Between the Archives and the Field
FROM HISTORICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE TO HISTORICAL ANTHROPOLOGY?
Michael Mitterauer
I formulated the title of my paper as a question. This can be interpreted in different ways: as a question concerning the flow of tendencies in the past – in this case it would deal with the level science has reached in its development; as a question concerning a tendency pertaining to the future – in this case it would deal with tasks and perspectives; but, in the first place, as a question of whether or not the departure and the point of destination of the given development here where properly dealt with – maybe, in regard to this specific pair of notions, it is all above a false alternative.
What is to be understood under "Historical Social Science" can be identified very clearly. It is the self-description of a specific orientation in the German-speaking historiography; within this clear-cut boundaries there is no counterpart outside the FR Germany. Anyhow, the demand of this orientation is a general one. Its proponents have repeatedly defined it with more precision, most clearly, however, in 1975 in the preface to the journal Geschichte und Gesellschaft, initiated by them, through which this orientation has afterwards acquired its specific profile. It says: "Geschichte und Gesellschaft is an interdisciplinary journal. In its foundations is the understanding that a historical science, which is to be understood as a Historical Social Science, needs a close link to the systematic social sciences, especially sociology, political science and economy, because the historical reality can be adequately dealt with and analyzed only if the theories, questions and methods from the social sciences can be included into historical research and become a basis for the creation of its own critically conceptualized contents and for the formation of a theory..." and further: "The central issue is research and presentation of processes and structures of social changes. In this regard the analysis of social orientations, existing political forms, economic developments and social and cultural phenomena are in the forefront; change and stability should be equally kept in sight. Geschichte und Gesellschaft wants to go beyond the usual, political history and pave the way toward new forms of social history, but without renouncing the political-historical dimension. A political history that is founded upon social science belongs much more to our field of work." This "political history founded upon social sciences was that substantially new element in the ’historical political science’". It replaced the traditional, identifying, approach to the state and the nation with a critical and analytical one. However, politics remained the decisive explanatory element. Later on, this orientation was very appropriately characterized abroad as a "social history of politics" (Georg Iggers). Jürgen Kocka, one of the most identifiable representatives of Historical Social Science, took over this terminology – modified, however - as the "political social history", when, twenty years after the initiation of Geschichte und Gesellschaft, he wrote about "perspectives of the social history in the nineties": "Political social history - that is a variant of social history, primarily searching for the social, social and economic circumstances and consequences of political structures, processes and decisions. Political social history played a great role in the rise of social history in Germany during the late sixties and the seventies. The then emerging works of Hans Rosenberg and Hans-Ulrich Wehlers ...., are an example in this regard. Anyway: a simple return to political social history of the late sixties and the seventies is not to be expected in the future. Political social history of the nineties will be much more serious about understanding the cultural dimension, the cultural and social knowledge, the life forms and the meaning of men as conditioning and influencing politics and generally it will put much weight into the history of experiences and expectations – a lasting result of the previous decade, partly also a productive result of the challenges of the history of everyday life."1 Hence, here it is the necessity of a social history in a broadening of the cultural-historical aspect that will be emphasized, but its meaning will be further attached only to the homo politicus.
What is to be understood under "Historical Anthropology" can be grasped in a much less clear and precise manner than is the case with "Historical Social Science". The Editorial in the journal Historische Anthropologie, founded in 1993, says in this regard: "the manifold and contradictory way in which the man is adapting to the world is in the focus of the new journal Historische Anthropologie. The positions and mentalities, interpretations and imagination, behavior and attitudes should be researched and presented in their mutual historical and social relationships... The spectrum of issues involves the manifold forms of expression and practice, in which men experience and form the "world". Analyzed are the ways in which they mutually treat each other, the individual as well as the social groups, the sexes as well as the generations, but also the way in which they treat the environment understood as ’the nature’. The analysis of rituals, habits, symbolic attitudes opens up the inner side of the society, the respective forms of expression, in which the social life is formulated in a symbolic way, represented in a compressed manner and carried out in a conflicting way." If such a programmatic sketch looses somewhat on desired precision, this is due to the heterogeneous research orientations that are here trying to promote a common initiative under the title "Historical Anthropology". Already at the level of those who publish the journal there is a big difference. Approaching Historical Anthropology as a common program is a result of very different standpoints, of a social history that is interested in anthropology, of cultural history that is cooperating with folklore, of a history of the everyday life strongly linked to contemporary history, of the history of the women and the history of sexes, of a historical research of the family as well as of a historically oriented ethnology, namely Ethnologia Europaea. The approaches are different also from the point of methodology – some preference for micro-historical studies on the one hand, for intercultural comparison on the other. Historical Anthropology does not stand for – very much differing from Historical Social Science – a concept that is closed in contents and methodology. One could rather speak about an open project, in which very different starting positions converge in resulting orientations. There was an attempt to characterize these converging orientations also with other descriptions. For the Historical Social Science the "history of everyday life" presented the image of the enemy. French influence caused the spread-out of the description "history of mentality", under which some of its representatives see exactly the same contents with which the Historical Anthropology is dealing with. The description "Cultural Historical Science" is occasionally also used as a synonym. In my view, "Historical Anthropology" emerges as the most suitable common notion for all these different approaches, because it emphasizes in the clearest way that what is new: first of all, history as a science dealing with the human beings and interested in elementary anthropological situations and existential basics, not only in the homo politicus within the state and social frameworks of his political behavior; then, history as a partner science of social-anthropological and cultural-anthropological disciplines, the ethnology, the folklore as Ethnologia Europaea, but also of different area-studies such as oriental studies, sinology, japanology, etc. It is exactly in the creation of the notion "Historical Anthropology" – the formulation "anthropological history" is not common – that the mutual relation with these disciplines in regard to the topics and methodology becomes clear.
For the anthropological disciplines the human existence and elementary situations are traditionally the central issue. For the historical science this could not be said in any way. When in 1981 August Nitschke started lecturing in basic history within the radio course and divided it into sections "Man and woman", "Birth and death", "The group and the individual", "Work and leisure time", "Deficit and surplus", "Town and countryside", "Technology and the nature", "Order and freedom", "The strange and the own", this represented a completely new way of approaching the comprehensive treatment of the field. In 1993 his pupil Peter Dinzelbacher presented a broader catalogue in his "History of European Mentality": individual, family, society, sexuality/love, religiousness, body and spirit, disease, age, dying/death, fears and hopes, joy, sorrow and happiness, work and holiday, communication, the strange and one’s own, power, law, nature/environment, space, time/history. Very similar lists of topics can be found with authors who sketch the tasks of a historical anthropology. In no way is this a programmatic formulation for the future, but it is rather very much a systematization of approaches that were at hand. This consent in regard to the list of anthropological topics – regardless of the title under which they might be presented – is surprising. Obviously, due to strong societal needs new themes were introduced into historical science and were dealt within it in different fields of the internal division of labor in research. Convergence is explained by this growing pressure produced by social interests for such topics, and not by systematic support of internal professional orientation. Viewed in such a manner, the heterogenousness of Historical Anthropology is a sign of its vitality. For the development of science it is certainly particularly important that social impulses are understood and dealt with. However, for Historical Anthropology it will be equally important that these processes be reflected in theory more strongly than up to now and that a homogenous programmatic platform be developed from here.
In the German-speaking historical science, Historical Social Science and Historical Anthropology stand nowadays together as two new professional internal approaches. Certainly, there are common points and overlapping areas; however, the interest to understand is a very different one. Those elementary human essentials and elementary situations, which are the field of interest of Historical Anthropology, certainly are not in focus of Historical Social Science. At the beginnings of this new orientation it was in no way clear that such a difference in development will emerge. When in 1971 Reinhart Koselleck in his essay "Why history at all?" conceptualized historical science as a social science, he advocated the task of developing a "Historical Anthropology". This was completely corresponding with the then ruling new stances in the Western historical science. One Philipp AriA s, who could certainly be counted among the founding fathers of a Historical Anthropology, searched for his interdisciplinary impulses equally in sociology as in ethnology. The Annales were open-minded both ways. Similar can be said about Past and Present, that in many ways was a model for Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Anyhow, in Germany things developed differently. The contact with the systematic social sciences concentrated upon sociology, political sciences and economy. However, the social-anthropological disciplines have remained – certainly in regard to Historical Social Science – beyond the dialogue. At the Berlin Historians’ Day in 1984 there was open disagreement between the dominating group of the Historical Social Science and the representatives of different orientations in Historical Anthropology. In the succeeding period these differences became more profound. Differences in the present scientific practice were sublimated to theory and developed into conflicting standpoints. Compared to the international development in the profession, this evolving forward stance could be described as a "Deutscher Sonderweg".
Following the disagreements between he representatives of Historical Social Science and its opponents in the FRG Pierre Bourdieu spoke in an interview, that curiously enough was published exactly in Geschichte und Gesellschaft, about "dualism that deprives all scientific foundations". In his view, when such dualism "is so enduring, than it is the result of the fact that it is caused by its social foundations and these are hard to change". As an example of such a difference that is lying in the foundations of the apparently highly theoretical controversies in the mentioned conflict he quotes the one between the "greens" and the "classical left". Such openness in the interpretation of scientific disagreements is a refreshing one. Hopefully, it could be further expanded through other reasons beyond science. Whether or not explanations in regard to such backgrounds can alleviate the disagreements, seems to be questionable. Unfortunately, Bourdieu is right in regard to his thesis on the endurance of scientific controversies that is conditioned by their social bases. Thus, with regard to Germany, one should count with a continuation of this dualism.
German scientific debates mostly do influence also the Austrian scientific scenery. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze it particularly. The debate on the relation between history and the social sciences was going on in Austria in the seventies with equal force as in the Federal Republic of Germany. It comes as a surprise that in Austria there was no comparable debate on Historical Anthropology. Maybe joy over this fact is somewhat premature. Maybe this debate will reach us with a bigger "cultural lag". However, this seems rather unlikely. Sufficient points of disagreement were existing already, as in 1984 when within the title "History from beneath", there were presented "Questions, methods and projects of the history of daily life". The echo of this attempt to introduce the new orientation, which was promoted mainly by younger scientists, was essentially beneficial. Another opportunity for countering could have emerged with the appearance in 1992 of the volume with collected works under the already more threatening title Clios Rache, which was produced by the "second generation". One of the authors of this volume says provocatively in the forward to his article: "If in the sixties and seventies it was sociology that helped the historical science in getting to its feet, in the following decade it will be the cultural anthropology". This volume, i.e. this statement, has till now remained also undisputed. Thus, there are many indications that this German scientific conflict will bypass the Austrian historical science. The meeting between history and the social sciences has also not lead to such a social political history that in orientation would be pronounced comparably to "Historical Social Sciences", namely – and let us dwell upon Bourdieu’s line of argumentation – to a comparable internal power position in the profession. The Austrian research in the field of social history was from its very beginnings never one-sidedly oriented toward the social macro structures of the state and the society. The analyses of the small daily life played in this regard a substantial role. Thus, connecting points for a successive overtaking of historical and anthropological topics evolved without problems. If, as until now, it will be possible for such topics to develop further under the broadly constructed roof of a pluralistic social history, there will be no motive to create separate organizational forms for them.
Labels are unimportant. Important is what happens in regard to contents. Historical Social Science and Historical Anthropology are, in principle, two separate answers to the same social challenge, namely a rapid social change, that since the mid of this century has transformed the conditions of life equally on the macro and micro levels with a radicalism that was never before present. In the USA, in which this challenge was visible at the earliest point and, accordingly, was at the earliest point grabbed by the historical science, this answer came from within the framework of the "New Social History" basically in a unique form. Dualism in scientific reaction in the FRG can be explained by the "social bases" elaborated by Bourdieu. Theoretical boundaries and justifications ex posteriori are sham fights. The necessity of historical and anthropological research is not to be emphasized because it is dealing with something basically different, but because under the domination of a limited concept of Historical Social Science many of the important things were not taken into account. In accordance with this additional need maybe in the case of FR Germany it is appropriate to speak of a succession between Social History - understood in its limited concept – and Historical Anthropology. Of course, this succession should not mean a turn from one to the other, but should rather mean next to each other, and maybe even both together. In my view, there is no problem for the Austrian historical science to continue with the necessary expansion and deepening of the historical-anthropological research tendencies within a historical and social science concept of the discipline.
This new orientation with regard to contents, which was bound to have consequences concerning the methods and sources, the teaching and mediation as well as the scientific working forms, seems to me as the real problem – regardless under which label it is approached. Let us look once again back into the catalogue of topics of the 1981 radio course in history. Hardly any of the here mentioned topics has any tradition in the historical science. The connection with current processes of change is evident. It is sufficient to give a few catchwords. For instance, with regard to "Men and Woman": changes of the century-old or millenium-old role of sexes were enabled through revolutionizing the world of labor and the new conditions of the distribution of labor along sex features. "Birth and Death": the beginning and end of life – up to now always in the family – is transferred to the hospital. "Group and Individual": processes of individualization and singularizing reach in the Western industrial societies a radical intensification. "Labor and Freedom": no historical society can be marked through similar justification as a "leisure", i.e. "consumer" society. "Deficit and Surplus": inequality between the First and Third World is becoming a problem that is more and more harassing. "Town and Countryside": urbanization has never before in human history acquired such dimensions. "Technology and Nature": environmental problems enter public consciousness as a completely new social field. "Order and Freedom": democratic social forms are paving their way also beyond Europe, new public tasks ask for new models of organization."The Strange and One’s Own": meeting with the strange becomes a self-evident element of daily life to a scope never existing in history up to now – through migrations, mass tourism, telecommunication. It is obvious that the impulse for dealing with these new topics in historical science is based in processes of social change. Never before in human history has the daily life of people changed so radically as was the case in the second half of the XX century. This creates demands for orientation through dealing with history. The link between social changes and new scientific orientations, however, is certainly not to be seen only as unmediated and as linked in a linear way. If we further follow the consequences of the last challenge of this list of topics, "the strange and one’s own", this will lead us to the most different areas, periods and aspects of life.
In this paper it is not appropriate to follow such individual internal lines concerning the search for topics. Finally, it should be only said that this search for topics must be seen within a social framework that allows for new orientations. As an example of such social conditions there is a pair of elements presented in a graduate course "Historical Anthropology", which will start in the following winter semester at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research and Continuos Education (Institut für interdisziplinäre Forschung und Fortbildung). In this regard, the following is planned: initializing a doctrinal survey, within which the exemplary topics of Historical Anthropology against the background of its social conditions will be dealt with – approximately in the sense of the list mentioned here; a general lecture during which representatives from history, folklore, social anthropology, social geography, sociology as well as various "area-studies" will elaborate on changes in contents of their fields under the influence of new social frameworks; a prolonged excursion abroad, which will offer the opportunity to meet other scientific cultures, as well as to experience field research; an excursion to the countryside, which will practice on the spot the forms of teaching and transfer; participation in project work oriented towards the practice, as in adult education; workshops for methodology, which will deal with self-testimonies on the history of life, with interviews, with field research; last but not least, a self-organized forum of the graduates in which among other things they will bring the topic concerning the link between scientific work and the history of their individual life. For the young researchers such a graduate course could give a chance to work out new moments of a historical science resting upon society.
The concrete example of such a working form for the teaching and research at the graduate level should illustrate my basic standpoint. I do not care much about promoting the necessary scientific novelties primarily through theoretical basic principles and theoretical debates. This could lead to hastily drawn conclusions and limitations. It seems to me that within the research group defined as "Historical Social Science", something went wrong in this regard. Such mistakes should not be repeated under the label of "Historical Anthropology". The decisive innovative moment seems to me to be the construction of open working forms, which make possible the new orientation. Naturally, the construction of such working forms is also demanding theoretical work and programming, indeed in a completely different manner. Theory, organization and didactic are here interdependent, are oriented to one another and are substantially influencing each other. Thus, there is little danger that a chosen description might become a corset that prevents a socially necessary broadening of the fields of scientific work.
1. Jürgen Kocka, "Perspektiven für die Sozialgeschichte der neunziger Jahre" in: Winfried Schulze, ed., Sozialgeschichte, Alltagsgeschichte, Mikrohistorie, p. 34.