Het verschoven gewicht van de Duitse geschiedenis

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
Hanco Jürgens
{"title":"Het verschoven gewicht van de Duitse geschiedenis","authors":"Hanco Jürgens","doi":"10.5117/tvg2023.2.003.jurg","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The shifted weight of German history. The Historikerstreit 2.0 in the light of changing research, public debate and memory culture since the 1980s This article places the so-called Catechism Debate or Historikerstreit 2.0 in the wider context of political debates, cultural memory and historical research since the 1980s. On the one hand, it argues that the context of the Historikerstreit of the 1980s differed vastly from the later Historikerstreit 2.0. While the former was a typically West German debate among male historians during the Cold War, the latter is a much more international debate in which both male and female intellectuals participate in the context of a globalized world. On the other hand, this study shows that debates about the uniqueness of the Holocaust have never really ended since the 1980s and continue to this day. The Historikerstreit of the 1980s definitely influenced social debates, memory culture and historical research in the 1990s. In the 2000s, colonial history brought new perspectives to Holocaust and Genocide Studies paving the way for the Catechism Debate in the 2020s. Societal debates, cultural memory and historical research are more interdependent than often presumed.","PeriodicalId":42088,"journal":{"name":"TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR GESCHIEDENIS","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR GESCHIEDENIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5117/tvg2023.2.003.jurg","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The shifted weight of German history. The Historikerstreit 2.0 in the light of changing research, public debate and memory culture since the 1980s This article places the so-called Catechism Debate or Historikerstreit 2.0 in the wider context of political debates, cultural memory and historical research since the 1980s. On the one hand, it argues that the context of the Historikerstreit of the 1980s differed vastly from the later Historikerstreit 2.0. While the former was a typically West German debate among male historians during the Cold War, the latter is a much more international debate in which both male and female intellectuals participate in the context of a globalized world. On the other hand, this study shows that debates about the uniqueness of the Holocaust have never really ended since the 1980s and continue to this day. The Historikerstreit of the 1980s definitely influenced social debates, memory culture and historical research in the 1990s. In the 2000s, colonial history brought new perspectives to Holocaust and Genocide Studies paving the way for the Catechism Debate in the 2020s. Societal debates, cultural memory and historical research are more interdependent than often presumed.
德国历史的重要性发生了变化
德国历史重心的转移。本文将所谓的教理问答辩论(Catechism debate)或Historikerstreit 2.0置于20世纪80年代以来的政治辩论、文化记忆和历史研究的大背景中。一方面,它认为20世纪80年代的历史学界背景与后来的历史学界2.0有很大的不同。前者是冷战时期男性历史学家之间典型的西德辩论,后者则是一场更加国际化的辩论,在全球化的世界背景下,男女知识分子都参与其中。另一方面,这项研究表明,自20世纪80年代以来,关于大屠杀独特性的辩论从未真正结束,并一直持续到今天。20世纪80年代的历史学家思潮无疑影响了90年代的社会辩论、记忆文化和历史研究。在2000年代,殖民历史为大屠杀和种族灭绝研究带来了新的视角,为21世纪20年代的教义问答辩论铺平了道路。社会辩论、文化记忆和历史研究比通常认为的更加相互依存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信