Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of...
-
Upload
raiannydeandrade -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of...
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 1/29
Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study ofIntercultural InterdependenciesAuthor(s): Hannes SiegristReviewed work(s):Source: Comparative Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, Special Issue (32): Comparative Methodologies inthe Social Sciences: Cross-Disciplinary Inspirations (Aug., 2006), pp. 377-404Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29727792 .Accessed: 19/12/2011 04:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative
Education.
http://www.jstor.org
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 2/29
Comparative
Education
Vol.
42,
No.
3,
August
2006, pp.
377-404
O
Routledge
j?
^^
Taylor
Francisroi
Comparative
history
of cultures
and
societies.
From
cross-societal
analysis
to
the
study
of intercultural
interdependencies
Hannes
Siegrist*
University
of
Leipzig,
Germany
The
key
element
in
comparative
history
is
the
problem
of
cultural and social differentiation and
difference
on
the
one
hand,
assimilation and
similarity
on
the
other.
Comparative
historical science
relativizes
local,
national and
regional conceptions
of
history
and
interpretations
of self and
other
by
systematically
linking
historical
experiences,
paths
of
development
and socialization
processes.
The
historical
comparison
of
societies and cultures
is
a
specific, multi-perspective
and
interactive
way
of
reconstructing
and
representing
the
past.
The article
presents
an
outline
of
the
history
of
comparative
historical science
and
discusses
its
epistemological
basis,
research
topics,
main
concepts
and meth?
ods. It
analyses
the shift
from cross-societal
analysis
to
the
study
of intercultural
interdependence
and shows
why
comparative
social
history
became
a
pioneer
of cultural and
international
history
in
Europe.
The author concludes that
comparative
historical science
should
concentrate
on
the
problems
of
spatializing
social and
symbolic
organizations
and
institutions and the
problems
of
inter
societal and intercultural interactions
and relations.
Introduction
Comparative
historical science
relativizes
local,
national and
regional conceptions
of
history
and
interpretations
of self and
other
by
systematically linking
historical
expe?
riences,
paths
of
development
and
socialization
processes
(Rossi,
1990;
Haupt
Kocka,
1996a;
Kaelble
Schriewer,
1998, 1999;
Kocka,
1998;
Sewell, 1998;
Spohn,
1998;
Kaelble, 1999; Middell, 2000a;
Haupt,
2001;
Osterhammel, 2001;
Kaelble
Schriewer,
2003).
The
historical
comparison
of
societies and
cultures
is
a
specific,
multi-perspective
and interactive
way
of
reconstructing
and
representing
the
past.
This
approach
differs,
on account of its inter-societal and intercultural
perspectives
*
University
of
Leipzig,
Institut
f?r
Kulturwissenschaften,
Beethovenstra?e
15,
04107
Leipzig,
Germany.
Email:
ISSN
0305-0068
(print)/ISSN
1360-0486
(online)/06/030377-28
? 2006
Taylor
Francis
DOI:
10.1080/03050060600890245
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 3/29
378
H.
Siegrist
of
social,
symbolic
and
spatial
structures
and
processes,
from
mono-perspective
and
singularizing approaches,
which
are
classically
represented
in
the
field of
history by
genetically individualizing
historicism,
which concentrates on
reconstructing
the
history
of
a
single
society,
a
single
culture and
a
single
area.
From
a
methodological
and
epistemological standpoint,
comparative
historical
science
can
draw
support
today?in
the
age
of
Europeanization
and
globalization,
delimiting
of scientific
disciplines
and methodical
pragmatism?from
the minimum
consensus
prevalent
in the social and historical sciences
and the
arts:
analysing
pecu?
liarities
and differences is considered
to
be
as
important
and
legitimate
in
principle
as
analysing
similarities
and
commonalities.
Good science
must
reflect
on
the limits of
generalizations
just
as
much
as on
processes
which substantiate
statements
regarding
what is
singular
and
specific. Comparative
historians
using
methods of social and
cultural sciences
in
order
to
obtain
insights
into
extensive,
international and intercul?
tural
processes
and
structures
no
longer
have
constantly
to
defend
themselves
against
the
objections
of
supporters
of historicism. Those
tended
to
reject comparative
science
primarily
on
the
assumption
that
everything
is
to
a
certain
extent
unique,
unrepeatable
and
thus
incomparable.
However,
comparative
history
has ceased
to
be
tied
so
closely
to
the methodical
guidelines
of the
systematic, analytical
and
theory
led social
sciences. Social scientists themselves
increasingly
criticize the limits of
scientism and
are
prepared
to
be involved
in
the sense-based
qualitative
methods
common
among
historians
and cultural scientists.
In recent
decades,
classic borders
of
content
and
epistemologically
motivated lines
of
conflict between the
disciplines
have faded
(Charle
et
al,
2004, pp.
9-14;
Kogan,
2005).
Since,
in
the
age
of
Europeanization
and
globalization,
borders which
once
acted
as
cognitional
barriers between
states,
societies and cultures
are
also
forfeiting
their
meaning,
some
certainties
and truths whose scholarliness had
primarily
been
politi?
cally
substantiated
and
implemented
are
losing
their
plausibility.
National
political
standards and
preferences
which have
previously
been instrumental
in
defining
the
plausibility
of
knowledge
in the
social, historical,
state
and
legal
sciences
and the
arts
are
coming
under
pressure.
Ever since the end of Marxist-Leninist
scientific
politics,
there has been
a
radical
change
in
how the
past
is
represented
and evaluated
in
the
former
eastern
bloc
states.
It is
against
this
background
that the
central
aims,
motives,
problems
and
challenges
of historical
social and cultural
comparisons
in
the last 40
to
50
years
will be resumed.
The
present
article will
begin
by
outlining
the
history
of
comparative
historical
science. It will discuss its
epistemological
basis,
research
topics,
main
concepts
and
methods. It will
plead
for
greater
inclusion and
a
clearer
explanation
of the
spatial
dimension
in
comparative
social
and
cultural
history.
Historical
comparativism
should
not
be understood
primarily
as a
champion
of the intellectual
process
and
comparative
method
in
general.
It
was
assigned
this role
in
the nineteenth and
twen?
tieth centuries
on
account
of
the content-related
and
epistemological
conflicts which
were
associated with the
history
of
differentiating
the
sciences and
institutionalizing
them in
specialist disciplines;
for
instance,
the
disputes
between so-called
idiographic
and nomothetic sciences.
Today,
in
the
age
of methodical
pluralism
and
a
certain
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 4/29
Comparative history of
cultures and
societies
379
degree
of
de-disciplining
of
science
(or
shifting
and
blurring
of
traditional
disciplinary
boundaries),
attention
must
be
focused
on
problems
which need
to
be
detected,
anal?
ysed
and resolved
together.
In
highly developed
and
pluralistic
scientific
systems,
the
emphasis
is
being
shifted
from
a
method-centred
to
a
problem-centred
approach.
In
these
circumstances,
comparative
historical
science
can
and should
concentrate
on
the
problems
of
spatializing
social and
symbolic
organizations
and institutions and the
problems
of inter-societal and
intercultural interactions
and relations. Due
to
its
longer specialization
and
tradition,
it is
equipped
with
a
suitably high
level
of
system?
atic and
empirical expertise
for
these
fields
which
will be
a
key
to
understanding
the
historical basis
of
previous
and
current
processes
of
constructing,
institutionalizing,
organizing
and
limiting
or
delimiting
social and cultural orders and
organizations.
Problems and aims
of
historical
social and cultural
comparisons
Historical
comparativism inquires
how
cultural
and
social differences
and
similarities
were
constructed,
institutionalized and
represented
in the
past.
It examines
compar?
atively
historical
experiences,
recollections,
views of
history,
master
narratives,
paths
of
development
and structural
patterns,
in
order
to
comprehend,
understand and
explain
past
and
present
differences
and
similarities
between
different societies
and
cultures. Historical
comparativism
uses
comparisons
of societies and cultures with
the aim
not
only
of
substantiating
universally
valid
statements
concerning
the deter?
mining
power
of
social
structures
and
cultural
discourses;
in
contrast
to
traditional
social
scientific
conceptions,
it also aims
to
relativize the
range
and
validity
of theories
spatially
and
temporally
as
well
as
socially
and
culturally.
It
is
involved
in
organizing
thinking
and
acting,
but
additionally
extends the
scope
and
the
sense
for
ambiguities,
alternative
courses
of action and functional
equivalents.
Comparative
social and cultural
history
is
a
special
branch
of
historical
comparat?
ivism. It
is
focused,
firstly,
on
the
systematic
historical
comparison
of
processes
in
social and cultural
differentiation,
de-differentiation and assimilation
in
space
and
time;
secondly,
on
spatial
and
temporal
comparisons
of social institutions
and
struc?
tures;
and
thirdly,
on
comparisons
of
ways
of
organizing meaning
and
knowledge,
symbolic
forms and discourses.
Comparative
social and cultural
history
does
not
only
analyse
structural similarities and differences but also
processes
and the
motives,
inter?
ests,
conflicts,
decisions and
actors
associated with them.
Historical
social and cultural
comparisons generally
focus
on
analysing
selected
processes,
structures,
actor
groups,
options
for
courses
of
action,
decisions
and
events
in
several societies and cultures.
Most
comparative
studies
concentrate
on
a
special
topic
or
problem
and examine it
in
the
context
of several
relatively
static units
of
comparison,
such
as
regions,
nations and civilizations.
Increasingly,
the authors of
long-term
comparative
studies
are
also
taking
into
account
the
dynamics
of units
of
comparison
whose internal
properties
and
external boundaries
change
in
the
course
of
history
on
account
of
intrasocietal,
intersocietal and intercultural
processes.
Consequently,
the units
of
comparison
or
the
scale of the units of
comparison
are
revised
in
accordance with time and formulated
questions.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 5/29
380 H.
Siegrist
Comparative
historians
inquire,
in the
context
of
a
self-reflexive,
multi-perspective
and intercultural
form of
historical
science,
into
how and
why
conceptions
of
history
and
stereotypes
of self and other
impact
on the construction and institutionalization
of
action within the boundaries of
a
country
and
on
interaction with
the
members of
other countries.
Comparative historiography
is
generally
aware
that it is
itself,
as
a
producer
of
historical
representations,
a
part
of that cultural
apparatus
which is
responsible
for
producing
and
reproducing
social
peculiarities
and cultural
differ?
ences.
The narratives
and
horizons of
interpretation
which it
produces
and mediates
substantiate
feelings
of
belonging
to
a
specific
society
and
culture but
equally
differences,
tensions and conflicts between
self and other.
Comparative
historical
science
differs,
on
account
of its
multiperspectivity
and
interculturality
on the one
hand,
from
genetically individualizing, monoperspective
and monoculturalistic forms
of
historiography
which
focus
on a
region,
nation
or
civi?
lization. The latter focus
on
peculiarities,
which
are
understood
as an
expression,
prerequisite
or
effect
of the
relevant collective
conceptions
of
identity.
On the
other
hand,
however,
comparative
historical science differs
from
those tendencies
in
the
social and cultural sciences which
are
primarily
aimed
at
checking
universalistic
statements
and
developing universally
valid theories
indifferent
to
space
and
time.
Whereas
genetically
individualizing approaches
in
historical science focus
on
detect?
ing
and
representing
the
particular
and thus
frequently
nurture
a
cult of what is
unique
and
special,
systematic
sociology
frequently
focuses on
identifying
institutions
and
regularities
which
are
independent
of
space
and time.
Systematically comparative
historical
science
rather stands
between
these
two
poles, examining, theoretically,
the
tension between
the
general
and
the
particular,
the
interdependence
of the local and
the
universal
and the relation between
identity
and
hybridity,
by
means
of several
comparative
cases,
using quantifying
and
qualitative
methods.
The
key
element
in
comparative
social and cultural
history
is the
problem
of
cultural and social
difference
(Wieviorka,
2003).
Historical
social and
cultural
comparisons
work
on
the
assumption,
firstly,
that there
are
to
a
certain
extent
univer?
sal
human relational
models,
cognitive
and emotional
abilities
and
needs,
and
finally
transnational
and
transcultural
forms of
symbolic
and social action.
Secondly, they
are
based
on
the
premise
and
certainty
that much
of what is
considered
to
be universal
and
human is
developed,
institutionalized,
perceived
and
interpreted
on
the basis of
specific
cultural and
social
developments,
structures
and
models of
interpretation,
specific
namely
to
a
certain
context
or
constellation.
Since
social
relations,
institu?
tions
and cultural artefacts
thus
acquire,
to
a
certain
extent,
a
culturally
and
socially
specific
or
space-
and
time-specific
form and
significance,
there is
an
urgent
need for
scientific
methods and
modes of
interpretation
which
are
able
to
detect,
evaluate and
represent
the
general
and the
particular,
what
connects
and what
separates.
This is
precisely
what
systematic
historical
comparisons
achieve in
combination
with
complementary
approaches
such
as
cultural transfer research
and
research into
international relations
and
interculturality.
When
experiences
and
recollections
are
deposited
in diverse
ways
in
the collective
cultural
memory,
and reinforce and articulate themselves
in
mentalities,
rules of action
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 6/29
Comparative history of
cultures
and
societies 381
(institutions),
rights
of
action, roles,
symbols
and historical
master
narratives,
'history'
itself becomes
a
cultural instance which
defines?and
enables?the
production,
detec?
tion and
interpretation
of similarities and
differences.
Comparative
historical
science,
as a
self-reflexive scientific
discipline,
has
at
its
disposal
a
wide
variety
of
instruments
in intellectual
strategies
and
analytical procedures
which
ensure
that
an
intellectual
distance is
guaranteed
between
historians and their
narratives,
theories and
topics.
A
systematic
historical
comparison
of
societies and cultures
first
analyses
similari?
ties and differences?for
example,
with
regard
to
the
regulation
of
social relations
or
regarding
the
way
a
culture
or
society
deals with
specific problems
and
artefacts?in
different social constellations
and
cultural
contexts.
Both
comparative
historians
and
social
and cultural scientists
generally
work
on
the
premise
that
the
units
of
comparison they
have
chosen?such
as
regions
and nations?can
clearly
be
distin?
guished
and
isolated,
at
least
in
certain
relevant
respects;
therefore
they
neither
belong
definitely
to
the
same
collective
system
of action
(i.e.,
to
a
'society',
for
instance,
or a
supranational
block)
nor
are
subordinate
to
the
same
cultural horizon
of
meaning
and
apparatus
of
interpretation.
However,
the
scientific
commandment
of
analytical differentiability
for units of
comparison
should
not
tempt
us
to
ignore
the
pragmatic
knowledge
that members and
subsystems
of
specific
'societies' and 'cultures'
actually
interact and
communicate
in
various
ways.
They
thus
also
participate
in
certain
respects
in
shared cross-societal
and
cross-cultural
contexts
of
action
and
meaning. Knowledge
of intercultural
experiences
and
knowledge
and
experiences
obtained
from intersocietal
contact
substantiates
conceptions
and
depictions
of
large
historical
areas
such
as
'eastern
central
Europe'
(Kocka,
2000a;
Troebst,
2003),
the
'Mediterranean
region'
and
'Europe' (Haupt,
2003;
Petri
Siegrist,
2004).
On
account
of
historical
and
present
relations
of
exchange,
influence and
recep?
tion,
comparative
social and cultural
history
considers 'societies' and 'cultures'
respectively
in
terms
of
viewpoint,
time and
place
(a)
as
closed,
homogeneous,
coher?
ent,
functionally integrated
systems
which
are
anchored
in
a
territory,
characterized
by
shared
dealings
with
time and
conceptions
of time and
only
cooperate
at
selected
points
with the
outside
world;
(b)
as
relatively
open,
hybrid
and
fragmented
social
organizations
and
symbolic
orders whose
spatial
structure
is
in
a
state
of
flux
and
whose
components
derive
from
different
historical
periods
(non-simultaneity
of the
simultaneous);
or
(c)
as
components
of
a
higher
trans-societal
cooperation
network
and
transcultural
context
of communication
and
meaning
with
diffuse boundaries.
In
whichever
way,
the task of
comparative
social
and cultural
history
consists of
analysing
social,
symbolic
and material
phenomena
with
regard
to
similarities,
differ?
ences,
interaction
processes
and
the
negotiation
of
meanings.
Comparative
research
was
occupied
with
this task from
the 1960s
to
the
1980s,
for
example,
with
regard
to
industrial societies
and industrialization
processes
(Pollard,
1981; Fischer, 1985;
Kaelble, 1987;
Kiesewetter, 2000; Landes,
2005);
at
that
time,
this made
a
significant
contribution
to
the rise of
comparative
historical
science and
international and
interregional historiography.
It
not
only compared
the
development
of
structures,
indicators and
institutional models
but also examined
the
international
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 7/29
382 H.
Siegrist
exchange
of
goods, capital, employers
and
workers,
knowledge
and
models
of
taste
together
with the
processes
of
economic,
social
and cultural
change accompanying
these in the
individual
countries and
regions.
The
empirical
fact that 'societies' and
'cultures'
are
always
somewhat
permeable
and
delimited,
and that cultural models
come
into
being through
processes
of
transfer,
reinterpretative appropriation
and
mixing,
was
certainly
very
clear
to
the
comparative
historians ofthat time.
However,
since
they primarily
discussed
comparative
methods and theories but
were
often less
explicit
in
commenting
on
and
modelling
the intersocietal and intercultural transfer
of
goods,
information,
people
and cultural
artefacts,
they
are
occasionally
labelled
as
anachronistic
by
advocates
of the
new
cultural
history
and cultural
transfer research
in
recent
historiographical history.
In
many
historiographical portrayals
of the
recent
history
of culture
and
intercultural transfer since the
1990s,
comparative
historians
appear
in
the
most
favourable
case
as
forerunners of transnational
historiography,
in
the
worst
case as
the
representatives
of
an
ideologically
very
refined
and
therefore
extremely
opaque
variant
of national
history
which could
only
be
exposed
with the
intellectual
means
provided
by
cultural transfer
research
(Espagne,
2003).
Many
exponents
of the
new
cultural
history
and
the research
on
cultural
transfers
and
interculturality
which has been
redeveloped
over
the last
two
or
three
decades
are
barely,
if
at
all,
acquainted
with
the work of
comparative
historical
research.
Some
of
the old and
new
critics
of
comparative
historical research
from the historical
camp
ignore
comparative
cultural and social
history
because
they
consider it
to
be
a
special
form of structuralist
social
history
or
historical social science. It
set out
to
overcome
traditional
historical
science
in
the 1960s. Once
it
had
itself become
established
in
the
1990s, however,
it
equally
became
one
of the
most
popular
targets
of
criticism
during
the cultural
turn.
For
a
long
time,
comparative
historical science
only
continued
to
be involved
very
reservedly
in
the
programmatic
debates. Its advocates devoted
their
energy
in
the
1980s and 1990s
mainly
to
producing exemplary empirical comparative
studies
in
which
they compared phenomena
from
two
or
more
territorialized
or
spatialized
'cultures',
'societies' and 'historical
areas' from
specific
viewpoints,
in
order better
to
understand
and
explain
the
development
and articulation
of
a
topic
or
problem
in the
relevant societies and cultures.
In
so
far
as
they
were
involved
in
discussions
of theories
and
methods,
they
focused
on
discussions
of
how,
by
means
of the
complexity-reduc?
ing
strategy
of scientific
comparison,
concrete
isolated
occurrences
could be related
to
more
abstract basic
forms,
models of
action,
values
and
meaning
structures;
and
how
to
escape
concrete
and additive
descriptions
and linear
forms of historical
narra?
tion;
and what forms of
representation
are
suitable
to
comparative
historical science.
Historical
comparativism inquired
on
the
one
hand
into the
particular
articulation,
development,
function and
significance
of
a
similar
phenomenon
in
the
context
of
the relevant
region
or
nation;
on
the other
hand,
into the
significance
and function
of
the
phenomenon
under
investigation
in
the
predominant
and
higher
context
of
a
transnational
or
transcultural
sense-related and social
organization,
or
in the
light
of
a
universally
valid social and cultural historical
theory
indifferent
to
space
and
time.
The
development
of
a
phenomenon
was
typically 'explained'
by
certain
social,
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 8/29
Comparative
history
of
cultures and
societies 383
economic,
political,
cultural
and
legal
processes
and
structures
in
the relevant
region,
nation
or
civilization
society.
It is to be maintained at this
point
that
comparative
social
and cultural
history
performs methodically
controlled,
systematically
and
empirically
founded
research
into the
spatialization
and
temporalization
of
social,
economic,
political, legal
and
cultural
organizations
and
paths
of
development
in
Europe
and the
world.
Concep?
tual
developments,
abstractions and
syntheses
occur
from
a
social and cultural
comparative perspective
and
ideally
rest
on
intercultural
processes
of
negotiation
and
communication. Several
histories,
paths
of
development,
worlds of
experience,
social
constellations and cultural
contexts
are
analysed by
means
of
a common
inquiry
and
theory.
The
object
of the social and cultural
historical
comparison
is
to
understand
and
explain
the
general, predominant
and various
special
forms,
meanings
and
functions of
a
phenomenon
in
space
and
time.
From
a
historico-sociological comparison
of
societies
to
a
comparative
and interwoven historical
analysis
of
social and cultural
processes
and
structures
Historical and
social scientific
comparative
research has
traditionally
focused
on
systematically analysing
internal
structures
and
processes
of several units of
compar?
ison whose differences and similarities
are
of interest. In
recent
decades,
greater
consideration has been taken
of
input
and
output
relations,
overlapping
processes
and
the
problems
of
perceiving, interpreting, processing
and
internalizing
external
phenomena
in
far
more
qualitatively
orientated
historical
comparative
studies
of
two
or
three
countries.
Both
socio- and cultural-historical examinations of cultural
transfer and intercultural transfer and
literary-historical
and arts-based research into
interculturality
and
transculturality,
which
concentrate
on
exchanging symbolic
and
material artefacts and
negotiating
their
meaning
and function in the
relevant
context,
generally analyse
the
symbolically
mediated interaction and communication
on
the
level of
symbols
and
texts.
Most
recently,
different variants of
approaches
from
histor?
ical
comparativism
have
been combined?with
a
programmatic
intention?with
approaches
from transfer and
interculturality
research.
They
are
traded around
as
'shared
history',
'interwoven and
entangled history' (Conrad
Randeria,
2002)
or
'intersecting history'
(Werner
Zimmermann,
2002,
2004),
yet
are
still
really
at
the
embryonic
stage
of
empirical
research.
In
the
age
of
Europeanization
and
globalization,
it
has
become clear
to
many
that
national
historiography
must
be extended
to
include
international and
transnational
historiography
and that reliable methods
and
approaches,
which enable the
complex?
ity
to
be
handled
in
a
controlled
manner,
must
be combined
for
this
purpose
(Haupt,
2003;
Petri
Siegrist,
2004; Charle,
2005).
Historical
comparativism,
due
to
its
tradition and
institutionalization
in
research and due
to
the
quantity
and
quality
of
theoretical and
empirical
research work available
on
international and transnational
historiography,
can
already
boast
greater
experience
and countless
convincing
studies. Alternative and
complementary
research
approaches,
which focus
on
the
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 9/29
384
H.
Siegrist
interaction
and
communication
between social and cultural
actors
and
units,
can
above
all
clarify
and
systematically comprehend
the forms
of
interaction,
interdepen?
dence
and communication between
actors and
units
of
comparison.
Naturally,
there
are
always
certain
calls
to
restrict the thematic view
or
to
wear
methodical blinkers
with
regard
to
the
intensified
competition
for
positions, interpretational
authority
and
resources.
However,
considering
the
complexity
of transnational and
intercultural
historiography, they
are
not
particularly helpful.
What
should
instead be
aspired
to
is
a
problem-orientated
combination
of the various
approaches
and
empirical
results.
The
following
historical outline will
briefly
present
this
from
selected
viewpoints
and
at
the
same
time revise the
most
recent
master
narratives
and
myths
concerning
the
history
of historical
comparativism.
Topics,
key
interests and
approaches
in
comparative
historical
science
from
the
1960s
to
the
present
The
most recent
history
of
comparative
historical
science
begins
in
the 1960s
in
the
context
of
the social
scientific
turning point
in
historical
science,
when the
buried
traditions
of
comparison
from the
early
twentieth
century
were
being
rediscovered
and rearticulated.
From the 1980s
to
the
present,
there
is
a
significant
increase in
the
number of
comparative
studies. Until
1990,
the focus of attention
was
on
'compara?
tive
social
history'
and
'comparative
economic
history'.
After
this,
historical
compar?
ativism
was
extended
to
include
comparative
social and cultural
history,
historical
cultural
transfer
research,
international
interweaving
history
and
interculturality
research.
Due
to
an
increasing
interest
in
the
history
of
Europe
and the
Europeans,
world
and
global history
and
transnational
history,
the
domain
has
been
expanding
and the
plausibility
of
comparative
historical
approaches
has been
constantly
increas?
ing
for around 20
years.
The
more
accepted
and successful
comparative
historical
science
becomes,
however,
the
more
diffuse
its
profile
also
threatens
to
become;
right
until
the
early
1990s,
this
was
still characterized
by
relatively
clear
thematic,
episte?
mological
and
political
scientific
preferences.
Comparative
historical science
generally
does
not
examine historical totalities such
as
'societies' and
'cultures',
but
inquires
into
the relation between selected
aspects
and
features
of the
relevant
units of
comparison
(such
as
nations
and
regions)
on
the
one
hand,
and
into the
development
of individual
phenomena
(such
as
family,
educa?
tion,
bureaucracy,
profession,
classes)
on
the
other,
in
order
to
comprehend,
under?
stand and
explain
their
similarity
and
dissimilarity. Initially,
comparative
historical
science concentrated
on
social,
institutional,
economic,
demographic
and
political
historical
topics
(Kaelble,
1999;
Haupt,
2001).
Firstly,
institutions
and
institutional
ization
processes
in
the
areas
of
family,
education,
work, company,
profession,
law,
administration, power,
politics
and
economy
were
examined;
secondly,
economic
and
demographic
differentiation and
alignment
processes;
thirdly,
processes
in
the
formation
and dissolution
of
statuses, strata,
classes and
sociocultural
backgrounds;
fourthly,
social
and
symbolic
forms and
strategies
of socialization and
collectivization
in
cities,
regions
and
nations,
or
in
'systems'
and 'civilizations'.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 10/29
Comparative history
of
cultures and societies
385
Since the
1990s,
the
spectrum
of
compared
topics
and
phenomena
has been
expanding predominantly
into
terms
and
discourses,
values and
standards,
mentali?
ties and
attitudes, rituals,
festivals
and celebrations
(Tacke,
1995;
Vogel,
1997;
Schmidt, 1997, 1999;
J?ger,
1999; Ther,
2002;
Rausch,
2005).
They
have
been
joined by
comparative
studies of material artefacts and how
they
are
staged
and
used?in
high,
popular
and
mass
culture
(Cleve,
1996;
Budde,
1997;
Kaelble, 1997;
Merl, 1997;
Siegrist,
2001b;
Siegrist
Schramm,
2003).
Historical
studies
on
profes?
sions,
institutions
and
organizations
are more
frequently
extended
to
include
an
actor-
and situation-centred examination of
processes
of
perception,
interpretation,
negotiation
and
decision-making
(Albisetti,
1994, 2000;
Welskopp,
1994;
Haupt
Crossick, 1995; Kocka, 1995;
Requate,
1995;
Siegrist,
1996; Charle, 1997; F?hrer,
1999; Mitchell, 2000; Ther, 2002;
Zunz
et
al,
2002).
There
has also been
an
increase
in
the number
of
comparative
studies
on
local,
regional,
national and transnational
myths,
cultural
recollections,
views of
history
and
historiographies?both
national
and
regional history
and
history
of
ethnic
groups
have
opened
up
to
comparison
(Troebst, 2005).
Finally, they
have also been
joined by
international and intercultural
comparative
studies
on
the social and cultural construction and differentiation of the
sexes
(Budde,
1994;
Wobbe,
1998;
Bock,
2000).
Economic
and
social
historical
inquiries
and theories have been and will be
exam?
ined
frequently
by
using quantifying
and
qualitative
methods.
However,
their
rela?
tionship
is
subject
over
time
to
certain
fluctuations attributable
to
modes and
cycles
of
development
and
a
demand
for
specific
forms of
knowledge. Currently,
fewer
quantifying
analyses
are
being
performed,
as
major
qualification
work
(dissertations
and
habilitations),
which
comprises
the
majority
of
published
works,
is
submitted
by
young
scientists who
in
the 1990s exhibited
greater
qualitative
tendencies
in
cultural
and
political
history.
All
in
all,
the
range
of
inquiries,
topics
and methods has
expanded
dramatically
in the last
two
decades
(Haupt,
1996;
Haupt
Kocka, 1996b;
Kaelble,
1996, 1999; Kocka,
1996).
In
order
to
understand
the
history
of
comparative
historical
science,
it
is
impor?
tant,
just
as
for other scientific
branches,
to
consider
not
only
which
topics
are
of
interest but also what
it
is directed
against.
In
the
1960s
and
1970s
in
Germany,
it
was
mainly
directed
against
the dominant
historiographical
paradigms
of
individual?
izing
and
national-historically
restricted historicism and its confinement
to
the
topics
of
the
history
of
power,
state,
ideas
and leaders.
In
the
west,
in
some
eastern
central
European
countries such
as
Poland
(Dlugoborski,
1988),
Hungary
(Han?k,
1992)
and
Czechoslovakia
(Hroch,
2000),
even
in
the
GDR
(see
now
Middell,
2005, pp.
999-1012),
it
relativized,
secondly,
dogmatized
historical materialism
or
the
form
of
historical materialism which
was
theoretically
based
on a
teleological
and universalistic
concept
of
'world
history',
whose
implementation
it
analysed
with
the
help
of
'national
history'
and
'regional history'
(Eckermann
Mohr,
1966).
Across
Europe
and
worldwide,
thirdly,
it
was
understood
as a
corrective force for
the
generalizations produced by
the
industrial
society theory,
which
was
also influ?
ential
at
that
time
in
the
west,
which
explained
social
and
political
phenomena
primarily
as
the result
of
industrialization.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 11/29
386 H.
Siegrist
Thus
J?rgen
Kocka,
in
his
comparative study
on
the
social and
political
behaviour
of
employees
in
Germany
and the US
in
the interwar
period,
which
appeared
in
1977,
emphasized
the inherent
dynamism
of
country-specific
traditions in the two
capitalist
industrial societies
which had shared
a
similar industrial
development
(Kocka,
1977).
According
to
Kocka,
the
right-wing
political
tendencies
of and
support
for
the
National Socialists
by significant
numbers of German
employees
could
not
be
explained by
the industrial
capitalist
system,
but
were
attributable
to
the
fact
that
pre
industrial,
pre-capitalist,
pre-bourgeois
and bureaucratic
traditions had
moulded
the
social
structures
and
conflicts of the industrial
society
in
Germany
and
thus
had
an
influence
on
'liberal
democracy's
chances
of
development
and
survival
even at
advanced
stages
of industrialization'
(Kocka,
1977,
p.
335).
The
comparative
historical works of the 1970s and 1980s
frequently
identified
'pre-modern
traditions
and
relicts',
'successful revolutions'
and
'failed
processes
of
liberalization and democratization'
as
'historical
factors' which
shaped
the national
path
of
development
in
the
long
term
by defining
the structural
conditions and
hori?
zons
of
experience
and
interpretation
of the
actors
(Moore,
1969;
Skocpol,
1979).
In
Germany,
the
'special
German
path'
which had
ended in the National
Socialist
dictatorship
and
the
catastrophe
of the Second World
War and
was
of interest
as a
deviation from
the
'normal' social and
political
modernization
path
of
western
indus?
trial nations and
societies,
provided
the
starting point,
right
into modern
times,
for
a
whole series of
international
comparative
studies
on
social
groups,
structures,
institu?
tions and
politics.
In
Germany
and
some
other
countries,
the
special
path
thesis
contributed,
directly
or
indirectly, quite considerably
to
the rise of the
international historical
comparison.
When
finally,
on
account
of
empirical comparative
research,
it
was
dramatically
weakened and reduced
to
the
political
core
(Kocka,
2000b, pp.
93-110),
comparative
historiography
enjoyed
so
much
recognition
and
institutional
support,
thanks
to
some
innovative
works
and
countless
stimulating
articles,
that
it could
devote
itself
to
new
topics.
In
so
far
as
historical
comparativism
has
examined
national and
regional
variants
of
'modern
society', paths
of
development
and
endogenous
modernization
potential
comparatively against
the
background
of modernization
theory,
it has
occasionally
contributed
to
an
ideologization
of
western
modernity.
In
many
different
ways,
however,
it has also made
knowledge
available
which
was
totally
central
to
an
empir?
ically
substantiated
critique
of
modernity
and
to
an
analysis
of
different
ways
and
forms of
modernization
(Siegrist,
1996,
pp. 925-950;
Sundhaussen
Daskalov,
1999;
Eisenstadt,
2003; Kaelbe,
2004).
Comparative
historical science
pursued
and
represented
the
internationalization
of
historical
science
at
a
time when this
was
not
yet
a
self-evident
course,
and thus contributed
to
the
change
in
and international
opening
up
of the historical
and
social sciences and
the
arts.
The
direction
of
compar?
ative social
history
rested
quite significantly, right
into the
1980s,
on
the
combination
of
social scientific and
historical
inquiries
and methods.
Abstract
theories and
ideal
types
were
used
heuristically
in
the
context
of
systematic
historical
science,
in
order
to
pre-structure
the
topic
under
examination and the
field of
examination,
to
detect
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 12/29
Comparative
history of
cultures and
societies 387
the
general
and the
particular
and
to
check
the
temporal
and
spatial
range
of the
generalization
or
theory.
Comparative
historical
research was understood as a means for
developing theory
in
the
interplay
between
deduction and
induction,
abstraction and concretization.
Comparative
historians thus moved
in
a
transitional
area,
disputed
both
in
terms
of
scientific
theory
and
discipline,
between the
social
sciences
and the
arts;
this
area was
characterized
by
a
tension between
the
'generalizing
social
scientific
systematic'
and
the
'individualizing
historical
genetic'
method.
They
mediated between the
'objec?
tive'
significance
and
function
of
a
phenomenon,
based
on
reconstructing
and inter?
preting
the 'material' with the
help
of
an
abstract social scientific
theory independent
of
space
and
time,
and the
'subjective'
meaning
which is
developed
with the
help
of
the historical
genetic
method and
by
meaningfully
reconstructing
the
intentions
of
the
spatially
and
temporally
anchored
historical
actors.
Comparative
historical science
thus
became
a
laboratory
in which
'systematic'
and 'historical'
approaches
to
empir?
ical
work had
to
be combined
in
many
different
ways.
Interculturally
accepted
and
internationally
comprehensible
criteria
had
to
be
developed
and
applied
to
ensure
the
validity
and
plausibility
of
the results and
interpretation.
The
social historians and
economic
historians
dominating comparative
historical science
at
that
time
developed
processes
and standards
to
achieve this
which
would be described
today
in
historical
and social science
as
historico-cultural.
For
historians who had
to
move
and orientate themselves between
two
or
more
societies, cultures,
linguistic
areas or
historic
areas,
the fact that social action ismedi?
ated
symbolically
and
semantically
by
language,
terms,
discourses and
images
and
sociocultural
structures
and
processes
are
placed spatially,
was
not
primarily
a
scientific theoretical
or
philosophical question,
but
an
empirical
one.
Historical
comparativists
always
reflected,
almost
inevitably,
on
the
ambiguity
and
polyfunction
ality
of
terms,
texts
and
images.
Social and economic
historians,
who
compared
social
structures
in
several
societies
theoretically,
also had
to
transform
a
great
deal
in
terms
of
language
and
terminology. Firstly,
the relation
between
systematic,
historical and
culture-specific
terms
was
important, together
with the
problem
of
translatability
in
the
case
of
comparisons
between societies with
different
languages.
The
quest
for
'functional
equivalents'
demanded
precise knowledge
of the
sources
and
a
high degree
of
research
imagination.
The
comparison
of social constellations had
to
be
extended
to
include the
comparison
of
historical
and cultural
'contexts',
since the
unambiguity
of
a
phenomenon,
which
arose
firstly
on
account
of
the
interpretation
with the
help
of
a
general
and
space-independent
social scientific
theory,
frequently
came
into
conflict
with
the
ambiguity
and
polyfunctionality
of
the observed
phenomenon.
Against
this
background,
historical
comparativism?especially
in
Germany?
recalled
at
an
early
stage
Max
Weber's
concept
of
the
'ideal
type',
which
was
devel?
oped
in
order
to
analyse meaning-orientated
social action
in
the ensemble of social
and cultural
forms,
structures,
relations and
processes
in
a
specific
space
and
time
frame.
By
replacing
the
concepts
'theory'
and
'model',
which had
strong
scientistic
and natural scientific connotations
in
the
English-
and
German-speaking
world,
with the
historical,
social and cultural scientific
concept
of
the 'ideal
type',
which
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 13/29
388 H.
Siegrist
conceives
typical
structures
and
relations
under
a
single
time- and
space-bound
horizon of
meaning, comparative
social
history
took
a
decisive
step
towards
compar?
ative social and
cultural
history.
This
thereby
domesticized
and
relativized
the
objectivistic
conception
of
theory
which
was
prevalent
at
that
time
in
the economic
sciences and
in
orthodox
Marxism. Since
comparative
historical
science
has been
legitimized
up
until
very
recently
in
terms
of
scientific
theory
but
predominantly
and
primarily
by analytical, positivistic
and
scientistic
models,
and
designates
coherent
statement
systems
as
models
or
theories,
it has remained
difficult for
outsiders
to
perceive
this cultural historical
turning point
in
historical
comparativism
and
even
advocates of the
new
cultural
history
frequently
have
not
understood it
at
all.
Ute
Daniel
ignores comparative
social
and cultural
history outright
in
her
compendium
of
cultural
history
(Daniel,
2001).
Wolfgang Hardtwig
and
Hans-Ulrich
Wehler
discuss
the
problem
of Max
Weber's
shortened, i.e.,
social
scientific
reception
by
social
history,
which
now
has
to
be
completed by
cultural
history (Hardtwig
Wehler, 1996, pp.
llf.).
In
the
empirical
practice
of
historical social and cultural
comparisons,
terms,
discourses
and
perceptions
have
been
analysed
and the
problems
of
ambiguity
and
subjective
usage
of
symbolic
artefacts and
texts
have
been
explicitly
reflected
early
on.
Advocates of the
social
comparison
approach
refrained from
a
systematic
cultural
scientific substantiation of
international and
interregional
comparisons,
not
least
because
the
literary
and
pictorial
sciences
of
that time had
so
little of
any
substance
to
offer. Due
to
extensive
theoretical abstinence
in
the
literary
and
art
sciences,
systematic
concepts
for
dealing
with cultural differences
were
less
widespread
than
today.
Nonetheless,
the first
generations
of
comparative
social
historians
still
unquestion?
ably
had
indispensable
cultural
and
linguistic
competences
available
to
them. Histor?
ical
studies
were
very
often
combined
with
a
study
of the
languages
and
culture.
Some
pioneers
of
comparativism
were
emigrants,
others
came
from
European
border
and
crossroad
areas.
The third
group
were
familiar,
on
account
of
studying
abroad,
with
problems
of
ambiguity,
translation
and
change
in
cultural
perspectives
(Fischer,
2004; Kocka,
in
press).
Since the
1980s,
for
pragmatic
reasons,
comparative
historians
have
increasingly
concentrated
on
comparing
a
small number of
cases.
By
deviating
from
the
custom
of
the social sciences
to
examine
many
cases
and
a
small
number of
variables,
they
have
been able
to
become
more
closely
involved
with
the relevant constellations and
contexts
and
emphasize
the
ambiguity
and
polyfunctionality
of the
phenomenon
under
examination.
Inquiry
into
the
general
has been
relativized
by
an
enhanced
interest
in the
particular
and the
relation between the
general
and the
particular.
The
interpretative
majesty
of
abstract,
ahistorical and
space-independent
theories has
been
relativized
by
the advance of
different
actor
perspectives?both
contemporaries
and
historians.
Comparative
historical
science has thus been
transformed
more
and
more
into
a new
integrated
form
of
comparative
social and
cultural
history.
This is
interested
in
the social
and cultural
significance
of
a
phenomenon
not
exclusively
from
the
perspective
of
a
universalistic
theory;
rather,
the
theory
and its
application
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 14/29
Comparative
history
of
cultures and societies 389
are
themselves historicized and
contextualized
by
specific
actors.
It
is asked
how
the
meanings
which the historical
actors
and historians
give
to
a
phenomenon
relate
to
the
interpretations
of the abstract
'theory',
indifferent
to
space
and time.
Historical
social
and
cultural
comparisons
represent
a
balancing
act
between
abstraction
and
concretization,
deduction and induction.
Anyone
orientating
them?
selves
too
closely
towards
a
general
theory,
indifferent
to
space
and
time,
runs
the risk
of
important
differences
in
meaning remaining
concealed
from them in
the
concrete
cases.
It also becomes
precarious
when
comparative
historians
completely dispense
with
a
'theoretical'
procedure
when
they
wish
to
examine
and
represent
the
history
of
a
similar
phenomenon
in
two or
more
countries without
any
regard
to
a
common,
abstract
point
of reference
(a
heuristically
used
theory
or an
ideal
type). They
poten?
tially
open up
a
wide
spectrum
of
forms,
meanings,
functions and functional
equiva?
lents,
thereby extending
the
possibilities
of
thinking;
yet
they
also risk
no
longer
being
able
to
represent
the
systems
and
hierarchy
of
registered
forms of
expression,
mean?
ings
and
functions
in
a
way
that is
easy
to
remember,
because
structuring
by
means
of
a
knowledge-based
'theory'
or a
coherent historical 'master narrative'
is
missing.
'Theory'
not
only
structures
the
cognitive
process
but also
undergoes
a
change
within
the
research
process
and
is
finally
used
as a
basis for
a
structured and
structuring
'master
narrative' of
representation.
Comparative
history
should
never
lose
sight
of its aim
to
form and continue
to
develop
ideal
types
and
master
narratives which
can
become
points
of reference for
further research. It
should
not
restrict itself either
to
collecting
and
ordering
informa?
tion
from different
countries
or
to
simply describing
and
listing,
and
should constitute
more
than
a
'database'
or
'bookbinder
synthesis'.
Many
of the
numerous
thematic
anthologies
in which
regional
and national
case
studies
are
grouped
under
a common
inquiry
represent
an
important
preliminary
stage
in
real
comparativism,
especially
when
they
contain
an
introduction from the editor
in
which
the
most
important
tendencies
are
presented comparatively
and
embedded
in
more
general
contexts.
Since
the
1990s,
comparative
historical
science
has
increasingly
been
taking
up
inquiries
and
topics
which
do
not
come
from classic
social
history
and
sociology.
It
has also been
integrating
cultural scientific
inquiries
and
methods
more
explicitly
than
previously.
Thematic
accents
and the theoretical
scientific basis
are
thus
shifting
in the
medium
term.
Cultural scientific
comparisons
are now
no
longer
conceived
as
particularly
difficult and
are
also
no
longer
as
rare as
J?rgen
Kocka and
Heinz
Gerhard
Haupt
still
maintained
in
1996
(Haupt
Kocka, 1996b,
pp.
34f.).
Compar?
ative historical
science
has
profited
over
the last
twenty years
from
developments
in
the
history
of
terms
and
discourses, i.e.,
from the fact that historical
scientific
meth?
ods
in
general
are
subject
to
a
tendency
towards
systematization
and that further
sections
of
historical science
are
breaking
away
from classic historicism and
produc?
ing knowledge
that
can
be
integrated relatively unproblematically
in
comparative
research.
Furthermore,
historical
comparativism
is
benefiting
from the
shift
in
meth?
ods and interests towards
the
literary, pictorial
and
art
sciences,
which
are
being
transformed
into
systematic
'cultural sciences' whose
theses,
theories,
terms
and
empirical
research
can
be
integrated
in
comparative
social
and cultural
history.
In
the
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 15/29
390 H.
Siegrist
preface
to
the first edition
o?
Metzler
Lexikon
zur
Literatur?und Kulturtheorie
in
1998,
Ansgar
N?nning
asserted
that:
The
demand,
which
has been
increasing
since the end
of the
1960s,
for
a
greater
theoret
ization
of the
arts
has resulted in
a
plethora
of
literary
and cultural scientific
theories,
models
and methods.
...
The
insight
that
every
form of
cognition,
observation
and
inter?
pretation
is driven
by
theory
has
gained widespread
acceptance.
The
conflict,
readily
emphasized by
opponents
of
theory,
between
theory-loaded
and
'direct'
or
'genuine'
access
to
literary
texts
has thus
proven
to
be
a
falsely
formulated alternative.
(N?nning,
2004, p.
v)
The temporal structuring
of
society,
culture and
history
in
historical
comparativism
It
has
not
only
been since
the
dawn
of the
new
age
of
Europeanization,
transna
tionalization
and
globalization
that
analysing
and
reflecting
on
local,
national and
transnational
paths
of
development
and
history
have been
among
the
most
urgent
tasks of all historians.
From
the
very
outset,
inquiring
into the conditions
for and
consequences
of historical
paths
and
path
dependencies
has
been of
paramount
importance
to
comparative
historical science?as
the
example
of the
special path
has
shown.
Systematic
historical
comparative
research has
substantially
differenti?
ated the discussion
concerning
the
structuring
and
meaning
of the
'pasts'
of societ?
ies
and
cultures.
By comparing
historical
paths
and
master
narratives,
knowledge
has been
systematized, typed
and
thus been
made
comparable
and
relatable,
with
regard
to
the
temporal
dimension?structures
of
longer
duration,
short and
long
cycles,
sequences.
Historical
paths
and
master
narratives
are
of
interest
in
terms
of
similarities
and
differences.
Typed
historical
paths
are
referred
to
in
order
to
comprehend
the
scope
of
similar,
topical
and
cross-societal decision-related
situations,
in
interregional
and
interna?
tional
comparisons;
in order
to
explain
certain forms of
thinking
and
acting
'histori?
cally';
and
in order
to
determine the
potential
for
mixing
and
fusing
national and
regional
historical
paths
into
a
common,
imagined
or
real
historical
path?for
instance,
a
European
one.
The
social and cultural
sciences
frequently regard paths
of
development
as
a
historico-cultural residual
category
that
is
meant
to
explain
the
remainder
of
what
a
systematic analysis
of the
present
is unable
to
decipher.
However,
comparative
historians
are
concerned
not
only
with the
determining
effects
of historical
paths
but also
with the
question
of how
knowledge
of native and
foreign
historical
paths
alters
the
scope
of the actors'
thinking
and
acting. Knowledge
of alternatives
relativizes
the
path
dependency
and
supports
an
active
formation
of
new
paths
of
development,
including
cross-societal and
culturally hybrid
paths.
Systematic
and
empirically supported
international
and
intercultural
comparisons
of
historical
paths
and
master
narratives have
called
numerous
idealistic
or
objectivistic
conceptions
of
a
purposeful
historical
path,
more
often
also
salvation
history-related
conceptions
with
a
religious,
ethnic,
national
and civilization
motivation,
radically
into
question.
On
account
of the constructivist
turning-point
in
'historiography
history',
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 16/29
Comparative
history
of
cultures and
societies
391
'recollection
history',
'experience
history'
and the
'history
of the cultural
memory',
what
once
went
down
in the
comparative explanation
of
'commonalities' and 'differ?
ences'
as
objective 'history',
'tradition'
or
'historical
factor'
(Puhle,
1979)
is
now
understood
in
amore
differentiated
sense
as a
horizon of
space,
time,
experience
and
expectation
of the historical
actors
which
co-shapes
the
perception
and
interpretation
of
the action.
Implicit
or
explicit
comparative
historiography
history,
which in
the
age
of
Europe?
anization and
globalization
has
probably
become the fastest
growing
area
of historical
science
(Middell
et
al, 2001;
Berger,
2002;
Conrad
Conrad,
2002;
Raphael,
2003),
deals,
in
the
context
of research
on
master
narratives,
myths,
historical
recollections,
cultural and collective
memory,
places
of recollection
and forms of
traditionalization,
in
addition
to
separate
and interwoven
history,
with
the
construction and effect
of
different
conceptions
and
depictions
of the
past
(Raphael,
1990;
Conrad, 1999a,
1999b; Hadler,
2000; Friedrich, 2000;
Kaelble
Rothermund,
2001).
Comparative
historians
now
work
together
with cultural transfer researchers and
increasingly
also
with
experts
in
national
historiography
on
problems concerning
the
culturality
and
historicity
of self
and other. Historical
paths
and views of
history
are
considered
to
a
certain
extent to
be 'constructions'
or
'truths'
dependent
on
the
culture,
time
and interests.
Today,
advocates of historical
comparativism
are
in
wide?
spread
agreement
on
this with
advocates of cultural
transfer
research,
research
on
interculturality, transculturality
and
international
relations.
However,
there
is
greater
dissent
over
the
degree
to
which it is constructed and the relation between so-called
real
and
imagined,
material and
ideal,
social and cultural
developments
and forces.
These
differences,
which
are
frequently
determined
by
scientific,
specialist discipline
specific
and
ideological positions,
mentalities
and
traditions,
are
being
resolved,
not
least
thanks
to
the
empirical
research carried
out
by comparative,
intercultural and
international historians.
Since
the
1990s,
comparative
historical science
has been
sharpening
its cultural
scientific
profile
by
more
consciously
and
more
intensely
processing
the
inquiries
and
findings
of research
on
'cultural
transfer'
and
'interculturality',
which
have
been
making
their
mark since the
1980s
as
separate
specialized
areas
in
the
literary
sciences,
cultural sciences
and cultural
studies.
The cultural transfer
researchers
are
less
concerned with
continuing
a
classic
analysis
of diffusion
processes
and influence rela?
tions
than with
a
social
and cultural
history
of
cultural
contact,
by
inquiring
how and
why
goods
and cultural artefacts
are
appropriated
for
reinterpretation (Schmale,
1998;
Espagne,
2000;
Middell,
2000b).
'Interculturality', together
with the
problem
of
transnationalization,
has
more
often become
the central
topic
of
a
historical science
beyond
the nation
state
and
a
transcultural and worldwide
history
of civilization
(Osterhammel,
2001).
These
new
directions
overlap
with
more
recent
research
on
the
history
of
westernization, easternization,
Europeanization,
Americanization
and
Sovi
etization
(Hudemann
et
al, 1995;
Jarausch
Siegrist,
1997;
H?pken
Sundhaussen,
1998; Gassert,
2001;
M?ller,
2005).
Comparative
historians,
on
account
of their
practised internationality
and intercul?
turality,
are
particularly
open
to
new
topics
and
inquiries
and
have
constantly played
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 17/29
392
H.
Siegrist
a
role
at
the forefront of
historiographical
cultural transfer. In the
1980s and
1990s,
comparative
historical science
made its
name as
a
methodically hybrid
research
branch
which
creatively
linked
social
scientific,
cultural scientific and
historical
approaches.
At
present,
it
is
defining
the
historiographical
mainstream
more
than
ever
before.
Comparative
historical
science
has
assumed
a
pioneering
role
in
Europe,
whose
history
is
characterized
to
a
large
extent
by
the
juxtaposition
of,
clashes
and
negotiations
between
national and
regional
cultures,
with
the 'cultural turn' and the
'spatial
turn'
in
the
historical
sciences,
and exercises
pioneering
functions in
the
internationalization
of
historical,
cultural
and
social
sciences.
Space and spatialization in comparative historical science
The
spatial
dimension of
social
and
symbolic
action
is
extremely important
in
comparative
social and
cultural
history.
From
the
outset,
spatializing
sociocultural
organizations
and
processes
and
territorially
anchoring
differences and distinctions
belong
to
the
core
activities
of
international,
interregional
and
intercultural
compar?
ative historical
science.
On
the
level of
analysis
and
explanation,
historical
comparat?
ivism
is involved with
the
spatial
conditions
of social
and cultural
action and
with
structuring
space
by
means
of
informal social
action,
processes
of
institutionalization
and
government.
In
so
far
as
social,
symbolic
and material
organizations
and
relations
are
condensed and
reinforced
as
'societies,'
'cultures' and
'landscapes',
a
culturally
coded
and
socially
organized
spatial juxtaposition
of 'units of
comparison'
is
formed;
these
are
referred
to
in
comparative
research
in
order
to
understand and
explain
the
form
and function of the
phenomenon
under
examination in
the
relevant
'society'
and
'culture'.
In
comparative
historical
science
studies,
space
is either
understood
as a
static
container
or
regarded
as
the
result
of
dynamic
processes
of
spatialization
or
territori
alization of
what is
social and
cultural.
Thus,
conceptualization
of
space
in
the
historical
sciences
is
not
significantly
different from
that
in
other
social and
cultural
sciences.
Historical
comparative
studies which
are
primarily geared
towards
general?
izations
are
mainly
interested
in
social and
symbolic
processes
of
delocalization
and
universalization,
together
with
forms
of
a
phenomenon's
ubiquity,
universality
and
placelessness. By
contrast,
historical
studies
which
are
primarily
concerned with the
specific
and the
particular
concentrate
on
processes
of
regional
and
national
differen?
tiation
and
concomitant
processes
of
social,
institutional
and
cultural
differentiation;
or on
analysing specialities
and
variations.
Both
cases
involve
a
local
embedding
of
social
and cultural
processes
and
question
to
what
extent
the action of
individual
and
collective
actors
is defined and
enabled
by spatially
structured
and anchored
organi?
zations
of
meaning,
systems
of
action
and material
conditions.
Hitherto,
historical
science has
only
been
defined
to a
minor
extent
in
spatial
scientific
or
geographical
terms.
Most
comparative
studies attribute
the
contexts
of
meaning,
structure
and action
under
examination?with
regard
to
their
origin
and diffusion?
to
a
place,
territory
or
space
(Siegrist, 1996).
In
my
study,
which
deals
with the
history
of
lawyers
in the
area
of
Germany, Italy
and Switzerland
from
the
eighteenth
to
the
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 18/29
Comparative history of
cultures and
societies 393
twentieth
centuries,
I
compare
different
local,
regional,
national and transnational terri?
tories and
spaces,
each
according
to
time
and
thematic
perspectives.
Many comparative
studies
operate
with
concepts
with
spatial
connotations,
such as
'society'
and
'culture',
and
they designate
specific
social and cultural
developments,
ensembles
and
types
with
geographical
names
and details
of
origin.
On
a
cultural
level,
the
spatial
dimension
can
be defined
as a
permeable
area
of
perception
and
meaning
which
corresponds
to
an
abstract scientific
spatial
image
or
an
everyday
spatial conception
of the
actors
and
can
be understood
as
'imaginary
geography'
or a
'cultural
map'
(Werlen,
1997;
Fach
et
al,
1998; Ahrens, 2001, pp.
43-67; L?w,
2001;
Siegrist,
2001a).
'Culture'
or
'cultures'
are
thereby
understood
as
special, temporally
and
spatially
relatively
stable,
interpretation
models and values
which are
divided
by
a
group
of
people
and used
to
interpret 'reality'
(Gerhards,
2000,
pp.
10f.).
Such
units of cultural
comparison
more or
less
overlap
with 'societ?
ies', i.e.,
with
relatively
stable
social constructions and
areas
of
action
which,
on
account
of
common
institutions
and
power
processes,
are
differentiated
from
other,
territorially
anchored
societies,
yet
are
also
to
a
certain
extent
permeable.
Since in
modern and
dynamic
societies and cultures the
relationship
between
the
everyday,
space-related
practice
of the
actors,
the
institutionalized
space
and the
scientific
conceptions
of the
space
is
relatively contingent,
comparative
historical science
has
to
define and
hierarchize
its units of
spatial
comparison
in
each
case
with
regard
to
the
inquiry
and the
phenomenon
to
be
explained.
Nonetheless,
the
dimension
of the
space
and
spatialization
has
hitherto
been taken
into
account
and
conceptualized
in
different
ways
in
comparative
historical
science.
In
many
comparative
studies
on
eighteenth
to
twentieth
century
history,
space
functions
as an
ahistorical
geographical
container
or as a
fixed,
historically
real
and
politically, legally
and
administratively
institutionalized
territory.
Since the
early
twentieth
century,
there has
been
competition
in
comparative
historical science
between
a
(relatively)
space-indifferent
form
of
comparativism
and
a
historical
geographical
form
of
comparativism,
which
explicitly
expounds
the
problems
of
the
significance
of
spatial
structure
for social
action and
emphasizes
the
way
in which
space
is structured
by
the
actors.
The
latter is also
represented by
the
historical
geographical
form
of
comparativism
influenced
by
Marc Bloch and
the French
Annales
school,
which is
differentiated,
with
regard
to
the
spatial
concept,
into
a
constructivist
and
a
structuralist direction
(W?stemeyer,
1972;
Lefebvre, 1991;
Bloch,
2000).
In
the
Germany
of the
first half
of
the
century,
this
was
represented
by
the
cultural
space
concept
of
'Land
history'
which,
on
account
of its
involvement in
the
nationalist and racist science of
the National
Socialists,
was
unable
to
play
a
role
in
the reinvention of
comparativism
in
West
German historical
science
(Blackbourn,
1999; Koselleck,
2000).
Ever since
the dimension of
space
was
thoroughly
rediscov?
ered in the
1990s
by
the
historical,
social and
cultural
sciences,
there has been
noth?
ing
left
to
hinder
the 'return of
space'
in
comparative
historical science. It
needs
concepts
from
spatial
science
in
order
to
classify
and select its units of
comparison
and
in
order
to
obtain
an
additional
level of
explanation
for the
phenomena
under
examination.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 19/29
394
H.
Siegrist
Comparative
historical science
and
research
into
cultural
transfer,
interculturality
and
international
relations
can
mediate between biased research
directions
which
stress
deterritorialization,
transnationalization and universalization tendencies and
approaches
which
are
committed
a
priori
to
researching
social
and cultural
processes
and
structures
in
spaces
with
a
specific
standard
(small
spaces
in
micro-history,
medium
spaces
in
regional
and national
history,
large
spaces
in
the
history
of
'civilizations',
'Europe'
and
the
'world').
In
so
far
as
comparative
historical
science
takes into
account
both
the
permeability
and
fluidity
of
spaces
and the
tension
and
interdependence
between
the
local,
national and
global,
it
can
also better
integrate
the
approaches
and
results
of research into
cultural
transfer,
interculturality,
transna?
tionalization,
globalization
and localization
(Immerfall
et
al.,
1998).
If
cultural
transfer research demands a
'history
of
points
of contact and forms of articulation of
different
cultural
spaces',
this is
easily
combined with
the demands
of
a
space
sensitive form
of
comparative
social and
cultural
history
(Espagne,
2000,
p.
58).
Comparative
historical science
must,
however,
somewhat
relativize
the
classic rule
of
comparison
according
to
which units of
comparison
must
be
'isolated,
autonomous
and
inherently dynamic'
(Haupt
Kocka,
1996,
p.
10
Osterhammel,
2001),
by
indi?
cating
that
this is
only
relevant
in the
case
of causal
explanations.
At the
same
time,
contextualizing
and
historicizing comparative
research demonstrates that
'auton?
omy',
'inherent
dynamism'
and
'similarity'
are
also
historically
ambiguous
and
culturally
relative.
The units
of
comparison
are
constituted
by
the historical
actors
and
understood
and
designated
by
historical
comparativists
as
spatialized
'societies',
'cultures',
'civi?
lizations',
'regions'
and
'nations'.
Names
(such
as
Saxony, Germany,
central
Europe,
Europe),
and the
fields
of
words and
meaning
and
discourses
associated
with
them,
refer,
firstly,
to
a
geographically
defined
area
(i.e.,
defined
by
geographers);
secondly,
to
a
politically
and
administratively
limited
territory;
and
thirdly
to
'territorialized
units of
meaning
with
unclear
boundaries'
which
are
constituted
by
a
standard
meaning
or
processes
of
charging
and
conciseness
(K?hnke,
2001,
p.
29).
The
most
recent
cultural
historical
or
constructivist research
on
nationalization and
regionalization
reconstructs
discourses
and
terms
which
have
given
a
relevant
space
its
structure,
function and
meaning
as a
'nation'
or
'region'.
It
moves
in
similar
spheres
to
Edward
Said
and Maria
Todorova,
whose
literary
scientific
and
historical
research
inquire
into
the
place
and
space-structuring
potential
of
metaphors
and
discourses for the
'Orient'
and the 'Balkans'
(Said,
1997,
p.
258).
Whereas
non-comparative
history
concentrates
on
inquiring
into the
consistency
and coherence
of
a
national
meaning
and social
organization
in
one
area,
comparative
social and
cultural
history
tries
to
find the
point
from
which
a
horizon
of
meaning,
institutional
framework and
a
social
or
cultural
regime
either
lose?or
gain?in
terms
of
interpretational
power,
plausibility
and
social commitment.
It is
interested
in
how
and
why
a
local horizon of
meaning
turns
into
organizations
of action
and
horizons of
interpretation
which
cover
several
units,
on
account
of
intersocietal and intercultural
interactions,
cultural
transfers
and
intercultural
dialogues.
On this
basis,
less
two
dimensional
and
spatially
diffuse
phenomena
of cultural
differentiation
can
be
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 20/29
Comparative
history
of
cultures
and societies 395
comprehended,
which
can
only
be
referred back
symbolically
to
a
specific place,
such
as
the
'transterritoriality'
of national
emigrant
communities
(Spiliotis,
2001),
the
multiculturality
of
the
emigrant
(Green, 1994),
the
diaspora
and the
Jewish
Stetl;
equally,
the
modern
global
city,
in which the
centre
and
the
periphery
of
the
world
mingle socially,
culturally
and
locally
and where localists
(who
refer
to
a
local
organi?
zation of
meaning,
values
and
action)
and
cosmopolitans
(with
a
primarily
super-local
and
placeless
horizon
of
reference)
coexist
(Ahrens,
2001; Low,
2001).
Comparing
spaces
and
spatializations
is
a
specific
characteristic of
comparative
historical science. For
a
long
time,
this
has
stressed
comparisons
and
concentrating
on
the dimension
of time for methodical
specialization
so
heavily
that the dimension
of
space
and
the
processes
of
spatialization
and
despatialization
have
remained
compar?
atively underexposed
in
previous
theoretical
and
practice-orientated presentations
of
comparative
historical science
(Haupt
Kocka, 1996b;
Kaelble,
1996;
now
different
for
Kocka,
2006).
In
my
opinion,
however,
comparative
historical
science
should
now
sharpen
its
profile
in
comparison
with other
disciplines, precisely
because
of
the
prob?
lems
associated with
space
and territorialization.
Comparative
historical
science should
therefore make
concepts,
approaches
and
procedures
of
spatial
and territorialization
research,
which
are
contained
in
many
comparative
studies,
a
central
hallmark of histor?
ical
comparativism.
By firmly including
and
reflecting
on
the dimension
of
space
and
analysing
processes
of
territorial
differentiation,
homogenization
and
exchange,
social
and cultural
historical
comparison
gains
in
terms
of
profile
and
connectivity.
It
treats
units of
comparison
such
as
'nations',
'societies'
or
'cultures'
respectively
as
the
historical result
of
many
and
diverse,
competing
and
interdependent
social and
symbolic
processes
of
construction
and
reproduction
with which the
actors
give
an
'area' its
function
and
meaning
as a
sociocultural
'space'
or
as
a
state
or
administratively
composed
'territory'.
The real
or
presumed
sense
of
belonging
rests
on a
place-related
organization
of
meaning
and action and
a
construction
of institutions
which
enables
and defines
social and
symbolic
processes
and
practices.
The units
of
comparison
appear
to
be units
of
structure
and
processes
because
they
are
joined together objectively
and
functionally
or
because
they
are
considered
to
be
joined together by
the
actors.
Comparative
social
and cultural
history
works
on
the
heuristically
more
rewarding
assumption
that
the
general
and
specific
facets of
a
phenomenon
can
only
be under?
stood
by
means
of
a
comparative analysis
of
structures
of
meaning
and
action which
are
territorially
institutionalized but also
interact and communicate
in
many
and
diverse
ways.
The
aim
of
comparisons
is
to
understand
and
explain
the
form,
meaning
and
function of
a
phenomenon
in
several
units which
to
a
certain
extent
can
also be
identified
spatially
or
territorially.
It is
to
be
hoped
and
expected
that
in
future
the
potential
of
comparative
historical
science
will
be
expanded
and intensified
in
order
to
be used
as
a
history,
innovative
in
terms
of
content
and
method,
of
socializations,
collectivizations
and
spatializations
in
Europe
and the
world.
A
history
of
Europe
which
understands
Europe
as
a seman?
tic and
social
structure
in
a
state
of
constant
change,
a
history
of transnationalization
and
globalization
which
does
not
only
wish
to concentrate
on
the 'new
placelessness
and
ubiquity',
a
'world
history'
(Bentley,
2002)
which
not
only
evokes
but also
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 21/29
396
H.
Siegrist
empirically
analyses
the
pluricentric
and interwoven
world,
and
a
'history
of civiliza?
tions' which does
not
only
wish
to
reproduce
commonplaces,
will be unable
to
exist
without
comparative
historical
science,
however
not in a form which is
adequate
for
current
scientific standards
(Kaelble,
1999,
pp. 79-92; Osterhammel,
2001).
Conclusion:
social
and cultural
difference,
multi-perspectivity
and
interculturality
in
comparative
historical science
It remains
to
be mentioned that what
was
originally
a more
social scientific
and
institution-related
historical form of
comparative
research has
developed
over
the
course
of 40
years
into
a
comparative history
of
cultures and societies
in
a
broader
sense.
Integrated
comparative history
of cultures
and
societies,
which
benefited
from
the simultaneous further
development
of
perspectives
and methods
in
cultural
scientific
tendencies
(cultural
transfer,
interculturality, comparative literary
science,
translation
sciences,
etc.)
and
has
proven
to
be
comparatively
well-suited
to
integration,
analyses
the
prerequisites,
forms and
consequences
of
processes
of social and cultural
differ?
entiation. Differences
and similarities
represent,
from
a
historical
systematic viewpoint,
the result of
processes
of
symbolic
and social
differentiation
or
de-differentiation
and
can
be
reconstructed
as
such
empirically.
The
starting point
and
objects
of
historical
comparativism,
communication
research
and transfer research
are
social and cultural differences
and the
institutionalization
of
these
in
social
constellations
and cultural
contexts,
i.e.,
in
and between
more or
less
spatialized
societies
and
semantic
systems.
It
is
assumed that differences and
similar?
ities
are
produced,
negotiated,
institutionalized
and
provided
with
names
and
mean?
ings by
means
of
interactive and intercultural
processes
in
and
between social
and
cultural
systems
(or
members of
them).
In
so
far
as
contemporary
actors
interpret
recollections and
experiences,
they
turn
present
'differences'
into
historical-culturally
substantiated
'distinctions'.
Only
this
can
explain
why
one
particular
difference
is
regarded by
one
person
as
smaller,
finer
or more
gradual
and
by
another
as
more
fundamental and
more
absolute.
Distinction
knowledge,
which
manifests
itself
in
'behaviour',
in territorialized
stereotypes
of
self
and
other, theories,
historical
narra?
tives and discourses
on
special
ways,
particular
historical
paths
and
path dependen?
cies,
uses
supposed
and
real
differences
to
make
meaningful
distinctions
which
by
appropriate
action also
become
socially
real. Historical
science
not
only
observes
these
processes
but is
decisively
involved in them. Processes of this kind have been modeled
in social
psychology
and
sociology;
in
the
theory
of
cognitive
consonance
and disso?
nance,
in
symbolic
interactionism and
in
the
cultural
sociology
of
Pierre
Bourdieu.
Today, comparative
social and cultural
history
is
distinguished
on
the
one
hand
from
a
monoperspectivist,
individualizing,
historical
genetic
national and
regional
form
of
history,
which is
primarily
used
to create
identity;
on
the other
hand from the tradi?
tional
comparative
sociology
and social
history,
which
was
also
monoperspectivist
in
so
far
as
it
interpreted
the
meaning
and function
of
a
'variable
development'
in the
different
units of
comparison by
means
of
a
single
theory.
The
key
terms
of
more
recent
comparative
historical
science
are
multiperspectivity
(understood
as
a
pluralism
of
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 22/29
Comparative history
of
cultures
and
societies 397
perspectives)
and
interculturality.
*Multiperspectivity'
means
that
a
specific
phenome?
non
is
analysed
from
a
number
of
different
historical,
social,
cultural
and
spatial
perspectives
and horizons of
interpretation;
from internal and
external
perspectives,
from
mediatory
and
all-embracing
intercultural and transnational
perspectives,
and
from the
bird's-eye
view of
highly
abstract ideal
types
or
theories whose
spatial
and
temporal validity
is
checked
and
defined
by
means
of
comparison.
The
art
of
compar?
ison
comprises determining
the
hierarchy,
coherence and
interdependence
of these
different
perspectives.
'interculturality'
means
the character of the relations and interactions between
'cultures',
'achievement
of
communication
with
cultural
foreignness' (Schmeling,
2000,
p.
188; Zima,
2000),
the
'dialogue
which modifies the
viewpoints
of
all
involved'
(N?nning,
2004,
p.
283)
by reflecting
on
one's
own
cultural
position
and
horizon of
values
as a
'prerequisite
for
intercultural intellectual interaction'
(Schmeling,
2000,
p.
190).
Marc
Bloch,
one
of the
great
pioneers
of
comparative
history, pleaded
for
more
interculturality
in
1928
at
the international historians'
congress
in
Oslo,
by calling
on
his
colleagues
to
cease
sealing
themselves
off from each other
in
national
concept
worlds,
but
to
reach
an
agreement
on common
terms
(Bloch,
2000;
Sch?ttler,
2000).
Notes
on
contributor
Hannes Siegrist is professor of contemporary and comparative history of Europe at
the
University
of
Leipzig,
Faculty
of
Social Sciences.
His
main
recent
books and
articles about
comparative
history
are
H.
Siegrist
(1996)
Advokat,
B?rger
und
Staat.
Sozialgeschichte
der Rechtsanw?lte
in
Deutschland,
Italien und der Schweiz
(18.-20.Jh.)
[Social
history
of
lawyers
in
Germany,
Italy
and
Switzerland]
(Frank?
furt
a.
M.,
Klostermann).
Some
aspects
are
resumed
in
English
in
the
following:
'Juridicalisation,
professionalisation
and
the
occupational
culture
of
the advocate
in
the
nineteenth
and the
early-twentieth
centuries.
A
comparison
of
Germany,
Italy
and
Switzerland',
in:
D.
Sugarman
W. Pue
(2003)
Lawyers
and
vampires.
Cultural histories of legal professions (Hart Publishing); 'The professions in nine?
teenth-century Europe',
in: H.
Kaelble
(2004)
The
European
way.
European
Soci?
eties
during
the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries
(Berghahn);
'Bourgeoisie,
middle
classes,
history
of,
in:N.
J.
Smelser
P. B. Baltes
(2001)
International
encyclopedia
of
the social and behavioral sciences. Volume
2
(Pergamon).
The
volume
of H.
Siegrist,
R.
Hohls
I.
Schr?der
(2005)
(Eds) Europa
und
die
Europ?er.
Quellen
und
Essays
zur
modernen
europ?ischen
Geschichte
[Europe
and
the
Europeans.
Sources
and
essays
on
modern
European history]
(Stuttgart,
Steiner)
contains
a
problem-centered
and
source-based
introduction
to
contemporary
European
historiography with a number of comparative essays.
References
Ahrens,
D.
(2001)
Grenzen
der
Entr?umlichung.
Weltst?dte,
Cyberspace
und transnationale
R?ume in
der
globalisierten
Moderne
[On
the limits of
despatialization.
World
cities,
cyberspace
and
transnational
spaces
in the
globalized
modern
world]
(Opladen,
Leske
Budrich).
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 23/29
398
H.
Siegrist
Albisetti,
J.
(1994)
Deutsche Lehrerinnen
im
19.
Jahrhundert
im
internationalen
Vergleich
[German
female
teachers
in
the 19th
century
from
a
comparative perspective],
in:
J. Juliane
(Ed.) Frauen zwischen Familie und Schule. Professionalisierungsstrategien b?rgerlicher Frauen im
internationalen
Vergleich
[Women
between
family
and
school.
Professionalization-strategies
of
middle-class
women
in
international
comparison]
(K?ln,
B?hlau),
28-53.
Albisetti,
J (2000)
Portia
ante
portas.
Women and the
legal
profession
in
Europe,
c.a.
1870-1925,
Journal
of
Social
History,
33(4),
825-857.
Bentley,
J.
H.
(2002)
From
national
history
toward world
history,
in:
M.
Middell
(Ed.)
Vom
Brasilienvertrag
zur
Glob
algeschichte.
In
Erinnerung
an
Manfred
Kossok
anl??lich
seines
70.
Geburtstags [From
the
treaty
of
Brasilia
to
a
global history.
In
memory
of
Manfred
Kossok]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag),
169-182.
Berger,
S.
(2002)
Geschichten
von
der
Nation.
Einige
vergleichende
Thesen
zur
deutschen,
englis?
chen,
franz?sischen
und italienischen
Nationalgeschichtsschreibung
seit 1800
[Comparison
of
German,
English,
French and Italian
national
historiography],
in: C.
Conrad
(Ed.)
Die Nation
schreiben:
Geschichtswissenschaft
im
internationalen
Vergleich
[Writing
the
Nation.
History
in
international
comparison.]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
49-77.
Blackbourn,
D.
(1999)
A
sense
of place.
New
directions in
German
history
(London,
German Historical
Institute).
Bloch,
M.
(2000)
F?r eine
vergleichende
Geschichte der
europ?ischen
Gesellschaften
[For
a
compar?
ative
history
of
European
societies],
in: P.
Sch?ttler
(Ed.)
Aus der Werkstatt des Historikers. Zur
Theorie und
Praxis
der
Geschichtswissenschaft
[Theory
and
practice
of
a
historian] (Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
122-159.
Bock,
G.
(2000)
Frauen
in
der
europ?ischen
Geschichte.
Vom
Mittelalter
bis
zur
Gegenwart
[Women
in
European history.
From the middle
age
to
the
present] (Munich, Beck).
Budde,
G.
F.
(1994) Auf
dem
Weg
ins
B?rgerleben.
Kindheit und
Erziehung
in deutschen
und
englischen
B?rgerfamilien
1840-1914
[Childhood
and
education
in German and
English
middle-class
families
1840-1914]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Budde,
G.
F.
(1997)
Des Haushalts sch?nster Schmuck.
Die Hausfrau als
Konsumexpertin
des
deutschen und
englischen
B?rgertums
im
19.
und
fr?hen
20.
Jahrhundert
[Women
in
the
German and
English
middle
classes
as
experts
in
consumption
in
the nineteenth
and
early
twentieth
centuries],
in: H.
Siegrist,
H. Kaelble
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Europ?ische Konsumge?
schichte.
Zur
Gesellschafts-
und
Kulturgeschichte
des
Konsums
(18.-20. Jh.) [European history
of
consumption
(18th-20th
century)]
(Frankfurt
a.
M,
Campus),
411-440.
Charle,
C.
(1997)
Vordenker
der
Moderne.
Die
Intellektuellen
im
19.
Jahrhundert [Intellectuals
in
the
nineteenth century] (Frankfurt a. M., Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag).
Charle,
C.
(2005)
Les
soci?t?s
imp?riales
d'hier
?
aujourd'hui.
Quelques propositions
pour
repenser
l'histoire du second XXe si?cle
en
Europe
[Imperial
societies from
yesterday
to
today.
Some
propositions
for
rethinking
European
history during
the second half of
the
twentieth
century], Journal of
Modern
European
History,
3(2),
123-139.
Charle, C, Schriewer,
J.
Wagner,
P.
(2004) (Eds)
Transnational
intellectual
networks.
Forms
of
academic
knowledge
and the search
for
cultural identities
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
Cleve,
I.
(1996)
Geschmack,
Kunst
und Konsum.
Kulturpolitik
als
Wirtschaftspolitik
in Frankreich und
W?rttemberg
(1805-1845) [Taste,
art
and
consumption.
Cultural
policy
as
economic
policy
in
France and
W?rttemberg (1805-1845)]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Conrad,
C.
Conrad,
S.
(2002)
Die Nation schreiben:
Geschichtswissenschaft
im internationalen
Vergleich
[Historical
science in
international
comparison]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Conrad,
S.
(1999a)
What
time
is
Japan?
Problems
of
comparative
(intercultural)
historiography,
History
and
Theory,
38(1),
67-83.
Conrad,
S.
(1999b) Auf
der Suche nach der verlorenen Nation.
Geschichtsschreibung
in Westdeutschland
und
Japan
1945-1960
[Historiography
inWest
Germany
and
Japan
1945-1990] (G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 24/29
Comparative
history
of
cultures and societies
399
Conrad,
S.
Randeria,
S.
(2002)
Geteilte
Geschichten?Europa
in einer
postkolonialen
Welt
[Shared
histories.
Europe
in
a
postcolonial
world],
in: S. Conrad
S.
Randeria
(Eds) Jenseits
des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
[Beyond
Eurocentrism. Postcolonial
perspectives
in
historical
and
cultural
sciences]
(Frank?
furt
a.
M./New
York,
Campus),
9-49.
Daniel,
U.
(2001)
Kompendium Kulturgeschichte.
Theorien,
Praxis,
Schl?sselw?rte
[Compendium
of
cultural
history. Theory, practice, concepts]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Suhrkamp).
Dlugoborski,
W.
(1988)
Das
polnische
B?rgertum
vor
1918
in
vergleichender Perspektive
[The
Polish middle-classes before
1918
from
a
comparative
perspective],
in:
J.
Kocka
(Ed.) B?rgertum
im
19.
Jahrhundert.
Deutschland im
europ?ischen
Vergleich. [The
middle-class
in
the 19th
century.
Germany
in
international
comparison]
Volume
1
(Munich,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
266
299.
Eckermann,
W.
Mohr,
H.
(Eds) (1966)
Einf?hrung
in
das Studium der Geschichte
[Introduction
to
history]
(Berlin,
Deutscher
Verlag
der
Wissenschaften),
78-80.
Eisenstadt,
S.
N.
(2003)
Comparative
civilizations
and
multiple
modernities
(Leiden,
Brill).
Espagne,
M.
(2000)
Kulturtransfer und
Fachgeschichte
der Geisteswissenschaften
[Cultural
transfer
and
the
history
of the
humanities], Comparativ,
10(2),
42-61.
Espagne,
M.
(2003)
Transferanalyse
statt
Vergleich.
Interkulturalit?t
in der
s?chsischen
regional
geschichte [Interculturality
in
Saxon
history],
in: H.
Kaelble
J.
Schriewer
(Eds) Vergleich
und
Transfer. Komparatistik
in den
Sozial-,
Geschichts- und
Kulturwissenschaften [Comparison
and transfer.
Comparativism
in
the
social,
historical and cultural
sciences] (Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
Fach,
W.,
Wollersheim, H.-W.,
K?hnle, K.-C, Middell,
M.,
M?hler,
K.
Tzschaschel,
S.
(1998)
Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse.
Konturen eines
For-schungsprogramms
[Processes
of identification with
a
region],
in: H. W. Wollersheim
(1998) Region
und Identi?
fikation
[Region
and
identification]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag),
1-32.
Fischer,
W.
(1985)
Handbuch der
europ?ischen Wirtschafts-
und
Sozialgeschichte
[Manual
of European
economic and social
history.
Volume
5] (Stuttgart,
Klett-Cotta).
Fischer,
W.
(2004)
Wirtschafts- und
Sozialgeschichte
an
der
Freien
Universit?t
Berlin
1955-2004
[Economic
and social
history
at
the
Freie Universit?t
Berlin
1955-2004], Scripta
Mercaturae,
39(1),
45-73.
Friedrich,
C.
(2000)
Die
Konstituierung
von
Regionalgeschichte
in
Sachsen und der
Bretagne
und ihre
Rolle
f?r
regionale
Identifikation
[The
constitution of
regional
history
and
regional
identification
in
Saxony
and
Brittany], Comparativ,
10(2),
93-107.
F?hrer, K. C.
(1999)
Die Rechte von Hausbesitzern und Mietern im Ersten
Weltkrieg
und in der
Zwischenkriegszeit.
Frankreich,
Gro?britannien
und
Deutschland
im
Vergleich
[The
rights
of
house-owners and
tenants
in
the First World War and the interwar
period.
A
comparison
of
France,
Great Britain and
Germany],
in:
H.
Siegrist
D.
Sugarman
(Eds)
Eigentum
im
internationalen
Vergleich
(18.-20.
Jh.)
[Property
in
international
comparison]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
225-241.
Gassert,
P.
(2001)
Die
Bundesrepublik,
Europa
und
der
Westen. Zu
Verwestlichung,
Demokrat?
isierung
und
einigen komparatistischen
Defiziten
der
zeithistorischen
Forschung [Westerniza?
tion,
democratization and
some
comparative
deficits of
contemporary
historiography],
in:
J.
Baberowski,
E.
Conze,
P. Gassert
M.
Sabrow
(2001)
Geschichte
ist immer
Gegenwart
[History
is
always
present]
(Munich,
Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt),
67-89.
Gerhards,
J.
(2000)
Einleitende
Bemerkungen
[On
cultural
differences],
in:
J.
Gerhards,
Die
Vermessung
kultureller
Unterschiede. USA
und
Deutschland im
Vergleich
[How
to
explore
cultural
differences.
USA
and
Germany
in
comparison]
(Wiesbaden,
Westdeutscher
Verlag),
7-13.
Green,
N.
L.
(1994)
The
comparative
method and
poststructural
structuralism.
New
perspectives
for
migration
studies,
Journal of
American Ethnic
History,
13(4),
3-22.
Hadler,
F.
(2000) Meistererz?hlungen
?ber die
erste
Jahrtausendwende.
Deutungen
des
Jahres
1000 in
Gesamtdarstellungen
zur
polnischen,
ungarischen
und tschechischen
Nationalge
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 25/29
400 H.
Siegrist
schichte
[Master
narratives.
The
year
1000 in
Polish,
Hungarian
and
Czech national
history],
Comparativ,
10(2),
81-92.
Han?k, P. (1992) Der Garten und die Werkstatt. Ein kulturgeschichtlicher Vergleich Wien und Budapest
um
1900
[A
cultural-historical
comparison
of
Vienna and
Budapest
around
1900] (Vienna,
B?hlau).
Hardtwig,
W.
Wehler,
H. U.
(1996)
Einleitung
[Introduction.
Cultural
history
today],
in:W.
Hardtwig
H. U. Wehler
(1996) Kulturgeschichte
heute
[Cultural
history
today]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
7-13.
Haupt,
H. G.
(1996)
Eine
schwierige
?ffnung
nach au?en.
Die
international
vergleichende
Geschichtswissenschaft
in
Frankreich
[International
comparative history
in
France],
in:
H.
G.
Haupt
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Geschichte und
Vergleich.
Ans?tze und
Ergebnisse
international
vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung
[History
and
comparison.
International
comparative
histori?
ography]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
77-90.
Haupt,
H. G.
(2001)
Comparative history,
International
encyclopedia
of
the social and behavioral
sciences
(Amsterdam, Elsevier),
2397-2403.
Haupt,
H. G.
(2003)
Die Geschichte
Europas
als
vergleichende Geschichtsschreibung
[The
history
of
Europe
as
comparative
historiography], Comparativ,
14(3),
83-97.
Haupt,
H.
G.
Crossick,
G.
(1995)
Petite
bourgeoisie
in
Europe,
1780-1914.
Enterprise, family
and
independence (London, Routledge).
Haupt,
H. G.
Kocka,
J.
(1996a)
Historischer
Vergleich.
Methoden,
Aufgaben,
Probleme
[The
historical
comparison.
Methods,
tasks,
problems.
An
introduction],
in: H. G.
Haupt
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Geschichte und
Vergleich.
Ans?tze und
Ergebnisse
international
vergleichender
Geschichtsschreibung
[International
comparative historiography]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
9-45.
Haupt,
H. G.
Kocka,
J.
(1996b)
Geschichte und
Vergleich.
Ans?tze und
Ergeb-nisse
international
vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung [History
and
comparison.
International
comparative
histori?
ography]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
H?pken,
W.
Sundhaussen,
H.
(1998)
Eliten
in
S?dosteuropa.
Rolle.
Kontinuit?ten,
Br?che in
Geschichte
und
Gegenwart
[Elites
in
south
eastern
Europe.
Role,
continuity,
breaks
in
history
and
presence]
(Munich,
S?dosteuropa-Gesellschaft).
Hroch,
M.
(2000)
In the
national interest. Demands and
goals
of European
national
movements
of
the
nineteenth
century:
a
comparative
perspective
(Prague,
Charles
University,
Faculty
of
Arts).
Hudemann,
R.,
Kaelble,
H.
Schwabe,
K.
(1995)
Europa
im Blick der
Historiker
[Europe
from the
view
of
historians] (Munich,
Oldenburg).
Immerfall, S.,
Conway,
P.,
Crumley,
C. Jarausch, K.
(1998)
Disembeddedness and localization.
The
persistence
of
territory,
in:
S.
Immerfall
(Ed.)
Territoriality
in the
globalizing
society.
One
place
or
none
(Berlin,
Springer),
173-204.
J?ger,
F.
(1999)
Der
Vergleich
in
der
Ideengeschichte
der Gesellschaft
[The
comparison
in
the
history
of
ideas],
in:
H. Kaelble
J.
Schriewer
(Eds)
Diskurse
und
Entwicklungspfade.
Gesell?
schaftsvergleich
in den
Geschichts- und
Sozialwissenschaften [Discurses
and
paths.
The
compari?
son
of
societies
in the
historical and social
sciences]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
401-430.
Jarausch,
K.
H.
Siegrist,
H.
(1997)
Amerikanisierung
und
Sowjetisierung.
Eine
vergleichende
Fragestellung
zur
deutsch-deutschen
Nachkriegsgeschichte
[Americanization
and Sovietiza
tion],
in:
K.
H.
Jarausch
H.
Siegrist
(Eds)
Amerikanisierung
und
Sowjetisierung
in
Deutschland
1945-1970
[Americanization
and
sovietization
in
Germany
1945-1970] (Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
11-46.
Kaelble,
H.
(1987) Auf
dem
Weg
zu
einer
europ?ischen
Gesellschaft.
Eine
Sozialgeschichte
Westeuropas:
1880-1980
[Towards
a
European Society.
A
social
history
of
western
Europe: 1880-1980]
(Munich, Beck).
Kaelble,
H.
(1996)
Vergleichende Sozialgeschichte
des
19.
und 20.
Jahrhunderts.
Forschungen
europ?ischer
Historiker
[Comparative
social
history
of the
nineteenth and twentieth
centuries],
in: H. G.
Haupt
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Geschichte und
Vergleich.
Ans?tze und
Ergebnisse
international
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 26/29
Comparative
history of
cultures and societies 401
vergleichender
Geschichtsschreibung
[History
and
comparison.
International
comparative
histori?
ography]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
91-130.
Kaelble, H. (1997) Europ?ische Besonderheiten des Massenkonsums 1950-1990 [European
particularities
of
mass
consumption
1950-1990],
in:
H.
Siegrist,
H. Kaelble
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Europ?ische
Konsumgeschichte.
Zur
Gesellschafts-
und
Kulturgeschichte
des Konsums
(18.-20. Jh.)
[European history
of
consumption (18th-20th
century)] (Frankfurt
a.
M,
Campus),
169-203.
Kaelble,
H.
(1999)
Der
historische
Vergleich.
Eine
Einf?hrung
zum
19. und
20.
Jahrhundert
[The
historical
comparison.
An
introduction]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.
/New
York,
Campus).
Kaelble,
H.
(2004)
Social
particularities
of nineteenth-
and
twentieth-century Europe,
in: H.
Kaelble
(Ed.)
The
European
way.
European
societies
during
the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(New
York,
Berghahn),
276-317.
Kaelble,
H.
Rothermund,
D.
(2001)
Nichtwestliche
Geschichtswissenschaften
seit
1945
[Non-western
historiography
since
1945]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag).
Kaelble,
H.
Schriewer,
J.
(1998)
Gesellschaften
im
Vergleich
[Societies
in
comparison]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Peter
Lang).
Kaelble,
H.
Schriewer,
J.
(1999)
Diskurse und
Entwicklungspfade.
Der
Gesellschaftsvergleich
in
den
Geschichts-
und
Sozialwissenschaften
[The
comparison
of societies
in the historical and
social
sciences] (Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
Kaelble,
H.
Schriewer,
J.
(2003)
Vergleich
und
Transfer. Komparatistik
in den
Sozial-,
Geschichts-
und
Kulturwissenschaften
[Comparison
in the
social,
historical and cultural
sciences]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
Kiesewetter,
H.
(2000)
Region
und Industrie in
Europa
1815-1995
[Region
and
industry
in
Europe
1815-1995] (Stuttgart,
Franz
Steiner).
Kocka, J. (1977) Angestellte
zwischen Faschismus
und Demokratie.
Zur
politischen Sozialgeschichte
der
Angestellten:
USA
1890-1940
im internationalen
Vergleich
[The
political
social
history
of
white-collar
workers.
The
United
States
1980-1940
in
an
international
comparison]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Kocka,
J.
(1995)
Das
europ?ische
Muster
und der deutsche
Fall
[The
German
and the
European
middle-classes],
in:
J.
Kocka
(Ed.)
B?rgertum
im
19.
Jahrhundert.
Vol.
1:
Einheit und
Vielfalt
Europas
[The
middle-class
in
the 19th
century
(vol.
1:
Unity
and
variety
of
Europe)]
(G?ttin?
gen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
9-84.
Kocka,
J. (1996)
Historische
Komparatistik
in
Deutschland
[The
historical
comparison
in
Germany],
in: H. G.
Haupt
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Geschichte und
Vergleich.
Ans?tze
und
Ergebnisse
international
vergleichender
Geschichtsschreibung
[History
and
comparison.
International
comparative historiography]
(Frankfurt
a. M.,
Campus),
47-60.
Kocka,
J.
(1998)
Storia
comparata
[Comparative
history],
Enciclopedia
dette
scienze sociali
[Encyclo?
pedia
of social
science] (Rome,
Istituto
della
Enciclopedia
Italiana).
Kocka,
J. (2000a)
Das ?stliche
Mitteleuropa
als
Herausforderung
f?r
eine
vergleichende
Geschichte
Europas
[Central
eastern
Europe
as a
challenge
for
a
comparative history
of
Europe], Zeitschrift
f?r Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung,
49(2),
159-174.
Kocka,
J.
(2000b)
B?rgertum
und
Sonderweg
[The
middle classes
and
the
German
'Sonderweg'],
in:
P.
Lundgreen
(Ed.)
Sozial- und
Kulturgeschichte
des
B?rgertums.
Eine Bilanz
des
Bielefelder
Sonderforschungsbereichs
(1986-1997)
[Social
and cultural
history
of
the
middle-class]
(G?ttin?
gen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht),
93-110.
Kocka,
J. (2006)
Sozialgeschichte
im Zeitalter der
Globalisierung
[Social
history
in the
age
of
globalization],
Merkur,
4,
305-316.
Kocka,
J. (in
press)
Wandlungen
der
Sozial- und
Gesellschaftsgeschichte
am
Beispiel
Berlins
1949-2005
[Social history
and
history
of societies.
Historiography
in
Berlin
1949-2005],
Geschichte und
Gesellschaft,
forthcoming.
Kogan,
M.
(2005)
Modes
of
knowledge
and
patterns
of
power,
Higher
Education,
49(1/2),
9-30.
K?hnke,
K. C.
(2001)
?ber
einige Grundbegriffe
'kulturwissenschaftlicher
Regionenforschung
[Concepts
for research
on
regions
and
cultures].
Kulturwissenschaftliche Regionenforschung.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 27/29
402
H.
Siegrist
Jahrbuch
des SFB
417,
1
[Research
on
regions
and
cultures]
(Leipzig, Leipziger
Universit?ts?
verlag),
25-37.
Koselleck, R. (2000) Raum und Geschichte [Space and history], in: R. Koselleck (Ed.) Zeitschichten.
Studien
zur
Historik
[Studies
of
history]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Suhrkamp).
Landes,
D.
S.
(2005)
The wealth
and
poverty
of
nations.
Why
some
are
so
rich and
some
so
poor
(London, Abacus).
Lefebvre,
H.
(1991)
The
production of
space
(Oxford,
Blackwell).
Low,
M.
(2001)
Raumsoziologie
[Sociology
of
space]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Suhrkamp).
Merl,
S.
(1997)
Staat
und Konsum in der
Zentralverwaltungswirtschaft.
Russland und die ostmit?
teleurop?ischen
L?nder
[State
and
consumption
in
the
centralized
economy.
Russia and
the
central
eastern
European
countries],
in: H.
Siegrist,
H.
Kaelble
J.
Kocka
(Eds)
Europ?ische
Konsumgeschichte.
Zur
Gesellschafts-
und
Kulturgeschichte
des
Konsums
(18.-20.
Jh.)
[European
history
of
consumption
(18th-20th
century)]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
205-241.
Middell,
M.
(2000a)
Kulturtransfer
und
Vergleich
[Cultural
transfer and historical
comparison],
(Leipzig, Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag).
Middell,
M.
(2000b)
Kulturtransfer und Historische
Komparatistik.
Thesen
zu
ihrem Verh?lt?
nis,
Comparativ,
10(1),
7-41.
Middell,
M.
(2005)
Vergleichende
Revolutionsgeschichte
[Comparative
history
of
revolutions],
in:
M.
Middell
(Ed.) Weltgeschichtsschreibung
imZeitalter der
Verfachlichung
und
Professionalisierung.
Das
Leipziger
Institut
f?r
Kultur-
und
Universalgeschichte
1890-1990.
Vol.
3:
Von der
verglichenden
Kulturgeschichte
zur
Revolutionskomparatistik]
[Historiography
of world
history
in times
of
professionalization.
The
institute for cultural and universal
history
in
Leipzig
1890-1990.
(vol.
3
From
a
comparing
cultural
history
towards
a
comparison
of
revolutions)]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag),
999-1012.
Middell,
M.,
Lingelbach,
G.
Hadler,
F.
(2001)
Historische
Institute im internationalen
Vergleich
[An
international
comparison
of historical
institutes] (Leipzig,
Akademische
Verlagsanstalt).
Mitchell,
A.
(2000)
The
great
train
race.
Railways
and the Franco-German
rivalry (1815-1914)
(New
York,
Berghahn).
Moore,
B.
(1969)
Social
origins of
dictatorship
and
democracy.
Lord and
peasant
in the
making
of
the
modern
world
(Harmondsworth,
Middlesex,
Penguin
Books).
M?ller,
D.
(2005)
Staatsb?rger
auf
Widerruf:
Juden
und
Muslime als
Alterit?tspartner
im rum?nischen
und
serbischen
Nationscode;
ethnonationale
Staatsb?rger-schaftskonzepte
1878-1941
[Jews
and
Muslims
in the
Romanian and
Serbian national code.
Ethno-national
concepts
of
citizenship
1878-1941]
(Wiesbaden,
Harrassowitz).
N?nning, A. (2004) Metzler Lexikon. Literatur- und Kulturtheorie [Encyclopedia of literary and
cultural
theory]
(Stuttgart,
Metzler).
Osterhammel,
J. (2001)
Geschichtswissenschaft jenseits
des
Nationalstaats. Studien
zu
Beziehungsge?
schichte
und
Zivilisationsvergleich
[Historical
science
beyond
the national
state]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Petri,
R.
Siegrist,
H.
(Eds) (2004)
Probleme und
Perspektiven
der
Europa-Historiographie [Prob?
lems and
perspectives
in
the
historiography
of
Europe] (Leipzig, Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag).
Pollard,
S.
(1981)
Peaceful
conquest;
the industrialization
of Europe,
1760-1970
(Oxford,
Oxford
University
Press).
Puhle,
H.
J.
(1979)
Theorien
in
der Praxis des
vergleichenden
Historikers
[Theories
in
the
practice
of
a
comparative
historian],
in:
J.
Kocka T.
Nipperdey
(Eds)
Theorie
und
Erz?hlung
in der
Geschichte
[Theory
and narration
in
history]
(Munich,
Deutscher
Taschenbuch-Verlag),
119?
136.
Raphael,
L.
(1990)
Historikerkontroversen
im
Spannungsfeld
zwischen
Berufshabitus,
F?cherkonkurrenz
und sozialen
Deutungsmustern.
Lamprechtstreit
und franz?sischer
Meth?
odenstreit
der
Jahrhundertwende
in
vergleichender
Perspektive
[Controversies
of historians
from
a
comparative
perspective.
France and
Germany
at
the
beginning
of the twentieth
century],
Historische
Zeitschrift,
251,
325-363.
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 28/29
Comparative history of
cultures and
societies
403
Raphael,
L.
(2003)
Geschichtswissenschaft
im Zeitalter der Extreme:
Theorien, Methoden,
Tendenzen
von
1900 bis
zur
Gegenwart
[Historical
science
in
the
age
of
extremes]
(Munich, Beck).
Rausch, H. (2005) Kultfigur undNation: ?ffentlicheDenkm?ler inParis, Berlin und London 1848-1914
[Cuit
figures
and the
nation.
Public
monuments
in
Paris,
Berlin and London
1848-1914]
(Munich, Oldenbourg).
Requate,
J.
(1995)
Journalismus
als
Beruf
Deutschland
im
internationalen
Vergleich [Journalism
in
Germany
and
in
international
comparison]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Rossi,
P.
(1990)
La
storia
comparata.
Approcci
e
prospettive
[Comparative
history.
Approach
and
perspective]
(Milan,
II
Saggiatore).
Said,
E.
(1997)
Die
Welt,
der Text und der Kritiker
[The
world,
the
text,
and the
critic]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Fischer).
Schmale,
W.
(1998)
Historische
Komparatistik
und
Kulturtransfer.
Europageschichtliche
Perspektiven
f?r
die
Landesgeschichte
[Historical
comparison
and cultural
transfer] (Bochum, Winkler).
Schmeling,
M.
(2000)
Literarischer
Vergleich
und interkulturelle Hermeneutik.
Die
literarischen
Avantgarden
als
komparatistisches Forschungsparadigma
[Literary comparisons
and
intercul?
tural
hermeneutics],
in:
P. V. Zima
(Ed.) Vergleichende Wissenschaften. Interdisziplinarit?t
und
Interkulturalit?t
in
den
Komparatistiken [Comparing
sciences.
Interdisciplinarity
and
intercul?
turality
in
the
comparativisms]
(T?bingen,
Narr),
187-200.
Schmidt,
A.
(1997)
Reisen
in die Moderne.
Der Amerika Diskurs des deutschen
B?rgertums
vor
dem
Ersten
Weltkrieg
im
europ?ischen
Vergleich
[The
German middle-class discourse
on
America
before the First World War
in
a
European
comparison]
(Berlin,
Akademie-Verlag).
Schmidt,
A.
(1999)
Gibt
es
eine
'europ?ische
Identit?t'?
[Is
there
a
'European
identity'?],
in: H.
Kaelble
J.
Schriewer
(Eds)
Diskurse und
Entwicklungspfade.
Der
Gesellschaftsvergleich
in den
Geschichts- und
Sozialwissenschaften [Discourses
and
paths. Comparison
of
societies
in the
historical and social
sciences]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
163-216.
Sch?ttler,
P.
(2000)
Sp?ne
aus
der Werkstatt
[Theory
and
practice
of historical
science],
in:
P.
Sch?ttler
(Ed.)
Aus der Werkstatt des Historikers.
Zur Theorie und Praxis
der
Geschichtswissenschaft
[Theory
and
practice
of
historical
science] (Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus),
319-355.
Sewell,
W.
(1998)
Sind
Kulturgeschichte
und
die
vergleichende
Methode vereinbar
Perspektive
[Are
cultural
history
and the
comparative
method
compatible?],
Comparativ,
8(1),
90-94.
Siegrist,
H.
(1996)
Advokat,
B?rger
und Staat.
Sozialgeschichte
der
Rechtsanw?lte
in
Deutschland,
Ital?
ien und der Schweiz
(18.-20.
Jh.)
[Social history
of
lawyers
in
Germany, Italy
and
Switzerland]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Klostermann).
Siegrist,
H.
(2001a) Region, Regionalisierung
und
Regionalismus
in
Mitteldeutschland
aus
europ?ischer Perspektive [Region, regionalization and regionalism in central Germany from a
European
perspective],
in:
J.
John (Ed.)
Mitteldeutschland'.
Begriff,
Geschichte,
Konstrukt
['Middle
Germany'.
History,
concept,
construction] (Rudolstadt, Hain),
91-107.
Siegrist,
H.
(2001b)
Regionalisierung
imMedium des
Konsums
[Regionalization
in the medium
of
consumption],
Comparativ,
11(1),
7-26.
Siegrist,
H.,
Kaelble,
H.
Kocka,
J.
(1997)
Europ?ische
Konsumgeschichte.
Zur
Gesellschafts-
und
Kulturgeschichte
des
Konsums
(18.-20. Jh.)
[European
history
of
consumption]
(Frankfurt
a.
M.,
Campus).
Siegrist,
H.
Schramm,
M.
(2003)
Regionalisierung
europ?ischer
Konsumkulturen im
20.
Jahrhundert
[Regionalization
of
European
cultures
of
consumption
in
the twentieth
century]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag).
Skocpol,
T.
(1979)
States
and
revolutions.
A
comparative
analysis of
France,
Russia and China
(Cambridge,
MA,
Cambridge University
Press).
Spiliotis,
S.
S.
(2001)
Das
Konzept
der
Transterritorialit?t oder Wo
findet
Gesellschaft
statt
?
[The
concept
of
transterritorality],
Geschichte
und
Gesellschaft, 27(3),
480-488.
Spohn,
W.
(1998) Kulturanalyse
und
vergleichende
Forschung
in
Sozialgeschichte
und
historischer Sozi?
ologie
[Analysis
of culture and
comparative
research
in
social
history
and historical
sociology]
(Leipzig,
Leipziger
Universit?tsverlag).
8/10/2019 Comparative History of Cultures and Societies. From Cross-Societal Analysis to the Study of Intercultural Interdepe…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-history-of-cultures-and-societies-from-cross-societal-analysis 29/29
404
H.
Siegrist
Sundhaussen,
H.
Daskalov,
R.
(1999)
Modernisierungsans?tze
[Research
on
modernization],
in: M. A.
Hatschikjan
S. Troebst
(Eds)
S?dosteuropa.
Gesellschaft,
Politik,
Wirtschaft,
Kultur.
Ein Handbuch [South-eastern Europe. Society, politics, economy, culture. A handbook]
(Munich, Beck),
105-135.
Tacke,
C.
(1995)
Denkmal
im sozialen
Raum. Nationale
Symbole
in
Deutschland und Frankreich im
19.
Jahrhundert
[National
monuments
and
symbols
in
Germany
and
France
in
the nineteenth
century]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Ther,
P.
(2002)
Geschichte
und
Nation
im
Musiktheater Deutschlands und
Ostmitteleuropas
[History
and nation
in
the musical theatre
in
Germany
and central
eastern
Europe],
Zeitschrift
f?r Geschichtswissenschaft,
50(2),
119-140.
Todorova,
M.
(1997)
Imagining
the
Balkans
(New
York/Oxford,
Oxford
University
Press).
Troebst,
S.
(2003)
What's
in
a
historical
region?
A Teutonic
perspective,
in: S. Troebst
(Ed.)
Geschichtsregionen. Concept
and
Critique
(Abingdon, Taylor
Francis),
173-188.
Troebst,
S.
(2005)
Postkommunistische
Einnerungskulturen
im
?stlichen
Europa.
Bestandsaufnahme,
Kategorisierung, Periodisierung
[Post-communist
memories in
eastern
Europe]
(Wroclaw,
Wydawn,
Uniwersytetu
Wroclawskiego).
Vogel,
J.
(1997)
Nationen im
Gleichschritt.
Der Kult der cNation in
Waffen3
in Deutschland und
Frankreich
1871-1914
[The
cult of
the
'armed nation' in
Germany
and France
1871-1914]
(G?ttingen,
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht).
Welskopp,
T.
(1994)
Arbeit
und Macht
im H?ttenwerk. Arbeits- und
industrielle
Beziehungen
in der
deutschen und amerikanischen
Eisen-
und Stahlindustrie
von
den 1860er
bis
zu
den 1930er
Jahren
[Work
and industrial relations
in
the German and American iron and
steel
industry
from the
1860s
to
the
1930s] (Bonn, Dietz).
Werlen,
B.
(1997) Sozialgeographie allt?glicher Regionalisierungen [Globalization, region
and
regionalization]
(Stuttgart,
Steiner).
Werner,
M.
Zimmermann,
B.
(2002)
Vergleich,
Transfer,
Verflechtung.
Der Ansatz der
Histoire crois?e
und die
Herausforderung
des Transnationalen
[Comparison,
transfer
and
'intersecting
history'],
Geschichte
und
Gesellschaft,
28(4),
607-636.
Werner,
M.
Zimmermann,
B.
(2004)
De la
comparaison
? Vhistoire
crois?e
[From
comparison
to
'intersecting history']
(Paris, Seuil).
Wieviorka,
M.
(2003)
Kulturelle
Differenzen
und kollektive Identit?ten
[Cultural
differences
and
collective
identitites]
(Hamburg, Hamburger
Edition).
Wobbe,
T.
(1998)
Institutionelle Dimension universit?rer
Organisation.
Frauen
als Neuank?m?
mlinge
im deutschen und
US-amerikanischen
Wissenschaftssystem [Women
in
the German
and American scientific system], Comparativ, 8(1), 77-89.
W?stemeyer,
M.
(1972) Sozialgeschichte
und
Soziologie
als
soziologische
Geschichte,
Zur
Raum-Zeit-Lehre der
'Annales'
[The theory
of
space
and time of
the
'Annales'],
K?lner
Zeitschrift f?r
Soziologie
und
Sozialpsychologie,
16,
566-583.
Zima,
P. V.
(2000) Vergleich
als Konstruktion. Genetische und
typologische
Aspekte
des
Vergleichs
und
die soziale
Bedingtheit
der
Theorie
[Comparison
as a
construction],
in: P. V. Zima
(Ed.)
Vergleichende
Wissenschaften.
Interdisziplinarit?t
und Interkulturalit?t in den
Komparatistiken
[Comparing
sciences.
Interdisciplinarity
and
interculturality
in
the
comparativisms]
(T?bin?
gen,
Narr),
15-28.
Zunz,
O.,
Schoppa,
L.
Hiwatari,
N.
(2002)
Social
contracts
under
stress
(New
York,
R?ssel
Sage
Foundation).