记忆还是历史?

IF 0.4 3区 人文科学 Q1 HISTORY
M. Roseman
{"title":"记忆还是历史?","authors":"M. Roseman","doi":"10.1017/S0008938923000080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewing the the so-called “Second Historian's Debate”, in which he had played such an important role, in February 2022, Michael Rothberg wrote that the opponents to his multidirectional approach were confusing history and memory. “Naturally, history and memory cannot be entirely separated from each other, but the target of my own work and also of Moses's catechism essay is public memory, not historical scholarship.” I understand what he means about not targeting the discipline. Rothberg and Moses are both aware that many positions controversial in the German public sphere have long been accepted in the academy, a distinction they clearly make in their critiques. But the comment did prompt me to wonder whether part of the problem of the debate is that Rothberg's and Moses's critique of memory practices is actually more about history than it lets on.","PeriodicalId":45053,"journal":{"name":"Central European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Memory or History?\",\"authors\":\"M. Roseman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0008938923000080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reviewing the the so-called “Second Historian's Debate”, in which he had played such an important role, in February 2022, Michael Rothberg wrote that the opponents to his multidirectional approach were confusing history and memory. “Naturally, history and memory cannot be entirely separated from each other, but the target of my own work and also of Moses's catechism essay is public memory, not historical scholarship.” I understand what he means about not targeting the discipline. Rothberg and Moses are both aware that many positions controversial in the German public sphere have long been accepted in the academy, a distinction they clearly make in their critiques. But the comment did prompt me to wonder whether part of the problem of the debate is that Rothberg's and Moses's critique of memory practices is actually more about history than it lets on.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938923000080\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"人文科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938923000080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"人文科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迈克尔·罗斯伯格(Michael Rothberg)在2022年2月回顾所谓的“第二次历史学家之争”(他在其中扮演了如此重要的角色)时写道,反对他的多向研究方法的人混淆了历史和记忆。“当然,历史和记忆不能完全分开,但我自己的工作和摩西的教理问答论文的目标是公众记忆,而不是历史学术。”我明白他说的不针对纪律是什么意思。罗斯伯格和摩西都意识到,在德国公共领域中,许多有争议的立场长期以来一直被学术界所接受,他们在批评中明确指出了这一点。但这个评论确实让我想知道,这场辩论的部分问题是否在于,罗斯伯格和摩西对记忆实践的批评实际上更多地是关于历史的,而不是表面上的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Memory or History?
Reviewing the the so-called “Second Historian's Debate”, in which he had played such an important role, in February 2022, Michael Rothberg wrote that the opponents to his multidirectional approach were confusing history and memory. “Naturally, history and memory cannot be entirely separated from each other, but the target of my own work and also of Moses's catechism essay is public memory, not historical scholarship.” I understand what he means about not targeting the discipline. Rothberg and Moses are both aware that many positions controversial in the German public sphere have long been accepted in the academy, a distinction they clearly make in their critiques. But the comment did prompt me to wonder whether part of the problem of the debate is that Rothberg's and Moses's critique of memory practices is actually more about history than it lets on.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Central European History offers articles, review essays, and book reviews that range widely through the history of Germany, Austria, and other German-speaking regions of Central Europe from the medieval era to the present. All topics and approaches to history are welcome, whether cultural, social, political, diplomatic, intellectual, economic, and military history, as well as historiography and methodology. Contributions that treat new fields, such as post-1945 and post-1989 history, maturing fields such as gender history, and less-represented fields such as medieval history and the history of the Habsburg lands are especially desired. The journal thus aims to be the primary venue for scholarly exchange and debate among scholars of the history of Central Europe.
×
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