Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal Article (926)
- Online Publication (713)
- Part of a Book (407)
- Book (48)
- Preprint (9)
Keywords
- Forschungsfelder (86)
- Begriffe (63)
- Methoden (23)
- Grundlagen (18)
- Deutschland (DDR) (13)
- Länder (12)
- Deutschland (8)
- Klassiker (8)
- Debatten (7)
- Geschichte (7)
In this issue
(2006)
In this Issue
(2004)
In this Issue
(2004)
In this Issue
(2008)
In this issue
(2008)
In this Issue
(2020)
In this issue
(2021)
Questions about the performance of democratic governance, about trust in democratic institutions and their representatives, about the system’s inherent ability to self-correct and to respond to unforeseen situations are now once again being raised with particular urgency. ›Which copes better with the virus – totalitarian states or democracies?‹ was the question a reporting team from the weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT wanted to answer at the beginning of 2021, investigating the strategies and practices of pandemic control in Germany and China, the USA and Iran. The answer certainly depends on how one weights different indicators and which time horizon one chooses for consideration. It also depends on the value one wishes to place on democratic procedures, especially in the face of acute decision-making pressure. Quite apart from the Covid pandemic, democratic systems, even those of the ›West‹ with a long tradition, are increasingly undergoing a crisis of legitimacy, are exposed to hostility, are disparaged or even violently opposed. Against this backdrop, the Gerda Henkel Foundation announced a ›Funding Programme Democracy‹ in 2019, and various Berlin research institutions opened the Cluster of Excellence ›Contestations of the Liberal Script‹ in 2020.
In this issue
(2022)
In 2020/21 it was first and foremost the Covid pandemic that many experienced as a major turning point; now the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine since 24 February 2022 has added a whole new set of events of existential significance, whose medium- and long-term consequences we can only partly foresee. The title of a book published in the spring of 2022, Der 11. September 2001 – (k)eine Zeitenwende? (11 September 2001 – A Historical Turning Point?), has come to sound like something from a bygone age. The question ›Is this the beginning of a new era?‹ is now posed under altered circumstances, and a ›historical turning point‹ and the ›end of globalisation‹ are proclaimed in equally adamant fashion. An academic – in the best sense of the word – conference on ›New Eras and Epochal Change‹ in April 2022 acquired an unanticipated immediacy. The organising team wrote: ›We have been outrun and perhaps even rendered irrelevant by events.‹ But humanities scholarship also entails a certain scepticism towards hasty diagnoses of the times and proclamations of turning points, as scholars including the Indian-born political scientist Parag Khanna have underscored: ›We should avoid grandiloquent proclamations that seek to encapsulate our times. Such characterisations can only capture the moment that has just passed and are guaranteed to quickly be outdated.‹ Of course even such a ›guarantee‹ that any statements can only be provisional may seem questionable when there are ›unmistakable symptoms of upheaval, of profound rupture‹, as the historian Jörn Leonhard has emphasised. With reference to Reinhart Koselleck, he underscores the fundamentally close link between ›rupture and repetition‹, between the ›singularity of history‹ and its ›recurrence‹.
In this issue
(2023)
The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, now in its second year, has many historical connections and implications – including some which may not immediately spring to mind. The German War Graves Commission estimates that the human remains of more than 800 Wehrmacht soldiers have been uncovered so far over the course of this war, some of them surfacing as new trenches were being dug. Helmets and boots have also been found. Historian Reinhart Koselleck’s (1923–2006) metaphor of Zeitschichten, or temporal layers, acquires here a different meaning and a very concrete materiality. (Koselleck had himself served as a soldier in Ukraine.) In her acceptance speech for the Leipzig Book Award for European Understanding in April 2023, the Russian author Maria Stepanova, who currently lives in Berlin, said: ›Are we condemned to keep reliving the twentieth century with its prisons, concentration camps and propaganda machines, its trench warfare and area bombardments? What can we do when the fabric of language, its texture, suddenly becomes transparent, revealing all the hidden layers of latent and overt violence percolating to the surface?‹
In this Issue
(2014)
In this issue
(2013)
In this Issue
(2012)
In this Issue
(2011)
In this Issue
(2015)
In this issue
(2016)
In this issue
(2018)
In this issue
(2017)
In this issue (1/2019)
(2019)
Die Erklärung der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte der indigenen Völker (UNDRIP) bildet einen Meilenstein in der Entwicklung der Menschenrechte. Das gilt nicht nur für die jahrzehntelangen Auseinandersetzungen um die Etablierung von indigenen Menschenrechten, sondern auch für das internationale Menschenrecht selbst. Denn die Entwicklung indigener Menschenrechte steht exemplarisch für die Vielfältigkeit und die Multiplizierung des Menschenrechts. Sie zeigt, dass Menschenrechte sich seit der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte 1948 weiterentwickeln, ausdifferenzieren und verändern können, ohne damit die Idee von Menschenrechten zwangsläufig zu unterminieren. Gleichzeitig zeigt sie in all ihren (teilweise nach wie vor bestehenden) Kontroversen, dass die Prozesse der Multiplizierung und Entwicklung von Menschenrechten weder bruchlos noch widerspruchsfrei verlaufen. Indigene Menschenrechte stehen mithin für die sensible Balance zwischen dem Festhalten an der Idee von Menschenrechten einerseits und der Notwendigkeit ihrer zeithistorischen Veränderung und Herausforderung andererseits.
Das Wissen von Europäern um Südamerika ist seit der frühen Neuzeit, als der Kontinent Ziel der europäischen Expansion wurde, durch Bilder vermittelt worden. Diese Bildüberlieferung erhielt im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert neue Impulse: Fotos und später Bildpostkarten zeigten den Menschen im Deutschen Reich ein ambivalentes Bild des fremden Kontinents, das mit bestehenden Vorstellungen und Projektionen zusammenwirkte, aber auch mit diesen konkurrierte. Die Ambivalenz des Südamerikabildes wird deutlich in den Motiven, denn die Bildmedien zeigten einerseits Eisenbahnen und Bahnhöfe, Stadtansichten, repräsentative Gebäude, Häfen, Zoos und Fabriken. Ein ganz anderes Bild zeichneten dagegen Ansichten von Indigenen und Ruinen. Auf den ersten Blick scheinen die Quellen so insgesamt eine bekannte Dichotomie aus Tradition und Moderne zu zeigen. Aber die genauere Untersuchung ergibt, dass sich hybride Bedeutungen bildeten, deren Sinn je nach Nutzungszusammenhängen oszillierte.