Skip to main content

Political Issues Under Debate. On the Meaning and Purpose of a Series of Political Science Lectures on Contemporary History

  • Chapter
  • 538 Accesses

Abstract

The new lecture series, “Controversial Political Issues from the Perspective of Contemporary History” is in principle designed to be given over the course of many semesters. The first 30 lectures under this title were held at the University of Mannheim from the summer of 2004 until 2009. They were repeated in updated form in Frankfurt/Main and have been supplemented by 20 new lectures to date. All the lectures have until now been published in German in four volumes with the title Politische Streitfragen, and in English in 2015 as “Political Issues Under Debate”. This introduction provides an explanation of the general basic nature of the lecture, the purpose of which is to determine which political issues under debate are selected.

Political science is regarded as being the study of politics, which while it cannot really be value-neutral and value-free should be highly cautious in its expression of political value judgements and the use of a strongly value-loaded and emotional language. To this extent, political recommendations can be made, but should be expressly identified as such, so that the analysis of the past and the prognosis regarding the possible and probable future on the one hand, and normative statements on the other, remain clearly distinct from one another. Furthermore, attention should be drawn to the political implications of the respective selection of subjects, methods and results of the analysis and the synthesis of its insights. The study of contemporary history is understood as being an essential branch of political science.

Contemporary history as a history that stretches into the future is understood in this lecture as being the global history of the age of the gradually spreading concept of sovereignty of the people, namely during the three time periods of the “long century” from 1776/1789 to 1917, the “short century” from 1917 to 1991 and the new century that began in 1991. In this lecture, universal democracy, i.e. the sovereignty of the people, and as a fundamental theme its development into a constitutional, representative, liberal and social democracy, along with its disputes with competing forms of rule, is regarded as a political project of our time that in many respects remains uncompleted.

Furthermore, the relationship between the lecture, its elaboration in writing and the intended communication between the person giving the lecture and its listeners and readers is described. The criteria used to select political conflicts that harbour the potential for violence and war for the analysis given in the lecture are then presented with a view to the chances of cooperation in international society, and against the background of the tradition of the research focus on conflict and cooperation structures in Eastern Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This introduction was written before the first lecture, which was given on 3 May 2004 at the University of Mannheim on the subject of the “headscarf dispute”, and was amended slightly in only a few sentences prior to both of the Frankfurt lecture cycles.

  2. 2.

    Similar ideas already underlie the origins of contemporary history around 1800, see D’Aprile (2013).

  3. 3.

    These are sometimes also questions relating to the dispute over the interpretation of history, see Sabrow et al. (2003).

  4. 4.

    The predominant view today regards contemporary historical science as being a branch of historical science, however, see Nützenadel and Schieder (2004, p. 14) and Möller and Wengst (2003).

  5. 5.

    On the beginnings of the science of politics, see Bleek (2001).

  6. 6.

    On the loss of the “pedagogical-normative dimension of contemporary history”, see Bösch and Danyel (2012, p. 11).

  7. 7.

    This popular slogan of the reform era after 1968, which was introduced by Willy Brandt, originates from his government declaration as Federal Chancellor on 28 October 1969 before the German Bundestag, in which he said: “We want to dare to have more democracy”, http://www.willy-brandt.de/fileadmin/brandt/Downloads/Regierungserklaerung_Willy_Brandt_1969.pdf

  8. 8.

    On the differences between the German understanding of Zeitgeschichte and the British understanding of contemporary history, see Fröhlich (2009, pp. 137–153); the German concept is closer to the expression histoire du temps présent, and is less related to histoire contemporaine in France (Metzler 2012).

  9. 9.

    On reflections over the difference between history and contemporary history, see Peter and Schröder (1994, pp. 15–40), Schulz (1992) and Barraclough (1991).

  10. 10.

    At a conference in Odenwald-Schloss Waldleiningen in September 1949, the “establishment of professorships for the political sciences, in particular for global politics, political sociology, comparative state studies, universal history in relation to the present day and political theory” was proposed, in: Die politischen Wissenschaften an den deutschen Universität und Hochschulen, p. 39, quoted from: Bock, Hans Manfred: Soziale Demokratie und wissenschaftliche Politik. Zu Wolfgang Abendroths Verständnis der Politikwissenschaft in den fünfziger Jahren, in Hecker et al. (2001, p. 99). Cf. also Bleek (2001, p. 266).

  11. 11.

    Jäckel (1975).

  12. 12.

    On the term “geopolitics”, which was discredited by the German imperialist policy of conquest, see the lecture in Jahn (2015).

  13. 13.

    Hassinger (1953).

  14. 14.

    Rothfels (1953). On the impact of Rothfels, see Hürter and Woller (2005).

  15. 15.

    In this regard, the three lectures on the nation state were written 3 years later, in Jahn (2015).

  16. 16.

    See Czempiel (1986, pp. 85–98) and Jahn (2012, pp. 71–77).

  17. 17.

    The term “the short twentieth century” was coined by Hobsbawm (1994, p. 9). According to Hans Rothfels, the epochal year 1917 marked the beginning of contemporary history, see Rothfels (1953).

  18. 18.

    Adolf Grabowsky, who was politically committed to liberal and social conservatives, was from 1921 to 1933 a lecturer for the history of ideas in politics and foreign politics at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik in Berlin. In 1934, he was forced to emigrate to Switzerland, taught at the University of Basel and from 1950 in Marburg, where at 69, he was awarded an extraordinary professorship. The conceptual basis of his lecture “World political information lessons” was published in a book, 1960: Raum, Staat und Geschichte. Grundlegung der Geopolitik, Cologne/Berlin: Carl Heymann, in which he attempted to preserve the fundamental principles of the spatial science of politics and condemned the “abuse” of geopolitics by the Haushofer School and the National Socialist policy of conquest. Other works by Grabowsky appeared in 1949: Demokratie und Diktatur. Grundfragen politischer Erziehung, Zurich: Occident-Verlag; 1971: Politik im Grundriß, Cologne et al.: Carl Heymann. A homage to Grabowsky can be found in Thierbach (1963).

  19. 19.

    In a review of political sciences at Marburg, it is said that Grabowsky had achieved “an impact beyond his field, which may be his greatest contribution to Marburg University—namely to bring global thinking to students’ understanding in what was at that time provincial Marburg.” Klein (2001, p. 64).

References

  • Barraclough G (1991) An introduction to contemporary history. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleek W (ed) (2001) Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Bösch F, Danyel J (eds) (2012) Zeitgeschichte – Konzepte und Methoden. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Czempiel E-O (1986) Friedensstrategien. Sytemwandel durch Internationale Organisationen, Demokratisierung und Wirtschaft. Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aprile I-M (2013) Die Erfindung der Zeitgeschichte. Geschichtsschreibung und Journalismus zwischen Aufklärung und Vormärz. Akademie, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fröhlich M (2009) Zeitgeschichte. UVK, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassinger H (1953) Geographische Grundlagen der Geschichte. Herder, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker W, Klein J, Rupp HK (eds) (2001) Politik und Wissenschaft. 50 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Marburg, vol 1. LIT, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm E (1994) Age of extremes. The short twentieth century 1914–1991. Michael Joseph, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hürter J, Woller H (eds) (2005) Hans Rothfels und die deutsche Zeitgeschichte. Oldenbourg, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäckel E (1975) Begriff und Funktion der Zeitgeschichte. In: Jäckel E, Weymar E (eds) Die Funktion der Geschichte in unserer Zeit. Klett, Stuttgart, pp. 162–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn E (2012) Frieden und Konflikt. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn E (2015) Geopolitics – an ideology for legitimising the national socialist policy of conquest or a scientific and political field that is unappreciated today? In: Jahn E (ed) World political challenges. Political issues under debate, vol 3. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 153–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein J (2001) ‘Ich habe mich in Marburg wohlgefühlt’. Adolf Grabowsky – ein vergessener Politikwissenschaftler? In: Hecker W, Klein J, Rupp HK (eds) Politik und Wissenschaft. 50 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Marburg, vol 1. LIT, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzler G (2012) Zeitgeschichte – Begriff – Disziplin – Problem. In: Bösch F, Danyel J (eds) Zeitgeschichte – Konzepte und Methoden. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller H, Wengst U (eds) (2003) Einführung in die Zeitgeschichte. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Nützenadel A, Schieder W (eds) (2004) Zeitgeschichte als Problem. Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa. Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter M, Schröder H-J (1994) Einführung in das Studium der Zeitgeschichte. Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothfels H (1953) Zeitgeschichte als Aufgabe. Vierteljahresh Zeitgesch 1(1):6

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabrow M, Jessen R, Große Kracht K (eds) (2003) Zeitgeschichte als Streitgeschichte. Große Kontroversen nach 1945. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz G (1992) Einführung in die Zeitgeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Thierbach H (ed) (1963) Adolf Grabowsky. Leben und Werk. Dem Altmeister der politischen Wissenschaften als Fest- und Dankesgabe gewidmet. Carl Heymann, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jahn, E. (2015). Political Issues Under Debate. On the Meaning and Purpose of a Series of Political Science Lectures on Contemporary History. In: German Domestic and Foreign Policy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47929-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics