What is Public History

Keyno e Open Access. © 2018 Ma ko Deman owsky, published by De G uy e . This wo k is licensed unde he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es 4.0 License. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/9783110466133-001 Ma ko Deman owsky Wha is Public His o y How we communica e is no sel -e iden . Nei he a a mee ing o colleagues om di e en language backg ounds, wha e e hei na u e, because social milieus, egions, eligions, clans, and ibal communi ies also o m di e en linguis ic codes and ules, e en i hey speak “ he same language” owa d he ou side wo ld. This lack o sel -e idence applies e en mo e o exchanges be ween he ep esen a i es o na ional language cul u es. This may s ike he English- speaking eade as a me e abs ac i iali y. And ye his si ua ion p esen s a signi ican challenge in o he se ings, o ins ance, in he mul ilingual p ac ic- ing o public his o y a he edi o ial o ice o Public His o y Weekly (e e since i s es ablishmen in 2013) o , as is becoming inc easingly common, a con e ences o he In e na ional Fede a ion o Public His o y. This communica i e challenge applies in pa icula o e mini echnici and he con en - ela ed me ada a o be gene a ed om hem.1 This essay, ini ially w i en which in Ge man, endea o s o an icipa e (and ca e  o) he ho izon o he English-speaking communi y al eady in i s oo no es–as a as possible o he au ho . Ne e heless, i s English e sion, a ansla ion, will necessa ily di e om he o iginal. Al eady e e yday expe ience sugges s ha i is o li le help o indica e wha e- e migh also be co e ed by his o ha e m in such ans-la ions, as long as we lack speci ic ules o explain pa icula names o designa ions. Ou desi ed ellow playe o eamma e does no unde s and he game in his way. To be pe ec ly hones , many o ou concep s ac ually unc ion acco ding o such con en ion- based deixis and associa ion. E en so, hey only wo k as long as we encoun e as li le di e si y as possible, i.e., as long as we a e dealing wi h like-minded people o ones who ha e been socialized he same way. Thus, i is qui e o una e when Wi gens ein (1953) likens his p oblem o a pa y (o “going on holiday,” in Anscombe’s ansla ion): This is connec ed wi h he concep ion o naming as, so o speak, an occul p ocess. Naming appea s as a quee connexion o a wo d wi h an objec . – And you eally ge such a quee connexion when he philosophe ies o b ing ou he ela ion be ween name and hing by 1 See Con en s, Public His o y Weekly. The In e na ional BlogJou nal. h ps://public-his o y-weekly. deg uy e .com/con en s/ (las accessed 1 May 2018). No e: Many hanks o D Ma k Kybu z (h p://englishp ojec s.ch) o he edi o ial o e haul o my i s English ex e sion. 4   Ma ko Deman owsky s a ing a an objec in on o him and epea ing a name o e en he wo d “ his” innume a- ble imes. Fo philosophical p oblems a ise when language goes on holiday.2 “Public his o y,” a esea ch and p ac ice-o ien ed discipline commi ed o in e - na ionaliza ion o good easons,3 will he e o e do well o in ensi y i s concep- ual wo k, o open up a game whose in e nal ules a e explici and whose hidden inclusi eness does no p e en o he po en ial playe s om pa icipa ion. Thus, wha we need is no a mo e o less and unin ended closed socie y o p i a e club, bu an open, and undoub ably plu alis ic discipline. Pa adoxically, we can achie e his goal by ag eeing on he mos impo an ules be o ehand. Fo i is only once we ha e done so ha we may keep ying o celeb a e ou academic “pa ies” inclusi ely and wi h he p ospec o success. This pape seeks o make a small con ibu ion o accomplishing his objec i e. I does so by o e ing a sub- s an ial cla i ica ion o wha exac ly public his o y is. This in ol es conside ing he ule(s) acco ding o which we decide wha public his o y is, and wha i is no . Since he much-in oked cul u al u n in he la e 1980s, he his o ical sci- ences ha e also heo ized he ield o “public his o y,” namely, he public and socie al dealings wi h his o y. These had p e iously been s udied p ima ily by social psychology and classical s udies, bu also, since he 1960s, by Ge man- speaking his o y didac ics,4 o easons o hei own and wi h li le in e disciplin- a y con ac . Among Eu opean his o ians, only some ew ou s anding academic ep esen- a i es (my lis is pu ely exempla y) – Johann Gus a D oysen (1868),5 Johann 2 Ludwig Wi gens ein, Philosophical In es iga ions, ansla ed by G. E. M. Anscombe (Ox o d: Basil Blackwell, 1958), 19. 3 Se ge Noi e , “L’in e na ionalisa ion de’l His oi e Publique / In e na ionalizing Public His o y / In e na ionalisie ung de Public His o y,” Public His o y Weekly 2 (2014) 34, DOI: dx.doi.o g/10.1515/phw-2014-2647; Thomas Cau in,“T a e se les on iè es: une his oi e publique in e na ionale / C ossing Ba ie s: an In e na ional Public His o y / G enzen übe sch ei en: eine In e na ionale Public His o y,” Public His o y Weekly 5 (2017) 13,DOI: dx.doi.o g/10.1515/phw- 2017–9018. 4 In he Fede al Republic o Ge many, he i s concep seems o ha e p esen ed by Rol Schö ken in his “Geschich sdidak ik und Geschich sbewuß sein,” GWU 23 (1972), 81–89. In he Ge man Democ a ic Republic, his wo k began 10 yea s ea lie and was soon concep ualized empi ically. The esul s, howe e , we e published only o a limi ed ex en . Among o he s, see Ma ko Deman owsky, “De Beginn demoskopische Geschich sbewuss seins-Fo schung in Deu schland: Die Fo schungsg uppe ‘Sozialis isches Geschich sbewuss sein’ am Ins i u ü Gesellscha swissenscha en beim ZK de SED,” Zei sch i ü Geschich sdidak ik 4 (2005), 146–75. 5 Johann Gus a D oysen, G und iss de His o ik (Leipzig: Vei , 1868); ansla ed in o English by Elisha B. And ews as Ou lines o he P inciples o His o y (Bos on: Ginn & Company, 1897). Wha is Public His o y   5 Huizinga (1950 [1929]),6 o Al ed Heuss (1959)7 – ecognized he impo ance o a second-o de his o y o o a his o ies o his o ies ea ly on. Thei wo k, howe e , long emained la gely unno iced. Nie zsche’s ea ly impe us, o mula ed ou side he guild o his o ians (1873), could long be igno ed as a be e piece o euille- on.8 The long ea ly his o y o public his o y hinking in he English-speaking academic wo ld has ecen ly been desc ibed by Thomas Cau in.9 These days, once hey ha e gained a ce ain deg ee o public accep ance, i.e., ha e become a u n in hei own igh ,10 scien i ic u ns gene a e o ensi ely-minded lines o inancial suppo om s a e and p i a e dono s. Co espondingly, he b oad- based en y o he his o ical sciences in o he cul u al u n, and hus also in o public sel - e lec ion on hei own p ac ice and socie al impac since he la e 1980s, was associa ed wi h a la ge numbe o applica ions o hi d-pa y unding and wi h he es ablishmen o young esea che s’ p og ams. These de elopmen s almos ine i a- bly led o compe i o s clea ly dissocia ing hemsel es om each o he in his new hi d-pa y unding and employmen ma ke and consequen ly o a la ge numbe o compe ing concep s. This has no always been help ul o he de elopmen o mu u- ally in e connec able b oad empi ical esea ch on his opic. I is ime o once again ac i ely sea ch o possible in e connec ions and o mul iply hese. P elimina ies In 2015, he eade s o Public His o y Weekly we e asked whe he he e m “Public His o y” migh no be sui able o end he meanwhile olde and, in my opinion, inc easingly ui less dispu e in Ge man-speaking schola ship o e he co ec e minology o public dealings wi h his o y, as well as o i s consump ion and 6 Johan Huizinga, “O e een de ini ie an he beg ip geschiedenis,” Ve zamelde we ken. Deel 7 (Haa lem: Willink & Zoon, 1950), 95–103. Ge man T ansla ion by We ne Kaegi: “Übe eine De ini ion des Beg i s de Geschich e,” In Wege de Kul u geschich e (Munich: D ei Masken Ve lag, 1930), 78–88. 7 Al ed Heuss, Ve lus de Geschich e (Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 1959). 8 F ied ich Nie zsche, “Unzei gemässe Be ach ungen. Zwei es S ück: Vom Nu zen und Nach eil de His o ie ü das Leben,” In We ke in d ei Bänden, ed. Wal he Linden and Wol gang Deninge (Ke wig: Phaidon, 1990), 219–20; English ansla ion: Un imely medi a ions, ansla ed by R.J. Hollingdale (New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1983). 9 Thomas Cau in, “The Rise o Public His o y: An In e na ional Pe spec i e,” His o ia C i ica 68 (2018), 3-26, esp. 5–7. 10 Do is Bachmann-Medick, Cul u al Tu ns: Neuo ien ie ungen in den Kul u wissenscha en (Reinbek bei Hambu g: Rowohl 2018);English e sion:Cul u al Tu ns: New O ien a ions in he S udy o Cul u e (Be lin/Bos on: De G uy e , 2016). 6   Ma ko Deman owsky p oduc ion.11 A he same ime, ha a icle ga e English-speaking eade s a b ie insigh in o he Ge man deba e and sough o enhance mu ual unde s anding be ween Ge man- and English-speaking schola s and p ac i ione s. In b ie , he a gumen wen some hing like his: 1. The compe ing e ms a e so-called umb ella concep s (Jo dano a, G e e ).12 Umb ella concep s a e cha ac e ized by he ac ha behind a speci ic wo d (denomina ion) ex ends a b oad and pe meable ange o e ms ( ange o de i- ni ion); he la e is so lexible and ecep i e because i is enabled by weak e minological in ensi y (inclusion a ibu es), ecognizable as me apho ical o mula ions. Language gi es a pa y (Wi gens ein). One ecognizes ha many his o ical heo ies a e basically umb ella concep s ha c ea e a heu- is ic appa en calming, bu hey a e beyond ha sui able o assembling schools behind hem as academic loyal y g oups. 2. Mo e o less ha m ul umb ella concep s exis o deba e: he less de imen al ones do no se e he es ablishmen o academic schools, bu lique y hem ins ead; besides, hey o e no pseudo-answe s, bu make new ques ions pos- sible. I is he e o e no abou an ei he -o , as he concep s o his o y cul u e (Geschich skul u ) and cul u e o ememb ance (E inne ungskul u ) a e also nego iable; i is a he abou abolishing ui less scholas icism in a o o in e disciplina y, in eg a ed, and unb idled (“ ee”) esea ch and de elop- men on his o y in he public sphe e. 3. The umb ella concep “public his o y” mee s hese al e na i e demands o a ce ain ex en , because i enables bo h Ge man-speaking his o ians and cul u al scien is s as well as his o y didac icians o pu sue join p ojec s wi h hei colleagues wo ldwide. No only does his p omo e linkages wi hin a mul ilingual discussion, bu i also means ha he genuinely didac ic aspec o he Ge man adi ion migh help o en ich he in e na ional discussion. My 2015 pape was in ended o paci y, o build b idges, jus as I had a emp ed as ea ly as 2005 (in he same ein, ye o en misunde s ood since) o limi he alse claims o sup emacy by hose ep esen ing he concep s o his o y cul u e (Geschich skul u ) and cul u e o ememb ance (E inne ungskul u ). My pu pose, 11 Ma ko Deman owsky. “Public His o y – Subla ion o a Ge man Deba e? / ‘Public His o y’– Au hebung eine deu schsp achigen Deba e?”Public His o y Weekly 3, 2 (2015),DOI: dx.doi. o g/10.1515/phw-2015-3292. 12 Ludmilla Jo dano a, His o y in P ac ice (London and New Yo k: Hodde Educa ion, 2000), 126–149; Ma ia G e e , “Fea o Plu ali y: His o ical Cul u e and His o iog aphical Canoniza ion in Wes e n Eu ope,” In Gende ing His o iog aphy: Beyond Na ional Canons ed. by Angelika Epple and Angelika Schase (F ank u /M., New Yo k: Campus Ve lage, 2009), 45–62. Wha is Public His o y   7 hen and now, was di e en ia ion, and hus cla i ica ion, a he han disco d.13 As my 2005 and 2015 pape s p esen ed he main a gumen s agains he p e ious e sions o he espec i e concep s, hey need no be epea ed he e in de ail. They we e also mo i a ed by academic policy, which in ended o coun e he (gene ally unspoken) disciplina y dimension o he exis ing di e gen cul u es o discussion. This pape , he hi d one in a se ies o e lec ions, seeks o de elop an in-dep h concep o public his o y, one ha claims o inc ease i s ope a ionalizable explana- o y powe and i s empi ical co ela ion, wi hou , howe e , jeopa dizing he indis- pu able ad an ages o i s open umb ella cha ac e in e ms o scien i ic policy. Con ex Howe e , some mo e con ex ualiza ion is i s needed. Concep ual o e - ings abound, alone on he Ge man “menu.” They include, by way o a quick eminde , wo a he speci ic and analy ical concep s: No be F ei’s poli ics o he pas (Ve gangenhei spoli ik) and Edga Wol um’s poli ics o his o y (Geschich spoli ik).14 Bo h concep s ha e his o ically clea ly delimi ed de ini- ions. Thus, while hey a e ac ually no ypical umb ella concep s, hei speci ic de e mina ion is no e iden in hei denomina ion. This explains hei equen ecu ence in many publica ions o e he pas yea s, e en a beyond hei o ig- inal scope o de ini ion. In ac , bo h concep s ha e been o e gene alized ime and again. Beyond ha , ano he , colo ul spec um o e ms exis s. Employed in non- scien i ic dealings wi h his o y, hei gene al meaning and explana o y powe , encompassing all phenomena o mode n his o y, ha e been claimed om he e y beginning. One example is Pie e No a’s concep o places o ememb ance (lieux de mémoi e), which was adap ed by E ienne F ançois, Hagen Schulze, Geo g K eis, and o he s o he Ge man-speaking deba e.15 Ano he case is Mau ice Halbwachs’s 13 Ma ko Deman owsky, “Geschich skul u und E inne ungskul u : Zwei Konzep ionen des einen Gegens andes,”In Geschich e, Poli ik und ih e Didak ik 33 (2005), 11–20. 14 No be F ei, Ve gangenhei spoli ik: Die An änge de Bundes epublik und die NS-Ve gangenhei (Munich: Beck, 1996); Edga Wol um, Geschich spoli ik in de Bundes epublik Deu schland: de Weg zu bundes epublikanischen E inne ung 1948 – 1990 (Da ms ad : Wissenscha liche Buchgesellscha , 1999). 15 Pie e No a, Les Lieux de mémoi e, 3 ols (Pa is: Gallima d, 1984–1992; Biblio hèque illus- ée des his oi es); E ienne F ançois and Hagen Schulze, eds.,Deu sche E inne ungso e, 3 ols (Munich: Beck, 2001); Geo g K eis, Schweize E inne ungso e: Aus dem Speiche de Swissness (Zu ich: Ve lag NZZ, 2010). 8   Ma ko Deman owsky concep o collec i e memo y (1925),16 especially as ep esen ed and u he de e- loped by Jan and Aleida Assmann.17 Then, o cou se, he concep o he cul u e o ememb ance: his has made an as onishing ca ee in Ge man his o iog aphy o e he pas 20 yea s, e iden in an eno mous numbe o disse a ions and majo scien i ic p ojec s ha ha e p ominen ly p omo ed his concep ,18 and (las bu no leas ) in i s widesp ead usage in he public and in he media. Based on he w i ings o Wol gang Ha d wig19 and Jö n Rüsen,20 he concep o his o y cul u e (Geschich skul u ) subsequen ly became highly in luen ial, mos o all in his o y didac ics, one o se e al his o ical subdisciplines. Finally, especially in ecen yea s, he e m public his o y gained g ound and became o ma i e in he Ge man- speaking communi y, e en i i s li e al ansla ion (“Ö en liche Geschich e”) was conside ed app op ia e om ime o ime. The main d i ing o ce behind his concep ual adap a ion was Paul Nol e.21 Based on his wo k in pa icula , a numbe o deg ee p og ams ha e ecen ly been es ablished in Ge many and Swi ze land and, associa ed he ewi h, he successi e es ablishmen o a e y 16 Mau ice Halbwachs, Das Gedäch nis und seine sozialen Bedingungen (F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 2008). 17 Jan Assmann, Das kul u elle Gedäch nis: Sch i , E inne ung und poli ische Iden i ä in ühen Hochkul u en (Munich: Beck, 1992). T ansla ed in o English by he au ho : Cul u al Memo y and Ea ly Ci ilisa ion (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2011); Aleida Assmann, Cul u al memo y and Wes e n ci iliza ion: unc ions, media, a chi es (New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2011). 18 See, o ins ance, Ch is oph Co nelißen,“Was heiß E inne ungskul u ? Beg i – Me hoden – Pe spek i en,”Geschich e in Wissenscha und Un e ich 54 (2003), 548–63. Fo a c i ique, see Deman owsky (2005). 19 Wol gang Ha d wig, Geschich skul u und Wissenscha (Munich: d , 1990), 7–11. 20 Jö n Rüsen, “Was is Geschich skul u ? Übe legungen zu eine neuen A , übe Geschich e nachzudenken,” In His o ische Faszina ion: Geschich skul u heu e, ed. Klaus Füssmann e al. (Cologne: Böhlau, 1994), 3–26. Rüsen’s concep o his o ical cul u e as he “p ac ical a icula ion o his o ical consciousness” in an aes he ic, cogni i e, and poli ical dimension has since been equen ly aken up; i is basically also an umb ella concep whose logical consis ency has, how- e e , a ely been ca e ully examined: i ied in all oo well wi h he his o ical-didac ic discussion (his o ical consciousness), jus as i s h ee dimensions we e sui ed oo eadily o possible u he use. One migh ha e no iced ha hese dimensions lie on comple ely di e en le els o logic and he e o e ail o p oduce a cohe en sys em; in addi ion, cla i ying wha “poli ical,” among o he e ms, means wi hin each dimension, and wha exac ly belongs o i , occu s wi hou ixed, and abo e all wi hou common, logical ules. E en “p ac ical a icula ion” emains ague. Thus, o ins ance, does e e y u e ance al eady cons i u e his o ical cul u e? This iew u ns e e y hing his o ical in o his o ical cul u e and o e ex ends he concep o he poin o exhaus ion. 21 Paul Nol e, “Ö en liche Geschich e: Die neue Nähe on Fachwissenscha , Massenmedien und Publikum: U sachen, Chancen und G enzen,” In Au klä ung, Bildung, “His o ainmen ”? Zei geschich e in Un e ich und Gesellscha heu e, eds. Michele Ba icelli and Julia Ho nig, (F ank u am Main: Pe e Lang, 2008), 131–46. Wha is Public His o y   9 small Ge man-speaking public his o y subdiscipline, which a emp s o dis ingu- ish i sel om he nume ous exis ing disciplina y ends in his ield o esea ch and de elopmen .22 The si ua ion in English-speaking his o ical academia is clea ly di e en , no leas because he co esponding p ojec s and discussions al eady began eme ging om he ea ly 1970s. They we e no bound o he cul u al u n, bu ins ead o he ise o e e yday and social his o y, al hough i s and o emos and mos dominan ly o coun e s o ies, so-called “his o y om below.” The e m “public his o y” did no ma k ou an in a-academic ield o compe i ion, bu a ield o con lic be ween academic his o ical esea ch and eaching and non- ins i u ionalized, some imes non-academic his o ians, be ween ins i u es and a g ass oo s mo emen .23 Inciden ally, a simila line o con lic also exis ed in Ge man-speaking coun ies a ha ime, namely, be ween he “ba e oo his o- ians” o his o y wo kshops and he academic wo ld.24 Bu , and his is he di e- ence, he deba e o e unde s anding he exo e ic app oach o his o y, add essed o laype sons, was no a genuine pa o his con lic . No we e “his o y cul u e” (Geschich skul u ), “cul u e o ememb ance” (E inne ungskul u ), and “place o ememb ance” (E inne ungso ) he banne s o a compe ing app oach o he pas – a he , hey we e and s ill a e an in eg al pa o adi ional academic dis- cussion. Public his o y la e became a ecognized ield o schola ship in he USA and Canada, and mo e slowly in he UK (unde he label “cul u al he i age”) and Aus alia. Uni e si y posi ions ha e been c ea ed o e ime, li le by li le. Ne e heless, uni e si y chai s o e en ins i u es o public his o y a e s ill ew and a be ween. The e a e, howe e , li e ally hund eds o Mas e ’s p og ams, a e y powe ul Ame ican p o essional associa ion (NCPH), and now also a h i- ing In e na ional Fede a ion o Public His o y. The u e ly p agma ic handling o de ini ions and sel -concep decla a ions may be conside ed a s ongly bene- icial p e equisi e o he admi able success achie ed du ing his s a -up phase. We migh pe haps imagine his as an in ellec ual on ie , which, du ing a long pionee ing pe iod, in i ed and en iced explo a ions o his uncha ed e i o y o knowledge and in which, in he mo emen phase, keeping he eks close oge he and p o ec ing he ea ly se lemen s was c ucial. 22 Tho s en Logge, “Public His o y in Ge many: Challenges ans Oppo uni ies,” Ge man S udies Re iew 39 (2016), 141–53. 23 Susan Benson, S ephen B ie , and Roy Rosenzweig, “In oduc ion,” P esen ing he Pas : Essays on His o y and he Public (Philadelphia: Temple Uni e si y P ess, 1986), XV–XXIV. 24 See, o ins ance, Hube Ch is ian Ehal , Geschich e on un en: F ages ellungen, Me hoden und P ojek e eine Geschich e des All ags (Kul u s udien 1) (Vienna: Böhlau, 1984). 16   Ma ko Deman owsky Basic na a i es s. mas e na a i es A his junc u e, I need o in oduce a e m ha has suddenly sp ung o li e in he Ge man-speaking deba e in ecen yea s, oughly since he las u n o he millennium: he “basic na a i e.” On close inspec ion, his is pe haps di icul o explain, because a he same ime, wo o he e ms, “mas e na a i es” and, almos by de aul , “na a i es,” also emained in ci cula ion. Ba ely any cul u al analysis can ope a e wi hou mo e o less speci ic, ye o en me ely uzzy e e- ences o “na a i es.” As a as can be seen, he di e ences be ween hese e ms ha e no ye been explici ly cla i ied. No ha I shall do so he e exhaus i ely, because o my p esen a gumen any such explana ion is me ely a means o an end. In a con ibu ion like he p esen one, w i en agains he backg ound o a Ge man adi ion o hough , and aimed a a mul ina ional, mainly English- speaking audience, cla i ica ion is p obably s ill necessa y a his poin , no leas because he common Ge man ansla ion o “mas e na a i e” (Meis e e zählung) seems o miss some hing essen ial. Mo eo e , i migh e en lead o alse associa- ions, as i he dominan na a i es in he sense o Glucksmann’s Meis e denke (1977)51 we e mean , a he han dominan na a i es pe se o e en mo e abs- ac , dominan na a i e pa e ns. The oo s o di e en ia ion a e, as usual, hea ily ami ied and complex. We migh , howe e , no e he pa allel de elopmen in Ame ican analy ical philoso- phy, which g adually e ealed he na a i e logic o his o iog aphy and his o y a e he wa and pe haps culmina ed o he i s ime in “Philosophy and His o y,” a con e ence held in 1963.52 The dis inc ion, howe e , also goes back o he i s olume o one o Claude Lé i-S auss’s majo wo ks, published jus a yea la e (like many o he undamen al insigh s on close inspec ion).53 In his g oundb eaking s uc u alis s udy My hologiques (1964–1971), Lé i-S auss iden i ies he incommensu abili y o he na a i e s uc u es o indigenous Sou h Ame ican my hologies and Wes e n obse e s and a emp s o con ey his hia us me hodically. Hayden Whi e’s amous “emplo men s” (1973),54 and abo e 51 And é Glucksmann, Die Meis e denke (Be lin: Ulls ein, 1989). 52 Sidney Hook, ed., Philosophy and his o y. A symposium (New Yo k: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess), 1963. 53 Claude Lé i-S auss, My hologiques. Volume 1: The Raw and he Cooked (Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1983), 1–34. Ge man ansla ion by E a Moldenhaue : My hologica I: Das Rohe und das Gekoch e (F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1976), 11–53. 54 Hayden Whi e, Me ahis o y. Die his o ische Einbildungsk a im 19. Jah hunde in Eu opa (F ank u am Main: S. Fische , 1991), 15–62. Wha is Public His o y   17 all Jean-F ançois Lyo a d’s c i ique o he “mé a éci s” (o “g and na a i es”) (1979),55 we e subsequen ly able o build on hese models. In he same yea 1979, Law ence S one p oclaimed he “ e i ial o he na a i e.”56 This laid he ounda- ions o a wide a ie y o o he o ms. This heo e ical de elopmen was accom- panied by he onse o he “memo y boom” in Wes e n socie ies,57 and no leas by he g adual es ablishmen o a scien i ic public his o y in he USA.58 The es is as legend has i . Since a ound 2000, he e m “basic na a i e” has c ep in o schola ly dis- cussion. Se e al au ho s ha e ecen ly used i p agma ically and inc easingly e- quen ly, bu ha dly anyone has de ined i speci ically.59 P ecisely his, howe e , seems impe a i e: a de ini ion would help o sensibly dis inguish he a ian s ou - lined abo e, especially he now enowned “mas e na a i e” (Meis e e zählung)60 om he “basic na a i e.”61 Basic na a i es As a as I can ell, h ee a emp s ha e been since 2006 o de ine basic na a i- es: i s , om a communica ions science pe spec i e (2008/2016); second, om wi hin he p agma ic discussion on his o y eaching (2012); hi d, om he pe - spec i e o empi ical his o ical-cul u al esea ch (2006). 55 Jean F ançois Lyo a d, Das pos mode ne Wissen. Ein Be ich (Vienna: Passagen-Ve lag, 2015). 56 Law ence S one, “The Re i al o Na a i e: Re lec ions on a new Old His o y,” Pas and P esen 85 (1979), 3–24. 57 Jay Win e , “Die Gene a ion de E inne ung. Re lexionen übe den Memo y-Boom in de zei- his o ischen Fo schung,” We ks a Geschich e 10 (2001), 5–16. 58 See Benson, B ie , and Rosenzweig, “In oduc ion,” XV–XXIV. 59 Many o he possible examples o his kind o p agma ism migh be ci ed. Recen examples include Wol gang Mülle -Funk, Die Kul u und ih e Na a i e: eine Ein üh ung, 2nd ed. (Vienna: Sp inge , 2008), 223–247. In his o y didac ics, we migh men ion Susanne Popp’s in luen- ial essay “Ein global o ien ie es Geschich sbewuss sein als zukün ige He aus o de ung de Geschich sdidak ik?” Sowi-Online 2, 1 (2002), 1–13. O mo e ecen ly And ea Kolpa zik’s “His o y goes Online. Sp achp oduk ion und mediale Wandel im Spiegel,” Geschich e und Sp ache, eds. Saskia Hand o and Be nd Schönemann, Zei geschich e, Zei e s ändnis 21 (Be lin: LIT-Ve l, 2010). 162. 60 Kon ad H. Ja ausch and Ma in Sab ow, eds., “Meis e e zählung – Zu Ka ie e eines Beg i s,” In Die his o ische Meis e e zählung. Deu ungslinien de deu schen Geschich e nach 1945 (Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 2002), 9–32. 61 Pe e Gau schi, Ma kus Be nha d , and Ul ich Maye , “Gu e Geschich sun e ich - P inzipien,” In Handbuch P axis Geschich sun e ich , eds. Michele Ba icelli and Ma in Lücke (Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau, 2012), 326–48, esp. 332–34. 18   Ma ko Deman owsky Following Fasulo and Zucche maglio (2008),62 Pe in and Wyss (2016) obse ed: Na a ion no only de elops ac s o discu si e a gumen s, bu combines incommensu a- ble discou ses om he con ex o speci ic si ua ions by causally linking hem and hus making sense o na a o s and ecipien s. These include basic na a i es ha a e pa o e e y cul u e and a e handed down om gene a ion o gene a ion.63 Much comes oge he in his e sion, bu wha seems mos impo an – alas, only implici ly – a e he e e ences o Lé i-S auss, especially he ele ance o e e y- day li e, adi ion, and incommensu abili y. No is he gene a i e imp in ing o hese communica i e amewo ks uly execu ed; a e e ing o he w i ing o he e hnologis Jan Vansina (1985)64 would seem p omising; Jan Assmann, as is well known, u he de eloped his app oach in his heo y o cul u al memo y a ew yea s la e .65 Ma kus Be nha d , Pe e Gau schi, and Ul ich Maye wen abou de ining “basic na a i es” in 2012.66 Re e ing o he p oblems o he school cu iculum, as Susanne Popp had done p e iously (2002), hey ook a s and in he deba e agains a na ional-his o ical and ch onological s uc u e. They use he e m “mas e na a i e” in his con ex o nega i e cha ac e iza ion. Fo Be nha d and his colleagues, “basic na a i es,” on he o he hand, deno e opics so ele- an o “collec i e memo y” ha hey mus be augh , no ma i ely. Two o he undamen al e ms a e de i ed by Be nha d e al. om such a concep o basic na a i es: “basic knowledge,” as he knowledge aspec o hese na a i es, and “indi idual ep esen a ion”. E en i he la e subdi ision seems somewha a bi- a y, e en i he espec i e heo y is ba ely con ex ualized, e en i he polemical con as wi h wha is ac ually obsole e, and e en i , inally, he con ining na ional “mas e na a i es” can be ques ioned agains he backg ound o heo y de elop- men since 1960, bo h he a emp ed di e en ia ion and he cu so y e e ence o he ca ego y o “iden i y” seem o ad ance he sea ch o de ini ion. A ew yea s ea lie (2006), I had al eady made a s ab a de ini ion. A he ime, howe e , my a emp ed dis inc ion – be ween basic na a i es and mas e 62 Alessand a Fasulo and C is ina Zucche maglio, “Na a i es in he wo kplace. Fac s, ic ions, and canonici y,” Tex & Talk 28 (2008), 351–76, esp. 371–72. 63 Daniel Pe in and Vinzenz Wyss, “In die Geschich en e zählen. Die Analyse on Na a ion in ö en liche Kommunika ion,” In Handbuch nich -s anda disie e Me hoden in de Kommunika ionswissenscha , eds. S e anie A e beck-Lie z and Michael Meye (Wiesbaden: Sp inge , 2016), 241–56, esp. 247. 64 Jan Vansina, O al T adi ion as His o y (Madison: The Uni e si y o Wisconsin P ess, 1985), 21–24. 65 See Assmann, Das kul u elle Gedäch nis (1992). 66 Gau schi, Be nha d , and Maye , “Gu e Geschich sun e ich - P inzipien,” 332–34. Wha is Public His o y   19 na a i es – a ac ed li le a en ion.67 Twel e yea s la e , I e u n o i , albei in a modi ying and c i ical manne . I goes like his: basic na a i es a e collec i e na a i e pa e ns. No only do hey in ol e na ional-his o ical symbol o ma ion, bu also and abo e all eligious, pseudo- eligious, ibal, and occupa ion- ela ed symbol o ma ion. These o ma ions, howe e , canno be a ibu ed o speci ic au ho s as a ule. These basic na a i es a e he seman ic essel o collec i e iews o he pas . Basic na a i es a e anonymous and p o ound iden i ica ion s uc u es o opinion and meaning in socie ies. They o en appea as unspoken p econ- di ions. Mo eo e , hey o e a sys em o coo dina es o e e y kind o collec- i e sel -concep and hus o exe cised no mali y68 – combined wi h he usual ewa ds and o cou se also wi h some imes sublime, some imes explici punish- men s. Basic na a i es can ha e such e ec s because hey a e no simply blu ed, opaque ideas, bu ins ead ins i u ionalized and socially p o en belie s inca na ed in ou e e yday ins i u ions, which Mau ice Halbwachs (1925) desc i- bed as social amewo ks.69 This idea is pa icula ly ob ious when we look a educa ional ins i u ions, school sys ems, his o y lessons and cu icula. Bu hese basic na a i es also li e in museums, a chi es, memo ials, ele ision se ies, Bollywood mo ies, in ou pa liamen s, a ic ules, and house numbe s, and no leas in uni e si ies. They a e an essen ial pa o ou cul u al sys em and unde s anding. Thus, in his espec , we may indeed encoun e basic na a i es. They a e nei he simply a heo e ical cons uc no an eccen ic idea. Each o us is o cou se in i ed o gi e his issue di e en names, and ye e ms a e no jus wo ds no a ma e o one-upmanship. In he in e es s o ad ancing discussion, we would do well o ensu e ha ou s a emen s can be ollowed up, made cohe- en , and ope a ionalized. In his sense, basic na a i es a e no mé a éci s à la Lyo a d; hey ep esen no hing, he e o e, which could be b ough o a ges al by a e lec i e a ange- men o a base o measu ed and app op ia e alidi y and dissol ed in o quasi- na u al, speci ically, case- ela ed bound back na a i es and be dissol ed in o 67 Ma ko Deman owsky, “Ös e eichische Schulbüche als Quellen de Geschich skul u - Fo schung. Die Behandlung de 48e Re olu ion und des magya isch-habsbu gischen Kon lik s,” Geschich sdidak ische Schulbuch o schung, eds. Saskia Hand o and Be nd Schönemann, Zei geschich e - Zei e s ändnis 16 (Be lin: LIT-Ve l, 2006), 149–76 (162). 68 O , as Foucaul pu i : “Eine No malisie ungsgesellscha is de his o ische E ek eine au das Leben ge ich e e en Mach echnologie”; see Die O dnung de Dinge. Eine A chäologie de Humanwissenscha en (F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 1971), 172. The quo e ansla es as: “A no malizing socie y is he his o ical e ec o a li e-o ien ed echnology o powe ” ( ansla ed by Ma k Kybu z). 69 See Halbwachs, Das Gedäch nis und seine sozialen Bedingungen. 20   Ma ko Deman owsky quasi-na u al, locally oo able na a i es. Ra he , hey a e ela ed o he implici heo ies o “al e na i e amewo ks”70 ha appea indi idually bu a e always collec i ely ancho ed: hey claim alidi y in he consciousness o g oup membe s, ye wi hou hese ei he wan ing o e en being able o accoun o hem. On he con a y. They ha e always exis ed, endowed wi h emendous pe sis ence, because hei bea e s de i e a subs an ial pa o hei iden i y om such implici heo ies. Typical o ms o such heo ies include pe sonaliza ion, men aliza ion, pe soni ica ion (as desc ibed by Halldén 1997), which would ce ainly comple- men , also a di e en le els, hypos asis and p esen ism. On close inspec ion, he ela ionship be ween basic na a i es and implici heo ies can be seen as one o implica ion. Implici heo ies, in Halldén’s sense, o m – ac oss g oups – he speci ic o m o basic na a i es. These acqui e hei iden i ying, g oup-con- s i u ing powe h ough e e ence o con en - ela ed p o isions. Ideologies o all s ipes ha e hei place he e. The ac o s o all basic na a i es may be said o shape hei ma e ial in a se o equal o ms. In subs ance, howe e , hey o en pi hei e o s agains each o he , o he pu poses o sel - ecogni ion and dis- inc ion. This p ac ice necessa ily has ecou se o a “limi ing s uc u e”71; wha eme ges om his is ha basic na a i es cons i u e cul u al en i ies, he ehicles o collec i e iden i y. Na a i e di e ences The p oduc i i y o an analy ical pe spec i e on he connec ion be ween he ca ego ies o “na a i e” and “iden i y” has al eady been explo ed by Ma g e R. Some s (1994)72: ... we mus ejec he decoupling o ac ion om on ology, and ins ead accep he same no ion o social being and social iden i y is, willy-nilly, inco po a ed in o each and e e y knowledge-s a emen abou ac ion, agency, and beha iou . ... he e aming o na a i e allows us o make ha enla gemen .73 70 Ola Halldén, “Concep ual Change and he Lea ning o His o y,” In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 27 (1997), 201–210. 71 Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann, “E hnogenie und E hnogenese. Theo e isch-e hnologische und ideok i ische S udie,” In S udien zu E hnogenese, Abhandlungen de Rheinisch-Wes älschen Akademie de Wissenscha en, 72 (Opladen: Wes deu sche Ve lag, 1985), 9–27, esp. 19. 72 Ma g e R. Some s, “The na a i e cons i u ion o iden i y,” Theo y and Socie y 23 (1994), 605–649. 73 Ibid, 615–16. Wha is Public His o y   21 This app oach, Some s a gues, means ha esea ch does no look o isola ed seman ic assignmen s in o de o analyze g oup-speci ic iden i ies, bu ins ead ollows a basic claim: ... ha we disce n he meaning o any single e en only in empo al and spa ial ela ionship o o he e en s. Indeed, he chie cha ac e is ic o na a i e is ha i ende s unde s anding only by connec ing ... pa s o a cons uc ed con igu a ion o a social ne wo k o ela ion- ships ... composed by symbolic, ins i u ional, and ma e ial p ac ices.74 The dis inc ion be ween hese p ac ices would need o be ques ioned, in pa i- cula whe he he h ee ypes exis on a logical le el. Wha is essen ial, howe e , is ha iden i y e e ences can only be su icien ly unde s ood in hei na a i e cha ac e . Mo eo e , hey gene a e g oup cohesion and mani es hemsel es sub- cu aneously in p ac ices. Impo an ly, Some s dis inguishes ou dimensions o g oup- ela ed na a i i y: – On ological na a i es: “These a e he s o ies ha social ac o s use o make sense o – indeed, o ac in – hei li es. On ological na a i es a e used o de ine who we a e; his in u n can be a p econdi ion o knowing wha o do.” – Public Na a i es: “Public na a i es a e hose na a i es a ached o cul u al and ins i u ional o ma ions la ge han he single indi idual, o in e subjec i e ne wo ks o ins i u ions, howe e local o g and, mic o- o mac o-s o ies ...” – Me ana a i i y: “This hi d dimension o na a i i y e e s o he ‘mas e - na a i es’ in which we a e embedded as con empo a y ac o s in his o y and as social scien is s. Ou sociological heo ies and concep s a e encoded wi h aspec s o hese mas e na a i es – P og ess, Decadence, Indus ializa ion, Enligh enmen , e c.” – Concep ual Na a i i y: “These a e he concep s and explana ions ha we cons uc as social esea che s.”75 The doubling o “On ological Na a i es,” as indi idual achie emen s o iden i i- ca ion, compa ed o “Public” and “Me ana a i es,” as g oup- ela ed, ins i u io- nalized phenomena, p o ides aluable insigh s, e en i hei conc e e in e ac ion emains unclea . The dis inc ion be ween he la e wo e ms does no seem en i ely ob ious. Thei espec i e de ini ions encompass much o wha has been discussed abo e as “basic na a i es,” and may hus be summa ized below. The me ana a i e aspec co esponds o he abo e app oach o implici heo ies. 74 Ibid, 616. 75 Ibid., 618–620. 22   Ma ko Deman owsky I conce ns ecu ing o mal pa e ns, which a e used by di e en g oups and cha ged di e en ly. S ikingly, wha Some s e e s o as “Concep ual Na a i i y” lies on a di e- en le el han he i s h ee dimensions. This conce ns speci ically add essa- ble, au ho ial achie emen s. Some s’s con inemen o scien is s does no s ike me as compelling, because such na a i e c ea ions can no only be in odu- ced in o discou se by jou nalis s, poli icians, a is s, e c. Ra he , his is o en done by pe sons possessing a highe social e icacy. He e, we a e dealing wi h nameable p essu e g oups and hei na a i e o e ings. These a e in luen ial bu no iden ical wi h he social amewo k o collec i e memo y (Halbwachs 2008 [1925]) as hey ind in he basic na a i es hei own al e na i e exis ence. This is pe haps wha he Ge man-speaking discussion collapses in o a “mas e na a i e,” a ca ego y pe haps concei ed o by “old whi e men.” Allego ically speaking, hey a e he lags o banne s ( isible om a a ) o collec i e his- o ical sense-making and hei basic na a i es. Gi en hei popula i y and pe sonaliza ion, hey easily conceal he deep and ins i u ionally ubiqui ous sys em o oo s om which hey ha e g own. Mas e na a i es a e a case o his o y poli ics and alue-o ien ed educa ion o o he ecu ing celeb a ions o o icial holidays. In con as , basic na a i es ep esen he ma ix o ou his o ical hinking, he implici heo ies o collec i es. They a e ou e e yday his o ical ame o hough . To es ablish he g ea es possible cla i y o ou discussion, I consis en ly ollow Some s’s “Concep ual Na a i es” in wha ollows. The dis inc ion be ween basic na a i es and concep ual na a i es seems impo an o he esea ch me hodological dis inc ion and delimi a ion o scien- i ic public his o y p ojec s: we need o he esea ch me hods in o de o, on he one hand, unde s and he o igin, li e, and possible decline, o ins ance, o he T ei zschke, Michele , o McNeill na a i e and hei espec i e his o ical o ms; o whe he , on he o he hand, we a e ying o explain he s uc u e o collec i e his o ical impu a ions, he s uc u es o collec i e memo y. Fo he la e , he me- neu ic in e p e a ions o published o a chi ed ma e ial a e simply no adequa e enough; we need se ial sou ces, s a is ical analyses, quali a i e social esea ch, and also he a ious ins umen s o cul u al an h opology. Fou analy ical aspec s o basic na a i es Fo esea ch pu poses, i s ill seems use ul o conside he analy ical aspec s o basic and concep ual na a i es. A c i ical app oach based a he leas on he Wha is Public His o y   23 wo ks o Klaus P. Hansen (1995),76 Jan Assmann (1992), and Be nd Schönemann (2000)77 is capable o dis inguishing ou aspec s: a. Social oles, o ins ance, p o essions and unc ions, which a e de e mined by basic na a i es and hei speci ic ec ui men p ocedu es, cul i a ions, and social si ua ion. Rele an g oups include, jus o example, p ies s, museum guides, communis p opagandis s, and eache s. b. The social and linguis ic ules o he basic na a i es as limi a ions o no - mali y and o de . He e, i seems pa icula ly ui ul o sys ema ically include esea ch on implici heo ies in public his o y esea ch, and he eby o make me ana a i es empi ically angible in Some s’s e ms. c. The media o he basic na a i es as he o ces shaping hei social in e ac ion. Pe haps his needs no u he explana ion, o he han he hin ha we ha e been empha ically made awa e o he mediali y o public his o y h ough ou cu en gene a ion’s expe ience o he digi al e olu ion. O en imes, ac s, and ci cums ances mus become non-sel -e iden in o de o ende hei meaning isible. d. Finally, he i uals o he basic na a i e as i s social eali y. This aspec has no ye been discussed su icien ly he e, because claiming ha basic na a i e p ac ice is essen ially i ualis ic is admi edly qui e da ing. I mus o go a de ailed discussion o easons o space, bu wo hin s a e possible. On he one hand, in he empi ical analysis o he places o public his o y, be hey museums, cinemas, class ooms o e en memo ials, i is appa en ha hese places can only be obse ed h ough hei s uc u al design, a chi ec u e, speci ic pa hs, communica ions, consume ac ions, e c. This is a ui ul ield o esea ch.78 On he o he hand, he limi ed s uc u e o basic na a i es has also been add essed (Mühlmann 1985). This s uc u e is p ac ically and empi ically obse able in he social ac ions in ol ed, o ins ance, wi h g oup admission, wi h p o ing onesel wo hy in g oups, and wi h sanc ion and exclusion p ocesses: ha is o say, socially haza d- ous i es o passage cha ac e ized chie ly by limi ali y, being challenged o o e come all kinds o bounda ies. These i ual p ocesses we e o iginally 76 Klaus P. Hansen, Kul u und Kul u wissencha . Eine Ein üh ung (Tübingen: UTB, 1995). 77 See Schönemann, “Geschich sdidak ik und Geschich skul u .”. 78 Ma ko Deman owsky, “Gedenks ä en de 48e Re olu ion als His o ische Le n-O e. Eine Übe sich ,” In O e his o ischen Le nens, eds. Saskia Hand o and Be nd Schönemann, Zei geschich e – Zei e s ändnis 18. (Be lin: Li , 2008), 149–164. See also, Ma co Ze was, “Le no ‘Deu sches Eck’. Zu Va iabili ä geschich skul u elle Deu ungsmus e ,” Geschich sdidak ische S udien 1 (Be lin: Logos, 2015), 49–73. 24   Ma ko Deman owsky in es iga ed by an Gennep (1960 [1909])79 and la e by Vic o Tu ne (1997 [1969]).80 Pu simply, hey cons i u e iden i y. “Recogni ion” as pi o al o iden i ica ion A he la es since Hegel, we know ha indi iduals necessa ily s i e o o ms o social ecogni ion.81 They do his no leas wi h ega d o hei ela ionship o he pas and hei iden i y.82 While such e o s may succeed o ail, g oups and socie ies a e also s ongly in e es ed in in e oga ing young people, o eigne s, o 79 A nold Van Gennep, The Ri es o Passage (Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1960). 80 Vic o Tu ne , The Ri ual P ocess. S uc u e and An i-S uc u e (New B unswick and London: Aldine T ansac ion 1997). 81 The ca ego y o “ ecogni ion” is cen al no only o Hegel’s en i e ea ly philosophy, bu also o his la e e lec ions on social p ocesses. Thus, i we go back behind Rüsen, we need o hink o he He -Knech passage in he Phenomenology o he Spi i (1807), and beau i- ully explained also in he Philosophy o Law, § 192 (1820). See G.W.F Hegel, G undlinien de Philosophie des Rech s (F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1986), 349; see also Phänomenologie des Geis es (F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1986), 150–153. Some con empo a y philosophy does no in e p e he He -Knech chap e om a social-philosophical poin o iew, whe eas in ac he con ex also jus i ies he philosophy o law om a social-philosophical poin o iew. In any case, he la e became e ec i e in Hegel’s poli ical and philosophical ecep- ion. Especially impo an is he young Ma x (1844). See his “Ökonomisch-philosophische Manusk ip e. D i es Manusk ip ,” In Ma x Engels We ke E gänzungsband 1 (Be lin: Die z Ve lag, 1968), 530–588. 82 The ela ionship be ween his o y and iden i y has been discussed o a long ime. See, o ins ance, He mann Lübbe, “Die Iden i ä sp äsen a ions unk ion de His o ie,” In Iden i ä , eds. Odo Ma qua d and Ka lheinz S ie le (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1979) 277–292; see also o he con i- bu ions o his olume. As i is, schools and pa ies ha e eme ged wi hin such a b oadly de el- oped discussion, some imes c i icizing his concep ou igh ( igh ly so, i i is ins umen alized no ma i ely), and some imes pos ula ing i a i ma i ely. This con ibu ion does no see i sel as belonging o any o hese ac ions. Ins ead, i employs “iden i y” as a desc ip i e ca ego y o indi idually and collec i ely expe ienced sel -unde s anding, expe ienced sel -knowledge, i.e., as an empi ical ac guiding human beha io . This ac has di e en ace s, o which he ime- ela ed one is o in e es he e. As Rüsen pu i , “Sinnbildung übe Zei e ah ung [sense-making o e he expe ience o ime]”; see his His o ische Ve nun (1983), 51–57. Jü gen S aub p o ides a good o e iew o he deba e in “Iden i ä ,” Handbuch de Kul u wissenscha en, ol. 1, eds. F ied ich Jaege and Bu kha d Liebsch (S u ga : Me zle , 2011), 277–363. This a emp can be based on Samuel’s insigh , no sys ema ically de eloped, o link “iden i y” wi h public his o y. See Raphael Samuel, Thea es o Memo y: Pas and P esen in Con empo a y Cul u es (London: Ve so, 2012), 278. Wha is Public His o y   25 ou side s. The ailu e o ejec ion o iden i ica ion eques s emains he main ool o social disciplining. The explana ion o socie y’s handling o his o y is no ye comple e. The e is ano he p ocess o ecogni ion, one which uns in he opposi e di ec ion. As we ha e seen, indi iduals seek collec i e ecogni ion – bu no basic na a i e g oup exis s wi hou compe ing al e na i es. This may be seen as a ma ke o o e bid- ding, symme ical and asymme ical iden i y o e s. This is pa icula ly e iden when one ecalls Eas e n Eu opean dissiden s du ing he Cold Wa . Thei ejec ion o he communis na a i e made hem dissi- den s o he i s ime. I one conside s indi idual scopes o ac ion and beha io- al oppo uni ies in ela ion o iden i ica ion o e s wi h a o ali a ian claim, hen a wide spec um o di e en indi idual non- ecogni ions o collec i e meanings opens up. No only s aigh o wa d ejec ion exis s, bu so do many ypes o es- ilien , esis an , o dissen ing beha io .83 Mind you, howe e , hese op ions a e alid no only in dic a o ships, bu also in plu alis ic socie ies and in he many, many g oups compe ing o con esso s and consume s. Collec i es a e cons i u- ed by hei basic na a i es and need o wo y abou hei his o ical capaci y o in eg a ion, hei powe o pe suasion, and hei emo ional e iciency. Collec i es ha lose he ways in which hey iden i y membe s usually collapse one day in No embe . In he ue sense, we a e alking abou a pe manen and complex his o ical and pas - ela ed discou se on iden i y.84 Cul u ally and his o ically, i is always newly cons i u ed. I is an ac ual con on a ion o anonymous powe , wi hin a powe sys em, wi h and by he indi idual; and i is a pe manen , ye haza dous op ion o e u e hese claims. I is a complex and mo e o less con inuously ci cula ing sys em o success, pa ial success, and ailu e in he business o mu ual accep ance. I is abou powe , sel -de e mina ion, and collec i e in eg a ion. The concep o discou se allows us o unde s and he posi ion o he indi idual, o de e mine his o he agile space o eedom – ha is limi ed by indi idual needs and he ules o 83 See he long deba e abou he esis ance agains he Nazi dic a o ship, o ins ance, Ian Ke shaw’s “Wide s and ohne Volk? Dissens und Wide s and im D i en Reich,” In: De Wide s and gegen den Na ionalsozialismus, eds. Jü gen Schmädeke and Pe e S einbach (Munich: Pipe , 1986), 779–98. 84 The e m “discou se” is legenda y in i sel . While I ha e e e ed o Foucaul se e al imes, many o he ele an con ibu ions o his deba e ob ious exis , o ins ance, by Habe mas, Bou dieu, o mos ecen ly also by Laclau and Mou e (2000). Fo an o e iew, see Achim Landweh , His o ische Disku sanalyse (F ank u a.M.: Campus, 2008), 91–99. 32   Ma ko Deman owsky The oles can be clea ly dis inguished, bu no he people who some imes play hese oles, some imes hose and some imes a comple ely di e en one. Howe e , ole awa eness and ole so e eign y a e help ul bo h o he add essees o com- munica ion and o he communica o himsel . Ou look The in e na ional public his o y scene is li ely, ichly ace ed, and di e se – which is saying a g ea deal abou an in e disciplina y cul u al ield o inqui y. Is his scene al eady plu alis ic? This ques ion calls o a mo e skep ical assess- men . Hi he o dominan concep ual nominalism, which has enabled a cons- an ly expandable addi i e consensus on wha can be added o “public his o y,” has ended o conceal undamen al di e ences in con en abou he o ien a ion, unc ion, and ac o s o he public uses o his o y, a leas in academic discus- sions, con e ences, and publica ions. La ge public his o y con e ences may he e- o e s ike he ou side as colo ul ai s han as pla o ms o necessa y dispu es and ui ul con o e sy. Howe e , such p o ound di e ences may be sa ely assumed o exis , no leas because iden i y discou ses ha e become inc easingly ele an poli ically and ha e subsequen ly been ins umen alized h oughou he wo ld, om China h ough India o he A ab wo ld, Russia, Eu ope, and so on, in ecen yea s. The much- aun ed e u n o eligion and he clash o cul u es de e mine he agenda o he public sphe e, bo h as domes ic and as o eign policy. An in e na ional mul ilingual ans-academic discipline may ei he mi o his si ua ion o lose i sel in mu ual backslapping and in his o ical an iqua ianism. O as Nie zsche amously pu i (1874): The an iqua ian sense o a man, a communi y, a whole people, always possesses an ex emely es ic ed ield o ision; mos o wha exis s i does no pe cei e a all, and he li le i does see i sees much oo close up ans isola ed; i canno ela e wha i sees o any- hing else and i he e o e acco ds e e y hing i sees equal impo ance and he e o e o each indi idual hing oo g ea impo ance. The e is a lack o ha disc imina ion o alue and ha sense o p opo ion which would dis inguish be ween he hings o he pas in a way ha would do ue jus ice o hem; hei measu e and p opo ion is always ha acco ded hem by he backwa d glance o he an iqua ian na ion o indi idual.93 93 F ied ich Nie zsche, Un imely medi a ions, ansla ed by R.J. Hollingdale (New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1983), 74. Wha is Public His o y   33 In his ho izon, he p oposed de ini ion o public his o y gains u he g ound: i opens he doo o a poli ically commi ed ans-academic discipline ha is always able o see and commen on i s objec s in he ligh o hei public ins umen a- liza ion. The e lec ions o e ed he e ha e iden i ied and subs an ia ed bo h he guiding p inciple and he quali y c i e ion: he de ense and he de elopmen o democ a ic plu alism. Li e a u e Ci ed Angeh n, Emil. Geschich e und Iden i ä . Be lin (Wes ): De G uy e , 1985. Angeh n, Emil. “De Mensch in de Geschich e. Kons ella ionen his o ische Iden i ä ”. In: Iden i ä und Geschich e ed. by Emil Angeh n, Ge d Jü emann, 7–52. Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech . 2018. A endes, Co d, Angela Siebold. “Zwischen akademische Be u ung und p i a wi scha lichem Be u . Fü eine Deba e um E hik- und Ve hal enskodizes in de his o ischen P o ession”. In Geschich e in Wissenscha und Un e ich 66 (2015): 152–66. Assmann, Aleida. Cul u al memo y and Wes e n ci iliza ion: unc ions, media, a chi es. NewYo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2011. Assmann, Jan. Das kul u elle Gedäch nis: Sch i , E inne ung und poli ische Iden i ä in ühen Hochkul u en. München: Beck, 1992. Assmann, Jan. Cul u al Memo y and Ea ly Ci ilisa ion. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2011. Bachmann-Medick, Do is. Cul u al Tu ns. Neuo ien ie ungen in den Kul u wissenscha en. Reinbek bei Hambu g: Rowohl 2018. English e sion: Bachmann-Medick, Do is. Cul u al Tu ns: New O ien a ions in he S udy o Cul u e. Be lin/ Bos on: De G uy e , 2016. Benson, Susan, S ephen B ie , and Roy Rosenzweig. In oduc ion. In P esen ing he Pas . Essays on His o y and he Public, XV–XXIV. Philadelphia: Temple Uni e si y P ess, 1986. Be y, Chad, Lo i A. Schmied and Jose Chad Sch ock. “The Role o Emo ion in Teaching and Lea ning His o y: A Schola ship o Teaching Explo a ion”. In The His o y Teache 41 (2008): 437–452. Cau in, Thomas. ”T a e se les on iè es: une his oi e publique in e na ionale/C ossing Ba ie s: an In e na ional Public His o y/G enzen übe sch ei en: eine In e na ionale Public His o y”. In Public His o y Weekly 5 (2017) 13, DOI: dx.doi.o g/10.1515/phw-2017-9018. Cau in, Thomas. “The Rise o Public His o y: An In e na ional Pe spec i e”. In His o ia C i ica 68 (2018): 3–26. Cau in, Thomas. Public His o y. A Tex book o P ac ice. New Yo k and London: Rou ledge, 2016. Co nelißen, Ch is oph: ”Was heiß E inne ungskul u ? Beg i – Me hoden – Pe spek i en”. In Geschich e in Wissenscha und Un e ich 54 (2003), 548–63. De G oo , Je ome. Consuming His o y. His o ians and he i age in con empo a y popula cul u e. London dand New Yo k: Rou ledge, 2009. Deman owsky, Ma ko. „De Beginn demoskopische Geschich sbewuss seins-Fo schung in Deu schland. Die Fo schungsg uppe ‚Sozialis isches Geschich sbewuss sein’ am Ins i u ü Gesellscha swissenscha en beim ZK de SED“. In Zei sch i ü Geschich sdidak ik 4 (2005): 146–75. 34   Ma ko Deman owsky Deman owsky, Ma ko. “Geschich skul u und E inne ungskul u . Zwei Konzep ionen des einen Gegens andes”. In Geschich e, Poli ik und ih e Didak ik 33 (2005): 11–20. Deman owsky, Ma ko. “Geschich sbild”. In Wö e buch Geschich sdidak ik, 82–83. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau, 2006. Deman owsky, Ma ko. “Ös e eichische Schulbüche als Quellen de Geschich skul- u -Fo schung. Die Behandlung de 48e Re olu ion und des magya isch-habsbu gischen Kon lik s”. In Geschich sdidak ische Schulbuch o schung, ed. by Saskia Hand o and Be nd Schönemann, 149–76. Zei geschich e - Zei e s ändnis 16. Be lin: Li -Ve lag, 2006. Deman owsky, Ma ko. “Gedenks ä en de 48e Re olu ion als His o ische Le n-O e. Eine Übe sich ”. In O e his o ischen Le nens ed. by Saskia Hand o, Be nd Schönemann, 149–164. Zei geschich e – Zei e s ändnis 18. Be lin: Li , 2008. Deman owsky, Ma ko. “Public His o y – Subla ion o a Ge man Deba e?/‘Public His o y’ – Au hebung eine deu schsp achigen Deba e?” In Public His o y Weekly 3, 2, 2015, DOI: dx.doi.o g/10.1515/phw-2015-3292. D oysen, Johann Gus a : G und iss de His o ik. Leipzig: Vei , 1868. D oysen, Johann Gus a . Ou lines o he P inciples o His o y ( ansla ed by Elisha B. And ews). Bos on: Ginn & Company, 1897. Ehal , Hube Ch is ian. Geschich e on un en: F ages ellungen, Me hoden und P ojek e eine Geschich e des All ags (Kul u s udien 1). Wien: Böhlau, 1984. Fasulo, Alessand a, C is ina Zucche maglio. “Na a i es in he wo kplace. Fac s, ic ions, and canonici y”. In Tex & Talk 28 (2008): 351–76. Fes , Joachim: Die schwie ige F eihei . Übe die o ene Flanke de o enen Gesellscha . Be lin: Siedle , 1993. Foucaul , Michel: Die O dnung de Dinge. Eine A chäologie de Humanwissenscha en. F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 1971. F ançois, E ienne, Hagen Schulze (eds.): Deu sche E inne ungso e, 3 Bände. München: Beck, 2001. F ei, No be . Ve gangenhei spoli ik. Die An änge de Bundes epublik und die NS- Ve gangenhei . München: Beck, 1996. Gadame , Hans-Geo g. Wah hei und Me hode. G undzüge eine philosophischen He meneu ik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Moh , 1990. Gau schi, Pe e , Ma kus Be nha d , and Ul ich Maye . „Gu e Geschich sun e ich – P inzipien“. In Handbuch P axis Geschich sun e ich , ed. by Michele Ba icelli und Ma in Lücke, 326–48. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau, 2012. Gehlen, A nold. De Mensch. Seine Na u und seine S ellung in de Wel . Wiesbaden: Aula, 1986. Glucksmann, And é. Die Meis e denke . Be lin: Ulls ein, 1989. G een, Alix. “Back o he u u e? Public his o y and he new academc ci izen./Zu ück in die Zukun ? Public His o y und de neue ‘Academic Ci izen’.” In Public His o y Weekly 3, 7 (2015), DOI: dx.doi.o g/10.1515/phw-2015-3590. G e e , Ma ia. “Fea o Plu ali y. His o ical Cul u e and His o iog aphical Canoniza ion in Wes e n Eu ope”. In Gende ing His o iog aphy: Beyond Na ional Canons ed. by Angelika Epple, Angelika Schase , 45–62, F ank u /M., New Yo k 2009. Halbwachs, Mau ice. Das Gedäch nis und seine sozialen Bedingungen. F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 2008. Halldén, Ola. “Concep ual Change and he Lea ning o His o y”. In In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 27 (1997): 201–210. Wha is Public His o y   35 Hansen, Klaus P. Kul u und Kul u wissencha . Eine Ein üh ung. Tübingen: UTB, 1995. Ha d wig, Wol gang. Geschich skul u und Wissenscha . München: d , 1990. Hegel, G.W.F. G undlinien de Philosophie des Rech s. F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1986. Hegel, G.W.F.. Phänomenologie des Geis es. F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1986. Heuss, Al ed: Ve lus de Geschich e. Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 1959. Hook, Sidney (ed.). Philosophy and his o y. A symposium. New Yo k: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess, 1963. Huizinga, Johan: “O e een de ini ie an he beg ip geschiedenis”. In Ve zamelde we ken. Deel 7, 95–103. Haa lem: Willink & Zoon, 1950. Huizinga, Johan. “Übe eine De ini ion des Beg i s de Geschich e”. In Wege de Kul u - geschich e ( ansla ion by We ne Kaegi). München: D ei Masken Ve lag, 1930, pp. 78–88. Jeismann, Ka l-E ns . “Didak ik de Geschich e. Die Wissenscha on Zus and, Funk ion und Ve ände ung geschich liche Vo s ellungen im Selbs e s ändnis de Gegenwa ”. In Geschich swissenscha . Didak ik – Fo schung – Theo ie ed. by E ich Kos ho s , 9–33. Gö ingen, Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 1977. Ja ausch, Kon ad H., Ma in Sab ow. “Meis e e zählung – Zu Ka ie e eines Beg i s”. In Die his o ische Meis e e zählung. Deu ungslinien de deu schen Geschich e nach 1945, 9–32. Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 2002. Jo dano a, Ludmilla: His o y in P ac ice. London, New Yo k: Hodde Educa ion, 2000. Kean, Hilda. “In oduc ion”. In The Public His o y Reade ed. by Hilda Kean and Paul Ma in, XIII–XXXII. London, New Yo k: Rou ledge, 2013. Kelley, Robe . “Public His o y. I ’s O igins, Na u e, and P ospec s”. In The Public His o ian 1 (1978): 16–28. Ke shaw, Ian: “Wide s and ohne Volk? Dissens und Wide s and im D i en Reich”. In: De Wide s and gegen den Na ionalsozialismus ed. by Jü gen Schmädeke, Pe e S einbach, 779–98. München: Pipe , 1986. Kolpa zik, And ea. „His o y goes Online. Sp achp oduk ion und mediale Wandel im Spiegel“. In Geschich e und Sp ache, ed. by Saskia Hand o and Be nd Schönemann. Zei geschich e, Zei e s ändnis 21. Be lin: Li -Ve lag, 2010. K aus, Wol gang. Das e zähl e Selbs . Die na a i e Kons uk ion on Iden i ä in de Spä mode ne. P a enweile : Cen au us, 1996. K eis, Geo g. Schweize E inne ungso e. Aus dem Speiche de Swissness. Zü ich: Ve lag NZZ, 2010. Landweh , Achim. His o ische Disku sanalyse. F ank u a.M.: Campus, 2008. Lé i-S auss, Claude. My hologiques. Volume 1: The Raw and he Cooked, 1–34. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1983. Lé i-S auss, Claude. My hologica I: Das Rohe und das Gekoch e, 11–53. F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 1976. Logge, Tho s en. “Public His o y in Ge many. Challenges ans Oppo uni ies”. In Ge man S udies Re iew 39 (2016): 141–53. Lübbe, He mann. “Die Iden i ä sp äsen a ions unk ion de His o ie”. In Iden i ä ed. by Odo Ma qua d, Ka lheinz S ie le, 277–292. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1979. Lyo a d, Jean F ançois. Das pos mode ne Wissen. Ein Be ich . Wien: Passagen-Ve lag, 2015. Ma x, Ka l. “Ökonomisch-philosophische Manusk ip e. D i es Manusk ip ”. In Ma x Engels We ke E gänzungsband 1, 530–588. Be lin: Die z Ve lag, 1968. Meye -Hamme, Johannes, Bodo on Bo ies: “Sinnbildung übe Zei e ah ung? Geschich s le nen im Spannungs eld on Subjek - und Ins i u ionspe spek i e.” In: Sinnkons uk ion und 36   Ma ko Deman owsky Bildungsgang. Zu Bedeu ung indi iduelle Sinnzusch eibungen im Kon ex schulische Leh -Le n-P ozesse ed. by Hans-Ch is oph Kolle , 107–135. Opladen: Ve lag Ba ba a Bud ich, 2008. Meye -Hamme, Johannes, Bodo on Bo ies. “>I ne e likes his o y a school<. Iden i äen und Emo ionen beim his o ischen Le nen”. In Emo ionen, Geschich e und his o isches Le nen ed. by Juliane B aue , Ma in Lücke, 125–37. Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 2013. Mühlmann, Wilhelm Emil. „E hnogenie und E hnogenese. Theo e isch-e hnologische und ideok i ische S udie“. In S udien zu E hnogenese, 9–27. Abhandlungen de Rheinisch-Wes - älischen Akademie de Wissenscha en, 72. Opladen: Wes deu sche Ve lag, 1985. Mülle -Funk, Wol gang. Die Kul u und ih e Na a i e: eine Ein üh ung. Vienna: Sp inge , 2008. Nie zsche, F ied ich. “Unzei gemässe Be ach ungen. Zwei es S ück: Vom Nu zen und Nach eil de His o ie ü das Leben”. In We ke in d ei Bänden ed. by Wal he Linden, Wol gang Deninge , 201–271. Ke wig: Phaidon, 1990. Nie zsche, F ied ich. Un imely medi a ions ( ansla ed by R.J. Hollingdale). New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1983. Nol e, Paul: “Ö en liche Geschich e. Die neue Nähe on Fachwissenscha , Massenmedien und Publikum: U sachen, Chancen und G enzen”. In Au klä ung, Bildung, «His o ainmen »? Zei geschich e in Un e ich und Gesellscha heu e ed. by Michele Ba icelli, Julia Ho nig, 131–46. F ank u am Main: Pe e Lang, 2008. No a, Pie e. Les Lieux de mémoi e, 3 omes (Biblio hèque illus ée des his oi es). Pa is: Gallima d, 1984–1992. Noi e , Se ge. “L’in e na ionalisa ion de’l His oi e Publique/In e na ionalizing Public His o y/ In e na ionalisie ung de Public His o y”. In Public His o y Weekly 2 (2014) 34, DOI: dx.doi. o g/10.1515/phw-2014-2647. Oexle, O o Ge ha d. Memo ia als Kul u . Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech 1995. Poppe , Ka l R. Die o ene Gesellscha und ih e Feinde, 1, 2. München: F ancke Ve lag, 1957/58. Pe in, Daniel, Vinzenz Wyss. „In die Geschich en e zählen. Die Analyse on Na a ion in ö en liche Kommunika ion“. In Handbuch nich -s anda disie e Me hoden in de Kommunika ionswissenscha ed. By S e anie A e beck-Lie z and Michael Meye , 241–56. Wiesbaden: Sp inge , 2016. Popp, Susanne. “Ein global o ien ie es Geschich sbewuss sein als zukün ige He aus- o de ung de Geschich sdidak ik?” In Sowi-Online 2, 1 (2002): 1–13. Ricoeu , Paul. “Na a i e Iden i ä ”. In Heidelbe ge Jah büche 31 (1987): 55–67. Rüsen, Jö n. His o ische Ve nun . G undzüge eine His o ik I: Die G undlagen de Geschich swissenscha . Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 1983. Rüsen, Jö n, Klaus F öhlich, Hube Ho s kö e , Hans-Gün e Schmid . “Un e suchungen zum Geschich sbewuss sein on Abi u ien en im Ruh gebie ”. In Geschich sbewuss sein empi isch ed. by Bodo . Bo ies e al., 221–344. P a enweile : Cen au us, 1991. Rüsen, Jö n. “Was is Geschich skul u ? Übe legungen zu eine neuen A , übe Geschich e nachzudenken”. In His o ische Faszina ion. Geschich skul u heu e ed. by Klaus Füssmann e al., 3–26. Köln: Böhlau, 1994. Rüsen, Jö n. “Die Mach de Ge ühle im Sinn de Geschich e. Theo e ische G undlagen und das Beispiel des T aue ns”. In Emo ionen, Geschich e und his o isches Le nen ed. by Juliane B aue , Ma in Lücke, 27–44. Gö ingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup ech , 2013. Samida, S e anie: “Public His o y als His o ische Kul u wissenscha . Ein Plädoye ”. In: Docupedia-Zei geschich e (17 Juni 2014), DOI: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.14765/zz .dok.2.575. 1 (las accessed 2 May 2018). Wha is Public His o y   37 Samuel, Raphael. Thea es o Memo y. Pas and P esen in Con empo a y Cul u es. London: Ve so, 2012. on Sa igny, Eike. G undku s im wissenscha lichen De inie en. München: Deu sche Taschen- buch-Ve lag, 1970. Schneide , Ul ich Johannes. Michel Foucaul . Da ms ad : Wissenscha liche Buchgesellscha , 2004. Schöch, Ch is o . “Quan i a i e Analyse”. In Digi al Human ies. Eine Ein üh ung ed. by Fo is Jannidis e al., 279–298. S u ga : J.B. Me zle , 2017. Schönemann, Be nd. “Geschich sdidak ik und Geschich skul u ”. In Geschich skul u . Theo ie– Empi ie – P agma ik ed. by Be nd Mü e e al., 26–58. Weinheim: Bel z, 2000. Schö ken, Rol . „Geschich sdidak ik und Geschich sbewuß sein“. GWU 23 (1972): 81–89. Some s, Ma g e R. “The na a i e cons i u ion i iden i y”. In Theo y and Socie y 23 (1994): 605–649. S one, Law ence. “The Re i al o Na a i e. Re lec ions on a new Old His o y”. In Pas and P esen 85 (1979): 3–24. S aub, Jü gen. “Iden i ä ”. In Handbuch de Kul u wissenscha en, Bd. 1 ed. by F ied ich Jaege , Bu kha d Liebsch, 277–363. S u ga : Me zle , 2011. Tu ne , Vic o . The Ri ual P ocess. S uc u e and An i-S uc u e. New B unswick/London: Aldine T ansac ion 1997. Ueding, Ge . Klassische Rhe o ik. München: Beck, 2004. Van Gennep, A nold. The Ri es o Passage. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1960. Vansina, Jan. O al T adi ion as His o y. Madison: The Uni e si y o Wisconsin P ess, 1985. Whi e, Hayden. Me ahis o y. Die his o ische Einbildungsk a im 19. Jah hunde in Eu opa, 15–62. F ank u am Main: S. Fische , 1991. Win e , Jay. “Die Gene a ion de E inne ung. Re lexionen übe den Memo y-Boom in de zei his- o ischen Fo schung”. In: We ks a Geschich e 10 (2001), 5–16. Wi gens ein, Ludwig. Philosophische Un e suchungen. K i isch-gene ische Edi ion. F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, 2001. Wi gens ein, Ludwig. Philosophical In es iga ions (T ansla ed by G. E. M. Anscombe). Ox o d: Basil Blackwell 1958. Wol um, Edga . Geschich spoli ik in de Bundes epublik Deu schland: de Weg zu bundes e- publikanischen E inne ung 1948 – 1990. Da ms ad : Wissenscha liche Buchgesellscha , 1999. Ze was, Ma co. Le no `Deu sches Eck’. Zu Va iabili ä geschich skul u elle Deu ungsmus e . Geschich sdidak ische S udien 1. Be lin: Logos, 2015. Zündo , I mga d. “Con empo a y His o y and Public His o y”. In Docupedia-Zei geschich e (16 Ma ch 2017), DOI: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.14765/zz .dok.2.1017. 2 (las accessed 1 May 2018).