Alltag
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal Article (24)
- Online Publication (5)
Language
- English (29) (remove)
Keywords
- Begriffe (1)
Northeim is a town on the Leine River situated in the hilly region of Lower Saxony between Hildesheim and Göttingen; to historians it is known as the location of William Sheridan Allen’s path-breaking study of the Nazi Machtergreifung. The book was based on a 1962 dissertation at the University of Minnesota, and Allen first published it while at the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1965. Within two years, it appeared in England and was translated into German and French. Allen had settled at the State University of New York in Buffalo by the time I read the second, revised edition (New York 1984), which I used to write this review. In the forty years since its publication, Allen’s readable history became a standard for undergraduates in North America; and his microhistory of the Machtergreifung has been replicated in most German localities. A number of American scholars in particular have followed in Allen’s footsteps: Peter Fritzsche, David Imhoof, Rudy Koshar, and others, including myself. Part of the reason for the interest of American doctoral students in German Mittelstädte is, of course, pragmatic. When one has limited time and money for a research trip abroad, it seems reasonable to select for study an ‘überschaubare’ provincial town. The peculiarities of American culture is surely another reason that historians from the United States look for the German equivalent of ‘middle America’ in what Mack Walker called ‘German home towns’.1 But in the end, German historians from many countries, including Germany, have adopted Allen’s method because close investigations of events ‘on the ground’ offer a necessary balance to modern German histories ‘writ large’.
While British coal miners are often cast in the collective memory as traditionalists, the article reveals a more complex conception of identity. During the 1970s and 1980s, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) combined ideas of heroic masculinity with support for the workplace rights of women and ethnic minorities. ›Muscular masculinity‹ was used as a resource to further the opportunities of disadvantaged groups and to defend the miners’ own interests, as is demonstrated with reference to the ›Grunwick‹ dispute of 1976–78 and the great miners’ strike of 1984/85. The miners’ prioritising of muscular masculinity did not go uncontested at the time. Yet it was not until the events of 1984/85 that the NUM’s cult of masculinity came to be seen as a cause of the miners’ defeat and a problem for the British Left in general. Following a famous dictum by E.P. Thompson, the article argues that historical conceptions of masculinity should be measured by the standards of the time rather than the expectations of our present.
Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht die Sozialfigur des britischen Bergmanns in den 1970er- und 1980er-Jahren. Während der Bergarbeiter im kollektiven Gedächtnis der Gegenwart gern als traditionsverhaftet dargestellt wird, rekonstruiert der Aufsatz einen vielschichtigeren Identitätsentwurf, der eine heroisierte Form von Männlichkeit mit dem Einsatz für die Rechte von Frauen und ethnischen Minderheiten am Arbeitsplatz verband. »Muskuläre Männlichkeit« galt der National Union of Mineworkers als Machtressource, die sowohl zur Ausweitung der Lebenschancen anderer als auch zur Verteidigung eigener Interessen eingesetzt werden konnte, wie am Beispiel des »Grunwick«-Arbeitskampfes der Jahre 1976–1978 sowie des großen Bergarbeiterstreiks von 1984/85 dargelegt wird. Bereits zeitgenössisch blieb die gewerkschaftliche Betonung heroisierter Männlichkeit nicht unwidersprochen. Erst infolge des verlorenen Streiks 1984/85 setzte sich allerdings eine Sicht durch, die diese Form von Männlichkeit mitverantwortlich machte für das Scheitern der Gewerkschaft und die Krise der britischen Linken in den 1980er-Jahren. Im Anschluss an ein berühmtes Diktum E.P. Thompsons plädiert der Beitrag dafür, historische Männlichkeitsentwürfe stärker an den Maßstäben der Zeit als an den Erwartungen unserer Gegenwart zu messen.
Oral history has been enriching the theoretical and methodological debates of German-language contemporary history research for over forty years. While early skepticism towards oral history has long since given way to its broad (and sometimes uncritical) acceptance and application, there is still much debate about what exactly it is as both a method and a research field, and what value for historiography – and as source material – it has. In our contribution to the debate, we explore how oral history has developed over time, which international and interdisciplinary influences have proven significant, its underlying theoretical and methodological concepts, and which factors might shape its future.