근대 독일 역사학의 민족사 기획-형성에서 해체로?-

Abstract

It has been implausible to deny that the advance of modern history was closely linked to the historiography of the national history. It is no doubt that the rise of nationalistic historiography in Germany kept pace with the political process of establishing and consolidating Germany as a new modern nation-state. Of course, scholars participated eagerly in social activities while showing their capacities as professionals, intellectuals, politicians, and citizens, that would contribute to promoting national identities. Ranke was a leading figure and famous historian when Prussia emerged as the strongest German representative that became a centripetal force for eventual unification of German nations. However, because Ranke's period preceded the formation of a nation-state of Germany, he paid a special attention to the history of ideas that had led a nation as a substitute for state in a sense. From the latter half of the 19th century, with the rise of the nation-state, nationalist historiography gradually took over, while at the same time specialization in history became prevalent. Until 1945 the dominant version of presenting German development was the “national master narrative", which sought to legitimize the presence of the nation state. Created by liberal leaders with the drive to unification, such as Heinrich von Treitschke, it was appropriated by advocates of imperialism during the Wilhelminian era, modified by defenders of a defeated nationality after Versailles, and pushed out of recognition by the Nazi zealots of racial hegemony over Europe. Since 1945 the German historians had to write their national history in a new mode. As different types of historiography based on Marxism and modernization theory gained a firm foothold in East and West Germany, respectively, there was a growing tendency that critically examined the historical process from the Empire to the Nazi era. But the new criticizing approach did not succeed in building up a new history escaped from the national history writing. Although their purpose was to criticize the evolvement of German history, their epistemological assumption still fell into a trap in nationalist thoughts. In spite that there were growing demands for de-national or post-national approach among German intellectuals, they did not evolve into a new historical understanding that might replace the conventional nationalist one. Until the late 1990s, most of historians had denied the need of a radical critique of the national history writing. Many historians reaffirmed the role of national history as a dynamic force for the future. However, there was also a new current that challenged the nationalist paradigm. Since the late 1990s, the research paradigm for several German historians has undergone great transformation. It is true that this transformation was mainly due to the current socio-political change of German society, the establishment of European Union, and its entry into multi-cultural environment. In addition, the new reality of globalization allowed German historians to reflect their past practice in more elaborated ways. Inspired by the new currents of ideas, some German scholars began to execute new paths. Presently the call for an alternative to national history writing gains more attraction in Germany. But the consequences and perspectives for a new conceptualization of German history in the newly-established German nation-state were still wide-open. It would be inconsiderate to expect that the turning away from the nation as a favoured subject of German historiography be completely succeeded. Considering the current political realities, the influence of the German nation-state has continued. But it is necessary under these circumstances to concede that, despite the importance of national history, many different history writings try to constitute a more plural identity.