ohne regionalen Schwerpunkt
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Online Publication (26)
- Journal Article (13)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (41) (remove)
Keywords
- Begriffe (8)
- Forschungsfelder (6)
- Methoden (2)
- Grundlagen (1)
Klaus Nathaus and C. Clayton Childress convincingly argue that cultural and symbolic objects are produced before they are consumed and that therefore cultural historians should take a closer look at the social and economic conditions of cultural production. Instead of taking it for granted that mass reception inversely indicates the existence of a demand already ‘being there’, historians should dig into the production processes influenced (among others) by individual taste, material interest, and arbitrary decisions – or, as Nathaus, Childress and the often cited Richard A. Peterson would call it – contingency. While most of Nathaus and Childress’s examples stem from the field of music, I will in my response apply the cultural production concept to a non-musical field, namely documentary photography in the first half of the twentieth century. Further, I will raise some questions that still seem to be unanswered. Given that the causal relation between production and consumption by and large equals the chicken and egg problem, what sense does it make to shift attention from reception to production – especially when dealing with modifications of objects, commodities, or genres rather than inventions in the sense of ‘there was nothing like this before’? I will suggest to extend the concept beyond the study of ‘classical’ cultural objects – like novels or records – and to include commodities like food, clothes, or cars. Finally, I will raise the question of how to apply the production of culture perspective to socialist economies after 1945, which to my knowledge has not been tried yet.
During the Holocaust 5.8 million people were killed; most of the victims did not leave behind any record that could help reconstruct their experience. While survivor history has been well studied in the last decades, how millions of voiceless victims experienced their persecutions has remained a terra incognita. Generally, while perpetrator history is well-documented, the voiceless victims’ perspective has resisted any form of documentation; their emotional and mental experiences conveyed through novels and memoirs have remained fragmented and they have often been dismissed as subjective and unreliable. Today Digital History and Digital Humanities offer new forms of inquiry and representations; they can unlock the emotional, mental, and physical realities which voiceless victims of the Holocaust or other genocides were forced to live in.
The article traces the collective term “living history” in its various definitions, forms and manifestations, offering an overview of this widespread phenomenon. It will consider developments in the United States and Europe, as well as taking a look at historical precursors of present-day forms. Whereas living history in the Anglo-American world has long been a well-established part of the educational and cultural work of museums, in Germany there is still a great deal of skepticism towards this form of historical representation. Finally, it asks how the fields of history and cultural studies might best engage with living history and which theoretical approaches exist for investigating and analyzing living history.
Marketization is a broad term with a wide range of meanings. It encompasses measures of deregulation and privatization as well as the perceived increase of an ›economic‹ logic in social relationships. For historical purposes, the term should not be narrowly defined, and nor should the concept of marketization be used in an ahistorical manner detached from contemporary usage. However, there are two questions which the historical analysis of marketization needs to address. First, what is the conceptual understanding of the market mechanism to which the term marketization is linked? Second, what is the relationship between marketization and economic theory?
Anthropocene
(2024)
The “Anthropocene” has garnered much attention since the turn of the millennium, being widely and controversially discussed in the natural sciences and the humanities as well as in the media and the arts. Ariane Tanner explains the history of the term and shows how the concept enables contemporary historians to rethink temporality and agency in history, allowing them to expand their research questions, methods and narratives.
By the late 1970s, it was technologically possible to manufacture microcomputers – very small, stand-alone computers for personal use – in very large quantities. Selling them, however, meant creating a mass market where none existed: conventionally, only trained professionals, and a few devoted enthusiasts, interacted directly with the machines. Designers, marketers, retailers and other promoters therefore sought to build meanings into the design and presentation of computers which would connect them with new audiences. Such meanings reflected – and might themselves modify – the prevalent hopes, fears, desires and expectations of the users’ cultures.
The multi-faceted concept of authenticity became a ubiquitous catchphrase and a widely-recognised phenomenon in cultural studies in the second half of the twentieth century. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly important in contemporary historical studies in methodological terms and as a research subject. But what does "authentic", or the attribution of authenticity, mean? The following article by Achim Saupe aims to investigate these aspects in greater detail.
Dieser Text ist eine Verschriftlichung des Eingangsstatements von Lyndal Roper bei der Diskussionsreihe "Geschichtliche Grundfragen". Die von Rüdiger Graf (ZZF), Matthias Pohlig (HUB) und Ulrike Schaper (FU Berlin) initiierte Veranstaltung fand im Wintersemester 2022/23 im Online-Format statt. Zeitgeschichte|online veröffentlicht die Eingangsstatements der Veranstaltung in einem Dossier. Die Vorträge wurden bis auf wenige Ausnahmen von der Audioaufnahme transkribiert und überarbeitet, dabei wurde Wert darauf gelegt, die rein sprachliche Form der Statements beizubehalten.
By expanding historical image research, visual history has in the recent past established itself as a field of research in late modern and contemporary history, which considers images in a wider sense both as sources as well as independent artifacts of historiographical research and likewise looks at the visuality of history and the historicity of the visual. Its exponents advocate understanding images beyond their pictorialness as a medium and as an activity with an independent aesthetic that condition the way of seeing things, shape perceptual patterns, convey interpretations, that organize the aesthetic relationship of historic subjects to their social and political reality and which are able to generate own realities.
Historians have analyzed films, novels, records, theater plays etc. primarily in reference to their meaning and reception. This article makes a case for moving the focus to the actors, structures and processes that shape symbolic objects before these are consumed. To this end, we present a framework established in US sociology to study the fabrication, distribution and evaluation of symbolic content. We discuss the production of culture perspective as an approach that appears to be particularly useful for historical research and, by reviewing selected works from the sociological literature, demonstrate how this perspective can be applied to phenomena like popular music and literary fiction. We focus on genres as bundles of conventions as one lens through which historians may analyze the creation, reproduction, evaluation and consumption of culture.