Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (73) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (45)
- Online Publication (20)
- Part of a Book (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (73) (remove)
Keywords
- Forschungsfelder (6)
- Begriffe (4)
- Begriffe, Forschungsfelder (1)
- Körper (1)
- Prozesse (1)
- Sport (1)
Seit anderthalb Jahrzehnten widmet sich die Geschichtswissenschaft verstärkt dem Thema „Bild“. Dabei wurden zahlreiche, im Zuge des pictorial bzw. iconic turn in der Kunst- und der Kulturwissenschaft entwickelte Bildtheorien in den geschichtswissenschaftlichen Methodenapparat integriert. Einer der unter HistorikerInnen umstrittensten Ansätze ist die von dem Berliner Kunsthistoriker Horst Bredekamp entwickelte Bildakttheorie, die Bilder nicht nur als Ausdruck und Widerschein historischer Vorgänge, sondern als autonome, wirkmächtige Akteure begreift, die historische Prozesse auszulösen in der Lage sind. Philipp Molderings sprach mit Horst Bredekamp über die veränderte Bedeutung von Bildern in der Geschichtswissenschaft, die Skepsis von HistorikerInnen gegenüber der Bildakttheorie und über die Notwendigkeit, verstärkt die historische Eigendimension der Bilder zu erforschen.
Auch der 2014 veröffentlichte Comic „Irmina“, um den es hier gehen soll, entworfen und gezeichnet von der Berliner Comic-Autorin Barbara Yelin, behandelt eine Familiengeschichte im Deutschland der 1930er- und 40er-Jahre. „Irmina“ basiert auf Tagebüchern und Briefen ihrer Großmutter, auf die die Autorin vor einigen Jahren gestoßen ist. Wie nah die Geschichte sich an diesen Aufzeichnungen orientiert, bleibt offen, deutlich wird aber, dass dem Buch ausführliche historische Recherchen zugrunde liegen. Dabei nutzt Yelin, wie ich darlegen möchte, genau jene Potenziale des Comics, die das Medium für die Geschichtsschreibung bereithält.
Seit über neunzig Jahren wird über Inhalt und Reichweite des Faschismus-Begriffs gerungen. Fernando Esposito beleuchtet die Entstehung des italienischen Faschismus kursorisch und gibt einen Einblick in das Selbstverständnis der Akteure. Er stellt die Faschismusforschung im Zeichen des Kalten Kriegs vor, erörtert die Ansätze der neueren Faschismusforschung und ihre Themenfelder, um dann in einem abschließenden Fazit den Mehrwert des Faschismusbegriffs vor Augen zu führen.
Environmental history is the history of the changing mutual relationship between humankind and nature. The various, more or less concrete attempts to define this area of historical study can be reduced to this basic common denominator. Though the notion of man and nature's mutual dependence may sound pithy at first, it's a rather fuzzy one upon closer inspection. Melanie Arndt describes this field of research in all its facets – because the valuable contribution of environmental history as a „subdiscipline” deserves much greater recognition from the outside world and from scholars working in other disciplines.
My main argument here is that the story seen from the perspective of the influential year of 1962 reveals a very different historical context, with a different set of actors and a different trajectory and causalities regarding the human rights breakthrough, from those stories focusing on Western agency in the 1940s and the 1970s. It repositions the history of human rights in significant ways and makes apartheid and racial discrimination more crucial to the human rights story than has hitherto been acknowledged. It is also important to emphasize that the positions and arguments presented by countries from the Global South in these UN debates were richly nuanced. These nuances are important if we are to fully appreciate the dynamics during these years. Tanzania differed significantly from, for instance, Senegal in the way it envisaged the scope and applicability of international human rights law and investigatory measures. Tanzania wanted a sole focus on Southern Africa and not beyond; Senegal had a wider perspective. This should remind us that when we are imagining Africa as a historical-political space, we need to allow for diversity, individual histories and agency, aspects that cannot be adequately captured by labels such as ›The Third World‹, ›Global South‹ or indeed even ›Africa‹.
The introduction to this issue on historical surveillance studies argues for an integrated understanding of surveillance that focuses on the interconnectedness of the state, economy and sciences within the context of different forms of technological revolution. It suggests reading contemporary diagnoses of ‘total surveillance’ from a long-term historical perspective beginning in the seventeenth century. In this light, surveillance is not limited to intelligence history or state control. Rather, it produces patterns of order and data that can be deployed for political processes like urban planning, welfare policy, crime prevention, or the persecution of political opponents. Furthermore, surveillance is also part of the economy, encompassing market and consumption research, advertising, and workplace monitoring. Research into the political and the economic aspects of surveillance should be combined. After defining the term ‘surveillance’ and differentiating between security and surveillance studies, the article provides an overview of different empirical studies in this new historiographical field. It concludes with shortsummaries of the articles collected in this issue.
Over the last few years the 1970s have come into the focus of historians in Britain, France and Germany. The recent historiographical debates on the decade largely remain anchored in national contexts however. A comparative analysis of French and British narratives about the 1970s shows the degree to which historical interpretations of the decade remain shaped by contemporary perceptions, political strategies and historiographical traditions. This article argues that we need a real transnational historical dialogue in order to question and deconstruct the implicit assumptions which shape our interpretations of the decade.
Over the last few years the 1970s have come into the focus of historians in Britain, France and Germany. The recent historiographical debates on the decade largely remain anchored in national contexts however. A comparative analysis of French and British narratives about the 1970s shows the degree to which historical inter-
pretations of the decade remain shaped by contemporary perceptions, political strategies and historiographical traditions. This article argues that we need a real transnational historical dialogue in order to question and deconstruct the implicit assumptions which shape our interpretations of the decade.
Angaben des Statistischen Bundesamtes zufolge hat aktuell jeder fünfte Einwohner der Bundesrepublik einen »Migrationshintergrund«– ist also entweder selbst seit Anfang der 1950er Jahre eingewandert oder hat mindestens einen Eltern- bzw. Großelternteil, auf den das zutrifft. Eine Zeitgeschichte, die sich als Vorgeschichte der Gegenwart versteht, steht angesichts der gesellschaftlichen Relevanz von Migrationsprozessen für die Bundesrepublik vor der Aufgabe, deren Geschichte in ihrer Vielfalt stärker in ihre Erzählung zu integrieren, statt sie lediglich auf eine demographische Veränderung oder eine Quelle innenpolitischer Konf likte zu reduzieren. Eine solche Integration ist bisher nur für die Geschichte der Vertriebenen erfolgt, allerdings aus einer Perspektive, die sie – zeitgenössischen Deutungsmustern folgend – als von der Geschichte anderer Migrationen getrennt betrachtet.
History is not only construed and handed down in writing. In popular cultural practice, it has long been edited and can be experienced in many forms. Past debates have not treated these practices well, however, and concentrated primarily on representational forms shaped by historical politics, such as museums and schoolbooks, as well as by entertainment-oriented media, such as television documentaries, feature films and TV-series, video and computer games, as well as non-fiction and novels. In this context, doing history, understood as a discursive and performative visualisation of the past, has hardly been explored, although it has quite a long tradition. In this introduction, we pursue an access that is both theoretical and practical, and draw closer to doing history on the basis of three central pairs of concepts that have strongly influenced the cultural and historiographical debate over the last several years: ›body_emotion‹, ›experience_space‹ as well as ›thing_meaning‹. History is created in the interplay between person, body, space and object. The physical and affective experience influences, in interaction with the evocative experience of presence, as well as the relationship and meaning of the object and the actions and interpretations of individuals, what is capable of leading to sensational, certainly culturally subjectively shaped imaginations from the past.