Reinhart Koselleck is among the most original German theorists of history and historiography. His international reputation is due in part to his contributions as theorist and editor of the remarkable lexicon Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (GG). The GG is an exceptional reference work that goes far towards realizing Koselleck's program and distinctive version of Begriffsgeschichte (the history of concepts, conceptual history). What is presented here is a translation in full of Koselleck's own entry on Krise (crisis). Few articles in the GG (...) demonstrate more successfully Koselleck's theoretical concerns, his method, and innovative use of sources. (shrink)

Reinhart Koselleck is among the most original German theorists of history and historiography. His international reputation is due in part to his contributions as theorist and editor of the remarkable lexicon Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (GG). The GG is an exceptional reference work that goes far towards realizing Koselleck's program and distinctive version of Begriffsgeschichte (the history of concepts, conceptual history). What is presented here is a translation in full of Koselleck's own entry on Krise (crisis). Few articles in the GG (...) demonstrate more successfully Koselleck's theoretical concerns, his method, and innovative use of sources. (shrink)

SUMMARYIn recent years students of politics have begun to recognise Reinhart Koselleck's practice of Begriffsgeschichte, the study of conceptual history, as a useful approach for investigating key concepts in political ideologies and the history of ideas. But his theory of historical time—the temporal dimension to his semantic project and his broader theorising of the historical discipline—is often overlooked and underused as a heuristic device. By placing the thinking of Michael Oakeshott alongside Koselleck's theory of historical time, this article brings (...) his thinking on temporality to the forefront, fashioning a conversation between the two thinkers about the place for history and the formal criteria necessary for ordering the past properly. In doing so, it juxtaposes Koselleck's reflections on historicity and his theory of historical time with Oakeshott's philosophical enquiry on the historical mode of understanding. It identifies important convergences and divergences between the two thinkers' theories, focusing in particular on questions regarding the potential for representing the past as multilayered and plural historical times. The article then suggests that their respective thoughts on the theory of history are in part a reaction to the modern politicisation of historical time and comprise a shared critique of radical political change. (shrink)

In these fifteen essays, one Of Germany's most distinguished philosophers of history invokes an extraordinary array of witnesses and texts to explore the concept of historical time. The witnesses include politicians, philosophers, theologians, and poets, and the texts range from Renaissance paintings to the dreams of German citizens in the 1930s. Using these remarkable materials, Koselleck investigates the relationship of history to language, and of language to the deeper movements of human understanding.Reinhart Koselleck is Professor of the Theory of History (...) at the University of Bielefeld. (shrink)

The study of German Begriffsgeschichte by scholars such as Koselleck focuses on historiography, but its basic hypotheses are highly philosophical. One of its tasks is to explore modernity from the perspective of language, hence can be understood as the “linguistic approach” in the study of modernity. As for the origin of the theory, the conceptual evolution of Verzeitlichung, Demokratisierung, Politisierung, and Ideologisierbarkeit proposed by Koselleck was not only largely affected by Gadamer’s hermeneutics and Heidegger’s existential phenomenology but also deeply (...) influenced by Carl Schmitt’s political philosophy. In Koselleck’s view, conceptual upheaval in the revolutionary era from 1750 to 1850 was, essentially, a semantic struggle in which old and new forces competed fiercely. (shrink)

: The study of German Begriffsgeschichte by scholars such as Koselleck focuses on historiography, but its basic hypotheses are highly philosophical. One of its tasks is to explore modernity from the perspective of language, hence can be understood as the “linguistic approach” in the study of modernity. As for the origin of the theory, the conceptual evolution of Verzeitlichung, Demokratisierung, Politisierung, and Ideologisierbarkeit proposed by Koselleck was not only largely affected by Gadamer’s hermeneutics and Heidegger’s existential phenomenology but also (...) deeply influenced by Carl Schmitt’s political philosophy. In Koselleck’s view, conceptual upheaval in the revolutionary era from 1750 to 1850 was, essentially, a semantic struggle in which old and new forces competed fiercely. (shrink)

The article analyses different forms of the theoretical paradigm of German Begriffsgeschichte. It focuses on the coherently formalized proposal made by Reinhard Koselleck, showing its relevance for the main Italian schools of interpretation. Koselleck is able to move beyond the historicist framework of Begriffsgeschichte on the basis of a theory of the Sattelzeit or Schwellenzeit--located between the eve of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century--capable of orienting the reconstruction of the history of political concepts. This (...) presupposition, which refers to a theory of the 'Vorgriff' or historical conceptual reconstructions, draws upon and elaborates a key theme of the logic of the social sciences that was put forth by Max Weber. The possibility to adhere or not to this residual Weberian moment explains the two different modalities in which conceptual history has been interpreted in Italy: one pointing at the reconstruction of the conceptual framework of the nineteenth century, the other aiming at the philosophical-political reconstruction of the genesis, the historic limits and the crisis of the political concepts of Western modernity. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 76 - 97 This article presents an account of those works, related to conceptual history and historiographical issues, written by the American historian of political thought Melvin Richter. The attention is primarily directed toward the reception of the German historiographical style called “_Begriffsgeschichte_”, and especially on its reception among Anglophone scholars. Therefore, the main objective of the article is to throw light on Richter’s understanding of _Begriffsgeschichte_, and to sum up his efforts to (...) put in contact Koselleck’s “history of concepts” with the works of authors such as Quentin Skinner and John G. A. Pocock, who are associated with the so-called “_Cambridge school contextualists_”. Thus, the aim is to point out their direct thought about _Begriffsgeschichte_, and consequently, to see how they’ve reacted to Richter’s proposals concerning the possibility of adopting that “history of concepts” as the frame for future historical researches. By doing so, and relying mainly on the extensive contributions appeared on the pages of the specialized periodicals, this article highlights some of the principal reactions to the theoretical and practical implications of “conceptual history”; in particular as they are emerging in the midst of what is indeed a recent and still ongoing international debate. Furthermore, the article tries to compare Koselleck’s _Begriffsgeschichte_ with some works of “analytical bibliography”. It is also interesting to note that these bibliographical studies are associated with Cambridge University as well as the historical researches of Skinner and Pocock. (shrink)

Les essais réunis dans Le futur passé proposent des réflexions précieuses et peut-être plus libres que celles d'autres ouvrages de Koselleck, tout du moins en ce qui concerne trois sujets : l'histoire conceptuelle, la théorie de la modernité et la théorie des temps historiques. " Les analyses sémantiques présentées ici ne portent pas essentiellement sur l'histoire de la langue ", précise l'auteur. " Elles s'attachent à la structure linguistique des expériences temporelles, là où celles-ci sont ancrées dans la réalité passée. (...) Ces analyses s'élargissent au champ social et linguistique, tout en essayant de passer de la sémantique des concepts à la dimension historique et anthropologique inhérente à tout acte de langage. " Le livre que l'on présente aujourd'hui est déjà reconnu comme un texte de référence par la communauté internationale des philosophes comme des historiens. (shrink)

Sediments of time -- Fiction and historical reality -- Space and history -- Historik and hermeneutics -- Goethe's untimely history -- Does history accelerate? -- Constancy and change of all contemporary histories -- History, law, and justice -- Linguistic change and the history of events -- Structures of repetition in language and history -- On the meaning and absurdity in history -- Concepts of the enemy -- Sluices of memory and sediments of experiences -- Behind the deadly line : the (...) age of totality -- Forms and traditions of negative memory -- Histories in the plural and the theory of history : an interview with Carsten Dutt. (shrink)

Il saggio affronta i concetti di «Stato» e di «Federalismo» all'interno dell'analisi di Reinhart Koselleck che traduce in prassi collettive le strutture della fatticità heideggeriana, radicando, con Schmitt, la concettualità giuridica sul concreto della sociologia. Analizzando alcune voci fondamentali dei _Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe_ (S_taat, Souveranität, Bund, Bündnis, Föderalismus, Bundesstaat_) viene ricostruito il modo in cui Koselleck formula una prognosi immediatamente politica in merito al processo di unificazione europea, evidenziando che il federalismo, lungi dall’essere solamente un reperto archeologico del passato, rappresenta una (...) risorsa per un ordine politico postnazionale. (shrink)

This paper examines the reception of Reinhart Koselleck’s Kritik und Krise by the intellectual historian István Hont. Relying on hitherto unpublished manuscripts, it argues that the later work of Hont can be seen as a critical response to Koselleck and his characterisation of the crisis of modern politics as a crisis of political authority.

This entry contains the German text of Reinhart Koselleck's response to the papers given at the meeting in December, 1992 at the German Historical Institute, Washington to commemorate the completion of the lexicon, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Published in English translation, Koselleck's Offene Fragen an die >Geschichtlichen Grundbegriffe<, presented inter alia, the first major confrontation between German Begriffsgeschichte, as practiced by Koselleck, and J.G.A. Pocock, speaking for the Cambridge School dominant in the English-speaking world, Koselleck's German text is accompanied by a (...) Note summarizing his reply to the critique by Pocock, who invoked arguments previously made by Quentin Skinner. Also included are the views on Begriffsgeschichte now held by Skinner and Pocock twenty years later. (shrink)

In the wide critical reviews that the enterprise of Begriffsgeschichte has triggered, the difficult relationship that conceptual history – in its Koselleckian declination – entertains with systemic theory has remained maybe underexposed until now. Moving from the tension between experience and historicity in Koselleck, the article reflects on the tensions that the historical-conceptual structure reveals as soon as it comes into contact with the problems of historical semantics that accompany the Luhmannian attempt of operating, in the register of second (...) order observation, a temporal dislocation and a de-paradoxification of the paradox activated by Derrida’s différance, as constitutive of historicity. The blind spot at the bottom of Luhmannian gaze cuts out the borders of the “history” continent along the lines of the shipwreck of the classic semantics of modernity. (shrink)

The essay explores the exchange between Otto Brunner and Reinhart Koselleck about the use of historical sources in Begriffsgeschichte. Criticizing historicism in Brunner, who asserts the difference between ancient Europe and modernity starting from the idea of a strong epochalization of modern politics as linked to the short time of the State, Koselleck assumes the idea of transformation of political and juridical concepts insisting on their continuity between ancient and modern time. The comparison between the two historians questions the (...) very limits of Western modern political experience. (shrink)

One of the characteristics of conceptual history as developed by Reinhart Koselleck is its relation with social history. This connection refers to a constitutive dichotomy of conceptual history between reality and language. In this article, I argue that in Koselleck's works, the meanings of conceptual history/social history and reality/language dichotomies are not evident, and I propose to explore them through an analysis of his methodological texts on historical writing from the 1980s. Furthermore, I suggest that these dichotomies function as a (...) limit for thinking about the problem of the symbolic, which I seek to account for by drawing on Claude Lefort's notion of the political and an examination of the concept of Jewish people. (shrink)

This article is intended to contribute to the discussion of the topicality and historical and theoretical limitations of Koselleck’s theory. The concept of acceleration, which has a special meaning for Koselleck, both in terms of conceptual history and social theory, will serve as a guide to this investigation. Since it is a socio- and temporal-analytical concept, the current thesis, that we have entered a post-Koselleckian culture, should be amenable to testing on the basis of this concept, which this article (...) will consider in some detail. The examination is divided into three parts: The first part addresses the concept of acceleration and its implications for Koselleck. On the basis of the results of the first part, the second part discusses issues and problems that go beyond Koselleck’s approach, and/or show it’s theoretical or methodological limits. Finally, the third part summarizes the conclusions of the foregoing examination, and emphasizes the problem-historical continuity with Koselleck’s inquiry into a socio-historically informed history of concepts. (shrink)

Ten years ago, conceptual history was still relatively unknown in Chinese academic circles. But within just a single decade, it has already emerged as a very popular field among scholars. When broaching conceptual history, the first thing to make clear is that, whether we’re speaking of a research field or a methodology, this is a scholarly tradition rooted in Germany. Hence, if we are to apply conceptual historical methods to China and carry out transcultural conceptual historical research here, we must (...) understand the basic connotations of conceptual history. Reinhart Koselleck’s introduction to 8 volumes of Basic Concepts of History: An Historical Lexicon of Political and Social Terms in Germany is an essential text in conceptual history. In this work, Koselleck proposes three These for conceptual history: concepts are historical, criteria for the “four changes” of basic historical concepts, and the “saddle period.”. (shrink)

In this essay I intend to flesh out and discuss what I consider to be the groundbreaking contribution by the German historian and theorist of history Reinhart Koselleck to postwar historiography: his theory of historical times. I begin by discussing the view, so prominent in the Anglophone context, that Koselleck's idea of the plurality of historical times can be grasped only in terms of a plurality of historical periods in chronological succession, and hence, that Koselleck's theory of historical times is (...) in reality a theory of periodization. Against this interpretation, to be found in works by Kathleen Davis, Peter Osborne, and Lynn Hunt, among others, I will argue that not only is Koselleck's theory of historical times, or, with a more phenomenlogical turn of phrase, his theory of multiple temporalities, not a theory of periodization, it is, furthermore, a theory developed to defy periodization. Hence, at the core of Koselleck's work is the attempt to replace the idea of linear, homogeneous time with a more complex, heterogeneous, and multilayered notion of temporality. In this essay I will demonstrate how this shift is achieved by means of three dichotomies: between natural and historical, extralinguistic and intralinguistic, and diachronic and synchronic time. (shrink)

The fall of the Soviet Union is analysed in conceptual terms, drawing on Reinhart Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte. The author seeks to interpret the instrumental role of the concepts perestrojka, glasnost´, reform, revolution, socialist pluralism, and acceleration in the Soviet collapse. The semantics and pragmatics are related to a wider intellectual and political context, and the conceptual perspective is used to help explain the progress of events. The author argues that the common notion of the reform policy concepts as clichés (...) is not valid. (shrink)

This article discusses possible dialogues between medical history and the history of concepts, suggesting that a “socio-conceptual-moral” history of medicine offers insightful elements for the historical analysis of conceptual change. Drawing mainly from Reinhart Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte and Ludwik Fleck’s theory of knowledge, I focus on three points of the “socio-conceptual-moral” perspective: the approach to medical statements as part of a semantic field, the interaction between a formulated concept and its practice, and negotiations about the meanings of medical concepts (...) between different social arenas. I take the history of cancer prevention in Brazil as a case study to discuss these three aspects and emphasize the situated character of conceptual change. The article analyzes the period between the 1960s and the 1990s when substantial changes in the conceptual framework of cancer prevention confronted continuities in public health and medicine practices, policies, and institutions. (shrink)

What is the one big idea of Koselleck’s Historik understood as a methodological framework for the attempt to combine a theory of historical times with a theory of historical time? In part (1) of this paper, I criticize the two most basic attempts to understand Koselleck’s one big idea as mistaken because they are exclusively interested either in history (in the singular) or in histories (in the plural) and thus miss the central relevance of structures of repetition (“Wiederholungsstrukturen”) (...) for Koselleck’s Historik. In part (2), I will clarify the rather hidden pre-history, the main ambition, the theoretical context and the substantial content of Koselleck’s concept of structures of repetition in history and language. In part (3), I will discuss four historiographical consequences of Koselleck’s structures of repetition. I will end the paper by observing a remarkable theoretical affinity between Barrington Moore’s search for recurring patterns in the field of sociology and Koselleck’s structures of repetition in history and language. Moore’s work illustrates the historiographical potential of the one big idea of Koselleck’s Historik better than any other work I am aware of. (shrink)

This article tackles the political implications of Reinhart Koselleck’s first work, Kritik und Krise, re-questioning its relationship to the ‘Enlightenment’ and the ‘Counter-Enlightenment’. Rather than establishing the semantic contents of this pair of antonymic concepts in an abstract way, I believe that we must study the concrete uses to which they are put, that is, the discursive strategies of the actors themselves showing, in each case, the specific adversaries against whom they are mobilized and the specific ends to which (...) they are used. The goal of the present essay is to understand whether the early Koselleck belonged to the tradition of the Enlightenment or the Counter-Enlightenment in the specific context of post-War West Germany intellectual debates. By locating Kritik und Krise in the controversies relating to the political identity of the new German Federal Republic, I show that he was not, in the 1950s, a representative of Cold War Liberalism or anti-totalitarianism but, rather, oscillated between different conservative positions (‘Traditional’ conservatism and ‘Conservative Revolution’) that were typical of the post-War period and, in large measure, hostile to the Enlightenment legacy. (shrink)

Reinhart Koselleck is an important thinker in part for his attempt to interpret the cultural changes resulting in our modern cultural outlook in terms of the historical categories of experience and expectation. In so doing he tried to pay equal attention to the static and the changing in history. This article argues that Koselleck’s use of “experience” and “expectation” confuses their metahistorical and historical meaning, with the result that his account fails to do justice to the static, to continuity (...) in history, and mischaracterizes what is distinctive of the modern era. As well as reconfiguring the categories of experience and expectation, this essay also introduces a third category, namely, imagination, in between experience and expectation. This is done to render intelligible what is obscure in Koselleck’s account, and as a stimulus to a study of history that divides its attention equally between the static and the changing. In fact, it is argued that the category of imagination is pre-eminently the category of history, on the concrete historical as well as the metahistorical level. (shrink)

Many recent attempts to define the current historical period presuppose a crisis of historical consciousness. Concepts such as ‘postmodernity’ or ‘posthistory’ entail the idea that the period is ch...

This article analyzes the compound of the categories of secularization and reoccupation in its variations from Hans Blumenberg's philosophy to Carl Schmitt's political theory and, ultimately, to Reinhart Koselleck's conceptual history. By revisiting the debate between Blumenberg and Schmitt on secularization and political theology with regard to the political-theoretical aspects of secularization and the methodological aspects of reoccupation, I will provide conceptual tools that illuminate the partly tension-ridden elements at play in Koselleck's theorizing of modernity, history, and concepts. For Schmitt, (...) secularization is inherently related to the question of political conflict, and, correspondingly, he attempts to discredit Blumenberg's criticism of secularization as an indirectly aggressive, and thereby hypocritical, attempt to escape the political. To this end, I argue, Schmitt appropriates Blumenberg's concept of “reoccupation” and uses it alternately in the three distinct senses of “absorption,”“reappropriation,” and “revaluation.” Schmitt's famous thesis of political concepts as secularized theological concepts contains an unmistakable methodological element and a research program. The analysis therefore shows the relevance of the Blumenberg/Schmitt debate for the mostly tacit dialogue between Blumenberg and Koselleck. I scrutinize Koselleck's understanding of secularization from his early Schmittian and Löwithian theory of modernity to his later essays on temporalization of history and concepts. Despite Blumenberg's criticism, Koselleck holds onto the category of secularization throughout, but gradually relativizes it into a research hypothesis among others. Simultaneously, Koselleck formalizes, alongside other elements, the Schmittian account of reoccupation into his method of conceptual analysis and uses the term in the same three senses—thus making “reoccupation” conceptually compatible with “secularization,” despite the former notion's initial critical function in Blumenberg's theory. The examination highlights a Schmittian residue that accounts for Koselleck's reserved attitude toward Blumenberg's metaphorology, regardless of a significant methodological overlap. (shrink)

In this paper the author focuses on the reflections of Friedrich Schlegel on the concept of history. The works considered here range from 1798 to 1805 and include Schlegel’s essays, lessons, personal notes and fragments. In those years the reflections on the plurality of stories and genealogies against the singularity of History are central. “History” will emerge as a regulatory ideal of the narrative, but also of praxis. This paper will also show the limits of Koselleck’s analysis of Schlegel’s (...) thought. (shrink)

This essay is the first attempt to compare Reinhart Koselleck's Historik with Hannah Arendt's political anthropology and her critique of the modern concept of history. Koselleck is well-known for his work on conceptual history as well as for his theory of historical time. It is my contention that these different projects are bound together by Koselleck's Historik, that is, his theory of possible histories. This can be shown through an examination of his writings from Critique and Crisis to his final (...) essays on historical anthropology, most of which have not yet been translated into English. Conversely, Arendt's political theory has in recent years been the subject of numerous interpretations that do not take into account her views about history. By comparing the anthropological categories found in Koselleck's Historik with Arendt's political anthropology, I identify similar intellectual lineages in them as well as shared political sentiments, in particular the anti-totalitarian impulse of the postwar era. More importantly, Koselleck's theory of the preconditions of possible histories and Arendt's theory of the preconditions of the political, I argue, transcend these lineages and sentiments by providing essential categories for the analysis of historical experience. (shrink)

On the occasion of Koselleck’s hundredth birthday, this article examines the history of the reception and impact of the book that established the historian’s fame from 1973 onward. It argues that Koselleck pursues a new-right strategy of cultural hegemony in more than one respect, which has been largely overlooked so far.

Structural history, Conceptual history, Theory of historical time, Semantics of History: the work of Reinhart Koselleck is associated with a wide spectrum of methodological orientations that emerged during the post-war period and originated from the in-depth reflection on the significance of historical sciences. Koselleck shared with numerous West-German historians the observation that historical science was experiencing a profound crisis exacerbated by the increasing influence of social sciences. However, unlike his contemporary historians, who advocated the criticism of historicism as a prerequisite (...) for reforming their discipline, Koselleck championed a radically different path to remedy to this crisis. In this paper, we shall outline the major stages of the critical dialogue between Koselleck and the West-German historiography of his time. Two distinct historical intervals emerge from this analysis: the first is marked by the influence of the structural historical model, developed by Werner Conze during the 1950s, on Koselleck’s theoretical vision; the second, which started in the 1970s, is characterized by the refusal to consider the critical social history as the basis for a holistic explanation of national history. (shrink)

The methodology and theory developed by Koselleck has been successfully spread globally. Less attention has been devoted to reflections on the conditions and possibilities of universalizing his approach beyond the geographical area on the basis of which it was developed. This article proposes to reread Koselleck's three core contributions to the theory of history—the anthropological constants, the contemporaneity of the non-contemporaneous, and the Sattelzeit—from a postcolonial viewpoint. Empirically it is based on the history of the South Asian Muslims, exploring how (...) Koselleck can help raise new questions, but also how the change in the geographical viewpoint may lead to a reconsideration of some of his assumptions. (shrink)

This article undertakes an exploration of Reinhart Koselleck’s ideas concerning historical knowledge and moral judgment. Koselleck’s position is exemplified by the maxim “knowing is better than knowing better,” declaimed throughout his career. I argue that Koselleck’s separation of knowledge and judgment was unstable, with the prescription to know repeatedly folded into the proscription against knowing better. This article begins with an analysis of Koselleck’s maxim and the underlying theoretical position that sustained it. I show how the (...) separation resulted from Koselleck’s attempts to delegitimate utopian philosophies of history and to maintain a plurality of possible histories. I also demonstrate how Koselleck’s maxim reveals the centrality of philosophical-historical schemata in current debates about the meaning and utility of the past, and how recognizing the tension between knowledge and judgment can reshape concerns about history and moral judgment. Throughout, I illuminate how Koselleck’s knowledge/judgment problematic is germane to the philosophy of history by reading him alongside R.G. Collingwood and Joan Scott. (shrink)

The article develops three complementary lines of argument. It first points to the great theoretical gap that characterizes Koselleck's work: quasi-transcendental anthropology on the one hand, and historical semantics on the other. The hybrid status of historical semantics, both macro- and micro- sociological, is also specified. Secondly, the article critiques the neo-Hobbesianism implicit in Koselleck's historical ontology. Departing from Jean Baechler's anthropology, it reformulates the conceptual framework within which the initial foundational ambition could be maintained without however renewing the aporiai (...) of the Koselleckian systematics. Finally, it asks how to connect the three M's (the meta-historical, the macro- and the micro-sociological levels). The solution focuses on the core aspects of the intermediate, macro-sociological level to make the case for a heuristic reciprocal hybridization of meta-historical anthropology, of comparative historical sociology and of the pragmatic history of historical semantics. (shrink)

The shadow cast by National Socialism over the German academic world, and Koselleck’s close relations with the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt, constitute a challenge for a historical inquiry of Koselleck’s historiography. To address this challenge, I propose a ‘close contextual reading’ of an article published in 1965 (‘Geschichtliche Prognose in Lorenz von Steins Schrift zur preussischen Verfassung’) in which Koselleck puts forward one of his major diagnoses of how the conception of history had evolved since 1750. This article (...) praises Lorenz von Stein (1815–1890), a German public administration scholar and lauds him as a model after the French Revolution. 15 years later, Koselleck showed how much he valued this article by including it in his historiographic manifesto: Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (1979). To try to grasp the meaning and the historiographical, academic, and political issues raised by this diagnosis, I will start from the text, from the portrait that Koselleck draws of the historian in it, from its paratext, its references, its editorial history. As a result, this article proposes a specific way of contextualizing, and highlights the extent to which the label ‘theory’ represented a battleground in West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. (shrink)

Resume Tout au long de sa vie Reinhart Koselleck a insisté sur son appartenance à une génération marquée par la guerre et par une défaite l’une et l’autre inscrites dans une ère concentrationnaire et postconcentionnaire pour laquelle l’expérience primaire est la condition essentielle de tout travail critique de l’historien et du mémorialiste. L’article décrit les étapes de ce parcours intellectuel, qui aurait dû aboutir à la rédaction d’une Historik, une théorie de l’histoire, qu’il n’a jamais écrite. Quelle a été surtout (...) le rôle du débat autour de l’Etat séculier et de l’historicité du droit, tel qu’il s’est développé au cours des années 1950 dans les cercles autour d’Ernst Forsthoff et de Carl Schmitt? Quelle forme prendra-t-il sous la pression de l’évolution de la société civile au cours des deux décennies suivantes pour se concrétiser finalement dans une réflexion autour de la notion de « travail de mémoire », dont l’enquête sur l’iconographie des monuments aux morts constituera la dernière étape dans le parcours de l’historien. (shrink)

In Reinhart Koselleck's history of concepts, the general orientation that concepts are to be understood in their proper contexts is intertwined with the assumption that they are manifestations of particular political conflicts. The essay shows that the dense compound of context and conflict in Koselleck's thought springs from Carl Schmitt's political theory and also forms an important point of continuity between Koselleck's early work and his later methodological writings. The formalized assumption of conflict, somewhat problematically, binds Koselleckian conceptual history to (...) a particular conception of politics, one that sees politics ultimately as struggle and conflict. Once the historical-theoretical contingency of this conception is recognized, it becomes both possible and necessary to reassess the role of conflict in the methodology of conceptual history. (shrink)

Since the 1990s, Reinhart Koselleck has been one of the critics of the concept of collective memory. This includes contributions to practical debates on the one hand and reflections on a more theoretical level on the other. In contrast, with her concept of cultural memory, Aleida Assmann has taken a more positive view of the concept of collective memory. She defends this concept against Koselleck’s critical remarks, referring to him as an implicit addressee of her reflections. This essay takes (...) this disagreement as an opportunity to look more closely at the ‘dialogue’ between them by addressing three overlapping aspects, primarily on a theoretical level: the distinction between experience and recollection, the collective conditions of recollection, and the opposition between history of memory and memory of history. (shrink)

This paper reflects on the challenges of writing long conceptual histories of sexual medicine, drawing on the approaches of Michel Foucault and of Reinhart Koselleck. Foucault’s statements about nineteenth-century rupture considered alongside his later-life emphasis on long conceptual continuities implied something similar to Koselleck’s own accommodation of different kinds of historical inheritances expressed as multiple ‘temporal layers.’ The layering model in the history of concepts may be useful for complicating the historical periodizations commonly invoked by historians of sexuality, overcoming (...) historiographic temptations to reduce complex cultural and intellectual phenomena to a unified Zeitgeist. The paper also shows that a haunting reference to ‘concepts’ among scholars of the long history of sexual medicine indicates the emergence of a de facto methodology of conceptual history, albeit one in need of further refinement. It is proposed that reading Koselleck alongside Foucault provides a useful starting-point for precisely this kind of theoretical development. (shrink)

In this paper we analyze the basic notions of Reinhart Koselleck’s conceptual history, with regard to which he claims that conceptual order permits the constitution of semantic fields that obtain their content from the horizons of expectations and experience in which they are embedded. However, this relation is troublesome, for Koselleck does not explore the ideological grounding of the extralinguistic sphere that determines conceptual order, showing thusly an aspect that affects conceptual history’s composition as a discipline that does not (...) question its own foundations. We therefore claim that the notion of semantic control exerted by ideologies, which determine the primacy of specific conceptual meanings over other conceptual contents, allows this issue to be clarified and solved. (shrink)

This article explores the intellectual relations between Carl Schmitt and the German historian Reinhart Koselleck with a focus on the inspiration that Koselleck found in Schmitt's work in the early 1950s. The article goes beyond earlier contributions in the field by illuminating how the most important discursive features that Koselleck drew from Schmitt were utilized toward a very independent intellectual project. This project concerned an attempt to revise modern political thought by means of outlining a new concept of history. Koselleck's (...) concept of history was to depart from all utopian notions of history as a singular, unified and goal-directed process. Instead, it aimed to outline certain fundamental existential structures of the human condition and to take account of the social relations existing among human beings in order to understand (historically) and contain (politically) the potential conflict in human societies. Hence Koselleck believed that his new concept of history would lead to a more responsible foundation of political order and decision making. Following an analysis of how Koselleck developed his project in a dialogue with the work of Schmitt and a number of other scholars, first of all Friedrich Meinecke and Martin Heidegger, the article presents a brief perspective on how his new concept of history was received in the 1950s and on how it came to provide his work with a certain analytical, thematic and argumentative unity. (shrink)