{"title":"Memory or History?","authors":"M. Roseman","doi":"10.1017/S0008938923000080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewing the the so-called “Second Historian's Debate”, in which he had played such an important role, in February 2022, Michael Rothberg wrote that the opponents to his multidirectional approach were confusing history and memory. “Naturally, history and memory cannot be entirely separated from each other, but the target of my own work and also of Moses's catechism essay is public memory, not historical scholarship.” I understand what he means about not targeting the discipline. Rothberg and Moses are both aware that many positions controversial in the German public sphere have long been accepted in the academy, a distinction they clearly make in their critiques. But the comment did prompt me to wonder whether part of the problem of the debate is that Rothberg's and Moses's critique of memory practices is actually more about history than it lets on.","PeriodicalId":45053,"journal":{"name":"Central European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938923000080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"人文科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Reviewing the the so-called “Second Historian's Debate”, in which he had played such an important role, in February 2022, Michael Rothberg wrote that the opponents to his multidirectional approach were confusing history and memory. “Naturally, history and memory cannot be entirely separated from each other, but the target of my own work and also of Moses's catechism essay is public memory, not historical scholarship.” I understand what he means about not targeting the discipline. Rothberg and Moses are both aware that many positions controversial in the German public sphere have long been accepted in the academy, a distinction they clearly make in their critiques. But the comment did prompt me to wonder whether part of the problem of the debate is that Rothberg's and Moses's critique of memory practices is actually more about history than it lets on.
期刊介绍:
Central European History offers articles, review essays, and book reviews that range widely through the history of Germany, Austria, and other German-speaking regions of Central Europe from the medieval era to the present. All topics and approaches to history are welcome, whether cultural, social, political, diplomatic, intellectual, economic, and military history, as well as historiography and methodology. Contributions that treat new fields, such as post-1945 and post-1989 history, maturing fields such as gender history, and less-represented fields such as medieval history and the history of the Habsburg lands are especially desired. The journal thus aims to be the primary venue for scholarly exchange and debate among scholars of the history of Central Europe.