s

in

the

context

of

the social

scientific

turning point

in

historical

science,

when the

buried

traditions

of

comparison

from the

early

twentieth

century

were

being

rediscovered

and rearticulated.

From the 1980s

to

the

present,

there

is

a

significant

increase in

the

number of

comparative

studies. Until

1990,

the focus of attention

was

on

'compara?

tive

social

history'

and

'comparative

economic

history'.

After

this,

historical

compar?

ativism

was

extended

to

include

comparative

social and cultural

history,

historical

cultural

transfer

research,

international

interweaving

history

and

interculturality

research.

Due

to

an

increasing

interest

in

the

history

of

Europe

and the

Europeans,

world

and

global history

and

transnational

history,

the

domain

has

been

expanding

and the

plausibility

of

comparative

historical

approaches

has been

constantly

increas?

ing

for around 20

years.

The

more

accepted

and successful

comparative

historical

science

becomes,

however,

the

more

diffuse

its

profile

also

threatens

to

become;

right

until

the

early

1990s,

this

was

still characterized

by

relatively

clear

thematic,

episte?

mological

and

political

scientific

preferences.

Comparative

historical science

generally

does

not

examine historical totalities such

as

'societies' and

'cultures',

but

inquires

into

the relation between selected

aspects

and

features

of the

relevant

units of

comparison

(such

as

nations

and

regions)

on

the

one

hand,

and

into the

development

of individual

phenomena

(such

as

family,

educa?

tion,

bureaucracy,

profession,

classes)

on

the

other,

in

order

to

comprehend,

under?

stand and

explain

their

similarity

and

dissimilarity. Initially,

comparative

historical

science concentrated

on

social,

institutional,

economic,

demographic

and

political

historical

topics

(Kaelble,

1999;

Haupt,

2001).

Firstly,

institutions

and

institutional

ization

processes

in

the

areas

of

family,

education,

work, company,

profession,

law,

administration, power,

politics

and

economy

were

examined;

secondly,

economic

and

demographic

differentiation and

alignment

processes;

thirdly,

processes

in

the

formation

and dissolution

of

statuses, strata,

classes and

sociocultural

backgrounds;

fourthly,

social

and

symbolic

forms and

strategies

of socialization and

collectivization

in

cities,

regions

and

nations,

or

in

'systems'

and 'civilizations'.



Comparative history

of

cultures and societies

385

Since the

1990s,

the

spectrum

of

compared

topics

and

phenomena

has been

expanding predominantly

into

terms

and

discourses,

values and

standards,

mentali?

ties and

attitudes, rituals,

festivals

and celebrations

(Tacke,

1995;

Vogel,

1997;

Schmidt, 1997, 1999;

J?ger,

1999; Ther,

2002;

Rausch,

2005).

They

have

been

joined by

comparative

studies of material artefacts and how

they

are

staged

and

used?in

high,

popular

and

mass

culture

(Cleve,

1996;

Budde,

1997;

Kaelble, 1997;

Merl, 1997;

Siegrist,

2001b;

Siegrist

Schramm,

2003).

Historical

studies

on

profes?

sions,

institutions

and

organizations

are more

frequently

extended

to

include

an

actor-

and situation-centred examination of

processes

of

perception,

interpretation,

negotiation

and

decision-making

(Albisetti,

1994, 2000;

Welskopp,

1994;

Haupt

Crossick, 1995; Kocka, 1995;

Requate,

1995;

Siegrist,

1996; Charle, 1997; F?hrer,

1999; Mitchell, 2000; Ther, 2002;

Zunz

et

al,

2002).

There

has also been

an

increase

in

the number

of

comparative

studies

on

local,

regional,

national and transnational

myths,

cultural

recollections,

views of

history

and

historiographies?both

national

and

regional history

and

history

of

ethnic

groups

have

opened

up

to

comparison

(Troebst, 2005).

Finally, they

have also been

joined by

international and intercultural

comparative

studies

on

the social and cultural construction and differentiation of the

sexes

(Budde,

1994;

Wobbe,

1998;

Bock,

2000).

Economic

and

social

historical

inquiries

and theories have been and will be

exam?

ined

frequently

by

using quantifying

and

qualitative

methods.

However,

their

rela?

tionship

is

subject

over

time

to

certain

fluctuations attributable

to

modes and

cycles

of

development

and

a

demand

for

specific

forms of

knowledge. Currently,

fewer

quantifying

analyses

are

being

performed,

as

major

qualification

work

(dissertations

and

habilitations),

which

comprises

the

majority

of

published

works,

is

submitted

by

young

scientists who

in

the 1990s exhibited

greater

qualitative

tendencies

in

cultural

and

political

history.

All

in

all,

the

range

of

inquiries,

topics

and methods has

expanded

dramatically

in the last

two

decades

(Haupt,

1996;

Haupt

Kocka, 1996b;

Kaelble,

1996, 1999; Kocka,

1996).

In

order

to

understand

the

history

of

comparative

historical

science,

it

is

impor?

tant,

just

as

for other scientific

branches,

to

consider

not

only

which

topics

are

of

interest but also what

it

is directed

against.

In

the

1960s

and

1970s

in

Germany,

it

was

mainly

directed

against

the dominant

historiographical

paradigms

of

individual?

izing

and

national-historically

restricted historicism and its confinement

to

the

topics

of

the

history

of

power,

state,

ideas

and leaders.

In

the

west,

in

some

eastern

central

European

countries such

as

Poland

(Dlugoborski,

1988),

Hungary

(Han?k,

1992)

and

Czechoslovakia

(Hroch,

2000),

even

in

the

GDR

(see

now

Middell,

2005, pp.

999-1012),

it

relativized,

secondly,

dogmatized

historical materialism

or

the

form

of

historical materialism which

was

theoretically

based

on a

teleological

and universalistic

concept

of

'world

history',

whose

implementation

it

analysed

with

the

help

of

'national

history'

and

'regional history'

(Eckermann

Mohr,

1966).

Across

Europe

and

worldwide,

thirdly,

it

was

understood

as a

corrective force for

the

generalizations produced by

the

industrial

society theory,

which

was

also influ?

ential

at

that

time

in

the

west,

which

explained

social

and

political

phenomena

primarily

as

the result

of

industrialization.



386 H.

Siegrist

Thus

J?rgen

Kocka,

in

his

comparative study

on

the

social and

political

behaviour

of

employees

in

Germany

and the US

in

the interwar

period,

which

appeared

in

1977,

emphasized

the inherent

dynamism

of

country-specific

traditions in the two

capitalist

industrial societies

which had shared

a

similar industrial

development

(Kocka,

1977).

According

to

Kocka,

the

right-wing

political

tendencies

of and

support

for

the

National Socialists

by significant

numbers of German

employees

could

not

be

explained by

the industrial

capitalist

system,

but

were

attributable

to

the

fact

that

pre

industrial,

pre-capitalist,

pre-bourgeois

and bureaucratic

traditions had

moulded

the

social

structures

and

conflicts of the industrial

society

in

Germany

and

thus

had

an

influence

on

'liberal

democracy's

chances

of

development

and

survival

even at

advanced

stages

of industrialization'

(Kocka,

1977,

p.

335).

The

comparative

historical works of the 1970s and 1980s

frequently

identified

'pre-modern

traditions

and

relicts',

'successful revolutions'

and

'failed

processes

of

liberalization and democratization'

as

'historical

factors' which

shaped

the national

path

of

development

in

the

long

term

by defining

the structural

conditions and

hori?

zons

of

experience

and

interpretation

of the

actors

(Moore,

1969;

Skocpol,

1979).

In

Germany,

the

'special

German

path'

which had

ended in the National

Socialist

dictatorship

and

the

catastrophe

of the Second World

War and

was

of interest

as a

deviation from

the

'normal' social and

political

modernization

path

of

western

indus?

trial nations and

societies,

provided

the

starting point,

right

into modern

times,

for

a

whole series of

international

comparative

studies

on

social

groups,

structures,

institu?

tions and

politics.

In

Germany

and

some

other

countries,

the

special

path

thesis

contributed,

directly

or

indirectly, quite considerably

to

the rise of the

international historical

comparison.

When

finally,

on

account

of

empirical comparative

research,

it

was

dramatically

weakened and reduced

to

the

political

core

(Kocka,

2000b, pp.

93-110),

comparative

historiography

enjoyed

so

much

recognition

and

institutional

support,

thanks

to

some

innovative

works

and

countless

stimulating

articles,

that

it could

devote

itself

to

new

topics.

In

so

far

as

historical

comparativism

has

examined

national and

regional

variants

of

'modern

society', paths

of

development

and

endogenous

modernization

potential

comparatively against

the

background

of modernization

theory,

it has

occasionally

contributed

to

an

ideologization

of

western

modernity.

In

many

different

ways,

however,

it has also made

knowledge

available

which

was

totally

central

to

an

empir?

ically

substantiated

critique

of

modernity

and

to

an

analysis

of

different

ways

and

forms of

modernization

(Siegrist,

1996,

pp. 925-950;

Sundhaussen

Daskalov,

1999;

Eisenstadt,

2003; Kaelbe,

2004).

Comparative

historical science

pursued

and

represented

the

internationalization

of

historical

science

at

a

time when this

was

not

yet

a

self-evident

course,

and thus contributed

to

the

change

in

and international

opening

up

of the historical

and

social sciences and

the

arts.

The

direction

of

compar?

ative social

history

rested

quite significantly, right

into the

1980s,

on

the

combination

of

social scientific and

historical

inquiries

and methods.

Abstract

theories and

ideal

types

were

used

heuristically

in

the

context

of

systematic

historical

science,

in

order

to

pre-structure

the

topic

under

examination and the

field of

examination,

to

detect



Comparative

history of

cultures and

societies 387

the

general

and the

particular

and

to

check

the

temporal

and

spatial

range

of the

generalization

or

theory.

Comparative

historical

research was understood as a means for

developing theory

in

the

interplay

between

deduction and

induction,

abstraction and concretization.

Comparative

historians thus moved

in

a

transitional

area,

disputed

both

in

terms

of

scientific

theory

and

discipline,

between the

social

sciences

and the

arts;

this

area was

characterized

by

a

tension between

the

'generalizing

social

scientific

systematic'

and

the

'individualizing

historical

genetic'

method.

They

mediated between the

'objec?

tive'

significance

and

function

of

a

phenomenon,

based

on

reconstructing

and inter?

preting

the 'material' with the

help

of

an

abstract social scientific

theory independent

of

space

and

time,

and the

'subjective'

meaning

which is

developed

with the

help

of

the historical

genetic

method and

by

meaningfully

reconstructing

the

intentions

of

the

spatially

and

temporally

anchored

historical

actors.

Comparative

historical science

thus

became

a

laboratory

in which

'systematic'

and 'historical'

approaches

to

empir?

ical

work had

to

be combined

in

many

different

ways.

Interculturally

accepted

and

internationally

comprehensible

criteria

had

to

be

developed

and

applied

to

ensure

the

validity

and

plausibility

of

the results and

interpretation.

The

social historians and

economic

historians

dominating comparative

historical science

at

that

time

developed

processes

and standards

to

achieve this

which

would be described

today

in

historical

and social science

as

historico-cultural.

For

historians who had

to

move

and orientate themselves between

two

or

more

societies, cultures,

linguistic

areas or

historic

areas,

the fact that social action ismedi?

ated

symbolically

and

semantically

by

language,

terms,

discourses and

images

and

sociocultural

structures

and

processes

are

placed spatially,

was

not

primarily

a

scientific theoretical

or

philosophical question,

but

an

empirical

one.

Historical

comparativists

always

reflected,

almost

inevitably,

on

the

ambiguity

and

polyfunction

ality

of

terms,

texts

and

images.

Social and economic

historians,

who

compared

social

structures

in

several

societies

theoretically,

also had

to

transform

a

great

deal

in

terms

of

language

and

terminology. Firstly,

the relation

between

systematic,

historical and

culture-specific

terms

was

important, together

with the

problem

of

translatability

in

the

case

of

comparisons

between societies with

different

languages.

The

quest

for

'functional

equivalents'

demanded

precise knowledge

of the

sources

and

a

high degree

of

research

imagination.

The

comparison

of social constellations had

to

be

extended

to

include the

comparison

of

historical

and cultural

'contexts',

since the

unambiguity

of

a

phenomenon,

which

arose

firstly

on

account

of

the

interpretation

with the

help

of

a

general

and

space-independent

social scientific

theory,

frequently

came

into

conflict

with

the

ambiguity

and

polyfunctionality

of

the observed

phenomenon.

Against

this

background,

historical

comparativism?especially

in

Germany?

recalled

at

an

early

stage

Max

Weber's

concept

of

the

'ideal

type',

which

was

devel?

oped

in

order

to

analyse meaning-orientated

social action

in

the ensemble of social

and cultural

forms,

structures,

relations and

processes

in

a

specific

space

and

time

frame.

By

replacing

the

concepts

'theory'

and

'model',

which had

strong

scientistic

and natural scientific connotations

in

the

English-

and

German-speaking

world,

with the

historical,

social and cultural scientific

concept

of

the 'ideal

type',

which



388 H.

Siegrist

conceives

typical

structures

and

relations

under

a

single

time- and

space-bound

horizon of

meaning, comparative

social

history

took

a

decisive

step

towards

compar?

ative social and

cultural

history.

This

thereby

domesticized

and

relativized

the

objectivistic

conception

of

theory

which

was

prevalent

at

that

time

in

the economic

sciences and

in

orthodox

Marxism. Since

comparative

historical

science

has been

legitimized

up

until

very

recently

in

terms

of

scientific

theory

but

predominantly

and

primarily

by analytical, positivistic

and

scientistic

models,

and

designates

coherent

statement

systems

as

models

or

theories,

it has remained

difficult for

outsiders

to

perceive

this cultural historical

turning point

in

historical

comparativism

and

even

advocates of the

new

cultural

history

frequently

have

not

understood it

at

all.

Ute

Daniel

ignores comparative

social

and cultural

history outright

in

her

compendium

of

cultural

history

(Daniel,

2001).

Wolfgang Hardtwig

and

Hans-Ulrich

Wehler

discuss

the

problem

of Max

Weber's

shortened, i.e.,

social

scientific

reception

by

social

history,

which

now

has

to

be

completed by

cultural

history (Hardtwig

Wehler, 1996, pp.

llf.).

In

the

empirical

practice

of

historical social and cultural

comparisons,

terms,

discourses

and

perceptions

have

been

analysed

and the

problems

of

ambiguity

and

subjective

usage

of

symbolic

artefacts and

texts

have

been

explicitly

reflected

early

on.

Advocates of the

social

comparison

approach

refrained from

a

systematic

cultural

scientific substantiation of

international and

interregional

comparisons,

not

least

because

the

literary

and

pictorial

sciences

of

that time had

so

little of

any

substance

to

offer. Due

to

extensive

theoretical abstinence

in

the

literary

and

art

sciences,

systematic

concepts

for

dealing

with cultural differences

were

less

widespread

than

today.

Nonetheless,

the first

generations

of

comparative

social

historians

still

unquestion?

ably

had

indispensable

cultural

and

linguistic

competences

available

to

them. Histor?

ical

studies

were

very

often

combined

with

a

study

of the

languages

and

culture.

Some

pioneers

of

comparativism

were

emigrants,

others

came

from

European

border

and

crossroad

areas.

The third

group

were

familiar,

on

account

of

studying

abroad,

with

problems

of

ambiguity,

translation

and

change

in

cultural

perspectives

(Fischer,

2004; Kocka,

in

press).

Since the

1980s,

for

pragmatic

reasons,

comparative

historians

have

increasingly

concentrated

on

comparing

a

small number of

cases.

By

deviating

from

the

custom

of

the social sciences

to

examine

many

cases

and

a

small

number of

variables,

they

have

been able

to

become

more

closely

involved

with

the relevant constellations and

contexts

and

emphasize

the

ambiguity

and

polyfunctionality

of the

phenomenon

under

examination.

Inquiry

into

the

general

has been

relativized

by

an

enhanced

interest

in the

particular

and the

relation between the

general

and the

particular.

The

interpretative

majesty

of

abstract,

ahistorical and

space-independent

theories has

been

relativized

by

the advance of

different

actor

perspectives?both

contemporaries

and

historians.

Comparative

historical

science has thus been

transformed

more

and

more

into

a new

integrated

form

of

comparative

social and

cultural

history.

This is

interested

in

the social

and cultural

significance

of

a

phenomenon

not

exclusively

from

the

perspective

of

a

universalistic

theory;

rather,

the

theory

and its

application



Comparative

history

of

cultures and societies 389

are

themselves historicized and

contextualized

by

specific

actors.

It

is asked

how

the

meanings

which the historical

actors

and historians

give

to

a

phenomenon

relate

to

the

interpretations

of the abstract

'theory',

indifferent

to

space

and time.

Historical

social

and

cultural

comparisons

represent

a

balancing

act

between

abstraction

and

concretization,

deduction and induction.

Anyone

orientating

them?

selves

too

closely

towards

a

general

theory,

indifferent

to

space

and

time,

runs

the risk

of

important

differences

in

meaning remaining

concealed

from them in

the

concrete

cases.

It also becomes

precarious

when

comparative

historians

completely dispense

with

a

'theoretical'

procedure

when

they

wish

to

examine

and

represent

the

history

of

a

similar

phenomenon

in

two or

more

countries without

any

regard

to

a

common,

abstract

point

of reference

(a

heuristically

used

theory

or an

ideal

type). They

poten?

tially

open up

a

wide

spectrum

of

forms,

meanings,

functions and functional

equiva?

lents,

thereby extending

the

possibilities

of

thinking;

yet

they

also risk

no

longer

being

able

to

represent

the

systems

and

hierarchy

of

registered

forms of

expression,

mean?

ings

and

functions

in

a

way

that is

easy

to

remember,

because

structuring

by

means

of

a

knowledge-based

'theory'

or a

coherent historical 'master narrative'

is

missing.

'Theory'

not

only

structures

the

cognitive

process

but also

undergoes

a

change

within

the

research

process

and

is

finally

used

as a

basis for

a

structured and

structuring

'master

narrative' of

representation.

Comparative

history

should

never

lose

sight

of its aim

to

form and continue

to

develop

ideal

types

and

master

narratives which

can

become

points

of reference for

further research. It

should

not

restrict itself either

to

collecting

and

ordering

informa?

tion

from different

countries

or

to

simply describing

and

listing,

and

should constitute

more

than

a

'database'

or

'bookbinder

synthesis'.

Many

of the

numerous

thematic

anthologies

in which

regional

and national

case

studies

are

grouped

under

a common

inquiry

represent

an

important

preliminary

stage

in

real

comparativism,

especially

when

they

contain

an

introduction from the editor

in

which

the

most

important

tendencies

are

presented comparatively

and

embedded

in

more

general

contexts.

Since

the

1990s,

comparative

historical

science

has

increasingly

been

taking

up

inquiries

and

topics

which

do

not

come

from classic

social

history

and

sociology.

It

has also been

integrating

cultural scientific

inquiries

and

methods

more

explicitly

than

previously.

Thematic

accents

and the theoretical

scientific basis

are

thus

shifting

in the

medium

term.

Cultural scientific

comparisons

are now

no

longer

conceived

as

particularly

difficult and

are

also

no

longer

as

rare as

J?rgen

Kocka and

Heinz

Gerhard

Haupt

still

maintained

in

1996

(Haupt

Kocka, 1996b,

pp.

34f.).

Compar?

ative historical

science

has

profited

over

the last

twenty years

from

developments

in

the

history

of

terms

and

discourses, i.e.,

from the fact that historical

scientific

meth?

ods

in

general

are

subject

to

a

tendency

towards

systematization

and that further

sections

of

historical science

are

breaking

away

from classic historicism and

produc?

ing knowledge

that

can

be

integrated relatively unproblematically

in

comparative

research.

Furthermore,

historical

comparativism

is

benefiting

from the

shift

in

meth?

ods and interests towards

the

literary, pictorial

and

art

sciences,

which

are

being

transformed

into

systematic

'cultural sciences' whose

theses,

theories,

terms

and

empirical

research

can

be

integrated

in

comparative

social

and cultural

history.

In

the



390 H.

Siegrist

preface

to

the first edition

o?

Metzler

Lexikon

zur

Literatur?und Kulturtheorie

in

1998,

Ansgar

N?nning

asserted

that:

The

demand,

which

has been

increasing

since the end

of the

1960s,

for

a

greater

theoret

ization

of the

arts

has resulted in

a

plethora

of

literary

and cultural scientific

theories,

models

and methods.

...

The

insight

that

every

form of

cognition,

observation

and

inter?

pretation

is driven

by

theory

has

gained widespread

acceptance.

The

conflict,

readily

emphasized by

opponents

of

theory,

between

theory-loaded

and

'direct'

or

'genuine'

access

to

literary

texts

has thus

proven

to

be

a

falsely

formulated alternative.

(N?nning,

2004, p.

v)

The temporal structuring

of

society,

culture and

history

in

historical

comparativism

It

has

not

only

been since

the

dawn

of the

new

age

of

Europeanization,

transna

tionalization

and

globalization

that

analysing

and

reflecting

on

local,

national and

transnational

paths

of

development

and

history

have been

among

the

most

urgent

tasks of all historians.

From

the

very

outset,

inquiring

into the conditions

for and

consequences

of historical

paths

and

path

dependencies

has

been of

paramount

importance

to

comparative

historical science?as

the

example

of the

special path

has

shown.

Systematic

historical

comparative

research has

substantially

differenti?

ated the discussion

concerning

the

structuring

and

meaning

of the

'pasts'

of societ?

ies

and

cultures.

By comparing

historical

paths

and

master

narratives,

knowledge

has been

systematized, typed

and

thus been

made

comparable

and

relatable,

with

regard

to

the

temporal

dimension?structures

of

longer

duration,

short and

long

cycles,

sequences.

Historical

paths

and

master

narratives

are

of

interest

in

terms

of

similarities

and

differences.

Typed

historical

paths

are

referred

to

in

order

to

comprehend

the

scope

of

similar,

topical

and

cross-societal decision-related

situations,

in

interregional

and

interna?

tional

comparisons;

in order

to

explain

certain forms of

thinking

and

acting

'histori?

cally';

and

in order

to

determine the

potential

for

mixing

and

fusing

national and

regional

historical

paths

into

a

common,

imagined

or

real

historical

path?for

instance,

a

European

one.

The

social and cultural

sciences

frequently regard paths

of

development

as

a

historico-cultural residual

category

that

is

meant

to

explain

the

remainder

of

what

a

systematic analysis

of the

present

is unable

to

decipher.

However,

comparative

historians

are

concerned

not

only

with the

determining

effects

of historical

paths

but also

with the

question

of how

knowledge

of native and

foreign

historical

paths

alters

the

scope

of the actors'

thinking

and

acting. Knowledge

of alternatives

relativizes

the

path

dependency

and

supports

an

active

formation

of

new

paths

of

development,

including

cross-societal and

culturally hybrid

paths.

Systematic

and

empirically supported

international

and

intercultural

comparisons

of

historical

paths

and

master

narratives have

called

numerous

idealistic

or

objectivistic

conceptions

of

a

purposeful

historical

path,

more

often

also

salvation

history-related

conceptions

with

a

religious,

ethnic,

national

and civilization

motivation,

radically

into

question.

On

account

of the constructivist

turning-point

in

'historiography

history',



Comparative

history

of

cultures and

societies

391

'recollection

history',

'experience

history'

and the

'history

of the cultural

memory',

what

once

went

down

in the

comparative explanation

of

'commonalities' and 'differ?

ences'

as

objective 'history',

'tradition'

or

'historical

factor'

(Puhle,

1979)

is

now

understood

in

amore

differentiated

sense

as a

horizon of

space,

time,

experience

and

expectation

of the historical

actors

which

co-shapes

the

perception

and

interpretation

of

the action.

Implicit

or

explicit

comparative

historiography

history,

which in

the

age

of

Europe?

anization and

globalization

has

probably

become the fastest

growing

area

of historical

science

(Middell

et

al, 2001;

Berger,

2002;

Conrad

Conrad,

2002;

Raphael,

2003),

deals,

in

the

context

of research

on

master

narratives,

myths,

historical

recollections,

cultural and collective

memory,

places

of recollection

and forms of

traditionalization,

in

addition

to

separate

and interwoven

history,

with

the

construction and effect

of

different

conceptions

and

depictions

of the

past

(Raphael,

1990;

Conrad, 1999a,

1999b; Hadler,

2000; Friedrich, 2000;

Kaelble

Rothermund,

2001).

Comparative

historians

now

work

together

with cultural transfer researchers and

increasingly

also

with

experts

in

national

historiography

on

problems concerning

the

culturality

and

historicity

of self

and other. Historical

paths

and views of

history

are

considered

to

a

certain

extent to

be 'constructions'

or

'truths'

dependent

on

the

culture,

time

and interests.

Today,

advocates of historical

comparativism

are

in

wide?

spread

agreement

on

this with

advocates of cultural

transfer

research,

research

on

interculturality, transculturality

and

international

relations.

However,

there

is

greater

dissent

over

the

degree

to

which it is constructed and the relation between so-called

real

and

imagined,

material and

ideal,

social and cultural

developments

and forces.

These

differences,

which

are

frequently

determined

by

scientific,

specialist discipline

specific

and

ideological positions,

mentalities

and

traditions,

are

being

resolved,

not

least

thanks

to

the

empirical

research carried

out

by comparative,

intercultural and

international historians.

Since

the

1990s,

comparative

historical science

has been

sharpening

its cultural

scientific

profile

by

more

consciously

and

more

intensely

processing

the

inquiries

and

findings

of research

on

'cultural

transfer'

and

'interculturality',

which

have

been

making

their

mark since the

1980s

as

separate

specialized

areas

in

the

literary

sciences,

cultural sciences

and cultural

studies.

The cultural transfer

researchers

are

less

concerned with

continuing

a

classic

analysis

of diffusion

processes

and influence rela?

tions

than with

a

social

and cultural

history

of

cultural

contact,

by

inquiring

how and

why

goods

and cultural artefacts

are

appropriated

for

reinterpretation (Schmale,

1998;

Espagne,

2000;

Middell,

2000b).

'Interculturality', together

with the

problem

of

transnationalization,

has

more

often become

the central

topic

of

a

historical science

beyond

the nation

state

and

a

transcultural and worldwide

history

of civilization

(Osterhammel,

2001).

These

new

directions

overlap

with

more

recent

research

on

the

history

of

westernization, easternization,

Europeanization,

Americanization

and

Sovi

etization

(Hudemann

et

al, 1995;

Jarausch

Siegrist,

1997;

H?pken

Sundhaussen,

1998; Gassert,

2001;

M?ller,

2005).

Comparative

historians,

on

account

of their

practised internationality

and intercul?

turality,

are

particularly

open

to

new

topics

and

inquiries

and

have

constantly played



392

H.

Siegrist

a

role

at

the forefront of

historiographical

cultural transfer. In the

1980s and

1990s,

comparative

historical science

made its

name as

a

methodically hybrid

research

branch

which

creatively

linked

social

scientific,

cultural scientific and

historical

approaches.

At

present,

it

is

defining

the

historiographical

mainstream

more

than

ever

before.

Comparative

historical

science

has

assumed

a

pioneering

role

in

Europe,

whose

history

is

characterized

to

a

large

extent

by

the

juxtaposition

of,

clashes

and

negotiations

between

national and

regional

cultures,

with

the 'cultural turn' and the

'spatial

turn'

in

the

historical

sciences,

and exercises

pioneering

functions in

the

internationalization

of

historical,

cultural

and

social

sciences.

Space and spatialization in comparative historical science

The

spatial

dimension of

social

and

symbolic

action

is

extremely important

in

comparative

social and

cultural

history.

From

the

outset,

spatializing

sociocultural

organizations

and

processes

and

territorially

anchoring

differences and distinctions

belong

to

the

core

activities

of

international,

interregional

and

intercultural

compar?

ative historical

science.

On

the

level of

analysis

and

explanation,

historical

comparat?

ivism

is involved with

the

spatial

conditions

of social

and cultural

action and

with

structuring

space

by

means

of

informal social

action,

processes

of


and

government.

In

so

far

as

social,

symbolic

and material

organizations

and

relations

are

condensed and

reinforced

as

'societies,'

'cultures' and

'landscapes',

a

culturally

coded

and

socially

organized

spatial juxtaposition

of 'units of

comparison'

is

formed;

these

are

referred

to

in

comparative

research

in

order

to

understand and

explain

the

form

and function of the

phenomenon

under

examination in

the

relevant

'society'

and

'culture'.

In

comparative

historical

science

studies,

space

is either

understood

as a

static

container

or

regarded

as

the

result

of

dynamic

processes

of

spatialization

or

territori

alization of

what is

social and

cultural.

Thus,

conceptualization

of

space

in

the

historical

sciences

is

not

significantly

different from

that

in

other

social and

cultural

sciences.

Historical

comparative

studies which

are

primarily geared

towards

general?

izations

are

mainly

interested

in

social and

symbolic

processes

of

delocalization

and

universalization,

together

with

forms

of

a

phenomenon's

ubiquity,

universality

and

placelessness. By

contrast,

historical

studies

which

are

primarily

concerned with the

specific

and the

particular

concentrate

on

processes

of

regional

and

national

differen?

tiation

and

concomitant

processes

of

social,

institutional

and

cultural

differentiation;

or on

analysing specialities

and

variations.

Both

cases

involve

a

local

embedding

of

social

and cultural

processes

and

question

to

what

extent

the action of

individual

and

collective

actors

is defined and

enabled

by spatially

structured

and anchored

organi?

zations

of

meaning,

systems

of

action

and material

conditions.

Hitherto,

historical

science has

only

been

defined

to a

minor

extent

in

spatial

scientific

or

geographical

terms.

Most

comparative

studies attribute

the

contexts

of

meaning,

structure

and action

under

examination?with

regard

to

their

origin

and diffusion?

to

a

place,

territory

or

space

(Siegrist, 1996).

In

my

study,

which

deals

with the

history

of

lawyers

in the

area

of

Germany, Italy

and Switzerland

from

the

eighteenth

to

the




cultures and

societies 393

twentieth

centuries,

I

compare

different

local,

regional,

national and transnational terri?

tories and

spaces,

each

according

to

time

and

thematic

perspectives.

Many comparative

studies

operate

with

concepts

with

spatial

connotations,

such as

'society'

and

'culture',

and

they designate

specific

social and cultural

developments,

ensembles

and

types

with

geographical

names

and details

of

origin.

On

a

cultural

level,

the

spatial

dimension

can

be defined

as a

permeable

area

of

perception

and

meaning

which

corresponds

to

an

abstract scientific

spatial

image

or

an

everyday

spatial conception

of the

actors

and

can

be understood

as

'imaginary

geography'

or a

'cultural

map'

(Werlen,

1997;

Fach

et

al,

1998; Ahrens, 2001, pp.

43-67; L?w,

2001;

Siegrist,

2001a).

'Culture'

or

'cultures'

are

thereby

understood

as

special, temporally

and

spatially

relatively

stable,

interpretation

models and values

which are

divided

by

a

group

of

people

and used

to

interpret 'reality'

(Gerhards,

2000,

pp.

10f.).

Such

units of cultural

comparison

more or

less

overlap

with 'societ?

ies', i.e.,

with

relatively

stable

social constructions and

areas

of

action

which,

on

account

of

common

institutions

and

power

processes,

are

differentiated

from

other,

territorially

anchored

societies,

yet

are

also

to

a

certain

extent

permeable.

Since in

modern and

dynamic

societies and cultures the

relationship

between

the

everyday,

space-related

practice

of the

actors,

the

institutionalized

space

and the

scientific

conceptions

of the

space

is

relatively contingent,

comparative

historical science

has

to

define and

hierarchize

its units of

spatial

comparison

in

each

case

with

regard

to

the

inquiry

and the

phenomenon

to

be

explained.

Nonetheless,

the

dimension

of the

space

and

spatialization

has

hitherto

been taken

into

account

and

conceptualized

in

different

ways

in

comparative

historical

science.

In

many

comparative

studies

on

eighteenth

to

twentieth

century

history,

space

functions

as an

ahistorical

geographical

container

or as a

fixed,

historically

real

and

politically, legally

and

administratively

institutionalized

territory.

Since the

early

twentieth

century,

there has

been

competition

in

comparative

historical science

between

a

(relatively)

space-indifferent

form

of

comparativism

and

a

historical

geographical

form

of

comparativism,

which

explicitly

expounds

the

problems

of

the

significance

of

spatial

structure

for social

action and

emphasizes

the

way

in which

space

is structured

by

the

actors.

The

latter is also

represented by

the

historical

geographical

form

of

comparativism

influenced

by

Marc Bloch and

the French

Annales

school,

which is

differentiated,

with

regard

to

the

spatial

concept,

into

a

constructivist

and

a

structuralist direction

(W?stemeyer,

1972;

Lefebvre, 1991;

Bloch,

2000).

In

the

Germany

of the

first half

of

the

century,

this

was

represented

by

the

cultural

space

concept

of

'Land

history'

which,

on

account

of its

involvement in

the

nationalist and racist science of

the National

Socialists,

was

unable

to

play

a

role

in

the reinvention of

comparativism

in

West

German historical

science

(Blackbourn,

1999; Koselleck,

2000).

Ever since

the dimension of

space

was

thoroughly

rediscov?

ered in the

1990s

by

the

historical,

social and

cultural

sciences,

there has been

noth?

ing

left

to

hinder

the 'return of

space'

in

comparative

historical science. It

needs

concepts

from

spatial

science

in

order

to

classify

and select its units of

comparison

and

in

order

to

obtain

an

additional

level of

explanation

for the

phenomena

under

examination.



394

H.

Siegrist

Comparative

historical science

and

research

into

cultural

transfer,

interculturality

and

international

relations

can

mediate between biased research

directions

which

stress

deterritorialization,

transnationalization and universalization tendencies and

approaches

which

are

committed

a

priori

to

researching

social

and cultural

processes

and

structures

in

spaces

with

a

specific

standard

(small

spaces

in

micro-history,

medium

spaces

in

regional

and national

history,

large

spaces

in

the

history

of

'civilizations',

'Europe'

and

the

'world').

In

so

far

as

comparative

historical

science

takes into

account

both

the

permeability

and

fluidity

of

spaces

and the

tension

and

interdependence

between

the

local,

national and

global,

it

can

also better

integrate

the

approaches

and

results

of research into

cultural

transfer,

interculturality,

transna?

tionalization,

globalization

and localization

(Immerfall

et

al.,

1998).

If

cultural

transfer research demands a

'history

of

points

of contact and forms of articulation of

different

cultural

spaces',

this is

easily

combined with

the demands

of

a

space

sensitive form

of

comparative

social and

cultural

history

(Espagne,

2000,

p.

58).

Comparative

historical science

must,

however,

somewhat

relativize

the

classic rule

of

comparison

according

to

which units of

comparison

must

be

'isolated,

autonomous

and

inherently dynamic'

(Haupt

Kocka,

1996,

p.

10

Osterhammel,

2001),

by

indi?

cating

that

this is

only

relevant

in the

case

of causal

explanations.

At the

same

time,

contextualizing

and

historicizing comparative

research demonstrates that

'auton?

omy',

'inherent

dynamism'

and

'similarity'

are

also

historically

ambiguous

and

culturally

relative.

The units

of

comparison

are

constituted

by

the historical

actors

and

understood

and

designated

by

historical

comparativists

as

spatialized

'societies',

'cultures',

'civi?

lizations',

'regions'

and

'nations'.

Names

(such

as

Saxony, Germany,

central

Europe,

Europe),

and the

fields

of

words and

meaning

and

discourses

associated

with

them,

refer,

firstly,

to

a

geographically

defined

area

(i.e.,

defined

by

geographers);

secondly,

to

a

politically

and

administratively

limited

territory;

and

thirdly

to

'territorialized

units of

meaning

with

unclear

boundaries'

which

are

constituted

by

a

standard

meaning

or

processes

of

charging

and

conciseness

(K?hnke,

2001,

p.

29).

The

most

recent

cultural

historical

or

constructivist research

on

nationalization and

regionalization

reconstructs

discourses

and

terms

which

have

given

a

relevant

space

its

structure,

function and

meaning

as a

'nation'

or

'region'.

It

moves

in

similar

spheres

to

Edward

Said

and Maria

Todorova,

whose

literary

scientific

and

historical

research

inquire

into

the

place

and

space-structuring

potential

of

metaphors

and

discourses for the

'Orient'

and the 'Balkans'

(Said,

1997,

p.

258).

Whereas

non-comparative

history

concentrates

on

inquiring

into the

consistency

and coherence

of

a

national

meaning

and social

organization

in

one

area,

comparative

social and

cultural

history

tries

to

find the

point

from

which

a

horizon

of

meaning,

institutional

framework and

a

social

or

cultural

regime

either

lose?or

gain?in

terms

of

interpretational

power,

plausibility

and

social commitment.

It is

interested

in

how

and

why

a

local horizon of

meaning

turns

into

organizations

of action

and

horizons of

interpretation

which

cover

several

units,

on

account

of

intersocietal and intercultural

interactions,

cultural

transfers

and

intercultural

dialogues.

On this

basis,

less

two

dimensional

and

spatially

diffuse

phenomena

of cultural

differentiation

can

be



Comparative

history

of

cultures

and societies 395

comprehended,

which

can

only

be

referred back

symbolically

to

a

specific place,

such

as

the

'transterritoriality'

of national

emigrant

communities

(Spiliotis,

2001),

the

multiculturality

of

the

emigrant

(Green, 1994),

the

diaspora

and the

Jewish

Stetl;

equally,

the

modern

global

city,

in which the

centre

and

the

periphery

of

the

world

mingle socially,

culturally

and

locally

and where localists

(who

refer

to

a

local

organi?

zation of

meaning,

values

and

action)

and

cosmopolitans

(with

a

primarily

super-local

and

placeless

horizon

of

reference)

coexist

(Ahrens,

2001; Low,

2001).

Comparing

spaces

and

spatializations

is

a

specific

characteristic of

comparative

historical science. For

a

long

time,

this

has

stressed

comparisons

and

concentrating

on

the dimension

of time for methodical

specialization

so

heavily

that the dimension

of

space

and

the

processes

of

spatialization

and

despatialization

have

remained

compar?

atively underexposed

in

previous

theoretical

and

practice-orientated presentations

of

comparative

historical science

(Haupt

Kocka, 1996b;

Kaelble,

1996;

now

different

for

Kocka,

2006).

In

my

opinion,

however,

comparative

historical

science

should

now

sharpen

its

profile

in

comparison

with other

disciplines, precisely

because

of

the

prob?

lems

associated with

space

and territorialization.

Comparative

historical

science should

therefore make

concepts,

approaches

and

procedures

of

spatial

and territorialization

research,

which

are

contained

in

many

comparative

studies,

a

central

hallmark of histor?

ical

comparativism.

By firmly including

and

reflecting

on

the dimension

of

space

and

analysing

processes

of

territorial

differentiation,

homogenization

and

exchange,

social

and cultural

historical

comparison

gains

in

terms

of

profile

and

connectivity.

It

treats

units of

comparison

such

as

'nations',

'societies'

or

'cultures'

respectively

as

the

historical result

of

many

and

diverse,

competing

and

interdependent

social and

symbolic

processes

of

construction

and

reproduction

with which the

actors

give

an

'area' its

function

and

meaning

as a

sociocultural

'space'

or

as

a

state

or

administratively

composed

'territory'.

The real

or

presumed

sense

of

belonging

rests

on a

place-related

organization

of

meaning

and action and

a

construction

of institutions

which

enables

and defines

social and

symbolic

processes

and

practices.

The units

of

comparison

appear

to

be units

of

structure

and

processes

because

they

are

joined together objectively

and

functionally

or

because

they

are

considered

to

be

joined together by

the

actors.

Comparative

social

and cultural

history

works

on

the

heuristically

more

rewarding

assumption

that

the

general

and

specific

facets of

a

phenomenon

can

only

be under?

stood

by

means

of

a

comparative analysis

of

structures

of

meaning

and

action which

are

territorially

institutionalized but also

interact and communicate

in

many

and

diverse

ways.

The

aim

of

comparisons

is

to

understand

and

explain

the

form,

meaning

and

function of

a

phenomenon

in

several

units which

to

a

certain

extent

can

also be

identified

spatially

or

territorially.

It is

to

be

hoped

and

expected

that

in

future

the

potential

of

comparative

historical

science

will

be

expanded

and intensified

in

order

to

be used

as

a

history,

innovative

in

terms

of

content

and

method,

of

socializations,

collectivizations

and

spatializations

in

Europe

and the

world.

A

history

of

Europe

which

understands

Europe

as

a seman?

tic and

social

structure

in

a

state

of

constant

change,

a

history

of transnationalization

and

globalization

which

does

not

only

wish

to concentrate

on

the 'new

placelessness

and

ubiquity',

a

'world

history'

(Bentley,

2002)

which

not

only

evokes

but also



396

H.

Siegrist

empirically

analyses

the

pluricentric

and interwoven

world,

and

a

'history

of civiliza?

tions' which does

not

only

wish

to

reproduce

commonplaces,

will be unable

to

exist

without

comparative

historical

science,

however

not in a form which is

adequate

for

current

scientific standards

(Kaelble,

1999,

pp. 79-92; Osterhammel,

2001).

Conclusion:

social

and cultural

difference,

multi-perspectivity

and

interculturality

in

comparative

historical science

It remains

to

be mentioned that what

was

originally

a more

social scientific

and

institution-related

historical form of

comparative

research has

developed

over

the

course

of 40

years

into

a

comparative history

of


in

a

broader

sense.

Integrated

comparative history

of cultures

and

societies,

which

benefited

from

the simultaneous further

development

of

perspectives

and methods

in

cultural

scientific

tendencies

(cultural

transfer,

interculturality, comparative literary

science,

translation

sciences,

etc.)

and

has

proven

to

be

comparatively

well-suited

to

integration,

analyses

the

prerequisites,

forms and

consequences

of

processes

of social and cultural

differ?

entiation. Differences

and similarities

represent,

from

a

historical

systematic viewpoint,

the result of

processes

of

symbolic

and social

differentiation

or

de-differentiation

and

can

be

reconstructed

as

such

empirically.

The

starting point

and

objects

of

historical

comparativism,

communication

research

and transfer research

are

social and cultural differences

and the


of

these

in

social

constellations

and cultural

contexts,

i.e.,

in

and between

more or

less

spatialized

societies

and

semantic

systems.

It

is

assumed that differences and

similar?

ities

are

produced,

negotiated,

institutionalized

and

provided

with

names

and

mean?

ings by

means

of

interactive and intercultural

processes

in

and

between social

and

cultural

systems

(or

members of

them).

In

so

far

as

contemporary

actors

interpret

recollections and

experiences,

they

turn

present

'differences'

into

historical-culturally

substantiated

'distinctions'.

Only

this

can

explain

why

one

particular

difference

is

regarded by

one

person

as

smaller,

finer

or more

gradual

and

by

another

as

more

fundamental and

more

absolute.

Distinction

knowledge,

which

manifests

itself

in

'behaviour',

in territorialized

stereotypes

of

self

and

other, theories,

historical

narra?

tives and discourses

on

special

ways,

particular

historical

paths

and

path dependen?

cies,

uses

supposed

and

real

differences

to

make

meaningful

distinctions

which

by

appropriate

action also

become

socially

real. Historical

science

not

only

observes

these

processes

but is

decisively

involved in them. Processes of this kind have been modeled

in social

psychology

and

sociology;

in

the

theory

of

cognitive

consonance

and disso?

nance,

in

symbolic

interactionism and

in

the

cultural

sociology

of

Pierre

Bourdieu.

Today, comparative

social and cultural

history

is

distinguished

on

the

one

hand

from

a

monoperspectivist,

individualizing,

historical

genetic

national and

regional

form

of

history,

which is

primarily

used

to create

identity;

on

the other

hand from the tradi?

tional

comparative

sociology

and social

history,

which

was

also

monoperspectivist

in

so

far

as

it

interpreted

the

meaning

and function

of

a

'variable

development'

in the

different

units of

comparison by

means

of

a

single

theory.

The

key

terms

of

more

recent

comparative

historical

science

are

multiperspectivity

(understood

as

a

pluralism

of



Comparative history

of

cultures

and

societies 397

perspectives)

and

interculturality.

*Multiperspectivity'

means

that

a

specific

phenome?

non

is

analysed

from

a

number

of

different

historical,

social,

cultural

and

spatial

perspectives

and horizons of

interpretation;

from internal and

external

perspectives,

from

mediatory

and

all-embracing

intercultural and transnational

perspectives,

and

from the

bird's-eye

view of

highly

abstract ideal

types

or

theories whose

spatial

and

temporal validity

is

checked

and

defined

by

means

of

comparison.

The

art

of

compar?

ison

comprises determining

the

hierarchy,

coherence and

interdependence

of these

different

perspectives.

'interculturality'

means

the character of the relations and interactions between

'cultures',

'achievement

of

communication

with

cultural

foreignness' (Schmeling,

2000,

p.

188; Zima,

2000),

the

'dialogue

which modifies the

viewpoints

of

all

involved'

(N?nning,

2004,

p.

283)

by reflecting

on

one's

own

cultural

position

and

horizon of

values

as a

'prerequisite

for

intercultural intellectual interaction'

(Schmeling,

2000,

p.

190).

Marc

Bloch,

one

of the

great

pioneers

of

comparative

history, pleaded

for

more

interculturality

in

1928

at

the international historians'

congress

in

Oslo,

by calling

on

his

colleagues

to

cease

sealing

themselves

off from each other

in

national

concept

worlds,

but

to

reach

an

agreement

on common

terms

(Bloch,

2000;

Sch?ttler,

2000).

Notes

on

contributor

Hannes Siegrist is professor of contemporary and comparative history of Europe at

the

University

of

Leipzig,

Faculty

of

Social Sciences.

His

main

recent

books and

articles about

comparative

history

are

H.

Siegrist

(1996)

Advokat,

B?rger

und

Staat.

Sozialgeschichte

der Rechtsanw?lte

in

Deutschland,

Italien und der Schweiz

(18.-20.Jh.)

[Social

history

of

lawyers

in

Germany,

Italy

and

Switzerland]

(Frank?

furt

a.

M.,

Klostermann).

Some

aspects

are

resumed

in

English

in

the

following:

'Juridicalisation,

professionalisation

and

the

occupational

culture

of

the advocate

in

the

nineteenth

and the

early-twentieth

centuries.

A

comparison

of

Germany,

Italy

and

Switzerland',

in:

D.

Sugarman

W. Pue

(2003)

Lawyers

and

vampires.

Cultural histories of legal professions (Hart Publishing); 'The professions in nine?

teenth-century Europe',

in: H.

Kaelble

(2004)

The

European

way.

European

Soci?

eties

during

the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries

(Berghahn);

'Bourgeoisie,

middle

classes,

history

of,

in:N.

J.

Smelser

P. B. Baltes

(2001)

International

encyclopedia

of

the social and behavioral sciences. Volume

2

(Pergamon).

The

volume

of H.

Siegrist,

R.

Hohls

I.

Schr?der

(2005)

(Eds) Europa

und

die

Europ?er.

Quellen

und

Essays

zur

modernen

europ?ischen

Geschichte

[Europe

and

the

Europeans.

Sources

and

essays

on

modern

European history]

(Stuttgart,

Steiner)

contains

a

problem-centered

and

source-based

introduction

to

contemporary

European

historiography with a number of comparative essays.

References

Ahrens,

D.

(2001)

Grenzen

der

Entr?umlichung.

Weltst?dte,

Cyberspace

und transnationale

R?ume in

der

globalisierten

Moderne

[On

the limits of

despatialization.

World

cities,

cyberspace

and

transnational

spaces

in the

globalized

modern

world]

(Opladen,

Leske

Budrich).



398

H.

Siegrist

Albisetti,

J.

(1994)

Deutsche Lehrerinnen

im

19.

Jahrhundert

im

internationalen

Vergleich

[German

female

teachers

in

the 19th

century

from

a

comparative perspective],

in:

J. Juliane

(Ed.) Frauen zwischen Familie und Schule. Professionalisierungsstrategien b?rgerlicher Frauen im

internationalen

Vergleich

[Women

between

family

and

school.

Professionalization-strategies

of

middle-class

women

in

international

comparison]

(K?ln,

B?hlau),

28-53.

Albisetti,

J (2000)

Portia

ante

portas.

Women and the

legal

profession

in

Europe,

c.a.

1870-1925,

Journal

of

Social

History,

33(4),

825-857.

Bentley,

J.

H.

(2002)

From

national

history

toward world

history,

in:

M.

Middell

(Ed.)

Vom

Brasilienvertrag

zur

Glob

algeschichte.

In

Erinnerung

an

Manfred

Kossok

anl??lich

seines

70.

Geburtstags [From

the

treaty

of

Brasilia

to

a

global history.

In

memory

of

Manfred

Kossok]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger

Universit?tsverlag),

169-182.

Berger,

S.

(2002)

Geschichten

von

der

Nation.

Einige

vergleichende

Thesen

zur

deutschen,

englis?

chen,

franz?sischen

und italienischen

Nationalgeschichtsschreibung

seit 1800

[Comparison

of

German,

English,

French and Italian

national

historiography],

in: C.

Conrad

(Ed.)

Die Nation

schreiben:

Geschichtswissenschaft

im

internationalen

Vergleich

[Writing

the

Nation.

History

in

international

comparison.]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

49-77.

Blackbourn,

D.

(1999)

A

sense

of place.

New

directions in

German

history

(London,

German Historical

Institute).

Bloch,

M.

(2000)

F?r eine

vergleichende

Geschichte der

europ?ischen

Gesellschaften

[For

a

compar?

ative

history

of

European

societies],

in: P.

Sch?ttler

(Ed.)

Aus der Werkstatt des Historikers. Zur

Theorie und

Praxis

der


[Theory

and

practice

of

a

historian] (Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

122-159.

Bock,

G.

(2000)

Frauen

in

der

europ?ischen

Geschichte.

Vom

Mittelalter

bis

zur

Gegenwart

[Women

in

European history.

From the middle

age

to

the

present] (Munich, Beck).

Budde,

G.

F.

(1994) Auf

dem

Weg

ins

B?rgerleben.

Kindheit und

Erziehung

in deutschen

und

englischen

B?rgerfamilien

1840-1914

[Childhood

and

education

in German and

English

middle-class

families

1840-1914]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Budde,

G.

F.

(1997)

Des Haushalts sch?nster Schmuck.

Die Hausfrau als

Konsumexpertin

des

deutschen und

englischen

B?rgertums

im

19.

und

fr?hen

20.

Jahrhundert

[Women

in

the

German and

English

middle

classes

as

experts

in

consumption

in

the nineteenth

and

early

twentieth

centuries],

in: H.

Siegrist,

H. Kaelble

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Europ?ische Konsumge?

schichte.

Zur

Gesellschafts-

und

Kulturgeschichte

des

Konsums

(18.-20. Jh.) [European history

of

consumption

(18th-20th

century)]

(Frankfurt

a.

M,

Campus),

411-440.

Charle,

C.

(1997)

Vordenker

der

Moderne.

Die

Intellektuellen

im

19.

Jahrhundert [Intellectuals

in

the

nineteenth century] (Frankfurt a. M., Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag).

Charle,

C.

(2005)

Les

soci?t?s

imp?riales

d'hier

?

aujourd'hui.

Quelques propositions

pour

repenser

l'histoire du second XXe si?cle

en

Europe

[Imperial

societies from

yesterday

to

today.

Some

propositions

for

rethinking

European

history during

the second half of

the

twentieth

century], Journal of

Modern

European

History,

3(2),

123-139.

Charle, C, Schriewer,

J.

Wagner,

P.

(2004) (Eds)

Transnational

intellectual

networks.

Forms

of

academic

knowledge

and the search

for

cultural identities

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

Cleve,

I.

(1996)

Geschmack,

Kunst

und Konsum.

Kulturpolitik

als

Wirtschaftspolitik

in Frankreich und

W?rttemberg

(1805-1845) [Taste,

art

and

consumption.

Cultural

policy

as

economic

policy

in

France and

W?rttemberg (1805-1845)]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Conrad,

C.

Conrad,

S.

(2002)

Die Nation schreiben:


im internationalen

Vergleich

[Historical

science in

international

comparison]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Conrad,

S.

(1999a)

What

time

is

Japan?

Problems

of

comparative

(intercultural)

historiography,

History

and

Theory,

38(1),

67-83.

Conrad,

S.

(1999b) Auf

der Suche nach der verlorenen Nation.

Geschichtsschreibung

in Westdeutschland

und

Japan

1945-1960

[Historiography

inWest

Germany

and

Japan

1945-1990] (G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).



Comparative

history

of


399

Conrad,

S.

Randeria,

S.

(2002)

Geteilte

Geschichten?Europa

in einer

postkolonialen

Welt

[Shared

histories.

Europe

in

a

postcolonial

world],

in: S. Conrad

S.

Randeria

(Eds) Jenseits

des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften

[Beyond

Eurocentrism. Postcolonial

perspectives

in

historical

and

cultural

sciences]

(Frank?

furt

a.

M./New

York,

Campus),

9-49.

Daniel,

U.

(2001)

Kompendium Kulturgeschichte.

Theorien,

Praxis,

Schl?sselw?rte

[Compendium

of

cultural

history. Theory, practice, concepts]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Suhrkamp).

Dlugoborski,

W.

(1988)

Das

polnische

B?rgertum

vor

1918

in

vergleichender Perspektive

[The

Polish middle-classes before

1918

from

a

comparative

perspective],

in:

J.

Kocka

(Ed.) B?rgertum

im

19.

Jahrhundert.

Deutschland im

europ?ischen

Vergleich. [The

middle-class

in

the 19th

century.

Germany

in

international

comparison]

Volume

1

(Munich,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

266

299.

Eckermann,

W.

Mohr,

H.

(Eds) (1966)

Einf?hrung

in

das Studium der Geschichte

[Introduction

to

history]

(Berlin,

Deutscher

Verlag

der

Wissenschaften),

78-80.

Eisenstadt,

S.

N.

(2003)

Comparative

civilizations

and

multiple

modernities

(Leiden,

Brill).

Espagne,

M.

(2000)

Kulturtransfer und

Fachgeschichte

der Geisteswissenschaften

[Cultural

transfer

and

the

history

of the

humanities], Comparativ,

10(2),

42-61.

Espagne,

M.

(2003)

Transferanalyse

statt

Vergleich.

Interkulturalit?t

in der

s?chsischen

regional

geschichte [Interculturality

in

Saxon

history],

in: H.

Kaelble

J.

Schriewer

(Eds) Vergleich

und

Transfer. Komparatistik

in den

Sozial-,

Geschichts- und

Kulturwissenschaften [Comparison

and transfer.

Comparativism

in

the

social,

historical and cultural

sciences] (Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

Fach,

W.,

Wollersheim, H.-W.,

K?hnle, K.-C, Middell,

M.,

M?hler,

K.

Tzschaschel,

S.

(1998)

Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse.

Konturen eines

For-schungsprogramms

[Processes

of identification with

a

region],

in: H. W. Wollersheim

(1998) Region

und Identi?

fikation

[Region

and

identification]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger


1-32.

Fischer,

W.

(1985)

Handbuch der

europ?ischen Wirtschafts-

und

Sozialgeschichte

[Manual

of European

economic and social

history.

Volume

5] (Stuttgart,

Klett-Cotta).

Fischer,

W.

(2004)

Wirtschafts- und

Sozialgeschichte

an

der

Freien

Universit?t

Berlin

1955-2004

[Economic

and social

history

at

the

Freie Universit?t

Berlin

1955-2004], Scripta

Mercaturae,

39(1),

45-73.

Friedrich,

C.

(2000)

Die

Konstituierung

von

Regionalgeschichte

in

Sachsen und der

Bretagne

und ihre

Rolle

f?r

regionale

Identifikation

[The

constitution of

regional

history

and

regional

identification

in

Saxony

and

Brittany], Comparativ,

10(2),

93-107.

F?hrer, K. C.

(1999)

Die Rechte von Hausbesitzern und Mietern im Ersten

Weltkrieg

und in der

Zwischenkriegszeit.

Frankreich,

Gro?britannien

und

Deutschland

im

Vergleich

[The

rights

of

house-owners and

tenants

in

the First World War and the interwar

period.

A

comparison

of

France,

Great Britain and

Germany],

in:

H.

Siegrist

D.

Sugarman

(Eds)

Eigentum

im

internationalen

Vergleich

(18.-20.

Jh.)

[Property

in

international

comparison]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

225-241.

Gassert,

P.

(2001)

Die

Bundesrepublik,

Europa

und

der

Westen. Zu

Verwestlichung,

Demokrat?

isierung

und

einigen komparatistischen

Defiziten

der

zeithistorischen

Forschung [Westerniza?

tion,

democratization and

some

comparative

deficits of

contemporary

historiography],

in:

J.

Baberowski,

E.

Conze,

P. Gassert

M.

Sabrow

(2001)

Geschichte

ist immer

Gegenwart

[History

is

always

present]

(Munich,

Deutsche

Verlags-Anstalt),

67-89.

Gerhards,

J.

(2000)

Einleitende

Bemerkungen

[On

cultural

differences],

in:

J.

Gerhards,

Die

Vermessung

kultureller

Unterschiede. USA

und

Deutschland im

Vergleich

[How

to

explore

cultural

differences.

USA

and

Germany

in

comparison]

(Wiesbaden,

Westdeutscher

Verlag),

7-13.

Green,

N.

L.

(1994)

The

comparative

method and

poststructural

structuralism.

New

perspectives

for

migration

studies,

Journal of

American Ethnic

History,

13(4),

3-22.

Hadler,

F.

(2000) Meistererz?hlungen

?ber die

erste

Jahrtausendwende.

Deutungen

des

Jahres

1000 in

Gesamtdarstellungen

zur

polnischen,

ungarischen

und tschechischen

Nationalge



400 H.

Siegrist

schichte

[Master

narratives.

The

year

1000 in

Polish,

Hungarian

and

Czech national

history],

Comparativ,

10(2),

81-92.

Han?k, P. (1992) Der Garten und die Werkstatt. Ein kulturgeschichtlicher Vergleich Wien und Budapest

um

1900

[A

cultural-historical

comparison

of

Vienna and

Budapest

around

1900] (Vienna,

B?hlau).

Hardtwig,

W.

Wehler,

H. U.

(1996)

Einleitung

[Introduction.

Cultural

history

today],

in:W.

Hardtwig

H. U. Wehler

(1996) Kulturgeschichte

heute

[Cultural

history

today]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

7-13.

Haupt,

H. G.

(1996)

Eine

schwierige

?ffnung

nach au?en.

Die

international

vergleichende


in

Frankreich

[International

comparative history

in

France],

in:

H.

G.

Haupt

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Geschichte und

Vergleich.

Ans?tze und

Ergebnisse

international

vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung

[History

and

comparison.

International

comparative

histori?

ography]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

77-90.

Haupt,

H. G.

(2001)

Comparative history,

International

encyclopedia

of

the social and behavioral

sciences

(Amsterdam, Elsevier),

2397-2403.

Haupt,

H. G.

(2003)

Die Geschichte

Europas

als

vergleichende Geschichtsschreibung

[The

history

of

Europe

as

comparative

historiography], Comparativ,

14(3),

83-97.

Haupt,

H.

G.

Crossick,

G.

(1995)

Petite

bourgeoisie

in

Europe,

1780-1914.

Enterprise, family

and

independence (London, Routledge).

Haupt,

H. G.

Kocka,

J.

(1996a)

Historischer

Vergleich.

Methoden,

Aufgaben,

Probleme

[The

historical

comparison.

Methods,

tasks,

problems.

An

introduction],

in: H. G.

Haupt

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Geschichte und

Vergleich.

Ans?tze und

Ergebnisse

international

vergleichender


[International

comparative historiography]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

9-45.

Haupt,

H. G.

Kocka,

J.

(1996b)

Geschichte und

Vergleich.

Ans?tze und

Ergeb-nisse

international

vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung [History

and

comparison.

International

comparative

histori?

ography]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

H?pken,

W.

Sundhaussen,

H.

(1998)

Eliten

in

S?dosteuropa.

Rolle.

Kontinuit?ten,

Br?che in

Geschichte

und

Gegenwart

[Elites

in

south

eastern

Europe.

Role,

continuity,

breaks

in

history

and

presence]

(Munich,

S?dosteuropa-Gesellschaft).

Hroch,

M.

(2000)

In the

national interest. Demands and

goals

of European

national

movements

of

the

nineteenth

century:

a

comparative

perspective

(Prague,

Charles

University,

Faculty

of

Arts).

Hudemann,

R.,

Kaelble,

H.

Schwabe,

K.

(1995)

Europa

im Blick der

Historiker

[Europe

from the

view

of

historians] (Munich,

Oldenburg).

Immerfall, S.,

Conway,

P.,

Crumley,

C. Jarausch, K.

(1998)

Disembeddedness and localization.

The

persistence

of

territory,

in:

S.

Immerfall

(Ed.)

Territoriality

in the

globalizing

society.

One

place

or

none

(Berlin,

Springer),

173-204.

J?ger,

F.

(1999)

Der

Vergleich

in

der

Ideengeschichte

der Gesellschaft

[The

comparison

in

the

history

of

ideas],

in:

H. Kaelble

J.

Schriewer

(Eds)

Diskurse

und

Entwicklungspfade.

Gesell?

schaftsvergleich

in den

Geschichts- und

Sozialwissenschaften [Discurses

and

paths.

The

compari?

son

of

societies

in the

historical and social

sciences]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

401-430.

Jarausch,

K.

H.

Siegrist,

H.

(1997)

Amerikanisierung

und

Sowjetisierung.

Eine

vergleichende

Fragestellung

zur

deutsch-deutschen

Nachkriegsgeschichte

[Americanization

and Sovietiza

tion],

in:

K.

H.

Jarausch

H.

Siegrist

(Eds)

Amerikanisierung

und

Sowjetisierung

in

Deutschland

1945-1970

[Americanization

and

sovietization

in

Germany

1945-1970] (Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

11-46.

Kaelble,

H.

(1987) Auf

dem

Weg

zu

einer

europ?ischen

Gesellschaft.

Eine

Sozialgeschichte

Westeuropas:

1880-1980

[Towards

a

European Society.

A

social

history

of

western

Europe: 1880-1980]

(Munich, Beck).

Kaelble,

H.

(1996)

Vergleichende Sozialgeschichte

des

19.

und 20.

Jahrhunderts.

Forschungen

europ?ischer

Historiker

[Comparative

social

history

of the

nineteenth and twentieth

centuries],

in: H. G.

Haupt

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Geschichte und

Vergleich.

Ans?tze und

Ergebnisse

international



Comparative

history of

cultures and societies 401

vergleichender


[History

and

comparison.

International

comparative

histori?

ography]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

91-130.

Kaelble, H. (1997) Europ?ische Besonderheiten des Massenkonsums 1950-1990 [European

particularities

of

mass

consumption

1950-1990],

in:

H.

Siegrist,

H. Kaelble

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Europ?ische

Konsumgeschichte.

Zur

Gesellschafts-

und

Kulturgeschichte

des Konsums

(18.-20. Jh.)

[European history

of

consumption (18th-20th

century)] (Frankfurt

a.

M,

Campus),

169-203.

Kaelble,

H.

(1999)

Der

historische

Vergleich.

Eine

Einf?hrung

zum

19. und

20.

Jahrhundert

[The

historical

comparison.

An

introduction]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.

/New

York,

Campus).

Kaelble,

H.

(2004)

Social

particularities

of nineteenth-

and

twentieth-century Europe,

in: H.

Kaelble

(Ed.)

The

European

way.

European

societies

during

the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries

(New

York,

Berghahn),

276-317.

Kaelble,

H.

Rothermund,

D.

(2001)

Nichtwestliche

Geschichtswissenschaften

seit

1945

[Non-western

historiography

since

1945]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger

Universit?tsverlag).

Kaelble,

H.

Schriewer,

J.

(1998)

Gesellschaften

im

Vergleich

[Societies

in

comparison]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Peter

Lang).

Kaelble,

H.

Schriewer,

J.

(1999)

Diskurse und

Entwicklungspfade.

Der

Gesellschaftsvergleich

in

den

Geschichts-

und

Sozialwissenschaften

[The

comparison

of societies

in the historical and

social

sciences] (Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

Kaelble,

H.

Schriewer,

J.

(2003)

Vergleich

und

Transfer. Komparatistik

in den

Sozial-,

Geschichts-

und

Kulturwissenschaften

[Comparison

in the

social,

historical and cultural

sciences]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

Kiesewetter,

H.

(2000)

Region

und Industrie in

Europa

1815-1995

[Region

and

industry

in

Europe

1815-1995] (Stuttgart,

Franz

Steiner).

Kocka, J. (1977) Angestellte

zwischen Faschismus

und Demokratie.

Zur

politischen Sozialgeschichte

der

Angestellten:

USA

1890-1940

im internationalen

Vergleich

[The

political

social

history

of

white-collar

workers.

The

United

States

1980-1940

in

an

international

comparison]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Kocka,

J.

(1995)

Das

europ?ische

Muster

und der deutsche

Fall

[The

German

and the

European

middle-classes],

in:

J.

Kocka

(Ed.)

B?rgertum

im

19.

Jahrhundert.

Vol.

1:

Einheit und

Vielfalt

Europas

[The

middle-class

in

the 19th

century

(vol.

1:

Unity

and

variety

of

Europe)]

(G?ttin?

gen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

9-84.

Kocka,

J. (1996)

Historische

Komparatistik

in

Deutschland

[The

historical

comparison

in

Germany],

in: H. G.

Haupt

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Geschichte und

Vergleich.

Ans?tze

und

Ergebnisse

international

vergleichender


[History

and

comparison.

International

comparative historiography]

(Frankfurt

a. M.,

Campus),

47-60.

Kocka,

J.

(1998)

Storia

comparata

[Comparative

history],

Enciclopedia

dette

scienze sociali

[Encyclo?

pedia

of social

science] (Rome,

Istituto

della

Enciclopedia

Italiana).

Kocka,

J. (2000a)

Das ?stliche

Mitteleuropa

als

Herausforderung

f?r

eine

vergleichende

Geschichte

Europas

[Central

eastern

Europe

as a

challenge

for

a

comparative history

of

Europe], Zeitschrift

f?r Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung,

49(2),

159-174.

Kocka,

J.

(2000b)

B?rgertum

und

Sonderweg

[The

middle classes

and

the

German

'Sonderweg'],

in:

P.

Lundgreen

(Ed.)

Sozial- und

Kulturgeschichte

des

B?rgertums.

Eine Bilanz

des

Bielefelder

Sonderforschungsbereichs

(1986-1997)

[Social

and cultural

history

of

the

middle-class]

(G?ttin?

gen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht),

93-110.

Kocka,

J. (2006)

Sozialgeschichte

im Zeitalter der

Globalisierung

[Social

history

in the

age

of

globalization],

Merkur,

4,

305-316.

Kocka,

J. (in

press)

Wandlungen

der

Sozial- und

Gesellschaftsgeschichte

am

Beispiel

Berlins

1949-2005

[Social history

and

history

of societies.

Historiography

in

Berlin

1949-2005],

Geschichte und

Gesellschaft,

forthcoming.

Kogan,

M.

(2005)

Modes

of

knowledge

and

patterns

of

power,

Higher

Education,

49(1/2),

9-30.

K?hnke,

K. C.

(2001)

?ber

einige Grundbegriffe

'kulturwissenschaftlicher

Regionenforschung

[Concepts

for research

on

regions

and

cultures].

Kulturwissenschaftliche Regionenforschung.



402

H.

Siegrist

Jahrbuch

des SFB

417,

1

[Research

on

regions

and

cultures]

(Leipzig, Leipziger

Universit?ts?

verlag),

25-37.

Koselleck, R. (2000) Raum und Geschichte [Space and history], in: R. Koselleck (Ed.) Zeitschichten.

Studien

zur

Historik

[Studies

of

history]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Suhrkamp).

Landes,

D.

S.

(2005)

The wealth

and

poverty

of

nations.

Why

some

are

so

rich and

some

so

poor

(London, Abacus).

Lefebvre,

H.

(1991)

The

production of

space

(Oxford,

Blackwell).

Low,

M.

(2001)

Raumsoziologie

[Sociology

of

space]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Suhrkamp).

Merl,

S.

(1997)

Staat

und Konsum in der

Zentralverwaltungswirtschaft.

Russland und die ostmit?

teleurop?ischen

L?nder

[State

and

consumption

in

the

centralized

economy.

Russia and

the

central

eastern

European

countries],

in: H.

Siegrist,

H.

Kaelble

J.

Kocka

(Eds)

Europ?ische

Konsumgeschichte.

Zur

Gesellschafts-

und

Kulturgeschichte

des

Konsums

(18.-20.

Jh.)

[European

history

of

consumption

(18th-20th

century)]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

205-241.

Middell,

M.

(2000a)

Kulturtransfer

und

Vergleich

[Cultural

transfer and historical

comparison],

(Leipzig, Leipziger


Middell,

M.

(2000b)

Kulturtransfer und Historische

Komparatistik.

Thesen

zu

ihrem Verh?lt?

nis,

Comparativ,

10(1),

7-41.

Middell,

M.

(2005)

Vergleichende

Revolutionsgeschichte

[Comparative

history

of

revolutions],

in:

M.

Middell

(Ed.) Weltgeschichtsschreibung

imZeitalter der

Verfachlichung

und

Professionalisierung.

Das

Leipziger

Institut

f?r

Kultur-

und

Universalgeschichte

1890-1990.

Vol.

3:

Von der

verglichenden

Kulturgeschichte

zur

Revolutionskomparatistik]

[Historiography

of world

history

in times

of

professionalization.

The

institute for cultural and universal

history

in

Leipzig

1890-1990.

(vol.

3

From

a

comparing

cultural

history

towards

a

comparison

of

revolutions)]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger


999-1012.

Middell,

M.,

Lingelbach,

G.

Hadler,

F.

(2001)

Historische

Institute im internationalen

Vergleich

[An

international

comparison

of historical

institutes] (Leipzig,

Akademische

Verlagsanstalt).

Mitchell,

A.

(2000)

The

great

train

race.

Railways

and the Franco-German

rivalry (1815-1914)

(New

York,

Berghahn).

Moore,

B.

(1969)

Social

origins of

dictatorship

and

democracy.

Lord and

peasant

in the

making

of

the

modern

world

(Harmondsworth,

Middlesex,

Penguin

Books).

M?ller,

D.

(2005)

Staatsb?rger

auf

Widerruf:

Juden

und

Muslime als

Alterit?tspartner

im rum?nischen

und

serbischen

Nationscode;

ethnonationale

Staatsb?rger-schaftskonzepte

1878-1941

[Jews

and

Muslims

in the

Romanian and

Serbian national code.

Ethno-national

concepts

of

citizenship

1878-1941]

(Wiesbaden,

Harrassowitz).

N?nning, A. (2004) Metzler Lexikon. Literatur- und Kulturtheorie [Encyclopedia of literary and

cultural

theory]

(Stuttgart,

Metzler).

Osterhammel,

J. (2001)

Geschichtswissenschaft jenseits

des

Nationalstaats. Studien

zu

Beziehungsge?

schichte

und

Zivilisationsvergleich

[Historical

science

beyond

the national

state]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Petri,

R.

Siegrist,

H.

(Eds) (2004)

Probleme und

Perspektiven

der

Europa-Historiographie [Prob?

lems and

perspectives

in

the

historiography

of

Europe] (Leipzig, Leipziger


Pollard,

S.

(1981)

Peaceful

conquest;

the industrialization

of Europe,

1760-1970

(Oxford,

Oxford

University

Press).

Puhle,

H.

J.

(1979)

Theorien

in

der Praxis des

vergleichenden

Historikers

[Theories

in

the

practice

of

a

comparative

historian],

in:

J.

Kocka T.

Nipperdey

(Eds)

Theorie

und

Erz?hlung

in der

Geschichte

[Theory

and narration

in

history]

(Munich,

Deutscher

Taschenbuch-Verlag),

119?

136.

Raphael,

L.

(1990)

Historikerkontroversen

im

Spannungsfeld

zwischen

Berufshabitus,

F?cherkonkurrenz

und sozialen

Deutungsmustern.

Lamprechtstreit

und franz?sischer

Meth?

odenstreit

der

Jahrhundertwende

in

vergleichender

Perspektive

[Controversies

of historians

from

a

comparative

perspective.

France and

Germany

at

the

beginning

of the twentieth

century],

Historische

Zeitschrift,

251,

325-363.




cultures and

societies

403

Raphael,

L.

(2003)


im Zeitalter der Extreme:

Theorien, Methoden,

Tendenzen

von

1900 bis

zur

Gegenwart

[Historical

science

in

the

age

of

extremes]

(Munich, Beck).

Rausch, H. (2005) Kultfigur undNation: ?ffentlicheDenkm?ler inParis, Berlin und London 1848-1914

[Cuit

figures

and the

nation.

Public

monuments

in

Paris,

Berlin and London

1848-1914]

(Munich, Oldenbourg).

Requate,

J.

(1995)

Journalismus

als

Beruf

Deutschland

im

internationalen

Vergleich [Journalism

in

Germany

and

in

international

comparison]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Rossi,

P.

(1990)

La

storia

comparata.

Approcci

e

prospettive

[Comparative

history.

Approach

and

perspective]

(Milan,

II

Saggiatore).

Said,

E.

(1997)

Die

Welt,

der Text und der Kritiker

[The

world,

the

text,

and the

critic]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Fischer).

Schmale,

W.

(1998)

Historische

Komparatistik

und

Kulturtransfer.

Europageschichtliche

Perspektiven

f?r

die

Landesgeschichte

[Historical

comparison

and cultural

transfer] (Bochum, Winkler).

Schmeling,

M.

(2000)

Literarischer

Vergleich

und interkulturelle Hermeneutik.

Die

literarischen

Avantgarden

als

komparatistisches Forschungsparadigma

[Literary comparisons

and

intercul?

tural

hermeneutics],

in:

P. V. Zima

(Ed.) Vergleichende Wissenschaften. Interdisziplinarit?t

und

Interkulturalit?t

in

den

Komparatistiken [Comparing

sciences.

Interdisciplinarity

and

intercul?

turality

in

the

comparativisms]

(T?bingen,

Narr),

187-200.

Schmidt,

A.

(1997)

Reisen

in die Moderne.

Der Amerika Diskurs des deutschen

B?rgertums

vor

dem

Ersten

Weltkrieg

im

europ?ischen

Vergleich

[The

German middle-class discourse

on

America

before the First World War

in

a

European

comparison]

(Berlin,

Akademie-Verlag).

Schmidt,

A.

(1999)

Gibt

es

eine

'europ?ische

Identit?t'?

[Is

there

a

'European

identity'?],

in: H.

Kaelble

J.

Schriewer

(Eds)

Diskurse und

Entwicklungspfade.

Der

Gesellschaftsvergleich

in den

Geschichts- und

Sozialwissenschaften [Discourses

and

paths. Comparison

of

societies

in the

historical and social

sciences]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

163-216.

Sch?ttler,

P.

(2000)

Sp?ne

aus

der Werkstatt

[Theory

and

practice

of historical

science],

in:

P.

Sch?ttler

(Ed.)

Aus der Werkstatt des Historikers.

Zur Theorie und Praxis

der


[Theory

and

practice

of

historical

science] (Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus),

319-355.

Sewell,

W.

(1998)

Sind

Kulturgeschichte

und

die

vergleichende

Methode vereinbar

Perspektive

[Are

cultural

history

and the

comparative

method

compatible?],

Comparativ,

8(1),

90-94.

Siegrist,

H.

(1996)

Advokat,

B?rger

und Staat.

Sozialgeschichte

der

Rechtsanw?lte

in

Deutschland,

Ital?

ien und der Schweiz

(18.-20.

Jh.)

[Social history

of

lawyers

in

Germany, Italy

and

Switzerland]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Klostermann).

Siegrist,

H.

(2001a) Region, Regionalisierung

und

Regionalismus

in

Mitteldeutschland

aus

europ?ischer Perspektive [Region, regionalization and regionalism in central Germany from a

European

perspective],

in:

J.

John (Ed.)

Mitteldeutschland'.

Begriff,

Geschichte,

Konstrukt

['Middle

Germany'.

History,

concept,

construction] (Rudolstadt, Hain),

91-107.

Siegrist,

H.

(2001b)

Regionalisierung

imMedium des

Konsums

[Regionalization

in the medium

of

consumption],

Comparativ,

11(1),

7-26.

Siegrist,

H.,

Kaelble,

H.

Kocka,

J.

(1997)

Europ?ische

Konsumgeschichte.

Zur

Gesellschafts-

und

Kulturgeschichte

des

Konsums

(18.-20. Jh.)

[European

history

of

consumption]

(Frankfurt

a.

M.,

Campus).

Siegrist,

H.

Schramm,

M.

(2003)

Regionalisierung

europ?ischer

Konsumkulturen im

20.

Jahrhundert

[Regionalization

of

European

cultures

of

consumption

in

the twentieth

century]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger


Skocpol,

T.

(1979)

States

and

revolutions.

A

comparative

analysis of

France,

Russia and China

(Cambridge,

MA,

Cambridge University

Press).

Spiliotis,

S.

S.

(2001)

Das

Konzept

der

Transterritorialit?t oder Wo

findet

Gesellschaft

statt

?

[The

concept

of

transterritorality],

Geschichte

und

Gesellschaft, 27(3),

480-488.

Spohn,

W.

(1998) Kulturanalyse

und

vergleichende

Forschung

in

Sozialgeschichte

und

historischer Sozi?

ologie

[Analysis

of culture and

comparative

research

in

social

history

and historical

sociology]

(Leipzig,

Leipziger




404

H.

Siegrist

Sundhaussen,

H.

Daskalov,

R.

(1999)

Modernisierungsans?tze

[Research

on

modernization],

in: M. A.

Hatschikjan

S. Troebst

(Eds)

S?dosteuropa.

Gesellschaft,

Politik,

Wirtschaft,

Kultur.

Ein Handbuch [South-eastern Europe. Society, politics, economy, culture. A handbook]

(Munich, Beck),

105-135.

Tacke,

C.

(1995)

Denkmal

im sozialen

Raum. Nationale

Symbole

in

Deutschland und Frankreich im

19.

Jahrhundert

[National

monuments

and

symbols

in

Germany

and

France

in

the nineteenth

century]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Ther,

P.

(2002)

Geschichte

und

Nation

im

Musiktheater Deutschlands und

Ostmitteleuropas

[History

and nation

in

the musical theatre

in

Germany

and central

eastern

Europe],

Zeitschrift

f?r Geschichtswissenschaft,

50(2),

119-140.

Todorova,

M.

(1997)

Imagining

the

Balkans

(New

York/Oxford,

Oxford

University

Press).

Troebst,

S.

(2003)

What's

in

a

historical

region?

A Teutonic

perspective,

in: S. Troebst

(Ed.)

Geschichtsregionen. Concept

and

Critique

(Abingdon, Taylor

Francis),

173-188.

Troebst,

S.

(2005)

Postkommunistische

Einnerungskulturen

im

?stlichen

Europa.

Bestandsaufnahme,

Kategorisierung, Periodisierung

[Post-communist

memories in

eastern

Europe]

(Wroclaw,

Wydawn,

Uniwersytetu

Wroclawskiego).

Vogel,

J.

(1997)

Nationen im

Gleichschritt.

Der Kult der cNation in

Waffen3

in Deutschland und

Frankreich

1871-1914

[The

cult of

the

'armed nation' in

Germany

and France

1871-1914]

(G?ttingen,

Vandenhoeck

Ruprecht).

Welskopp,

T.

(1994)

Arbeit

und Macht

im H?ttenwerk. Arbeits- und

industrielle

Beziehungen

in der

deutschen und amerikanischen

Eisen-

und Stahlindustrie

von

den 1860er

bis

zu

den 1930er

Jahren

[Work

and industrial relations

in

the German and American iron and

steel

industry

from the

1860s

to

the

1930s] (Bonn, Dietz).

Werlen,

B.

(1997) Sozialgeographie allt?glicher Regionalisierungen [Globalization, region

and

regionalization]

(Stuttgart,

Steiner).

Werner,

M.

Zimmermann,

B.

(2002)

Vergleich,

Transfer,

Verflechtung.

Der Ansatz der

Histoire crois?e

und die

Herausforderung

des Transnationalen

[Comparison,

transfer

and

'intersecting

history'],

Geschichte

und

Gesellschaft,

28(4),

607-636.

Werner,

M.

Zimmermann,

B.

(2004)

De la

comparaison

? Vhistoire

crois?e

[From

comparison

to

'intersecting history']

(Paris, Seuil).

Wieviorka,

M.

(2003)

Kulturelle

Differenzen

und kollektive Identit?ten

[Cultural

differences

and

collective

identitites]

(Hamburg, Hamburger

Edition).

Wobbe,

T.

(1998)

Institutionelle Dimension universit?rer

Organisation.

Frauen

als Neuank?m?

mlinge

im deutschen und

US-amerikanischen

Wissenschaftssystem [Women

in

the German

and American scientific system], Comparativ, 8(1), 77-89.

W?stemeyer,

M.

(1972) Sozialgeschichte

und

Soziologie

als

soziologische

Geschichte,

Zur

Raum-Zeit-Lehre der

'Annales'

[The theory

of

space

and time of

the

'Annales'],

K?lner

Zeitschrift f?r

Soziologie

und

Sozialpsychologie,

16,

566-583.

Zima,

P. V.

(2000) Vergleich

als Konstruktion. Genetische und

typologische

Aspekte

des

Vergleichs

und

die soziale

Bedingtheit

der

Theorie

[Comparison

as a

construction],

in: P. V. Zima

(Ed.)

Vergleichende

Wissenschaften.

Interdisziplinarit?t

und Interkulturalit?t in den

Komparatistiken

[Comparing

sciences.

Interdisciplinarity

and

interculturality

in

the

comparativisms]

(T?bin?

gen,

Narr),

15-28.

Zunz,

O.,

Schoppa,

L.

Hiwatari,

N.

(2002)

Social

contracts

under

stress

(New

York,

R?ssel

Sage

Foundation).

Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of...