真正的国家工作":1934-1942 年上西里西亚的纳粹种族科学政治

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY German History Pub Date : 2024-01-03 DOI:10.1093/gerhis/ghad072
Andrew D Evans
{"title":"真正的国家工作\":1934-1942 年上西里西亚的纳粹种族科学政治","authors":"Andrew D Evans","doi":"10.1093/gerhis/ghad072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article analyses the political and scientific controversy surrounding a race science project undertaken by the anthropologist Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt under National Socialism. Beginning in 1934, Eickstedt and his team of assistants conducted a series of racial studies on the population of Upper Silesia, a contested borderland in East Prussia. Motivated by a nationalist desire to counter the work of Polish anthropologists in the region, Eickstedt argued that the population of Upper Silesia belonged predominantly to the so-called ‘Nordic race’ and that the territory was thus fundamentally German. Nazi officials, however, viewed the Silesian studies with alarm, since the results also appeared to show that people in the area were a racial mixture and that the ‘Nordic race’ made up less than 40 per cent of the population in some locales. They worried that Eickstedt’s studies could undermine Germany’s territorial claims in the region and threaten national unity. The ensuing controversy presents a case in which the anthropological concept of ‘race’, rather than serving its usual role in Nazi thinking as the biological underpinning of the Volk (or people), threatened to undermine its coherence. The reaction to Eickstedt’s Silesian studies demonstrates a lack of consensus on race within the Nazi system, suggesting that understandings of race in Nazi Germany were neither as coherent nor as uniform as the paradigm of the ‘racial state’ has assumed.","PeriodicalId":44471,"journal":{"name":"German History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Real National Work’: The Politics of Nazi Race Science in Upper Silesia, 1934–1942\",\"authors\":\"Andrew D Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/gerhis/ghad072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article analyses the political and scientific controversy surrounding a race science project undertaken by the anthropologist Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt under National Socialism. Beginning in 1934, Eickstedt and his team of assistants conducted a series of racial studies on the population of Upper Silesia, a contested borderland in East Prussia. Motivated by a nationalist desire to counter the work of Polish anthropologists in the region, Eickstedt argued that the population of Upper Silesia belonged predominantly to the so-called ‘Nordic race’ and that the territory was thus fundamentally German. Nazi officials, however, viewed the Silesian studies with alarm, since the results also appeared to show that people in the area were a racial mixture and that the ‘Nordic race’ made up less than 40 per cent of the population in some locales. They worried that Eickstedt’s studies could undermine Germany’s territorial claims in the region and threaten national unity. The ensuing controversy presents a case in which the anthropological concept of ‘race’, rather than serving its usual role in Nazi thinking as the biological underpinning of the Volk (or people), threatened to undermine its coherence. The reaction to Eickstedt’s Silesian studies demonstrates a lack of consensus on race within the Nazi system, suggesting that understandings of race in Nazi Germany were neither as coherent nor as uniform as the paradigm of the ‘racial state’ has assumed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerhis/ghad072\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerhis/ghad072","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了围绕人类学家埃贡-弗莱赫尔-冯-艾克斯泰德(Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt)在国家社会主义时期开展的种族科学项目所产生的政治和科学争议。从 1934 年开始,艾克斯泰德和他的助手团队对东普鲁士有争议的边境地区上西里西亚的人口进行了一系列种族研究。艾克斯泰特出于民族主义的考虑,认为上西里西亚的人口主要属于所谓的 "北欧人种",因此该地区从根本上说是德国的。然而,纳粹官员对西里西亚的研究表示震惊,因为研究结果似乎还表明,该地区的人是一个种族混血儿,在某些地方,"北欧人种 "在人口中所占比例不到 40%。他们担心艾克斯泰特的研究可能会破坏德国在该地区的领土要求,并威胁到国家统一。随之而来的争议展示了这样一个案例:"种族 "这一人类学概念不仅没有在纳粹思想中发挥其作为 "人民"(或 "民族")生物学基础的一贯作用,反而有可能破坏 "人民 "的一致性。对艾克斯泰特的西里西亚研究的反应表明,纳粹系统内部对种族问题缺乏共识,这表明纳粹德国对种族的理解既不像 "种族国家 "范式所假定的那样连贯,也不像 "种族国家 "范式所假定的那样统一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Real National Work’: The Politics of Nazi Race Science in Upper Silesia, 1934–1942
This article analyses the political and scientific controversy surrounding a race science project undertaken by the anthropologist Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt under National Socialism. Beginning in 1934, Eickstedt and his team of assistants conducted a series of racial studies on the population of Upper Silesia, a contested borderland in East Prussia. Motivated by a nationalist desire to counter the work of Polish anthropologists in the region, Eickstedt argued that the population of Upper Silesia belonged predominantly to the so-called ‘Nordic race’ and that the territory was thus fundamentally German. Nazi officials, however, viewed the Silesian studies with alarm, since the results also appeared to show that people in the area were a racial mixture and that the ‘Nordic race’ made up less than 40 per cent of the population in some locales. They worried that Eickstedt’s studies could undermine Germany’s territorial claims in the region and threaten national unity. The ensuing controversy presents a case in which the anthropological concept of ‘race’, rather than serving its usual role in Nazi thinking as the biological underpinning of the Volk (or people), threatened to undermine its coherence. The reaction to Eickstedt’s Silesian studies demonstrates a lack of consensus on race within the Nazi system, suggesting that understandings of race in Nazi Germany were neither as coherent nor as uniform as the paradigm of the ‘racial state’ has assumed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
German History
German History Multiple-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: German History is the journal of the German History Society and was first published in 1984. The journal offers refereed research articles, dissertation abstracts, news of interest to German historians, conference reports and a substantial book review section in four issues a year. German History’s broad ranging subject areas and high level of standards make it the top journal in its field and an essential addition to any German historian"s library.
期刊最新文献
Writing and Rewriting the Reich: Women Journalists in the Nazi and Post-War Press Redeeming Objects: A West German Mythology Music in the Flesh: An Early Modern Musical Physiology Albrecht Dürer’s Afterlife Living in Legends: Frames, Legends and the Conflict over the Hamburg Hafenstraße, 1981–1995
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1