Aims and Objectives
National history is understood as a specific form of historical representation which accompanies the formation of a nation-state, or seeks to influence the existing self-definitions of a national consciousness. It develops its perspectives and criteria from the contemporary self-understanding of the nation.
National ‘master narratives’ and their protagonists are of crucial interest to this project, as they reflect the attempts to answer important questions related to cultural identity. It is through historical representations of their nation in relationship to others that people make sense of, and identify with, particular versions of the past. This project starts from the assumption that the fruitfulness of a postmodern critique of master narratives does not entail any assumption about their eventual dissolution and disappearance. A thorough analysis of the perpetual construction and reconstruction of these narratives is needed. One cannot achieve this by simply looking at the history of ideas and textual interpretations. Instead one needs to start by asking questions about cultural and political power relationships within nationally constituted societies.
The concept of ’master narrative’ seems particularly suitable for the comparison of the West and East European historical systems after 1945. The narrative strategies of both systems were informed by their particular ideological constructs; their historical ‘master narratives’ were linked to the specific conditions of their institutional production, relations of hegemony and forms of political organisation .
Overall, only a detailed and comparative analysis of the processes of construction, stabilisation and erosion of national histories and wider historical representations will enable us to facilitate the development of a truly European historical culture. In order to prevent the emergence of a ’fortress Europe’ mentality, it will, however, be equally important to consider the relationship between national histories and trans-European, global and/or world histories. This project will, in the first instance, help us to gain an insight into how diverse European states and peoples have constructed and continuously reconstruct their national histories. From this vantage point it will, secondly, problematise the stumbling blocs that have prevented a constructive interaction between national history and trans-national tendencies. Finally, such an analysis needs to be broadened by asking how European societies have generally dealt with the territorialisation of social processes and their re-enactment in historical constructions. National histories seem to prove beyond doubt that most social processes relate to spatial concepts and that the relationship between territory and social process is often legitimated with reference to a historical justification. Comparing national histories can thus help us to understand processes of territorialisation, which are not necessarily restricted to the national level, thereby providing important insights on regionalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation.
The interrelatedness of national historiographies is most clearly revealed when considering a number of national histories taken together. Historians writing national history often take into account developments in other countries. While institutionally and intellectually, history was ‘nationalised’ in the course of its professionalisation, historians at the same time began to think of themselves as belonging to a single republic of letters. Even during periods when aggressive nationalism poisoned mutual academic relations, historians often remained aware of other national agendas and publications. Cultural transfer studies have begun to explore questions such as: why have some intellectual departures been received in one country but ignored in another? How far have particular institutes, organisations and individuals been responsible for making specific academic ‘products’ of one country accessible in others? How far have national works or approaches to history been re- and even misinterpreted in different national contexts? When and why have there been significant instances of the policing of the boundaries of one national historiographical tradition against encroaching influences from another? What role have exiled historians played in facilitating contacts between different historiographical cultures? Perceptions and transfers are equally crucial to our understanding of national historiographies as are comparisons
The programme has been initiated and is chaired by Professors Stefan Berger, Christoph Conrad and Guy P. Marchal. It is based on the collaboration of more than sixty leading scholars from more than 20 countries. Its agenda will be implemented by four teams led by prime experts in their areas (for the details of the team leaders see below). The teams will be investigating:
the institutions, networks and communities which produced national histories and were themselves influenced by the idea of national history,
the construction, erosion and reconstruction of national histories in relation to other master narratives structuring diverse forms of historical writing (such as class, race, religion and gender),
national histories and their relationship with regional, European and world histories,
the spatial relationships between national histories.
