Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:23:38 -0500 From: H-GERMAN EDITOR Dan Rogers Reply to: H-NET List on German History To: Multiple recipients of list H-GERMAN Subject: Michael Geyer on Postmodernism Submitted by: Charles E. McClelland Michael Geyer's long explanation of his and K. Jarausch's intentions was most welcome and deserves considerable thought. Would it be inappropriate at this juncture, without responding to the thought-provocation, to mention that the two messages contained, by a rough count, 39 references to published authorities, most of them well known? A great deal of the debate about "post-structuralist" and "deconstructionist" applications among historians has precisely to do with the alleged "non-referentiality" of historical study. If this doctrine were carried out (and over into our field) rigorously, the "morte d'auteur" would also carry an obligation not to refer to ANY authority, let alone 39. Since such rigor would result in total Stummheit and intellectual nihilism on the part of those who accept it, it is not accepted (except perhaps by people who are already intimiated enough by PoMo establishment figures to give up the "hope" of the "search" for a referential past based on methods used for a century). Perhaps historians as a disciplinary community are resistant to PoMo because, in the sense of "pragmatism," it does not work for them. As Geyer points out, there is so much past, of so few of us to interpret it. There is a finite number of works of literature. Many careers have been made in that disciplinary community by calling for and in fact carrying out daring reinterpretations. Reinterpreting Baudelaire, however, might have different public consequences than reinterpreting Hitler. (A rigorous pursuit of PoMo would say it does not matter.) The public does not think much about Baudelaire, although we would all like them to. The connection of historians to public issues has always been strong. Michael Geyer seems now to be saying this is proper. The German tradition (what other country's methodical battles are better known?) has both infused and provoked historians worldwide for a century and more. The search for a "covering theory" (as Wehler likes to say) may be a German intellectual malaise of long standing. But it has had, finally, after WW II, to confront international scrutiny and, sometimes, ridicule. American contributions to this international debate do not need the fig-leaf of dubious social-science theory imported from "discourses" in other disciplines in hermetically-sealed "venues" whether Paris or Berkeley. They go on every day in the classroom and the lunchroom. They are not elegant or desperately-written theories designed to convince a hermetic captive audience and thereby provide "constatation de soi". The danger of endorsing these theories (all interesting and worthy of discussion in an adavnced seminar) is that they lead away from the often unstated values of Wissenschaft that we all hold dear and promote exactly the values of "romanticism" (if there ever was such a movement) which so clearly speak to me in the works of Foucault and others. Striking out against "authority" is the beginning of all good consciousness and "bonne foi". If we leave out students with that, and do not reveal to them how we overcame our crises de conscience, and became "working historians" with our own approaches, we have really let our students down. If we give them no chance to replicate our own path to fragile, tentative conclusions that we are willing to debate and publish and then debate again, we are monsters. Historiens de mauvaise foi. (I swore I would not open my mouth about this again, but Geyer's contributions made me think. I will try to shut up now, with apologies to him and you all.) Charles E. McClelland Chair, European Studies Program 1104 Mesa Vista Hall University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-1181 USA tel: (505) 268-5047 (h) 277-2451 (receptionist) 277-6023 (fax) Internet: cemcc@unm.edu Bitnet: cemcc@unmb .