Submitted by: Jeremy Telman Konrad Jarausch's recent contribution to our discussion of postmodernism helps clarify what is at stake and establishes goals for the discussion with admirable concision. The key question does seem to me to be why historians of Germany have been less influenced by postmodern theory than have our colleagues who study English and French history. Since postmodern theorists engage in very different types of theorizing, it is often difficult to determine -- as Orville Lee has pointed out -- what belongs to postmodern theory and what does not. The works of some postmodern theorists (such as Foucault) have inspired a great deal of very interesting historical research, while the applicability of other post-modern theorists (e.g. de Man, Lacan, Levinas) to history remains largely (so far as I know) unexplored. Given the variety among postmodernists, it seems reasonable that historians will come to such approaches via different paths. Jonathan Sperber's narrative, according to which historians influenced by postmodernism are responding to social history in the mode of E.P. Thompson, thus seems to me to tell only part of the story. The German historical profession has a long history of not responding to methodological innovations that become widespread and popular (not to say faddish) in other national contexts. The resistance to or ignorance regarding postmodern theory among German historians needs to be understood in the context of a discussion of the sociology of knowledge within the historical profession and of the sociology of that profession more generally. I was surprised when Mitchell Ash, in his contribution to this discussion, pointed us to Bourdieu's notion of symbolic capital and advised us not to take ourselves so seriously. I agree that this "tempest in a teapot" seems to be occurring in that Bourdieuvian realm in which the only thing at stake seems to be intellectual commitments. But I don't think Bourdieu's point is that we should not take such debates seriously. Especially if it is true (as both Mitchell Ash and Konrad Jarausch assert) that this is a generational conflict, those of us who are young and open to postmodern influences on our work need to be concerned if senior scholars in our field have "near irrational" [Ash's words] responses to such influences. I would also quibble with Jonathan Sperber's characterization of the arguments postmodern theorists make with respect to history. There are, no doubt, theorists who say "there is no past reality to reconstruct" [and not all such theorists are postmodernists], but historians influenced by postmodern theory argue rather that there is no _one_ past reality to reconstruct. There is no _one_ master narrative but only a variety of arrangements of various strands of occurrences that the historian (for whatever reason) has selected to present as relavant. This is a perspective not all that different from the one Sperber himself adopts in his review article, "Master Narratives of Nineteenth-Century History" [CEH 24 (1991)], despite Sperber's final footnote in that essay distancing himself from postmodernism. Sperber finds value in the three ambitious Gesamtdarstellungen under review in that essay despite the fact that the authors present fundamentally different pictures of the same period in German history. Some postmodernists might argue that the differences highlight the impossibility of Gesamtdarstellungen in general, but one might acknowledge the postmodernist position and still see the value in the attempt to present an overview. Finally on this topic: those following this discussion should take note (and take seriously) that most of those participating in the discussion have stressed their respect for the people with whom they disagree on this issue. I am concerned that the profession is not as open to methodological challenges as it should be, but that does not mean that I think more traditional approaches need to be abandoned. Good work in German history will continue to be produced by social historians, economic historians, diplomatic and political historians even if postmodern theorists carve out a niche for themselves within the profession. On a completely different topic: I am trying to make sense of the incidents that led Fichte to resign as rector of the University of Berlin. Is anybody out there familiar with the university penal system? What exactly does it mean when a student is given a Karzerstrafe? Does the student then have to sit in his room for the designated period of time or is there actually a university prison chamber? In cases of longer detentions, is the student permitted to attend classes? Thanks in advance, Jeremy TELMAND@COFC.EDU (D.A. JEREMY TELMAN) COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON HISTORY DEPARTMENT CHARLESTON, SC 29424 803-953-8102 .