Both in scholarship on the Weimar Republic and in historical research in general, many conceptions of ‘crisis’ tend to remain vague and difficult to operationalize. These operational defects of the concept of crisis arise inevitably, we argue, from the concept’s constitutive link to human perception on the one hand and from its subsumption of complex interconnections of historical processes within different subsystems on the other. Frequently today, in both ordinary and historiographical usage, this basic openness of the concept of crisis (...) is foreclosed when it is deployed with a solely negative connotation of ‘downfall’ and ‘decline’, or of something being thrown into question or jeopardy. Such uses obscure a way in which a crisis can evoke not only the pessimistic sense of a threat to the old order but also the optimistic scenario of a chance for renewal. A one-sidedly negative understanding of crisis as prelude to calamity, we argue here, is problematic for historical research for two reasons. Firstly, it obscures comprehension of the consciousness of actors in the relevant period who at any particular moment can have had no prior knowledge of the crisis’s outcome. Secondly, it tends to reify the relevant crisis and to occlude its basic character as something narratively constructed in the accounts of both contemporaries and subsequent historiography. (shrink)

While crises are omnipresent in history and historiography, the meaning of the concept of ‘crisis’ is becoming more elusive than ever. The authors scrutinise how historians use this concept with respect to contemporary history, the twentieth century and modernity in general. After briefly sketching the conceptual history of ‘crisis,’ the article addresses the questions of how the concept structures historiographical narratives, what types of crises historians distinguish, and whether we should retain the concept or refrain from using it, considering its (...) vagueness, suggestive power and political instrumentalisation. (shrink)