Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:11:37 -0500 Reply-To: H-NET List on German History Sender: H-NET List on German History From: H-GERMAN EDITOR Dan Rogers Subject: Postmodern theory in German history Submitted by: Diethelm Prowe I would be interested in discussion and comments on an important issue for German historians raised in the most recent (May 1995) issues of the GERMAN STUDIES REVIEW by Ken Barkin with response by Michael Geyer and Konrad Jarausch. Barkin first raised this issue at a session at the 1994 AHA Convention; and there was considerable interest in the audience at the time to continue this discussion. GSR thankfully took this on in this issue. Barkin raises some very interesting and important issues in his article, which is probably as severe an indictment of postmodern and poststructuralist theory, or at least is use for German history, as can be made by someone who has clearly read his Foucault, Derrida, Hayden White et al. with care and an open mind. His criticisms, sweeping as they are by the end of the article, deserve to be discussed seriously on their merits. Personally I was therefore disappointed by the response by Michael Geyer and Konrad Jarausch, for whom and especially whose work I have the GREATEST respect. I could think of no better colleagues to take on this task, as was already suggested that 1994 AHA session. Yet the response did not deal seriously with the issues raised by Barkin. Instead it dismissed these in the beginning with the comment "that Foucault and company really need not be rescued, at least not by us." I do not understand why Foucault et al. should be above serious debate or the need to be defended. Instead Barkin is accused of a number of things I did not find in his article, such as "orientalism" (apparently for defending the Enlightenment), of calling postmodernists "gangs," of attacking feminists, and wanting to return to narrative biography as the ideal history. Actually Barkin explicitly criticizes traditional biographies and appeals for a middle ground between Pflanze/Gall/Engelberg and Foucault/Derrida etc. Barkin's argument is mismissed as "escapist" and just plain reactionary. Geyer/Jarausch then proceed with a thoughtful argument about the necessity for all historians to continue to reshape their syllabi, but I see no reason why Barkin would disagree with this observation. Nor did he advocate great-man history. Perhaps Geyer and Jarausch opted for this particular type of response because they felt they had made their own arguments full in their excellent special volume of CENTRAL EUROPEAN HISTORY 22 (1989). My hope is that there will be another, more rigorous discussion of the issue where the two sides engage directly on each others' arguments, perhaps starting with issue raised in the CEH special volume. Perhaps this is the place for specific discussion of the arguments of Barkin and the excellent articles by Geyer, Jarausch, and others in the CEH issue. Diethelm Prowe Professor of History, Carleton College DProwe@Carleton.edu .