Arbeitsbereich Geschichtsdidaktik / History Education, Universität Hamburg

custom header picture

Neuer Aufsatz erschienen

22. September 2020 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Gera­de eben ist erschienen:

Kör­ber, Andre­as; Mey­er-Ham­me, Johan­nes; Houghton, Robert (2021): Lear­ning to Think His­to­ri­cal­ly. Some Theo­re­ti­cal Chal­len­ges when Play­ing the Cru­sa­des. In <a href=“”>Robert Houghton (Ed.): Play­ing the Cru­sa­des. Abing­don: Rout­ledge (Enga­ging the Cru­sa­des, 5), pp. 93 – 110. ISBN 978 – 0‑367 – 26441‑3.</a>

Handreichung zur Erschließung von Denkmälern: Studentische Arbeit erschienen

06. Februar 2019 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Aus dem vom L3Prof-Lehr­la­bor geför­der­ten Koope­ra­ti­ons­pro­jekt “Tea­ching Staff Resour­ce Cen­ter (TRSC)”, einem gemein­sa­mes mit dem Arbeits­be­reich Public Histo­ry (Prof. Dr. Thors­ten Log­ge, Dr. Sebas­ti­an Kubon) und der Lan­des­zen­tra­le für Poli­ti­sche Bil­dung (Dr. Sabi­ne Bam­ber­ger-Stem­mann) durch­ge­führ­ten Lehr­po­jekt zur Erkun­dung unter­schied­li­cher Geschichts­sor­ten (Log­ge) und der Erar­bei­tung von Hand­rei­chun­gen zu ihrer Erschlie­ßung, ist eine ers­te Hand­rei­chung erschienen:
Bäu­mer, Mar­lon; Rent­sch­ler, Han­nah; Roers, Ben­ja­min; Wei­se, Mara (2019): Hand­rei­chung zu Erschlie­ßung von Denk­mä­lern. Ham­burg: Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg (https://​geschichts​sor​ten​.blogs​.uni​-ham​burg​.de/​d​e​n​k​m​al/).

Analyzing Monuments using crosstabulations of Historical Thinking Competencies and Types of Narrating

16. Oktober 2018 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

This arti­cle is a fol­low-up to the dis­cus­sion on Sté­pha­ne Léves­ques model of his­to­ri­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es as pre­sen­ted in Public Histo­ry Wee­kly, a few days ago, tit­led “Remo­ving the ‘Past’: Deba­tes Over Offi­cial Sites of Memo­ry“1 and my first exten­ded com­ment on this publis­hed here on this blog.

A cross­ta­bu­la­ti­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es and patterns/​logic of sen­se­ma­king as sug­gested by Sté­pha­ne Léves­que2 is inde­ed use­ful for “rea­ding” indi­vi­du­al monu­ments and making sen­se of their “mes­sa­ge”, also. Lévesque’s fil­ling of the table is a bit abs­tract, gene­ral for this, so the fol­lowing would in part be my own understanding.

It also is based on Rüsen’s noti­on that while the dif­fe­rent pat­terns were deve­lo­ped sequen­ti­al­ly over time, to “older” ones are not lost, but still avail­ab­le and inde­ed visi­ble in modern day thin­king, in fact most of the time in com­bi­na­ti­ons. What cha­rac­te­ri­zes modern-time his­to­ri­cal thin­king, then, is the pre­sence and domi­nan­ce of “gene­tic” thin­king, while pre-modern thought would not have this type at its dis­po­sal at all. But then, our examp­les here are all “modern”, so that it may be a ques­ti­on of domi­nan­ce and rela­ti­ve weight.

Take a monu­ment for a civil war general:

  • A spec­ta­tor today may read it as a remin­der to the ori­gin of the cur­rent sta­te of affairs, pos­si­b­ly the “losing of the cau­se” (e.g. both the hono­u­red gene­ral and the spec­ta­tor being sou­the­ners) or to the libe­ra­ti­on of the slaves (both nort­he­ners). In both cases, the monu­ment would be seen as poin­ting to an ori­gin of what is seen as valid today (the very defi­ni­ti­on of Rüsen’s “tra­di­tio­nal” type). This might exp­lain why peop­le adhe­ring to the nort­hern nar­ra­ti­ve would oppo­se to sou­thern monu­ments, and vice ver­sa, not believeing their sto­ry in the first place — and may­be fea­ring that kee­ping the monu­ments would signi­fy that their ver­si­on was to be seen as valid.
  • In an exem­pla­ric mode, howe­ver, both may accept the “other side’s” monu­ments, becau­se what they point at would not be seen as the ori­gin of affairs, but rather a gene­ral rule, e.g. hono­u­ring peop­le “bra­vely figh­t­ing for their respec­ti­ve (!) cau­se”. The logic would be that each socie­ty would honor “their heroes”, who do not so much stand for the spe­ci­fic cau­se but for a gene­ral rule. What hap­pens on the ground in Get­tys­burg, e.g., is some­thing along this line: “Tra­di­tio­nal” com­me­mo­ra­ting attracts most peop­le going the­re, but an exem­pla­ry “cover-nar­ra­ti­ve” allows for com­mon remembrance.

Con­si­der an examp­le from Ham­burg, whe­re I work3: On our “Rat­haus­markt”, the­re is a monu­ment, hono­u­ring Hamburg’s dead from WW1. When it was erec­ted in 1932, it loo­ked as it does today. The inscrip­ti­on on one side reads “FOURTY THOUSAND SONS OF TOWN LEFT/​LOST THEIR LIVES FOR YOU” (in Ger­man: “Vier­zig Tau­send Söh­ne der Stadt lie­ßen ihr Leben für Euch”) while the other side shows reli­ef by Ernst Bar­lach depic­ting a woman (mother) and child (daugh­ter) appar­ent­ly com­for­ting each other in mour­ning (and the­re­fo­re some­what remi­nis­cent of a pie­tà).

Ernst Barlach: Relief (1931; Re-construction) auf dem Mahnmal auf dem Hamburger Rathausmarkt. Foto von Wikimedia Commons (gemeinfrei):

Ernst Bar­lach: Reli­ef (1931; Re-Con­struc­tion of 1948) on Ham­burg Town Hall Squa­re Monu­ment . Pho­to from Wiki­me­dia Com­mons (public domain): https://​upload​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​p​e​d​i​a​/​c​o​m​m​o​n​s​/​2​/​2​c​/​H​a​m​b​u​r​g​_​M​a​h​n​m​a​l​_​0​1​_​K​M​J​-​a​d​j​.​jpg

In 1938, the reli­ef was exch­an­ged for a “phoe­nix” fly­ing up.4 

Hans-Mar­tin Ruwoldt (1938): Phoe­nix on Ham­burg Town Hall Squa­re Monu­ment. Pho­to by https://​www​.denk​-mal​-gegen​-krieg​.de/​k​r​i​e​g​e​r​d​e​n​k​m​a​e​l​e​r​/​h​a​m​b​u​r​g​-​l​o​-​os/

In 1938, under Nazi rule, the reli­ef was exch­an­ged for a „phoe­nix“. Did it chan­ge the nar­ra­ti­ve and com­me­mo­ra­ti­ve eva­lua­ti­on of the loss of the 40000 Ham­bur­gi­ans? To my view, it most cer­tain­ly did.

The addi­ti­on of the last part “FOR YOU” to the inscrip­ti­on alrea­dy befo­re the initi­al instal­la­ti­on of the monu­ment was a con­ces­si­on to the right par­ties, chan­ging (in Rüsen‘s terms) a more tra­di­tio­nal mes­sa­ge into a more exem­pla­ry one:

While the com­bi­na­ti­on of the initi­al wor­d­ing without the addi­ti­on „FOR YOU“ and the mother-child-reli­ef fit into a deve­lo­p­ment of monu­ment cul­tu­re deve­lo­ped in WW1 which has been iden­ti­fied in retro­spect, name­ly monu­ments which which do no lon­ger pro­vi­de an aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve sug­ges­ti­on of the mea­ning of the protagonist‘s death, but rather ques­ti­on this mea­ning.5 It did so becau­se it expres­sed the con­ti­nuous loss, refer­ring to the dead sol­di­ers rather as vic­tims of a grea­ter con­text of war, to be mour­ned, by poin­ting to their their death and loss as the rather tra­gic ori­gins of the com­mon grief.

Adding „FOR YOU“ to the inscrip­ti­on did not ful­ly era­di­ca­te this nega­ti­ve-tra­di­tio­nal nar­ra­ti­ve pat­tern, but added an addi­tio­nal lay­er of dif­fe­rent nar­ra­ti­ve and eva­lua­ti­ve cha­rac­ter both to the deaths, which are ascri­bed a pur­po­se, and to the con­cep­tu­al framing of the dead, which are no lon­ger only vic­tims but also (self-)sacrifices for a com­mon good. Inte­res­tin­g­ly, both con­cepts, that of vic­tim and that of sacri­fice, are pre­sent in the Ger­man term „Opfer“ expli­ci­tly used, but allu­ded to, here.

The exchan­ge of the mour­ning mother/child-reli­ef by a „phoe­nix“ in 1938, then, era­di­ca­ted the thin lay­er of ques­tio­ning the pur­po­se and mea­ning of the loss, the noti­on of „vic­tims“ and ren­de­red the 40,000 Fathers, Bro­thers and „Sons of Town“ heroes – not only self-sacri­fices for the well­being of their respec­ti­ve fami­lies, but role-models to be cele­bra­ted and emu­la­ted.6 In 1948, then, the lost Bar­lach-reli­ef, was res­to­red, alas not by Bar­lach hims­elf, who had mean­while died.

I do have a hard time con­struc­ting a gene­tic under­stan­ding of such a monu­ment, may­be becau­se a modern, gene­tic way of thin­king needs to have been infor­med by the “cri­ti­cal” mode of at least part­ly de-legi­ti­mi­zing the ori­en­ta­ting power of tra­di­tio­nal and exem­pla­ric thinking.

May­be this is the back­ground for modern monu­ments being qui­te dif­fe­rent, eit­her often non-figu­ra­ti­ve — as Peter Eisenman’s Memo­ri­al to the Mur­de­red Jews in Ber­lin, or many works by Jochen Gerz7 — or taking on forms of coun­ter-memo­ria­liz­a­ti­on8, thus set­ting in moti­on a kind of chan­ge, not just re-pre­sent-ing a past, but encou­ra­ging or even enfor­cing cri­ti­cal reflec­tion on it.

It is easier for the Ham­burg monu­ment: Gene­tic thin­king would ques­ti­on whe­ther not only this heroi­fy­ing way of com­me­mo­ra­ting heroes (even if not indi­vi­du­al), but also the con­cre­te form of public ack­now­led­ging of tra­gic loss can be time­ly, after we expe­ri­en­ced ano­t­her war and an inhu­man dic­ta­tor­s­hip and geno­ci­de which was not least based on fee­lings ins­ti­ga­ted by such com­me­mo­ra­ting.9

But the­re is some­thing more to reflec­ting about nar­ra­ti­ves — and espe­cial­ly on how to rela­te to them. As I wro­te abo­ve, Memo­ri­als are nar­ra­ti­ves. Rüsen calls them “nar­ra­ti­ve abbre­via­ti­ons”, poin­ting to them stan­ding for a spe­ci­fic nar­ra­ti­ve, i.e. a spe­ci­fic rela­ti­on bet­ween a past (under memo­ry), the pre­sent (of the aut­hors and erec­tors of the monu­ment as well as the inten­ded public), and with regard to a spe­ci­fic future, con­struc­ted only part­ly in ver­bal nar­ra­ti­ve form, but also with non-ver­bal and sequen­ti­al­ly nar­ra­ti­ve ele­ments (even though in some cases it is only the ver­bal inscrip­ti­ons which real­ly hint to any his­to­ri­cal meaning).

Memo­ri­als are more than only pro­to-nar­ra­ti­ves. Their (often) pro­mi­nent (albeit also often over­loo­ked) posi­tio­ning, their (proto-)narrative struc­tu­re and their own qua­li­ty for las­ting a long time (cf. “monu­men­tum exegi aere peren­ni­us), they do not only con­sti­tu­te a nar­ra­ti­ve rela­ti­on from one tem­po­ral and social posi­ti­on towrds the past and the future, but also are meant to pro­long the sen­se they make and to impo­se it on later genera­ti­ons. Monu­ments are about obli­ga­ting their audi­ence, the spec­ta­tors with a cer­tain nar­ra­ti­ve and inter­pre­ta­ti­on. That qua­li­fies them as parts of what we call “poli­tics of histo­ry”, not only of com­me­mo­ra­ti­on, and what makes them political.

It the­re­fo­re is para­mount to read monu­ments as nar­ra­ti­ves, and not only in the de-con­struc­ti­ve sen­se of “what did tho­se erec­tors make of that past back then”, but also in the re-conct­ruc­ti­ve sen­se of “in how far or how does this nar­ra­ti­ve fit into my/​our rela­ti­on to that past). In other words: Stan­ding befo­re a monu­ment and thin­king about monu­ments, we all need to (and in fact do) think in a com­bi­na­ti­on of under­stan­ding the others’ and deli­be­ra­ting our own nar­ra­ti­ve mea­ning-making.
The­re­fo­re we need to read them as nar­ra­ti­ves first, and beco­me com­pe­tent for it.

Monu­ments often take on the form of addres­sing peop­le. Some­ti­mes — as in the Ham­burg case abo­ve — they address the spec­ta­tor, remin­ding them of some kind of obli­ga­ti­on to com­me­mo­ra­te.10 But who is tal­king to whom? If the sena­te of Ham­burg tal­kes to that to the Ham­burg citi­zens of 1930 – 1932, can/​will we accept that (a) the Ham­burg Sena­te of today still admo­nis­hes us like that, and b) that we Ham­burg citi­zens of today are still addres­sed in the same way?

In other cases, (inscrip­ti­ons in) memo­ri­als might expli­ci­tly address the com­me­mo­ra­ted them­sel­ves, as e.g. in the con­fe­de­r­a­te monu­ment in Yan­cey­vil­le, N.C., who­se plaque reads “To the Sons of Cas­well Coun­ty who ser­ved in the War of 1861 – 1865 in ans­wer to the Call of their Coun­ty”, and con­ti­nues in a “We-Voice”, signed by the Cas­well Chap­ter of the United Daugh­ters of the Con­fe­der­a­cy”. So far so con­ven­tio­nal. This might be rather unpro­ble­ma­tic, sin­ce spea­ker-posi­ti­on and addres­sees are clear­ly mar­ked. One might lea­ve the monu­ment even if one dis­agreed, not having to align with its nar­ra­ti­ve. Only if the pre­sence of such com­me­mo­ra­ting in its­elf is inac­cep­ta­ble, action is immedia­te­ly cal­led for.

But the­re are other monu­ments which seem to talk from a neu­tral posi­ti­on, which in fact is that of the erec­tors, but by not being qua­li­fied, inclu­des the spec­ta­tor into the spea­ker posi­ti­on. The examp­le I have rea­dy at hand, is not from the US and not about war heroes, but again from Ham­burg, this time from Neu­en­gam­me con­cen­tra­ti­on camp memo­ri­al. In 1965, an “inter­na­tio­nal monu­ment” ste­le11 was erec­ted the­re, tog­e­ther with a who­le seri­es of coun­try-spe­ci­fic memo­ri­al pla­tes. The inscrip­ti­on on the monu­ment reads “Your suf­fe­ring, your figh­t­ing and your death shall not be in vain” (my trans­la­ti­on).
This now clear­ly is inte­res­ting in at least two respects: (1) it ascri­bes not only suf­fe­ring and death, but also figh­t­ing to tho­se com­me­mo­ra­ted and ther­eby pos­si­b­ly does not refer to tho­se inma­tes who never had a chan­ce or did not “fight”, who were pure vic­tims, and (2) it speaks from a neu­tral voice which is not mar­ked in time and social, poli­ti­cal or event-rela­ted posi­ti­on. Whoever mourns at that place pos­si­b­ly silent­ly co-signs the statement.

International Monument (1965) at Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial (partial photo; (c) 2006 Andreas Körber)

Inter­na­tio­nal Monu­ment (1965) at Neu­en­gam­me Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memo­ri­al (par­ti­al pho­to; © 2006 Andre­as Körber)

Con­si­der an equal hono­u­ring of con­fe­de­r­a­te gene­rals in, say NC: “Your figh­t­ing shall not have been in vain.” I would spark much more con­tro­ver­sy and con­cers — and right­ly so.

Still ano­t­her examp­le, the first Ham­burg monu­ment for the vic­tims of Natio­nal Socia­lism (from late 1945) on the Cen­tral Ceme­try in Ham­burg-Ohls­dorf, has an inscrip­ti­on “Injus­ti­ce brought Us Death — Living: Reco­gni­ze your Obligation”.

Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf. Foto von NordNordWest/Wikipedia. Lizenz: CC-BY-SA 3.0; (; Original:

Ers­tes Ham­bur­ger Mahn­mal für die Opfer des Natio­nal­so­zia­lis­mus von 11/​1945 in Ham­burg Ohls­dorf. Foto von NordNordWest/​Wikipedia. Lizenz: CC-BY-SA 3.0; (https://​crea​ti​vecom​mons​.org/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​-​s​a​/​3​.​0​/​d​e​/​l​e​g​a​l​c​ode); Ori­gi­nal: http://​com​mons​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​i​l​e​:​M​a​h​n​m​a​l​_​O​p​f​e​r​_​d​e​r​_​N​S​-​V​e​r​f​o​l​g​u​n​g​_​O​h​l​s​d​o​r​f​.​jpg


Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf; Detail. Zustand 25.3.2010; Foto (c) Andreas Körber

Ers­tes Ham­bur­ger Mahn­mal für die Opfer des Natio­nal­so­zia­lis­mus von 11/​1945 in Ham­burg Ohls­dorf; Detail. Zustand 25.3.2010; Foto © Andre­as Körber


Again, for ana­ly­zing and under­stan­ding, we need to reco­gni­ze. The spea­ker posi­ti­on here, is clear­ly (meta­pho­ri­call) held by the vic­tims to be com­me­mo­ra­ted. But whom do they speak to? Liter­al­ly, it is the “living”. In a very broad under­stan­ding, the monument/​memorial the­re­fo­re addres­ses all humans, qui­te in a way what Rüsen has addres­sed as the hig­hest level of nor­ma­ti­ve plau­si­bi­li­ty: broa­de­ning the per­spec­ti­ve to the level of huma­ni­ty.
This is not very pro­ble­ma­tic, sin­ce the inscrip­ti­on does talk of “duty”, not of “guilt”, it does not con­fla­te the addres­sees with tho­se who inflic­ted the injus­ti­ce upon the vic­tims. But it could have done. In 1945, the mes­sa­ge would be clear­ly not merely uni­ver­sal­ly huma­nistic, but at least also addres­sing the Ger­mans as the socie­ty of the per­pe­tra­tors. It does not con­demn, but calls for reco­gni­zing the “duty” and respon­si­bi­li­ty for com­me­mo­ra­ting and non-repea­ting as well as over­co­m­ing the struc­tures of NS injus­ti­ce, hin­ting at respon­si­bi­li­ty for not pre­ven­ting them or even par­ti­ci­pa­ting in them in the first place.

And today? In how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for today’s socie­ty in Ger­ma­ny? The peop­le living in Ger­ma­ny today do — apart from very few excep­ti­ons — not share any per­so­nal guilt or respon­si­bi­li­ty for what hap­pen­ed. In how far can or should they see them­sel­ves addressed?

Again, the­re is no ques­ti­on as to the very gene­ral, huma­ni­ty-rela­ted address. This is direc­ted at any audi­ence. But would that mean that the­re is no dif­fe­rence bet­ween any other visi­tor to the memo­ri­al and Ger­mans? Has the Nazi injus­ti­ce (and simi­lar­ly the Holo­caust) beco­me a mat­ter of gene­ral, uni­ver­sal histo­ry only? Is the­re no spe­cial belon­ging to and mes­sa­ge for Ger­man histo­ry? All the­se ques­ti­ons can and need to be addres­sed — and espe­cial­ly so, sin­ce a con­si­derable part of Ger­man socie­ty con­sists not only of peop­le born and rai­sed (long) after the “Third Reich”, but also of many who immi­gra­ted from other coun­tries, socie­ties and cul­tures mean­while. Are they sim­ply coun­ted into the per­pe­tra­tors’ socie­ty? — no, I think; but as peop­le living in Ger­ma­ny, they also are adres­sed in a more spe­ci­fic way than any other visi­tor — and they are expec­ted to feel addres­sed, also. While the­re may be (and often inde­ed is) not spe­ci­fic respon­si­bi­li­ty for what the­se memo­ri­als and monu­ments refer to, the­re surely is a spe­ci­fic respon­si­bi­li­ty from or out of this histo­ry — and the­se monu­ments the­re­fo­re ser­ve not only as gene­ral mar­kers to a set past, but also as marks which have spe­ci­fic messages and dif­fe­rent (but com­pa­ti­ble) ones for dif­fe­rent reci­pi­ents. This is what also is a part of what is nee­ded to be reflec­ted and dis­cus­sed with regard to monu­ments in public histo­ry cul­tu­re and what histo­ry edu­ca­ti­on needs to enab­le lear­ners to par­ta­ke in.

In order to make up our minds on monu­ments we have “inheri­ted” not only in poli­ti­cal terms, we need to reflect their spe­ci­fic nar­ra­ti­ve mes­sa­ge in a spec­trum of time-rela­ti­ons. And we need to dif­fe­ren­tia­te our ter­mi­no­lo­gy and enab­le our stu­dents to mas­ter a set of con­cepts rela­ted. We need, e.g., to dis­tin­guish hono­ring forms of com­me­mo­ra­ti­on from remin­ding and admo­nis­hing ones.

In Ger­ma­ny we have (not eas­liy) deve­lo­ped the noti­on of “Mahn­mal”, admo­nis­hing, to be dis­tin­guis­hed from a mere “Denk­mal” (liter­al­ly a “thin­king mark”). But even this dis­tinc­tion is insuf­fi­ci­ent. A Mahn­mal (in fact the lite­ral trans­la­ti­on to “monu­ment”, from Latin “admone­re”) may admo­nish to remem­ber our own suf­fe­ring inflic­ted on us by our­sel­ves, some tra­gic or by others, but also may admo­nish to not for­get what we inflic­ted on others. This is the spe­ci­fic form “nega­ti­ve memo­ry” of Ger­man memo­ri­al culture.


The­re­fo­re, there’s a lot more to be reflec­ted in commemorating:

  • Who “talks”? who aut­hors the nar­ra­ti­ve — and is what capa­ci­ty (e.g. in lieuf of “the peop­le”, of a cer­tain group, …)?
  • whom does the monu­ment expli­ci­ty address?
  • what is the rela­ti­on of expli­cit addres­sees and fac­tu­al spectators?
  • in how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for us today as it was envi­sio­ned back then — and pos­si­b­ly rea­li­zed? is it the same for all of us?
  • what kind of mes­sa­ge is perceived?

(cf. Kör­ber 2014)



  • Has­berg, Wolf­gang (2012): Ana­ly­ti­sche Wege zu bes­se­rem Geschichts­un­ter­richt. His­to­ri­sches Den­ken im Hand­lungs­zu­sam­men­hang Geschichts­un­ter­richt. In: Mey­er-Ham­me, Johan­nes /​ Thü­ne­mann, Hol­ger /​ Züls­dorf-Kers­t­ing, Meik (Hrsg.): Was heißt guter Geschichts­un­ter­richt? Per­spek­ti­ven im Ver­gleich. Schwalbach/​Ts. /​ Wochen­schau, S. 137 – 160, p. 140.
  • Klin­gel, Kers­tin (2006): Eichen­kranz und Dor­nen­kro­ne. Krie­ger­denk­mä­ler in Ham­burg. Ham­burg: Lan­des­zen­tra­le für Poli­ti­sche Bildung.
  • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2014): De-Con­struc­ting Memo­ry Cul­tu­re. In: Tea­ching his­to­ri­cal memo­ries in an inter­cul­tu­ral per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and methods : expe­ri­en­ces and results from the Tea­c­Mem pro­ject. Hrsg. von Hel­le Bje­rg, Andre­as Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz u. Oli­ver von Wro­chem. Ber­lin 2014, 145 – 151.
  • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2016): Sinn­bil­dungs­ty­pen als Gra­du­ie­run­gen? Ver­such einer Klä­rung am Bei­spiel der His­to­ri­schen Fra­ge­kom­pe­tenz. In: Kat­ja Leh­mann, Micha­el Wer­ner und Ste­fa­nie Zabold (Hg.): His­to­ri­sches Den­ken jetzt und in Zukunft. Wege zu einem theo­re­tisch fun­dier­ten und evi­denz­ba­sier­ten Umgang mit Geschich­te. Fest­schrift für Wal­traud Schrei­ber zum 60. Geburts­tag. Ber­lin, Müns­ter: Lit Ver­lag (Geschichts­di­dak­tik in Ver­gan­gen­heit und Gegen­wart, 10), S. 27 – 41.
  • Rüsen, Jörn (2017): Evi­dence and Mea­ning. A Theo­ry of His­to­ri­cal Stu­dies. Unter Mit­ar­beit von Dia­ne Kerns und Kat­ie Digan. New York, NY: Berg­hahn Books Incor­po­ra­ted (Making Sen­se of Histo­ry Ser, v.28).
Anmer­kun­gen /​ Refe­ren­ces
  1.   Léves­que, Sté­pha­ne: Remo­ving the “Past”: Deba­tes Over Offi­cial Sites of Memo­ry. In: Public Histo­ry Wee­kly 6 (2018) 29, DOI: dx​.doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​5​1​5​/​p​h​w​-​2​018 – 12570. The­re also is a Ger­man and a French ver­si­on. []
  2. Ano­t­her such cross­ta­bu­la­ti­on has been sug­gested (in Ger­man) by Wolf­gang Has­berg (Ana­ly­ti­sche Wege zu bes­se­rem Geschichts­un­ter­richt. His­to­ri­sches Den­ken im Hand­lungs­zu­sam­men­hang Geschichts­un­ter­richt. In: Mey­er-Ham­me, Johan­nes /​ Thü­ne­mann, Hol­ger /​ Züls­dorf-Kers­t­ing, Meik (Hrsg.): Was heißt guter Geschichts­un­ter­richt? Per­spek­ti­ven im Ver­gleich. Schwalbach/​Ts. /​ Wochen­schau, S. 137 – 160, p. 140). For my cri­tique see Kör­ber 2016 (in Ger­man). I also pro­vi­ded a table, inclu­ding the dif­fe­rent niveaus, but restric­ted to “Fra­ge­kom­pe­tenz” (simi­lar to Lévesque’s “inqui­ry com­pe­tence”). []
  3. I used this also in a twit­ter-dis­cus­sion with Kim Wag­ner (@KimAtiWagner) recent­ly. []
  4. For more pic­tures and infor­ma­ti­on see also https://​www​.denk​-mal​-gegen​-krieg​.de/​k​r​i​e​g​e​r​d​e​n​k​m​a​e​l​e​r​/​h​a​m​b​u​r​g​-​l​o​-​os/. []
  5. On this type of monu­ments 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. 18f. []
  6. Accord­ing to Klin­gel, Kers­tin (2006): Eichen­kranz und Dor­nen­kro­ne. Krie­ger­denk­mä­ler in Ham­burg. Ham­burg: Lan­des­zen­tra­le für Poli­ti­sche Bil­dung, p.71, the mour­ning-reli­ef initi­al­ly was to be repla­ced by “war sym­bols” but all skte­ches han­ded in by artists (inclu­ding a wrath with swords by Ruwoldt) were rejec­ted, so that he was com­mis­sio­ned to crea­te an eagle, which he did, but in a way which far more resem­bled a dove than an eagle. In how far this can be inter­pre­ted as a sub­ver­si­ve rejec­tion of the new mar­ti­al cha­rac­ter and even be eva­lua­ted as an act of defi­an­ce, is high­ly ques­tion­ab­le, sin­ce the sym­bo­lism of the dove as the uni­ver­si­al sym­bol for peace was crea­ted by Picas­so only after World­War II. []
  7. Cf. e.g. his “Invi­si­ble Monu­ment” in Sar­brü­cken: https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​l​a​t​z​_​d​e​s​_​U​n​s​i​c​h​t​b​a​r​e​n​_​M​a​h​n​m​als. []
  8. Cf. a.o. Wij­sen­beek, Dinah: Denk­mal und Gegen­denk­mal. Über den kri­ti­schen Umgang mit der Ver­gan­gen­heit auf dem Gebiet der bil­den­den Kunst. Mün­chen 2010. []
  9. There’s a lot more to be reflec­ted in com­me­mo­ra­ting: Who talks to whom, here? What do they say and expect? Who is the “you”? Is it ” us” — still today? And if so: in how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for all of us, tho­se with Ham­burg ances­tors of the time, and tho­se without, may­be immi­grants? In how far can this aspect defi­ne our atti­tu­de? Can we for­ce all recent immi­grants into our own “natio­nal” nar­ra­ti­ve (and even more so when it is not WW1, but Holo­caust rela­ted)? But then, how can we not? (cf. also Kör­ber 2014, and see below. []
  10. My mother used to exp­lain the Ger­man word “Denk­mal”, liter­al­ly referr­ring to a “mark(er)” for initia­ting thin­king, as an impe­ra­ti­ve: “Denk mal!”, refer­ring to the other mea­ning of the word “mal” as “for once”, resul­ting in “do think for once!” []
  11. Cf. https://​upload​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​p​e​d​i​a​/​c​o​m​m​o​n​s​/​t​h​u​m​b​/​1​/​1​5​/​N​e​u​e​n​g​a​m​m​e​_​m​e​m​o​r​i​a​l​.​j​p​g​/​8​0​0​p​x​-​N​e​u​e​n​g​a​m​m​e​_​m​e​m​o​r​i​a​l​.​jpg, (pho­to by Hao Liu in the public domain) []

Vortrag zu “Living History” und Historischem Lernen in Warschau

25. Februar 2017 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Am 23. und 24.2. 2017 fand im Deut­schen His­to­ri­schen  Insti­tut in War­schau eine inter­na­tio­na­le Tagung statt zum The­ma  “Step­ping Back in Time Living Histo­ry and Other Per­for­ma­ti­ve Approa­ches to Histo­ry in Cen­tral and South-Eas­tern Euro­pe.” Ich habe dort einen Vor­trag zu Fra­gen des His­to­ri­schen Ler­nens in die­sem Zusam­men­hang gehal­ten. Nach­trag 23.5.2017: Ein Tagungs­be­richt fin­det hier sich auf H‑SOZ-KULT.

Neue Publikation

17. Januar 2017 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Aus einem Pro­jekt der Kol­le­gen Jan Löf­ström (Hel­sin­ki, FInn­land), Niklas Ammert (Kal­mar, Schwe­den) und Hea­ther Sharp (New­cast­le, Aus­tra­li­en) zum Zusam­men­hang von Geschichts- und mora­li­schem Bewusst­sein ist ein Son­der­band der Online-Zeit­schrift “His­to­ri­cal Encoun­ters” hervorgegangen,

His­to­ri­cal Encoun­ters. A jour­nal of his­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness, his­to­ri­cal cul­tures, and his­to­ri­cal edu­ca­ti­on. 4,1 (2017): Spe­cial Issue: His­to­ri­cal and Moral Consciousness

mit fol­gen­den Arti­keln, dar­un­ter einem eigenen:

  • Niklas Ammert, Sil­via Edling, Jan Löf­ström, Hea­ther Sharp: „Brid­ging his­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness and moral con­scious­ness: Pro­mi­ses and chal­len­ges“, pp. 1 – 13
  • Guð­mun­dur Heiðar Frí­manns­son: „Moral and his­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness“, pp. 14 – 22
  • Niklas Ammert: „Pat­terns of rea­so­ning: A ten­ta­ti­ve model to ana­ly­se his­to­ri­cal and moral con­scious­ness among 9th gra­de stu­dents“, pp. 23 – 35
  • Sil­via Edling: „His­to­ri­cal and modal con­scious­ness in the light of ethics of dis­sen­sus: One approach to hand­le plu­ra­li­ty in edu­ca­ti­on.“, pp. 36 – 51
  • Fre­drik Alvén: „Making demo­crats while deve­lo­ping their his­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness: A com­plex task.“, pp. 52 – 67
  • Jan Löf­ström, Lii­sa Myy­ry: „Ana­ly­sing ado­lescents’ rea­so­ning about his­to­ri­cal respon­si­bi­li­ty in dia­lo­gue bet­ween histo­ry edu­ca­ti­on and social psy­cho­lo­gy.“, pp. 68 – 80
  • Andre­as Kör­ber: „His­to­ri­cal con­scious­ness and the moral dimen­si­on.“; pp. 81 – 89

Erster Beitrag zum Projekt HiTCH erschienen

04. November 2016 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Traut­wein, Ulrich; Bert­ram, Chris­tia­ne; Bor­ries, Bodo von; Kör­ber, Andre­as; Schrei­ber, Wal­traud; Schwan, Ste­phan et al. (2016; i. Dr.): Ent­wick­lung und Vali­die­rung eines his­to­ri­schen Kom­pe­tenz­tests zum Ein­satz in Lar­ge-Sca­le-Assess­ments (HiTCH). In Bun­des­mi­nis­te­ri­um für Bil­dung und For­schung (Ed.): For­schung in Ankopp­lung an Lar­ge-Sca­le Assess­ments. Bonn: Bun­des­mi­nis­te­ri­um für Bil­dung und For­schung (Bil­dungs­for­schung, 44), pp. 97 – 120. [online: https://​www​.bmbf​.de/​p​u​b​/​B​i​l​d​u​n​g​s​f​o​r​s​c​h​u​n​g​_​B​a​n​d​_​4​4​.​p​d​f​#​p​a​g​e​=97]

Ein interessanter Unterrichtsbericht: Philippe Weber: “Die Geschichte der Enzyklopädie weiterschreiben”

21. August 2016 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Einen wirk­lich inter­es­san­ten und anspruchs­vol­len, dabei im sehr posi­ti­ven Sin­ne kom­pe­tenz­ori­en­tier­ten Unter­richt (ohne die Kom­pe­tenz­mo­del­le expli­zit zu nut­zen) berich­tet Phil­ip­pe Weber im Blog des Arbeits­krei­ses “Digi­ta­ler Wan­del und Geschichts­di­dak­tik”: “Die Geschich­te der Enzy­klo­pä­die weiterschreiben”.

Zweite internationale Arbeitstagung zum Assessment Historischen Denkens

09. Juli 2016 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Vom 1. bis 3. Juli ver­an­stal­te­te der Arbeits­be­reich Geschichts­di­dak­tik sei­nen zwei­ten inter­na­tio­na­len Work­shop zur Erfas­sung von Leis­tun­gen his­to­ri­schen Den­kens. Ver­an­stal­tungs­ort war wie­der die Mis­si­ons­aka­de­mie an der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg. Das The­ma der Arbeits­ta­gung lau­te­te: “On the Way to an Inter­na­tio­nal­ly Shared Assess­ment of His­to­ri­cal Thin­king (?)”. Sie dien­te dem Aus­tausch von theo­re­ti­schen Grund­la­gen und admi­nis­tra­ti­ven Rah­men­be­din­gun­gen sowie empi­ri­schen Ansät­zen und Erfah­run­gen mit ihnen. Die Tagung ver­zeich­ne­te Teilnehmer(innen) aus Nor­we­gen (Lise Kvan­de, Chris­ti­an Skot­nes, bei­de NTNU Trond­heim), Schwe­den (Prof. Dr. Per Eli­as­son, Dr. Ceci­lia Axels­son Yng­véus, David Rosen­lund und Per Gun­nemyr, all Uni­ver­si­tät Mal­mö), den Nie­der­lan­den (Prof. Dr. Car­la van Box­t­el, Uni­ver­si­tät Ams­ter­dam; Ste­ven Ste­gers, EUROCLIO, Den Haag), Öster­reich (Prof. Dr. Chris­toph Küh­ber­ger; PH Salz­burg), der Schweiz (Prof. Dr. Béatri­ce Zieg­ler, Prof. Dr. Moni­ka Wal­dis, Mar­tin Nit­sche, alle FHNW Aar­au) und Kana­da (Prof. Dr. Lind­say Gib­son; Univ. Alber­ta) sowie von ver­schie­de­nen deut­schen Uni­ver­si­tä­ten (Prof. Dr. Nico­la Brauch, Ruhr-Uni­ver­si­tät Bochum), Uni­ver­si­tät Pader­born (Prof. Dr. Johan­nes Mey­er-Ham­me; Dr. Hele­ne Albers, Chris­to­pher Wos­nitza, Fran­zis­ka Pilz), Katho­li­sche Uni­ver­si­tät Eich­stätt (Prof. Dr. Wal­traud Schrei­ber, Mat­thi­as Hirsch, Micha­el Wer­ner), Eber­hard Karls-Uni­ver­si­tät Tübin­gen (Dr. Chris­tia­ne Bert­ram, Zarah L. Weiß) und der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg (Prof. Dr. Andre­as Kör­ber, Prof. Dr. em. Bodo von Bor­ries, Andre­as Zuc­k­ow­ski, Fran­zis­ka Meis, Patri­zia Seidl, Han­na Gross­mann, Fran­zis­ka Singh). Zwei Teil­neh­mer waren lei­der kurz­fris­tig verhindert.

Das Pro­gramm der Tagung bestand aus Über­blicks­vor­trä­gen über die Tra­di­tio­nen und Hin­ter­grün­de der Erfas­sung his­to­ri­scher Lern- und Denk­leis­tun­gen zu ver­schie­de­nen Zwe­cken (Prü­fun­gen, Moni­to­ring) in ver­schie­de­nen Regio­nen, Prä­sen­ta­tio­nen unter­schied­li­cher metho­di­scher Ansät­zen und Auf­ga­ben­bei­spie­len zur Erfas­sung his­to­ri­scher Denk­leis­tun­gen und der Aus­lo­tung mög­li­cher Ansatz­punk­te für eine Zusam­men­ar­beit mit Blick auf eine Klä­rung von Bedin­gun­gen für zukünf­ti­ge Zusammenarbeit.

Aufsatz zur Kompetenzmessung

30. November 2015 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Der Bei­trag zu den im HiTCH-Pro­jekt wahr­ge­nom­me­nen Her­aus­for­de­run­gen bei der Erstel­lung eines quan­ti­ta­ti­ven Kom­pe­tenz­tests für his­to­ri­sches Den­ken aud der Tagung “Geschichts­di­dak­tik empi­risch” in Basel ist erschienen:

Kör­ber, Andre­as (2015): “Mes­sung his­to­ri­scher Kom­pe­ten­zen – Her­aus­for­de­run­gen für die Erstel­lung eines LSA-geeig­ne­ten Kom­pe­tenz­tests.” In: Wal­dis, Moni­ka; Zieg­ler, Béatri­ce (2015: Hgg.): For­schungs­werk­statt Geschichts­di­dak­tik 13. Bei­trä­ge zur Tagung “Geschichts­di­dak­tik empi­risch 13”. Bern: hep-Ver­lag; ISBN: 9783035502725; S. 124 – 138.

Seite 1 von 3