Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal Article (57) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (57) (remove)
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)
In den 1970er- und 1980er-Jahren galt die militärgeschichtliche Forschung in der Bundesrepublik als sehr konservativ. Viele sich als progressiv verstehende Geschichtswissenschaftler und -lehrer betrachteten eine zu intensive Beschäftigung mit Militär und Krieg als politisch verfehlt, pädagogisch gefährlich und wissenschaftlich anachronistisch. Zwar wurde „Militarismus“ als historisches und soziologisches Phänomen erforscht sowie „historische Friedensforschung“ zum Postulat der Geschichtsdidaktik gemacht, doch entfernte man sich in „pazifistischem Affekt“ (Jan Philipp Reemtsma) von der konkreteren Realität des Gewalthandelns und der militärischen Vergesellschaftung. Dies war einerseits verständlich und aus heutiger Sicht dringend geboten, um die preußisch-deutschen Traditionen einer Glorifizierung des Militärs und einer anwendungsorientierten Operationsgeschichtsschreibung zu überwinden. Andererseits wurden durch die dezidierte Abkehr vom Militärischen viele Gegenstandsbereiche ausgegrenzt, die zum Verständnis der deutschen und internationalen Geschichte besonders des 19./20. Jahrhunderts essenziell sind.
Zeitgeschichte ist häufig Streitgeschichte, d.h. Gegenstand nicht nur wissenschaftsinterner, sondern auch in der breiteren Öffentlichkeit geführter Debatten mit hohem Erregungspotenzial. Das Medium Ausstellung unterstützt solche Debatten oder ruft sie überhaupt erst hervor: Ausstellungen erreichen ein größeres Publikum als wissenschaftliche Schriften, bieten einen öffentlichen Kommunikationsraum und ermöglichen je nach Perspektive der Besucher unterschiedliche Lesarten von (Zeit-)Geschichte. Die beiden „Wehrmachtsausstellungen“ des Hamburger Instituts für Sozialforschung haben dies paradigmatisch vor Augen geführt und in ihrer Wirkung selbst die Organisatoren überrascht.
The fiftieth issue
(2021)
At first glance, the seventeenth year of this journal’s publication would not appear to mark any particular anniversary. And yet the present edition is quite special for the editors and the editorial team: it is the 50th issue overall. (There was a double issue in 2007, otherwise there have always been three issues each year.) This milestone is the occasion for a brief review of the original objectives and of developments thus far, as well as a (self-)critical look at what the future may bring. Scholars in the nascent field of the cultural study of periodicals have rightly observed: ›The production of periodicals is often accompanied by reflections on the value, conditions, and promise of producing periodicals.‹
Während sich die Zeitgeschichtsforschung über mangelnde Aufmerksamkeit heute nicht beklagen kann, fristet die Geschichtsdidaktik sowohl in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung als auch in den Fachdebatten der Geschichtswissenschaft eher ein Schattendasein. Die erregten historisch-politischen Diskussionen der 1970er-Jahre, in denen gerade Geschichtsdidaktiker für ein emanzipatives „Geschichtsbewusstsein“ stritten, sind in den Hintergrund getreten. Aus der Sicht der meisten Zeithistoriker gibt es gegenwärtig keinen besonderen Anreiz, sich mit der Geschichtsdidaktik näher zu befassen, da sich diese Disziplin in einer Abwärtsspirale aus intellektueller Mittelmäßigkeit und Sparzwängen befinde - so zumindest eine verbreitete Meinung.
Zu diesem Heft
(2004)
Zu diesem Heft
(2009)