Constantin Fasolt's book The Limits of History, of which we are reading the first 40-50 pages, is in my opinion one of the best books about history that's ever been written. (Of course, I may be somewhat biased. Nonetheless: a very good book.) It is not, however, an easy book -- and for good reason. Fasolt attempts, in these pages, to answer questions no smaller than:
(1) What is history?
(2) Where and when did history come from?
(3) Who started making history -- in both senses of the phrase? Why did they start doing it? Whose interests did it serve then, and how?
(4) Who makes history now ("now" = in the time following Hegel's "end of history," following the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire in the Battle of Jena in 1806)? Why do they do it? Whose interests does it serve now?
(5) Why is history always political, and specifically, why is it "a dangerous form of knowledge"?
(6) How did the very nature of history, and its development through its two major periods (the first starting in the 16th century; the second starting in the 19th century), ultimately lead to Hitler?
To understand Fasolt's answers to these questions, we will find we'll need to draw on a wide range of concepts spanning the whole semester, from Weber and the iron cage and mentalités, to Ranke and wie es eigentlich gewesen, to DeLillo and Arendt and loneliness, to Hegel and Luther and Locke and Hayek and radical Protestant liberal individual subjectivity, to Kleist and Fukuyama and crusading against feudalism and Pope and Emperor toward a (perhaps) freer world.
It is, in other words, a task that should not be attempted alone. Hence the particular nature of this week's post:
1) Read, and read, the Fasolt text, ASAP. Let questions (1) through (6), above, guide your reading. And start seeing if you can make some of the connections I suggest in the previous paragraph...and maybe some others of your own.
2) Meet with a colleague from our class, sometime between when you (both) finish the reading and Sunday night, and discuss your reading of the Fasolt text. Meet for at least an hour -- in person if at all possible, otherwise over the phone. Again, let questions (1) through (6) guide your discussion: see if you can come up with provisional answers to each question, grounded in evidence from the text. And see what connections you can make with other stuff -- both in and outside of this class. But don't let these questions limit you! They are simply guidelines. The beauty of actual face-to-face discussion is, you never know quite where it will go -- and let it go where it goes, as long as it stays somewhat relevant to the text and questions at hand. (You are, of course, also more than welcome to discuss where -- and why -- you disagree with Fasolt. I know I do, at times.)
3) Write and post a blog post, in which you reflect upon your conversation, telling us what you talked about and what you took away from the conversation, and including any thoughts you've had since parting ways with your partner. This is a reflection, not a protocol. Don't structure your post based on a blow-by-blow, s/he-said-this-then-I-said-that reconstruction of your conversation. Instead, structure it based on some of the most interesting and important ideas and questions and thoughts that you generated along with your partner -- and explain some of these ideas and questions and thoughts in detail, including at least a few pieces of evidence from the Fasolt text, and from other texts if relevant. Again, if you get lost, use questions (1) through (6) as your guide; they will be our main questions in class next week, too.
Have fun! (Viel Spaß!)
No comments:
Post a Comment