Neuer Titel erschienen

Bor­ries, Bodo von (2021): Geschicht­sler­nen, Geschicht­sun­ter­richt und Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Erin­nerun­gen, Erfahrungss­chätze, Erfordernisse. 1959/60–2020/21. Frank­furt am Main: Wochen­schau (Wochen­schau Wissenschaft).

Ger­ade ist eben­so erschienen:
Titelbild: Bodo von Borries (2021): Geschichtslernen, Geschichtsunterricht und Geschichtsdidaktik. Erinnerungen, Erfahrungsschätze, Erfordernisse. 1959/60–2020/21. Frankfurt am Main: Wochenschau (Wochenschau Wissenschaft)

Bor­ries, Bodo von (2021): Geschicht­sler­nen, Geschicht­sun­ter­richt und Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Erin­nerun­gen, Erfahrungss­chätze, Erfordernisse. 1959/60–2020/21. Frank­furt am Main: Wochen­schau (Wochen­schau Wissenschaft).

“Das Buch stellt 60 Jahre Geschicht­sun­ter­richt und Geschichts­di­dak­tik aus reflek­tieren­der Rückschau seines inten­siv beteiligten Autors dar. Es quillt über von konkreten Beispie­len, über­raschen­den Anek­doten, erhel­len­den Kon­tro­ver­sen, über­trag­baren Fal­l­analy­sen und pro­duk­tiv­en Anre­gun­gen. Der Band bietet nicht nur einen span­nen­den Ein­blick in die Geschichte der Diszi­plin, son­dern gibt auch Impulse für ihre Zukunft.”

Inhaltsübersicht:

Vorbe­merkung

1. Stich­jahr 1959/60: Das „alte“ nation­alkon­ser­v­a­tiv-poli­tikgeschichtliche und stof­fzen­tri­ert-lehrerdo­minierte Sys­tem – Erfahrung eines Sek. II‑Schülers, dann Stu­den­ten und Ein­schätzung nach 60 Jahren

1.1 NS‑Verdrängung (und Bil­dungs-Expan­sion nach ‑Restau­ra­tion)
1.1.1 Frühe Erfahrun­gen mit Geschichts-Unter­richt und –Schul­buch
1.1.2 NS‑Verharmlosung in benutztem Schul­buch (1956) und Gesamtgesellschaft
1.1.3 Beschei­dene Ansätze zur NS‑Durcharbeitung
1.1.4 Erste beachtliche Bil­dung­sex­pan­sion in verdeck­ter „Großer Koali­tion“ von SPD- und CDU/C­SU-Län­dern

1.2 Geschichts­di­dak­tis­ches Vaku­um und unzure­ichende Lehrerausbildung
1.2.1 Unbe­d­ingte Stoff- und Lehrerdominanz
1.2.2 Ern­stgenommene, aber „rei­fungs­the­o­retisch“ verkürzte Entwicklungspsychologie
1.2.3 Vorge­se­henes „poli­tikgeschichtlich­es Schmal­spurstudi­um“ und eigenes „Löck­en wider den Stachel“
1.2.4 Keine hil­fre­iche Erziehungswis­senschaft, Tota­laus­fall von „Geschichts­di­dak­tik“ und „Schul­prak­ti­ka“

2. Stich­jahr 1971/72: Umbruch von Stoff- und Lehrerdom­i­nanz zu Prob­lem- und Dial­o­gori­en­tierung – Erfahrung eines jun­gen Ref­er­en­dars und Ein­schätzung nach 48 Jahren

2.1 „Meilen­steine“ und „Defizite“
2.1.1 Tiefe Exis­ten­zkrise des Fach­es Geschichte
2.1.2 Stof­füber­frach­tung bei Abschaf­fungsrisiko (durch „Gesellschaft­slehre“)
2.1.3 Erforder­lich­er „Schwenk vom Lehren zum Lernen“
2.1.4 Fachunter­richt nur als Zweite Geige im Stre­ichquar­tett des Geschichtslernens

2.2 „Eigen­beiträge“
2.2.1 Das per­sön­liche Ein­tritts­bil­lett: Vorschlag präzis­er, lohnen­der Lernziele und intel­li­gen­ter, gerechter Tests
2.2.2 „Sozial­i­sa­tion“ plus – keineswegs statt! – „Rei­fung“ des Geschichtsbewusstseins

3. Stich­jahr 1983/84: Etablierung von „Geschichts­be­wusst­sein“ als Leitkat­e­gorie und Bedarf an „Empirie“ als Zugriff – Erfahrung eines auf­streben­den Hochschullehrers und Ein­schätzung nach 36 Jahren

3.1 „Meilen­steine“ und „Haupt­de­fizite“
3.1.1 Leitkat­e­gorie „Geschichts­be­wusst­sein“, noch ohne vollen Kon­struk­tivis­mus und Narrativismus
3.1.2 Kom­pro­miss von „Iden­tität“ und „Emanzi­pa­tion“ – und bei­der bleibende Bedeutung
3.1.3 Kon­se­quente Quel­lenori­en­tierung und ständi­ger Arbeit­sun­ter­richt – Kluge Entscheidung?
3.1.4 „Sinnbil­dungsmuster“ als logisch dif­feren­zierte For­men des unver­mei­dlichen „Gegen­warts­bezugs“

3.2 „Eigen­beiträge“
3.2.1 Beson­der­er Schw­er­punkt I: Alter­na­tive Unterrichtsmodelle
3.2.1.1 „Frauengeschichte“ – gemäß Wis­senschaft­slogik und Verfassungsanspruch!
3.2.1.2 „Kolo­nialgeschichte“ und „Umwelt­geschichte“ als Ausweitung des eng-nationalen Kanons
3.2.2 Beginn der Empirie-Ein­lö­sung: Geschicht­snutzun­gen, Lernarten und Unterrichtsprofile

4. Stich­jahr 1995/96: Quan­ti­ta­tive Eval­u­a­tion des mech­a­nis­chen Massen­ex­per­i­ments „Ost-West-Ver­het­zung“ und begin­nende „Interkul­tur­al­ität“ – Erfahrung eines altge­di­en­ten Pro­fes­sors und Ein­schätzung nach 24 Jahren

4.1 „Meilen­steine“ und „Haupt­de­fizite“
4.1.1 Eine große Stunde inter­na­tionaler Schul­buchar­beit am „Georg-Eck­ert-Insti­tut“
4.1.2 Nationale Veren­gung bei starkem Bedarf eines neuen „inklu­siv­en“ Nation-Building
4.1.3 Langsames Wach­s­tum von „Interkul­tur­al­ität“ in Geschicht­sler­nen und Fachdidaktik
4.1.4 „His­torische Pro­jek­tar­beit“ als „Größen­wahn“ oder „Königsweg“ (bei neuer Computerbenutzung)?

4.2 „Eigen­beiträge“
4.2.1 Beson­der­er Schw­er­punkt II: Quan­ti­ta­tive Ost-West-Vergleiche
4.2.1.1 Jugendlich­es Geschichts­be­wusst­sein in Ost- und West-Deutsch­land (6., 9., 12. Klassenstufe)
4.2.1.2 Jugendlich­es Geschichts­be­wusst­sein in Ost- und West-Europa (9. Klassenstufe)
4.2.2 Neue Unter­richtsmod­elle und qual­i­ta­tive Empirie (als nötiger men­taler „Aus­gle­ich“)

5. Stich­jahr 2007/08: Geschichts-Kom­pe­tenz (nicht-nur-kog­ni­tiv?) als „His­torisch Denken Ler­nen“ und erneute Evaluierung der „Quel­lenori­en­tierung“ – Erfahrung eines bald Zwangspen­sion­ierten und Ein­schätzung nach 12 Jahren

5.1 „Meilen­steine“ und „Haupt­de­fizite“
5.1.1 The­o­riegewinn FUER-Lern­mod­ell und FUER-Kom­pe­tenz­mod­ell, dazu Empiri­etauglichkeit und Prax­ishil­fe (aber auch Grenzen)
5.1.2 Prob­lema­tis­che Cur­ricu­lum­struk­tur und ungek­lärte Lernprogression
5.1.3 Ver­lust der Vor­re­it­er­po­si­tion an die „Kul­tur­wis­senschaft“, Kampf um Empirie-Leistungen?!
5.1.4 Dur­char­beitung von NS‑Katastrophe und SED-Herrschaft

5.2 „Eigen­beiträge“
5.2.1 Beson­der­er Schw­er­punkt III: Begriff­sklärung „Geschicht­sler­nen“ durch The­o­rieer­weiterung, Norm­re­flex­ion und Praxiserprobung
5.2.1.1 „Ver­söh­nen­der Geschicht­saus­tausch“ als ide­ales Ziel und „Par­a­sitäres Fehller­nen“ als dro­hende Praxis
5.2.1.2 Abhil­fe durch kon­sti­tu­tive Moral­re­flex­ion, Emo­tions­bear­beitung. Lebenswelt­bezug und Ästhetikanalyse
5.2.2 „Mixed-Method“-Studie zum „Schul­buchge­brauch“ mit ent­täuschen­den Befunden

6. Stich­jahr 2019/20: „Rückschwenk vom Ler­nen zum Lehren“ und „offene Zukun­fts­fra­gen“ – Gegen­wär­tige Erfahrung und Ein­schätzung eines qua­si-fos­silen Rentners

6.1 „Meilen­steine“ und „Haupt­de­fizite“
6.1.1 Bedauer­lich­er, aber ver­ständlich­er Rückschwenk vom „Ler­nen“ zum „Lehren“
6.1.2 E‑Learning im Fach Geschichte und erneut inten­sivierte inter­na­tion­al-interkul­turelle Zusammenarbeit
6.1.3 Nach­den­kliche Fragenliste
6.1.4 Kom­pe­ten­ztest: Large-Scale-Assess­ment „HiTCH“

6.2 „Eigen­beiträge“
6.2.1 Weit­ere Sys­tem­a­tisierung „nicht-nur-kog­ni­tiv­er“ Anteile des Geschichtslernens
6.2.2 Nagel­probe: „Gegen­wart­skrisen – Ori­en­tierungs­bedürfnisse – Kompetenzgewinne“

7. Faz­it: Ver­such ein­er Zusam­men­fas­sung und „Syn­these“ zu 60 Jahren

7.1 His­torisierung und Phasierung
7.1.1 Trans­for­ma­tion der His­to­rie und Kon­sti­tu­ierung der Diszi­plin Geschichtsdidaktik
7.1.2 Drei Phasen von Geschichtss­chul­buch, Geschicht­sun­ter­richt und Geschichtsdidaktik
7.1.3 Offenkundi­ge Verbesserun­gen und bleibende Sorgen
7.1.4 Anhal­tendes Missver­hält­nis zur Psychologie

7.2 Geschichts­di­dak­tik und Bildungspolitik
7.2.1 Neue zwin­gende Auf­gaben im Curriculum
7.1.2 Schwierige Rekru­tierung von Geschichtsdidaktik-Personal
7.2.3 Neg­a­tiv und fol­gen­los aus­ge­hende Eval­u­a­tion mech­a­nis­ch­er Massenexperimente
7.2.4 Das Beispiel „NS im Rah­men der Welt- und Umweltkunde“ der 6. Klasse

Erwäh­nte Lit­er­atur I: Fremde Publikationen

Erwäh­nte Lit­er­atur II: Eigene Publikationen

Vortrag zum Verhältnis von Wissen und Kompetenzen beim Historischen Lernen

Kör­ber, Andreas (5.5.2021): Knowl­edge and/or/in Com­pe­ten­cies of His­tor­i­cal Think­ing? A Ger­man Per­spec­tive. Online-Vor­trag im Rah­men der Rei­he HEIRNET Keynotes. HEIRNET, 5/5/2021. Avail­able online at https://youtu.be/QD_egiBxycY.

Am 5. Mai werde ich im Rah­men der von Roland Bern­hard (Wien) und Jon Nichol (Exeter) organ­isierten Vor­tragsserie “HEIRNET Keynotes”  des “His­to­ry Edu­ca­tion Inter­na­tion­al Research Net­work HEIRNET)” einen Online-Vor­trag hal­ten zum The­ma “Knowl­edge and/or/in Com­pe­ten­cies of His­tor­i­cal Think­ing? A Ger­man Per­spec­tive”.

Der Vor­trag find­et als ZOOM-Sitzung statt und wird später auf dem Youtube-Kanal der HEIR­NET-Keynotes ver­füg­bar sein.

.

Die näch­ste HEIRNET Keynote wird stat­tfind­en am 2.6.2021.

Die Vorträge der Rei­he sind bisher:

  1. Chap­man, Arthur (UCL Lon­don): “Pow­er­ful Knowl­edge in His­to­ry Edu­ca­tion”. HEIRNET Keynotes, 3/3/2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqfWux9Udnw.
  2. van Box­tel, Car­la (Uni­ver­siteit Ams­ter­dam): “His­tor­i­cal knowl­edge as a resource for under­stand­ing past, present and future”. HEIRNET Keynotes, 4/7/2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnPdHCnipE.
  3. Kör­ber, Andreas (Ham­burg): Knowl­edge and/or/in Com­pe­ten­cies of His­tor­i­cal Think­ing? A Ger­man Per­spec­tive. HEIRNET Keynotes. HEIRNET, 5/5/2021. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7eWJuWGeZVfw1S62y9UqfQ (Video in Vorbereitung).

Neuer Handbuchbeitrag

Kör­ber, Andreas (2021): Kom­pe­tenz­mod­elle in der Geschichts­di­dak­tik. In: Georg Weißeno und Béa­trice Ziegler (Hg.): Hand­buch Geschichts- und Poli­tik­di­dak­tik. Wies­baden: Springer VS, S. 1–4 (online-first). DOI: 10.1007/978–3‑658–29673-5_1‑1; Online ver­füg­bar unter https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978‑3–658-29673–5_1‑1.pdf

ger­ade erschienen:

Kör­ber, Andreas (2021): Kom­pe­tenz­mod­elle in der Geschichts­di­dak­tik. In: <a href=“https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978–3‑658–29673‑5#toc”>Georg Weißeno und Béa­trice Ziegler (Hg.): Hand­buch Geschichts- und Poli­tik­di­dak­tik. Wies­baden: Springer VS</a>, S. 1–4 (online-first). DOI: 10.1007/978–3‑658–29673-5_1‑1; Online ver­füg­bar unter <a href=“https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978‑3–658-29673–5_1‑1.pdf”>https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978‑3–658-29673–5_1‑1.pdf</a>

Monuments and Memorials — A tabular instrument for analysing (still incomplete)

Intro­duc­tion:

A table for analyzing narrative modes within monuments
Table for ana­lyz­ing nar­ra­tive func­tions in monuments.

Ref­er­ence:
Kör­ber, Andreas (2014): De-Con­struct­ing Mem­o­ry Cul­ture. In: Helle Bjerg, Andreas Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz und Oliv­er von Wrochem (Hg.): Teach­ing his­tor­i­cal mem­o­ries in an inter­cul­tur­al per­spec­tive. Con­cepts and meth­ods : expe­ri­ences and results from the TeacMem project. 1. Aufl. Berlin: Metropol-Ver­lag (Rei­he Neuengam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en, Bd. 4), 145–151 + CD-File.

Successful Perspective-Taking? On the Problem and Potential of “Empathy” (or simulative) Tasks in Historical Education (2nd, enhanced version)

In text­books as well as in the class­room, there are always tasks that require the learn­ers to put them­selves in the shoes of a his­tor­i­cal per­son­al­i­ty and to per­form a cer­tain men­tal effort “from their per­spec­tive” — for exam­ple, to write a let­ter or the like.

The aim of such tasks is usu­al­ly to deter­mine the extent to which stu­dents are able to take this step of “tak­ing” or “adopt­ing” a per­spec­tive, i.e. to “put them­selves in the shoes” (or posi­tion) of a tem­po­ral­ly and/or cul­tur­al­ly “for­eign” per­son and to judge past sit­u­a­tions not only from their present per­spec­tive, with mod­ern con­cepts and val­ues etc. In the back­ground of such tasks there is thus a fun­da­men­tal con­cept of fun­da­men­tal (not only mar­gin­al) change extend­ing over time, which requires us to judge each past epoch “from with­in”, in the hori­zon of con­tem­po­rary think­ing. Accord­ing to Rüsen, this con­cept under­lies genet­ic his­tor­i­cal con­scious­ness. 1 In this respect it is (prob­a­bly right­ly) con­sid­ered specif­i­cal­ly mod­ern (where­by the sequence of the types of mean­ing as forms of thought in deal­ing with the past that have emerged in the course of his­to­ri­o­graph­i­cal his­to­ry is in turn based on the genet­ic con­cept. The typol­o­gy itself is thus specif­i­cal­ly mod­ern). It is this way of think­ing that makes the uncon­di­tion­al per­cep­tion, think­ing through and judg­ing of a sit­u­a­tion that is alien in time with the help of cat­e­gories that are not con­tem­po­rary but present, sus­pect under the con­cept of “pre­sen­teeism”. Accord­ing to Sam Wineb­urg, this form of think­ing is the nat­ur­al, but un-his­tor­i­cal one, its over­com­ing in favour of a per­cep­tion and recog­ni­tion of the fun­da­men­tal oth­er­ness of the past that is the labo­ri­ous core of his­tor­i­cal learn­ing against the pre­sen­tist default. 2

Even if his­tor­i­cal think­ing and learn­ing is hard­ly absorbed in this over­com­ing of a qua­si-nat­ur­al pre­sen­teeism, but rather cap­tures much more com­plex setups and oper­a­tions, espe­cial­ly if one empha­sizes the ori­en­ta­tion func­tion of his­to­ry in the present (as Jörn Rüsen’s the­o­ry does and with it most of the con­cepts of Ger­man his­to­ry didac­tics), the aspect empha­sized by Wineb­urg cer­tain­ly belongs to the core of the business.

But to what extent are tasks of the type men­tioned suit­able for this? Some doubts are in order. But this does not mean that these tasks are fun­da­men­tal­ly use­less. What is need­ed, how­ev­er, is an inten­sive reflec­tion on their log­ic, the per­for­mances and achieve­ments demand­ed by them of the learn­ers, as well as on the work required of the cor­re­spond­ing tasks (vul­go: stu­dent achieve­ments — to what extent they are real­ly “achieve­ments” remains to be reflect­ed) and their sig­nif­i­cance in the learn­ing process.

One aspect of this is that (like so many in his­to­ry teach­ing) these tasks — at least in tra­di­tion­al teach­ing con­texts — often mix up char­ac­ter­is­tics of learn­ing and achieve­ment tasks. Stu­dents must — at least with­out fur­ther clar­i­fi­ca­tion of the teach­ing func­tion — gain the impres­sion that the required adop­tion of per­spec­tives is valid­ly pos­si­ble and can be assessed by the teacher. This makes the task a per­for­mance task. Even if it is not intend­ed to ques­tion and check some­thing that has already been prac­tised before, but to present the stu­dents with a new chal­lenge, such tasks do not in any way indi­cate what is to hap­pen to the work done by the stu­dents oth­er than that it is to be dis­closed to the plenum or the teacher and assessed by them — but on the basis of which criteria?
Which teacher, which researcher of today could ever say when the adop­tion of a per­spec­tive has “suc­ceed­ed”? None of us can think or assess a sit­u­a­tion like a 10th cen­tu­ry monk or a Japan­ese samu­rai. No one will have a “ful­ly valid” answer to a cor­re­spond­ing task — and no teacher can decide which achieve­ment is “right”.

Nev­er­the­less, such tasks are not non­sen­si­cal. After all, they are not at all con­cerned with (unfair­ly) demand­ing some­thing more or less spon­ta­neous­ly from the stu­dents (name­ly the tem­po­rary under­stand­ing of past actions), which is still the sub­ject and task of exten­sive research today. Rather, such tasks actu­al­ly aim to make plau­si­ble the require­ment of abstrac­tion from the present per­spec­tive and the oth­er­ness of per­cep­tion, inter­pre­ta­tion and deci­sion result­ing from such attempts. The cri­te­ri­on for the suc­cess of such tasks there­fore lies nei­ther in actu­al­ly hav­ing come close to the past per­son mimet­i­cal­ly, nor in strip­ping off one’s own present posi­tion­al­i­ty and per­spec­tive as com­plete­ly as pos­si­ble, so that one sim­ply argues “as strange­ly as pos­si­ble” and then pass­es this off as proof of a suc­cess­ful adop­tion of perspective.
Rather, the aim of such tasks is that stu­dents should rec­og­nize from the attempt to adopt such a per­spec­tive that they have to aban­don present self-under­stand­ings in order to some­how “do jus­tice” to a past per­spec­tive. Thus, it is not the coher­ence of the indi­vid­ual result that is impor­tant, but rather the recog­ni­tion and sig­nif­i­cance of the claim of his­tor­i­cal think­ing: some­one who judges and eval­u­ates the (suf­fi­cient­ly com­plex) cog­ni­tive­ly pre­sent­ed past sit­u­a­tion as he/she would do from today’s present with­out any cir­cum­stances, shows just as lit­tle his­tor­i­cal under­stand­ing as some­one who presents and eval­u­ates every­thing as dif­fer­ent­ly as pos­si­ble, but can­not say at all to what extent this should be appro­pri­ate to the con­crete situation.

Only when talk­ing and dis­cussing about the respec­tive (and prefer­ably dif­fer­ent) “solu­tions” (bet­ter: treat­ments) it becomes clear what the indi­vid­ual stu­dents have already under­stood, but the poten­tial for the actu­al learn­ing process is actu­al­ly only there.
The orig­i­nal pro­cess­ing of the task is there­fore wrong­ly used as proof of the ful­fil­ment of a require­ment for a suc­cess­ful change of per­spec­tive for the­o­ret­i­cal and didac­tic rea­sons. Such tasks must not be under­stood as achieve­ment tasks, but must be learn­ing tasks in so far as they gen­er­ate the mate­r­i­al for the actu­al process of his­tor­i­cal think­ing and learning.

In this way, how­ev­er, they achieve a learn­ing poten­tial that is only slight­ly changed on the ter­mi­no­log­i­cal lev­el, but clear­ly changed in the­o­ret­i­cal terms. From the ulti­mate­ly unful­fil­l­able and mea­sur­able or iden­ti­fi­able claim to a suc­cess­ful (or post fes­tum: suc­cess­ful change of per­spec­tive), the pos­si­bil­i­ty of not aban­don­ing one’s own per­spec­tive, but rather expand­ing it by means of the required jus­ti­fied, i.e. cog­ni­tive con­sid­er­a­tion of fac­tors that make up anoth­er per­spec­tive, would become pos­si­ble. Broad­en­ing and reflec­tion of per­spec­tive instead of a change of perspective.

In this respect, one could (also) bor­row method­i­cal­ly from the for­eign lan­guage didac­tic prin­ci­ple of “task-based learn­ing” in that the pro­cess­ing of a task by stu­dents is sub­ject to reflec­tion in a focus on (here:) his­to­ry phase, in which his­tor­i­cal think­ing (and lan­guage) is made explic­it, and pre­cise­ly in this process new­ly acquired or dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed con­cepts, terms, meth­ods, etc., which are more abstract and pro­vid­ed with a reflex­ive index, are also made explic­it. is the­ma­tized and pro­gres­sion is explic­it­ly encouraged.

This in turn can be method­olog­i­cal­ly imple­ment­ed by using coop­er­a­tive learn­ing meth­ods 3, for exam­ple by using the “Think-Pair-Share” (or “Think — Exchange — Dis­cuss”) scheme is imple­ment­ed in such a way that the results of such a task, which were ini­tial­ly pre­pared in indi­vid­ual work (“Think” phase), are nei­ther direct­ly giv­en to the teacher nor pre­sent­ed and dis­cussed in the ple­nary ses­sion, but rather in part­ner work or also in small groups (“Pair” phase) of learn­ers them­selves, who first com­pare and analyse sev­er­al such work­ings of the task from oth­er points of view than only how “good” or “suc­cess­ful” they are.
As usu­al, such “Pair”-phas­es should not only be about pre­sent­ing the indi­vid­ual results to the oth­er stu­dents so that they all know them. Rather, such phas­es need their own work assign­ments. In the present case, these can con­sist of com­par­ing the indi­vid­ual work assign­ments in a descrip­tive way: What have the authors done sim­i­lar­ly, what dif­fer­ent­ly? What effect do these deci­sions have on the pro­cess­ing of the task? Do insights and ques­tions arise regard­ing the mean­ing and pur­pose of the task — now that dif­fer­ent solu­tions are known?
Such a com­par­a­tive analy­sis, which does not imme­di­ate­ly con­sid­er the present works from the point of view of suc­cess, and even puts them in a one-dimen­sion­al series, but rather works out, on the basis of these adap­ta­tions, what could some­times make every­thing dif­fer­ent, con­tributes to the fact that the thought process, the require­ment of his­tor­i­cal thought, which the task addressed, comes into view as such. It may even be advis­able that the small group car­ry­ing out the com­par­a­tive work only looks at oth­er pupils’ texts, not at their own, and that they receive these anony­mous­ly (e.g. through com­put­er writ­ing). It may even be use­ful for the teacher her­self to include one or two dif­fer­ent works “anony­mous­ly”, which are to be dis­cov­ered, com­pared with the oth­ers and assessed in terms of their poten­tial and limitations.
The “Share” phase of the dis­cus­sion in the plenum then receives its own task, name­ly the dis­cus­sion and nego­ti­a­tion of the insights gained in the groups (was this the case in all small groups? Do the insights com­ple­ment each oth­er or are they rather in ten­sion with each oth­er?) and ques­tions not so much about indi­vid­ual treat­ments, but about the con­trasts per­ceived between them.
It could be that…

  • … Stu­dents have used very dif­fer­ent words when writ­ing their indi­vid­ual assign­ments and now real­ize that they can­not sim­ply assume that their cur­rent terms can be used “in the sit­u­a­tion” with­out fur­ther ado.
  • … some pupils* dis­cov­er the ques­tion to what extent it can be assumed that the per­son they are sup­posed to put them­selves in the shoes of is not nec­es­sar­i­ly able to write. (Even a refusal of the task for such a rea­son can then be pro­duc­tive­ly includ­ed as the result of a his­tor­i­cal thought process). 
  • … a com­par­i­son between two edits in the small group shows that the authors quite nat­u­ral­ly (= with­out hav­ing giv­en it much thought) start­ed out from very dif­fer­ent lev­els of infor­ma­tion about “their” per­son, so that the ques­tion aris­es: what could one know about … back then?
  • the com­par­i­son shows that some stu­dents may have includ­ed hind­sight infor­ma­tion in the process, while oth­ers did not.”

The lat­ter case in par­tic­u­lar shows that such an approach makes it pos­si­ble not to let such “errors” in his­tor­i­cal think­ing become imme­di­ate­ly (or even at all) effec­tive as “errors” (and demo­ti­vat­ing their thema­ti­za­tion), but to use them (qua anony­mous com­par­i­son) pro­duc­tive­ly to gain insight.

Such pro­ce­dures of coop­er­a­tive learn­ing with its pos­si­bil­i­ties to let pupils think about their own prod­ucts in a form that does not imme­di­ate­ly hier­ar­chise and eval­u­ate them, can also be sup­port­ed by dig­i­tal instru­ments, name­ly those that make it pos­si­ble to make the results of pupils’ work vis­i­ble (anony­mous­ly) next to each oth­er on a large smart board or sim­i­lar and to work on them in ple­nary, such as with “Ether­pads” (cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad). 4

Final­ly, such a pro­cess­ing and eval­u­a­tion of such a task also enables non-sep­a­rat­ing dif­fer­en­ti­a­tions by means of scaf­fold­ing. It is pos­si­ble, for exam­ple, that in the indi­vid­ual pro­cess­ing phase stu­dents with dif­fi­cul­ties in writ­ing and for­mu­lat­ing, with abstrac­tion etc. are not required to write their own texts, but that they are enabled to decide on the basis of a series of pre­pared “text mod­ules” what would be con­ceiv­able and con­sis­tent in a solu­tion. The giv­en text mod­ules must then of course in turn have quite dif­fer­ent solu­tions and designs — up to and includ­ing incom­pat­i­ble and even con­tra­dic­to­ry parts. In this way, the con­struc­tive task would be turned into an assign­ment of giv­en sym­bol build­ing blocks to each oth­er by “task rever­sal”. A task that is quite dif­fer­ent on the “sur­face” can thus — for the pur­pose of dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion and scaf­fold­ing — address and require sim­i­lar and com­pa­ra­ble oper­a­tions of his­tor­i­cal thought and — in reflec­tion — pro­mote them. (Of course, such dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion and under­pin­ning by means of scaf­folds also means that the anonymi­ty that may have been cho­sen for fur­ther eval­u­a­tions can no longer be ful­ly main­tained. But this can also be dealt with productively).

Anmerkun­gen / Ref­er­ences
  1. Rüsen, Jörn (1983): His­torische Ver­nun­ft. Grundzüge ein­er His­torik I: Die Grund­la­gen der Geschichtswis­senschaft. Göt­tin­gen: Van­den­hoeck & Ruprecht (Kleine Van­den­hoeck-Rei­he, 1489); Rüsen, Jörn (2013): His­torik. The­o­rie der Geschichtswis­senschaft. Köln: Böh­lau.[]
  2. See Wineb­urg, Sam (1999): His­tor­i­cal Think­ing and Oth­er Unnat­ur­al Acts. In: The Phi Delta Kap­pan 80 (7), S. 488–499; Wineb­urg, Sam (2001): His­tor­i­cal Think­ing and Oth­er Unnat­ur­al Acts. Chart­ing the Future of Teach­ing the Past. Philadel­phia: Tem­ple Uni­ver­si­ty Press (Crit­i­cal per­spec­tives on the past). []
  3. e.g. accord­ing to Green, Norm; Green, Kathy (2007): Koop­er­a­tives Ler­nen im Klassen­raum und im Kol­legium. Seelze-Vel­ber: Klett; Kallmey­er.[]
  4. In con­trast to some oth­er instru­ments praised in the con­text of dig­i­ti­za­tion, which ulti­mate­ly do noth­ing else but imple­ment con­ven­tion­al, small-step meth­ods of a knowl­edge check with imme­di­ate right-wrong feed­back elec­tron­i­cal­ly and often even wors­en in so far that due to the elec­tron­ic com­par­i­son of the stu­dents with a sam­ple solu­tion cor­rect, but dif­fer­ent­ly for­mu­lat­ed answers are report­ed back as ‘wrong’, just as half cor­rect answers can­not be appre­ci­at­ed, ether­pads enable the orga­ni­za­tion of a com­mon con­sid­er­a­tion of a num­ber of indi­vid­ual solu­tions. Due to the often typed-in and there­fore giv­en inde­pen­dence from hand­writ­ing, a cer­tain anonymiza­tion can be achieved, which allows the focus to be on the text, not the author. Regard­ing the avail­able space, font size etc. there are still lim­its, how­ev­er, which may make it advis­able to use “anal­o­gous” meth­ods with cards, posters etc. []
==

Gerade erschienen: Inklusive Diagnostik

Bor­muth, Heike; Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk (2020): Inklu­sive Diag­nos­tik. Ein Werkzeug zur Pla­nung inklu­siv­en (Geschichts-)Unterrichts. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 338–349.

Bor­muth, Heike; Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk (2020): Inklu­sive Diag­nos­tik. Ein Werkzeug zur Pla­nung inklu­siv­en (Geschichts-)Unterrichts. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 338–349.

Gerade erschienen: Inklusive Geschichtskultur

Kör­ber, Andreas (2020): Inklu­sive Geschicht­skul­tur — Bes­tim­mungs­fak­toren und Ansprüche. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 250–258.

Kör­ber, Andreas (2020): Inklu­sive Geschicht­skul­tur — Bes­tim­mungs­fak­toren und Ansprüche. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 250–258.

gerade erschienen: Literatur zu inklusivem Geschichtslernen

Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk; Bor­muth, Heike (2020): Inklu­sives Geschicht­sler­nen via Scaf­fold­ing von Auf­gaben. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 405–423.

Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk; Bor­muth, Heike (2020): Inklu­sives Geschicht­sler­nen via Scaf­fold­ing von Auf­gaben. In: Sebas­t­ian Barsch, Bet­ti­na Deg­n­er, Christoph Küh­berg­er und Mar­tin Lücke (Hg.): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wis­senschaft), S. 405–423.

Gerade erschienen: Literatur zu inklusivem Geschichtslernen

Ger­ade ist erschienen der Sammelband:

Barsch, Sebas­t­ian; Deg­n­er, Bet­ti­na; Küh­berg­er, Christoph; Lücke, Mar­tin (Hg.) (2020): Hand­buch Diver­sität im Geschicht­sun­ter­richt. Inklu­sive Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Frank­furt: Wochen­schau Ver­lag (Wochen­schau Wissenschaft).

  • Kör­ber, Andreas (2020): Inklu­sive Geschicht­skul­tur — Bes­tim­mungs­fak­toren und Ansprüche, S. 250–258.
  • Bor­muth, Heike; Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk (2020): Inklu­sive Diag­nos­tik. Ein Werkzeug zur Pla­nung inklu­siv­en (Geschichts-)Unterrichts, S. 338–349.
  • Kör­ber, Andreas; Sei­dl, Patrizia; Witt, Dirk; Bor­muth, Heike (2020): Inklu­sives Geschicht­sler­nen via Scaf­fold­ing von Auf­gaben, S. 405–423.

Commemoration and Types or Patterns of Historical Meaning-Making (Narrating)

(This is a text from last year’s dis­cus­sion with Stéphane Lévesque and Gabriel Reich on nar­ra­tive pat­terns’ role in reflect­ing on mon­u­ment and memo­r­i­al pol­i­cy. I nev­er got round to fin­ish­ing ist. Sor­ry for the delay.)

In their texts and in the ear­li­er dis­cus­sion (first on Pub­lic His­to­ry Week­ly: Lévesque, Stéphane (2018): Remov­ing the Past?, then on Active His­to­ry CA: A new approach to debates over Mac­don­ald and oth­er mon­u­ments in Cana­da, Part 1 and Part 2), Lévesque sug­gest­ed a mod­el of dif­fer­ent lev­els of his­tor­i­cal com­pe­ten­cies fol­low­ing Jörn Rüsen’s typol­o­gy of nar­ra­tive patterns.

While I agree that there is a lot of plau­si­bil­i­ty in a sequen­tial devel­op­ment of these types of nar­rat­ing through­out (West­ern) his­to­ry, and that the genet­ic type is the most com­plex and advanced one, I don’t find much plau­si­bil­i­ty in the idea that in the devel­op­ment of stu­dent’ think­ing with­in their life­time, the tra­di­tion­al type should have any pri­or­i­ty to the oth­er ones. Instead, I think that stu­dents encounter full-fledged nar­ra­tives as well as sim­ple state­ments of all types simul­ta­ne­ous­ly from the begin­ning, and will acquire them along­side each oth­er — but only grad­u­al­ly learn to rec­og­nize them for what they are, grasp­ing their logic.

Con­sid­er the fol­low­ing graph:

© Andreas Kör­ber 2018

It is to visu­al­ize the idea that increas­ing recog­ni­tion of change in his­toric time (the x‑axis) first leads to the devel­op­ment of the tra­di­tion­al type (ask­ing for the ori­gin of the cur­rent­ly valid, in cloud 1), then the expe­ri­ence that what has orig­i­nat­ed can also per­ish again and there­fore ask­ing for ori­gins is not enough, lead to the devel­op­ment of the exem­plar­ic type, ask­ing for pat­terns and rules behind the change on the sur­face (cloud 2), and only mod­ern expe­ri­ence of increased/accelerated change then led to the devel­op­ment of the genet­ic type, ask­ing for the direction.

Each of these pat­terns leads to dif­fer­ent expec­ta­tions for the future. Ini­tial­ly (green per­spec­tive), the future may seem quite sim­i­lar from the present. What is per­ceived as hav­ing begun, stays valid. Only from the (lat­er) blue per­spec­tive, a pat­tern seems dis­cernible, lead­ing to the expec­ta­tions that the future will also yield sim­i­lar pat­terns of events as are detect­ed in the past. From the (still lat­er) orange per­spec­tive, an (addi­tion­al?) increase in their “mag­ni­ture” can be per­ceived and its con­tin­u­a­tion be expect­ed.
The graph also is to show that the rules and pat­terns as well as ideas of ori­gins have not been ren­dered obso­lete by each new type, but are super­im­posed or inte­grat­ed into it.

I use this graph in my lec­ture. I now have added the small arrows. They are to indi­cate the learn­ing-neces­si­ties of a per­son with­in a rel­a­tive­ly short time-span of life or even youth. While in pre-mod­ern times, they only encoun­tered the then-devel­oped pat­terns (if the mod­el is valid), in moder­ni­ty, they will have to use all pat­terns simul­ta­ne­ous­ly, in order not make sense differentially.

The idea of a homol­o­gy is prob­lem­at­ic in anoth­er way, also. It might sug­gest that peo­ple in antiq­ui­ty (or pre-mod­ern-times) were devel­oped rather like chil­dren or youths, not real­ly grown-ups. This idea is not new, but is very prob­lem­at­ic. As you might be aware of, Rudolf Stein­er, founder of anthro­pos­o­phy, sug­gest­ed that the “ancient” Greek had a men­tal age of about 7‑years-olds. And there was a very influ­en­tial Ger­man “didact” of his­to­ry in the 19th cen­tu­ry (Friedrich Kohlrausch), who com­bined a sim­i­lar idea of the homo­log­i­cal devel­op­ment in the way peo­ple con­ceived “god” with that of becom­ing of age. So only the mod­ern man was real­ly “grown up” (and is was the Ger­mans who did so — very nationalist).

Because of Rüsen’s idea of a “homol­o­gy” in the sequence of devel­op­ment of nar­rat­ing types between mankind (phy­lo­ge­n­e­sis) and indi­vid­u­als (onto­ge­n­e­sis), Bodo von Bor­ries (and I as assis­tant to him) did a large-scale research in the ear­ly 1990s, were we pre­sent­ed stu­dents with items of dif­fer­ent typo­log­i­cal log­ic to dilem­ma-sit­u­a­tions, like Rüsen him­self has used for qual­i­ta­tive research and for explain­ing the nar­ra­tive types. We did find a pre­dom­i­nance of agree­ment to “tra­di­tion­al” items with 6th-graders (abt. 11 yrs), but found no lin­ear devel­op­ment. In fact, 9th-graders seemed even to regress. All this is pub­lished in Ger­man only, I fear.

I would strong­ly sug­gest to dis­tin­guish between the his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ment and hier­ar­chy of these pat­terns on the one hand and pro­gres­sion in learn­ing on the oth­er hand, for which I sug­gest the third dimension.

As for Lévesque’s revised table of com­pe­ten­cies in a fur­ther com­ment in PHW and his eval­u­a­tion that Gabriel Reich is cor­rect in that the genet­ic type pro­vides no solu­tion to the ques­tion of whether to keep or get rid of mon­u­ments: Do these types real­ly lead to spe­cif­ic polit­i­cal posi­tions — espe­cial­ly if they are always com­bined? Or do they rather char­ac­ter­ize part of their under­ly­ing under­stand­ing? I think there are dif­fer­ent posi­tions and solu­tions pos­si­ble by each nar­ra­tive. The val­ue of the dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion of types of mean­ing mak­ing and nar­ra­tion is rather ana­lyt­i­cal than prescriptive.

And that is also the ped­a­gog­i­cal val­ue: I think these typolo­gies (your table and mine) can be used for clas­si­fy­ing and dis­cussing state­ments of peo­ple in the polit­i­cal debate. It will enhance stu­dents abil­i­ty to rec­og­nize the log­ics behind spe­cif­ic polit­i­cal stances. And it may well show that both sug­ges­tions of keep­ing and of get­ting rid of can be under­pinned by dif­fer­ent types of nar­ra­tive, but that would gen­er­ate maybe dif­fer­ent policies:

Take an exam­ple from Gabriel Reich’s patch, again: civ­il war mon­u­ments in Richmond.

One could argue for keep­ing the statutes on Mon­u­ment Avenue on grounds of pure­ly tra­di­tion­al think­ing: to mark the ori­gins of the spe­cif­ic state of things. This is both pos­si­ble in par­ti­san ways (only “our” heroes), but also in a more “inclu­sive” form, ask­ing for such mon­u­ment of both sides to be pre­sent­ed, to mark the ori­gin of the coun­tries “divi­sion”. Equal­ly in tra­di­tion­al mode (but with dif­fer­ent polit­i­cal back­ground), one might call for their removal. If you hold that the divi­sion they mark is no longer giv­en, they might be removed.

In exem­plar­ic mode (as I opined ear­li­er), one could speak out for the preser­va­tion of the mon­u­ments on the grounds that they exem­pli­fy a cer­tain time and cul­ture which we can still con­sid­er as “over­come”, but one can also argue for their removal because they rep­re­sent­ed out­dat­ed or polit­i­cal­ly non-sup­port­able rela­tions to the past, and that our time needs to find new ones, not “pro­gressed” ones, but such which reflect the “char­ac­ter­is­tics of our time”.

I do agree that to hold a specif­i­cal­ly genet­ic view makes it hard to envi­sion the whole ques­tion as one of keep­ing vs. remov­ing, — but it does­n’t exclude it to the full extent.

If peo­ple are think­ing pre­dom­i­nant­ly in genet­ic mode, expe­ri­enc­ing the coun­try to hav­ing over­come that divi­sion, they object to a tra­di­tion­al log­ic they per­ceived the mon­u­ments to have. In this case, it would be the ten­sion between one’s own genet­ic mode of think­ing and that per­ceived in the mon­u­ments, which would gen­er­ate a polit­i­cal position.

If the genet­ic per­spec­tive was upon how to improve com­mem­o­ra­tion, one might ask for mak­ing such com­mem­o­ra­tions “more inclu­sive”. This may have been behind erect­ing a mon­u­ment for Arthur Ashe among the con­fed­er­ate gen­er­als — not a very con­sis­tent move, though, giv­en that is mere­ly addi­tive­ly com­bines mon­u­ments. In fact, it cre­ates a “memo­r­i­al land­scape” of a rather com­plex nar­ra­tive struc­ture, part of which is tra­di­tion­al (“heroes”) and exem­plary (“each group”), but by doing so enforces a new kind of tra­di­tion­al­i­ty (keep­ing the racial groups apart, assign­ing each “their own” tra­di­tion to hold up). So the intend­ed “progress” by inclu­siv­i­ty (“An avenue for all peo­ple”) may in fact have cre­at­ed a mul­ti-tra­di­tion­al nar­ra­tive. 1

But there are oth­er pos­si­ble solu­tions sug­gest­ed by genet­ic think­ing.  The con­cept of past peo­ple being “chil­dren of their own time” is as genet­ic as it can get, refer­ring to a fun­da­men­tal change in time, so that morals and actions might be con­sid­ered incom­men­su­rable across times. This con­cept has been used for exon­er­at­ing past peo­ples views and actions. On this ground, one might call it “use­less”. But it isn’t. Genet­ic his­tor­i­cal think­ing entails both — to rec­og­nize the tem­po­ral change and moral and polit­i­cal con­texts for past actions dif­fer­ent from ours, AND to rec­og­nize that our own con­text is valid, too.

From this point of view, it may under­pin a present posi­tion trans­gress­ing the “keep/remove”-divide, name­ly to find ways of memo­ri­al­iz­ing civ­il war “heroes” (and/or “vil­lains” that is) that do NOT inad­ver­tent­ly invite for tra­di­tion­al or exem­plar­ic hero­ic read­ing, but specif­i­cal­ly marks the dis­tance of time.

It is imper­a­tive, this think­ing goes, to keep these memo­ri­als, but not as hero­ic marks to the past or as ambiva­lent mark­ers. One should not just remove them, for that would put into obliv­ion not only the past, but also the whole dis­cus­sion and reflec­tions, the uneasi­ness about its rep­re­sen­ta­tion which sparked the dis­cus­sion in the first place. Genet­ic think­ing would not be con­tent to just remove the hero­ism (espe­cial­ly that of the wrong, side) with the effect to have no mem­o­ry at all, but would call for a memo­ri­al­iza­tion which specif­i­cal­ly marks the change between that time and ours today.

Again, take a Ham­burg exam­ple. In an ear­li­er con­tri­bu­tion to this dis­cus­sion I already hint­ed to counter-memo­ri­al­i­sa­tion. One of the best exam­ples is here in Hamburg-Altona:

Mon­u­ment and Counter-Mon­u­ment next to at St. Johan­nis-Church in Ham­burg-Altona 2

Next to Altona’s St. Johan­nis Church, a mon­u­ment had been erect­ed in 1925 for the mem­bers of the 31st Infantry Reg­i­ment in WW1, com­mis­sioned by sur­vivors of that reg­i­ment. Each of the three sides of the col­umn-like mon­u­ment made of clink­er fea­tures an over­sized, half-naked fig­ure, rep­re­sent­ing a war­rior with some antique weapon.

The inscrip­tion below reads “To the fall­en for a grate­ful mem­o­ry, to the liv­ing for a reminder, to the com­ing gen­er­a­tions for emu­la­tion.” 3. Clear­ly a very tra­di­tion­al pro­to-nar­ra­tive, both extend­ing the own war­rior­ship of the sol­diers into antiq­ui­ty and call­ing for its emu­la­tion, lack­ing any tran­scen­dence. The for­mu­la was coined by August Böckh for Friedrich Wil­helm III of Prus­sia, and was used on mon­u­ments remem­ber­ing the “lib­er­a­tion wars” against Napoleon, but also lat­er on those for the “uni­fi­ca­tion wars” of 1870/71. After the loss­es of mil­lions in WW1, its usage — espe­cial­ly of the third ele­ment — is remark­able, albeit not all­to­geth­er uncom­mon 4.


In the mid-1990s, the church’s con­gre­ga­tion com­mis­sioned a counter-memo­r­i­al, cre­at­ed by Rain­er Tied­je, con­sist­ing of three acryl-glass-plates, each direct­ly con­fronting one of the war­riors, depict­ing “dark, ema­ci­at­ed, fear­ful crea­tures”, as the expla­na­tion on the page “denkmalhamburg.de” states (thus on http://denkmalhamburg.de/kriegerdenkmal-an-der-st-johanniskirche/, my trans­la­tion). It con­cludes “In the cen­ter the hero­ism and the exal­ta­tion, in front of it it the hor­ror of war. A suc­cess­ful mix­ture.” (my translation).


Gegen­denkmal zum 31er Kriegerdenkmal (aus: Gedenkstät­ten in Ham­burg. Weg­weis­er zu den Stät­ten der Erin­nerung an die Jahre 1933–1945. https://www.gedenkstaetten-in-hamburg.de/gedenkstaetten/gedenkort/gegendenkmal-zum-31er-kriegerdenkmal/

To me, this coun­ter­memo­r­i­al is not just a (exem­plar­ic-mode) jux­ta­po­si­tion of (trad­tion­al-mode) hero­ism and hor­ror of war, but there is fun­da­men­tal­ly genet­ic part in it: the counter-memo­r­i­al does not mere­ly point to time­less hor­rors of the con­se­quences of war­fare, but leans on a visu­al vocab­u­lary estab­lished in Holo­caust memo­ri­als: The “suf­fer­ing men” who wrig­gles with pain (and fear) on eye-lev­el with the war­riors, look like “musel­men”, the com­plete­ly debil­i­tat­ed and immis­er­at­ed inmates of the Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps. In its iconog­ra­phy, the counter-memo­r­i­al belongs to the gen­er­a­tion of mon­u­ments which coerce the view­er, the pub­lic to find and answer, not pro­vid­ing one them­selves, either in being abstract or — as here — by visu­al­iz­ing death and dis­ap­pear­ance in any but hero­ic form 5. It is this fea­ture, using a visu­al code depend­ing not only abstract­ly on hind­sight but on con­crete knowl­edge about what such hero­ism-pro­pa­gan­da did help to bring about, togeth­er with the effec­tive plac­ing which ren­ders impos­si­ble “com­mem­o­ra­tion cer­e­monies, at which the plaques are not noticed”, which indi­cate to a spe­cif­ic genet­ic think­ing below it, try­ing to trans­gress the think­ing of the time.

Anmerkun­gen / Ref­er­ences
  1. Cf. https://onmonumentave.com/blog/2017/11/20/an-avenue-for-for-all-people-how-arthur-ashe-came-to-monument-avenue []
  2. Pho­to by 1970gemini in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19523318[]
  3. See http://denkmalhamburg.de/kriegerdenkmal-an-der-st-johanniskirche/  []
  4. Cf. Kosel­leck, Rein­hart (1996): Kriegerdenkmäler als Iden­titätss­tiftun­gen der Über­leben­den. In: Odo Mar­quard und Karl­heinz Stier­le (Hg.): Iden­tität. 2., unveränd. Aufl. München: Fink (Poet­ik und Hermeneu­tik, 8), S. 255–276; p. 261f []
  5. Cf. Kosel­leck, Rein­hart (1994): Ein­leitung. In: Rein­hart Kosel­leck und Michael Jeis­mann (Hg.): Der poli­tis­che Totenkult. Kriegerdenkmäler in der Mod­erne. München: Fink (Bild und Text), S. 9–20, here p. 20 []
==