This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente]

On: 09 December 2014, At: 22:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Review of History: Revue européenne

d'histoire
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cerh20

Cultural history of politics: concepts and debates

a b
Frank Bösch & Norman Domeier
a
University of Giessen , Germany
b
European University Institute , Florence, Italy
Published online: 17 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: Frank Bösch & Norman Domeier (2008) Cultural history of politics: concepts and debates, European
Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire, 15:6, 577-586, DOI: 10.1080/13507480802500137

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13507480802500137

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire
Vol. 15, No. 6, December 2008, 577–586

INTRODUCTION
Cultural history of politics: concepts and debates
Frank Böscha and Norman Domeierb
a
University of Giessen, Germany; bEuropean University Institute, Florence, Italy
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

( Received 30 April 2008; final version received 20 September 2008 )

Can a headscarf have political significance? This question arouses great debate in Turkey and all
over Europe. In Germany there are laws and legal judgments forbidding Muslim teachers from
covering their hair in the classroom, because it is perceived as being an ideological statement
which could endanger the political consensus. In France schoolchildren have been forbidden
from wearing religious symbols while in Switzerland even business debates whether it should
allow employees to cover their heads.1 The debate about which articles of clothing are socially
acceptable demonstrates even more vividly than deliberations about political correctness and the
limits of what may be said just how fluid the boundaries between political and cultural issues
have increasingly become.
Historians are children of their times. Thus, the recent past has seen increasing attempts to
use cultural history to understand political themes. The present international debate about the
Islamic headscarf illustrates far-reaching changes in the way historians have approached the
past. First, since the end of the cold war, cultural conflicts have become increasingly important
just as classic ideological disputes have lost significance. One of the slogans offered to describe
this current moment of cultural conflict is Samuel Huntington’s notorious Clash of Civilisations.
As this political debate has taken place the perspective of many historians towards politics has
also changed. Historians have rediscovered the importance of religion and its political
implications. They have also begun to regard political conflict generally as the conflict of
cultural interpretation. Issues such as the Islamic headscarf have even resulted in alliances
between conservative Christians and secular liberals. These strange partnerships show the
degree by which the political divisions of the cold war have receded. The divisions of left and
right have been replaced by a cultural history of politics characterised by interest in the meeting
of cultures within and outside of nation-states, the discovery or new interpretation of symbols
and their place in the accompanying political debates.
Second, the headscarf debate shows that the actors and communication structures of politics
have changed. Dress may become a political issue, around which social groups may struggle for
power. The sensationalist reporting surrounding court cases and debates relating to the conflict
over the headscarf illustrates this clearly. For some considerable time these forums have made it
possible for historical subjects, such as women or the lower classes, who at first may not appear
to be powerful political actors, to gain direct access to a wide public. At the same time public
interest in such emotionally vivid single cases transforms them into opportunities for
collectively binding key decisions.2 It was only in the 1990s, as they witnessed changes in their
contemporary media, that most historians became aware of the importance of the prevailing

ISSN 1350-7486 print/ISSN 1469-8293 online

q 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13507480802500137
http://www.informaworld.com
 578 F. Bösch and N. Domeier

media in such cultural and communicative negotiations. As a result historians have increasingly
focused upon court cases, causes célèbres and scandals. These events have offered opportunities
for the analysis of major political power constellations based on specific cultural conflicts.
Third, although the political actions resulting from the headscarf debate are undertaken by
state institutions (parliaments, courts, government departments etc.) the issue nonetheless
indicates changes in global dynamics occurring beyond the nation-state. Following the
transformation of Eastern Europe in the 1990s and the rediscovery of civil society, the research
interests of many historians have returned to consideration of how politics may occur
‘from below’. Similarly, the increasing importance of transnational NGOs has also been
followed by historians who have moved away from researching the history of national political
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

parties. The way political actors outside the sphere of the nation-state may challenge the state is
also to be observed by the formation of new religious groups with political demands. As a result,
many studies of the cultural history of politics, like those in this special issue, place greater
emphasis upon boundary crossing between culture and politics than state politics.
Fourth, changes in historians’ attitudes towards modernity are illustrated by the headscarf
debate. For a considerable time, some historians believed that progress followed the path
outlined by theories of modernisation. As a result they adopted a social and political science
approach focusing on broad economic and sociological processes. In examining symbolic
questions, such as the issue of the headscarf, historians are now disregarding increasingly
questionable theories of modernisation. At the same time, we have seen the spread of a ‘relative
cultural pessimism’3 and a move away from a teleological understanding of the past. This has
contributed to greater historical interest in the production of meaning and identities, or to put it
simply: a greater interest in the cultural construction of political realities.4

Debating cultural history of politics

Cultural history’s discovery of political themes, or indeed a political understanding of cultural
themes, is not entirely new. The much celebrated 1968 movement makes it almost impossible to
be unaware of how habitus, forms of communication and private lives may be understood
politically. In an early example of the cultural history of politics Lynn Hunt drew on these
phenomena for her study of the French Revolution. In this study she stressed how new forms of
communication could be used for the purpose of politicising large numbers. In doing so she
perceived political culture as ‘values, expectations and implicit rules that expressed and shaped
collective intentions and actions’.5 Following the end of the cold war and the generation change
of the 1990s, it appeared at first as if the resulting de-politicisation of many historians would
bring an end to the irreconcilable debates of earlier times. For some, de-politicisation could only
have negative consequences and as a result they lamented the loss of theoretical explanations.
Others saw the decline in ideological approaches to the study of the past as a new opportunity,
liberating historians to study the politics of the past without the ideological minefield of political
history. Susan Pedersen optimistically summed up the apparent end of the old boundaries of the
history profession when she euphorically claimed: ‘We are all political historians now.’6
Nonetheless, as may be seen in scholarly responses to the cultural history of politics, such
optimism is somewhat wide of the mark. To take German historians as an example, one finds that
heated arguments have occurred between adherents of a cultural history of politics and those
who remained in favour of a political history closely tied to the state. Indeed, their disagreements
remind us of the fundamental opposition which occurred between adherents of social and
political history.7 It is striking that this debate has not occurred along generational lines. Indeed,
almost all of the participants are members of the middle generation of historians, between 40 and
50 years old. The different attitudes to political history do not appear at the outset to be based
 European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire 579

on party political allegiances. However, although neither academic backgrounds nor political
conviction have been openly declared, a more detailed examination of the places of academic
training, networks and language reveals clearly that what some claim to be a purely
methodological debate is as politically charged as ever. As was the case in the famous
Historikerstreit (the historians’ row), the opponents of a cultural history of politics are primarily
based in the conservative universities of southern Germany, whereas its supporters are located in
universities of the left-liberal Social Democratic north. The unspoken conflict line centres on:
How much significance should be allocated to the State and to certain political elites?
The contributions to this dispute have often appeared artificial and perhaps even motivated by
the need to nurture and to continue what Jürgen Osterhammel characterised as ‘old rivalries’.8
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

Although both sides emphasise that they are prepared to compromise, the German debate has
become almost deadlocked as a result of the severity of the positions taken by both sides.
It may be possible to reduce the antagonism by relating the German debate to other
international and interdisciplinary discussions. However, as the following sketch shows, these
approaches remain the subject of considerable disagreement. The first key point is the question of
how one defines politics. Critics of cultural approaches to the study of politics argue that because
the cultural history of politics may define everything as political, it results in the loss of analytical
accuracy. However, limiting the subject to the politics of the state and its elites may be equally
problematic. This is especially so when one follows definitions offered in relation to border cases.
Adherents of a cultural history of politics advocate a constructive approach to the concept of
politics. They favour such an approach above essentialist or timeless concepts of politics. In this
view the political is a variable subject which remains open to interpretation. Achim Landwehr has
argued that ‘the political is the symbolic order, which is attributed to the character of politics – or
in the terms of cultural history: is given meaning – to be political’.9 Since then intellectual
historians have explored how the concept of the political has changed over time.10
If one pauses to reflect upon the example used in this introduction, the headscarf, the
constructive approach appears very plausible: At the moment when something becomes a
political issue, it also becomes a subject of the cultural history of politics. Nevertheless the
criticism, how objects which contemporaries did not interpret as political may be included and
excluded, is still relevant.11 For example, a headscarf may be understood as a component of a
cultural history of politics before it was a major political issue, when one interprets it as a symbol
of a gender-specific form of repression. In this light the decisive influence upon definitions of
politics becomes Power, especially the ability to implement certain claims as valid, while
simultaneously excluding others. Correspondingly, in the constructive view politics is defined as
the production of collectively binding decisions.12 Given the explicit emphasis traditional
political historians place upon decision-making as central to the understanding of politics, such a
definition does not at first appear strikingly different.13 However, this similarity disappears as
soon as one examines the underlying concepts of power used by both sides. Whereas the
traditional approach understands power and political rule in terms of the decisions of elites,
cultural historians begin with a concept of power which includes social, cultural or linguistic
constellations of power and is influenced by Foucault or Bourdieu. This approach is also relevant
to the example of the headscarf: State actors and laws may regulate what people wear or indeed
ban them from wearing certain clothing; however, without an approach incorporating aspects of
cultural history, questions such as why women should or should not wear a headscarf and what
such an item of clothing actually means cannot be adequately addressed. The cultural history of
politics thus emphasises researching methodologically the processes of negotiation through and
by which cultural interpretations occur, including spaces of communication, mediums, rituals,
symbols or gestures.14 Processes of negotiation were also analysed by traditional approaches to
political history. However, they usually did so by examining political individuals and state
 580 F. Bösch and N. Domeier

institutions, without embedding their actions in broader social discourses and practices. Recent
studies have shown that it is possible to combine older and newer approaches, even in classic
formats such as historical biography.15 The application of the methodological arsenal of cultural
history to the field of politics was from its very beginnings a consequence of the wide-ranging
claims of the validity of cultural history. In this context the cultural history of politics is often
accused of tending towards eclecticism. At the same time many observers have viewed the
openness of historians to using approaches from other disciplines as occurring in proportion to
the reduction of the role of ideology.16
Closely connected to the different understanding of politics is the disagreement over the
historical importance of the state. Advocates of a cultural history of politics argued that the state
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

should no longer be understood as existing as a material unit. It exists rather through symbolic
acts and as a discursive construction. As a result some cultural historians called for the analysis
of how the state came into existence through such symbolic sovereignty and how these
constructions shaped political action.17
Those in favour of a cultural history of politics emphasise that no institution, concept or
official statistic may be taken for granted. Instead, historians must examine how such
phenomena have been historically constituted. After all, there are good grounds for viewing the
state as being constructed by symbols, rituals and cultural ascriptions. The programmatic texts of
the cultural history of politics and those empirical studies completed also emphasise that the
cultural approach offers more than the analysis of cultural constructions. Even classic fields of
state action may be combined with a cultural history of politics. For example, foreign policy,
formerly the domain of conventional political history, has recently been discovered by cultural
historians.18 In the process, many techniques of symbolic diplomacy, which the existing political
history described really en passant, are being systematically analysed and understood as being
part of the core of foreign policy and diplomacy.19

Why cultural history of politics matters

Even this short indication of the theoretical debate suggests that one should understand the
cultural history of politics as an expansion of classic and conventional approaches. The
advantages offered by further developing the cultural history of politics may be summarised in
seven points. First, the cultural history of politics allows for the expansion of those considered as
political actors. Whereas before political history examined almost exclusively elites in state or
quasi-state institutions, the cultural history of politics considerably widens the field of political
actors. As a result the cultural history of politics shows the increased significance of those elites,
who were not regarded originally as politicians but participated in the construction of power
structures. For example, studies of the relations between politicians and journalists have shown
that as a result of their ability to emphasise certain issues and their cultivation of foreign
contacts, journalists could shape foreign policy.20 Similarly, economic or medical experts, who
developed an independent political discourse, move to the centre of political analysis.21 Even
more broadly, every person may be considered a relevant political actor, if he or she participates
in public processes of negotiation, leading to collectively binding rules. Thus a maid, a
fisherman, a divorcee, a detective, or anyone who gives evidence in a sensational court case
leading to widespread public discourse becomes an important political actor in the cultural
history of politics.22 Even spectators or consumers of media may take a corresponding role as
political actors, if through certain kinds of behaviour they contribute to the humiliation of public
figures with political consequences; for example, through their behaviour during State visits,
celebrations or demonstrations.23 As a result politics is not understood as a top-down-model, but
as a system of relations, which receives impulses from different directions according to each
 European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire 581

subject and as a result does not begin with concepts like ‘above’ and ‘below’. The cultural
history of politics also gives greater emphasis to gender, unlike traditional political history’s
focus upon male elites and its limiting of gender and women to the margins.
Closely related to this first point is a second one, the expansion of thematic fields. To a
considerable degree political history was up to now limited to themes that were of direct
relevance to the processes of law-making and the actions of governments. The cultural history of
politics has allowed new political fields to emerge. In addition to departmental policies, very
different political fields such as the body and biopolitics have become subjects of political
history.24 From this perspective issues which may have been previously excluded from political
history because of their private nature, such as sexuality, become subjects for political study as a
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

result of the social creation of binding private norms. As well as the examination of how political
meanings have been created the expansion of the thematic field of politics also inspires new
approaches to classical themes of political history. Areas such as colonial history, military
history, national security, government policy analysis have all recently expanded. Third, the
cultural history of politics demands reflection on the communicative conditions of politics and
the importance of mediality.25 The arguments of traditional approaches to political history often
focused upon written sources produced in the framework of interpersonal communication, such
as speeches, conversations, letters etc., without reflecting upon the particularities of any given
mode of communication.26 However, for the cultural history of politics this is insufficient. Due
to its conceptualisation of politics as a process of negotiation occurring through communication,
the historian must also pay attention to the medium of communication.27 Those who defend the
cultural history of politics contend that it is obvious that the conditions of politics also organise
power and thus affect the development of decision-making. Thus changes in the medium of
politics – whether politics is presented through leaflets, newspapers or television – the themes,
actors and contents will also accordingly change. This applies not only to the democracies and
dictatorships of the twentieth century, but just as equally to the monarchies of the nineteenth
century, whose room for manoeuvre has in recent time increasingly been seen by scholars as the
result of changes in the logic of the medium of communication.28 Applying the same argument
to the democracies and dictatorships of the twentieth century also reveals that the prevailing
media constellation does not necessarily clearly support certain political structures, but may well
contribute to changes in existing political orders.29 This medial expansion of the political
becomes particularly clear when one includes more non-written forms of media. As the history
of many images clearly demonstrates, pictures may often unleash uncontrollable political
dynamics, underlying the political power of the media. Fourth, the expansion of political history
leads to greater attention being placed upon language as a constitutive principle of politics.
Gareth Stedman Jones drew attention to how language should be understood not only as a
reflection but also as a producer of social relationships.30 Dror Wahrman explained for example
that the ‘rhetoric of the middle-class’ during the French Revolution was less an expression of a
real change of the class structure than a tested rhetorical weapon used to advance a political
cause. Similarly, James Vernon and Patrick Joyce have placed greater emphasis upon language
as a discourse of political participation, rather than an expression of ‘social interests’ in their
interpretation of the polyphone Volkskultur of the nineteenth century.31 Finally, the statements
of politicians are now being approached in a new way. Whereas before the language and
expressions of politicians were usually understood as intentional and rational, historians are now
placing greater emphasis upon the broader cultural contexts within which such language occurs.
Such a new approach also leaves room for political pathology and the inclusion of analysis of
what is not or may not be said. 32
Fifth, the cultural history of politics is also interested in non-spoken areas of politics. In this
perspective architecture or dress, handshakes or seating arrangements become central objects
 582 F. Bösch and N. Domeier

of analysis. In doing so the claim not to differentiate between symbolic and ‘real’ politics
appears important.33 After all, even arcane conversations are the products of symbolic practice,
just as symbols are associated with ‘real’ negotiations, opinions and decisions. Examining
non-spoken sources also contributes to a conceptualisation of politics not only as intentional, but
also as ambiguous and contradictory. Sixth, the cultural history of politics places greater focus
upon the view beyond the borders of accepted nation-states. This post-national turn is further
evidence of connections between historiographical interest and contemporary events, in this case
those of European integration and the emergence of debates concerning globalisation. The focus
upon communication processes of negotiation also strengthens perceptions which go beyond the
boundaries of the nation-state. Furthermore, the cultural encounters occurring as a result of
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

globalisation also form a privileged subject of cultural history. Seventh, the cultural history of
politics leads to an increased methodological reflection on the part of political historians.
Traditional political history was an enterprise which avoided theoretical or methodological
reflection on its activities.34 It seems at this point safe to suggest that future studies will not be
able to escape reflective – and even interdisciplinary – approaches.

Interdisciplinary approaches to cultural history of politics

This special edition of the European Review of History takes up several of the approaches and
ideas of this programmatic debate. Many of the contributors did not begin their research with the
goal of contributing to debates about the cultural history of politics. Nonetheless, at a conference
at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, they reflected upon their research
methodologies in terms of cultural history.35 The common ground of many of the following
articles lies in how they examine concrete historical events in which political acts and cultural
meanings occurred together. In doing so the cultural history of politics appears especially suited
to particularly historical case studies, which have been affected by the international media
developments. For example, Torsten Gudewitz uses the celebrations of the centenary of the birth
of the German writer Friedrich Schiller in 1859 to show how local actors were able to unite a
political community reaching from Europe to North America because of new kinds of media.
As a result, the apparently un-political local ceremonies developed into a virtual international
manifestation of the nation and the bourgeois public sphere. Since at least 1878 the death of the
Pope has also counted as a global event constructed by the media. As René Schlott explains,
especially since 1958 Papal Requiems have become increasingly politically significant. This is
underlined not only by the continually stronger participation of the world’s politicians but, above
all, due to the participation of the mass media. As well as the relationship between politics and
religion, the political gestures occurring during the funeral service could as a result of the media
focus be interpreted politically. Furthermore the Olympic Games have not only been sporting
competitions, but have also always had political results, observed throughout the entire world.
Using the examples of the Olympic Games in Rome (1960) and Munich (1972) Eva Modrey
shows clearly how politics entered these Olympic Games. She takes the example of the
architecture of the games to show the difference in how both countries dealt with their fascist
legacies. Germany tried especially, even through the architectural style, to demonstrate a
democratic consciousness. She underlines just how little such an attempt to create meaning
could be controlled in the media on the basis of the diverse/varied international reactions which
occurred before the terrorist attack drew the Olympics completely under the spell of daily
politics.
The events and moments of memory culture are no less political. Vera Simon uses the
example of live television and radio broadcasting of the French Bastille Day and German
Reunification Day to argue that symbolic politics do not exist in opposition to ‘the business
 European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire 583

of realpolitik’. In her example she shows how the media does not function purely as the
transmitter of the political, but now and then as an independent actor. The article by Eveline
Bouwers shows that political self-representation did not just come into existence with modern
electronic media, but was already present in bildenden Kunst. Her article analyses the
commemorative sculptures of the British House of Commons around 1800. In doing so she puts
forward the surprising view that the pomp of Parliament’s self-representation, which found itself
at the time competing with the power of the monarchy, does not inevitably have to be popular
and successful. The memorial policies of the Commons at this time remained an elite project that
was too eclectic and too sophisticated to resonate with the reality of the majority of the patria.
Subsequently it was not generally understood by the public or the press who ignored it.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

The article by Maike Mügge on the ‘Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe’ in Berlin shows
that the building of a memorial may also have the opposite effect of agitating and polarising
society. According to her argument it was not arcane political decision-makers and the intentions
of their memory policies, but the unforeseen public discourse which played the decisive role.
In addition military conflicts offer a thematic area, which in the recent past has expanded as a
result of the approach of the cultural history of politics. In his article on the visual representation
of the Russian-Japanese war (1904 – 1905) Marco Gerbig-Fabel proposes that images of war
should no longer be investigated for their realism. Instead he argues that the Russian-Japanese
war was a political event, because its visualisation integrated Japan in the (Western
understanding of) modernity. In his article Florian Schnürer uses the example of the First World
to show how media representations of war and nation may change war. Based on the funerals of
the ‘knights of the sky’ he shows how fighter-pilots, whose military contribution to the war was
minimal, became key figures of the war as a result of media logic. The old political elite
attempted to use their funerals to legitimise the tremendous casualties and to stabilise their rule.
When coming to terms with military defeat culture and politics are hardly separable according to
Mark Jones. Analysing Italian interventionists’ cultural mobilisation from the disaster of
Caporetto to the occupation of Fiume he shows the connections between a culture of defeat and
military and political events. Moreover, the world of quantitative measurable economies cannot
exclude the influence of cultural and political meanings, as Georg von Graevenitz outlines in a
short cultural history of sugar politics in the interwar period. Alongside a space of action, he
argues, a space of communication emerged, through which the old established national
economies could culturally place themselves within an increasingly global economy. Finally
Pascal Girard analyses the consequences of cultural meanings on the nucleus of politics in
conventional understanding. In a study of political conspiracies he shows how the simple belief
in the existence of conspiracies may produce an unstoppable dynamic. He uses the example of
the collapse of the French IV Republic approximately 50 years ago to show that even mere
cultural illusions and imagined political threats, according to the constructive Treppenwitz of
this story, may contribute to the collapse of entire political systems.

Notes
1. For a comparative analysis see Amir-Moazami, Politisierte Religion and Sicko, Das Kopftuch-Urteil.
2. See for example Requate, “Lebedame und Querulant.”
3. Pedersen, “What is Political History Now?,” 50 – 51.
4. Julliard, “Reflections,” 31. On the German discussion Conrad and Kessel, “Blickwechsel.” Sarasin,
“Subjekte, Diskurse, Körper.” Kittsteiner, “Kulturgeschichte.”
5. Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class, 12; see also Hunt, New Cultural History and Bonnell and Hunt,
Beyond the Cultural Turn.
6. Pedersen, “What is Political History Now?,” 38.
7. See Mergel, “Kulturgeschichte der Politik”; Landwehr, “Diskurs – Macht – Wissen”; Frevert and
Haupt, Neue Politikgeschichte; Stollberg-Rilinger, Was heißt Kulturgeschichte, Schorn-Schütte,
 584 F. Bösch and N. Domeier

Historische Politikforschung. For critical responses to the “Cultural History of Politics” see Rödder,
“Klios neue Kleider,” Nicklas, “Macht – Politik – Diskurs,” And the short introduction in Kraus and
Nicklas, Geschichte der Politik.
8. Osterhammel has warned of the risk that older rivalries between social and cultural historians on the
one hand and ‘neo-Rankeans’ on the other, may be reproduced or even intensified as a result of misuse
of the concept of transnationality. Osterhammel, “Transnationale Gesellschaftsgeschichte,” 474.
9. Landwehr, “Diskurs – Macht – Wissen,” 104.
10. Steinmetz, Politik.
11. Rödder, “Klios neue Kleider,” 676.
12. Stollberg-Rillinger, Was heißt Kulturgeschichte, 10 – 11, Mergel, “Kulturgeschichte der Politik,” 587.
13. Kraus and Nicklas, Geschichte der Politik, 1.
14. Frevert, foreword to Frevert and Haupt, Neue Politikgeschichte.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

15. For example Pyta, Hindenburg.

16. See Chabal and Daloz, Culture Troubles. Especially the chapter “In Defence of Eclecticism” and the
section “On the merit of conceptual and theoretical eclecticism,” 309–27.
17. Landwehr, “Diskurs – Macht – Wissen,” 99 – 101, 106 and Stollberg-Rillinger, Was heißt
Kulturgeschichte, 14.
18. Lehmkuhl, “Diplomatiegeschichte”; Mergel, “Kulturgeschichte der Politik,” 595.
19. See for example Derix, Bebilderte Politik.
20. See Geppert, Pressekriege.
21. This may be found in the debate about whether the role of academics and scientists in Nazi Germany,
which had appeared as non-political, was actually political. The debate was launched by Aly and
Heim, Vordenker der Vernichtung.
22. Bösch, “Öffentliche Geheimnisse.”
23. Derix, Bebilderte Politik.
24. See the canonical text of Foucault, Wille zum Wissen and Agamben, Homo sacer.
25. Thompson, The Media.
26. Nonetheless, this remains a useful approach. See the thought provoking examples in Föllmer,
Sehnsucht nach Nähe.
27. On the Kaiserreich see Daniel, “Einkreisung und Kaiserdämmerung.”
28. Plunkett, Queen Victoria and Kohlrausch, Monarch im Skandal.
29. Bösch and Frei, Medialisierung und Demokratie.
30. Stedman Jones, “Rethinking Chartism.” The thesis of historical continuity also in Biagini and Reid,
“Currents of Radicalism.”
31. Wahrman, Imagining the Middle Class. Joyce, Visions of the People. Vernon, Politics and the People.
32. Landwehr, Historische Diskursanalyse.
33. A similar argument may be found in Mergel, “Kulturgeschichte der Politik.”
34. Kraus and Nicklas, Geschichte der Politik, 3.
35. The articles in this special issue were presented at a conference on ‘New Political History in
Transnational Perspective’ which took place on 15 –16 February 2008. We would like to thank the
EUI and the DFG for their financial support. Furthermore we are grateful to the commentators on the
papers: Horst Carl, Roger Chickering, Sebastian Conrad, Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, Friedrich Lenger,
Kiran Patel and Philipp Ther.

Notes on contributors
Frank Bösch is Professor of Modern History and Media Studies at the University of Giessen, Germany.
Norman Domeier is Researcher in Modern German History at the European University Institute, Florence,
Italy.

References
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo sacer: Die souveräne Macht und das nackte Leben. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp,
2002.
Aly, Götz, and Susanne Heim. Vordenker der Vernichtung. Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1990.
Amir-Moazami, Schirin. Politisierte Religion: Der Kopftuchstreit in Deutschland und Frankreich.
Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, 2007.
 European Review of History—Revue européenne d’histoire 585

Biagini, Eugenio, and Alastair Reid. “Currents of Radicalism: 1850– 1914.” In Currents of Radicalism:
Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour and Party Politics in Britain, 1850 –1914, edited by Eugenio
Biagini and Alastair Reid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Bonnell, Victoria E., and Lynn Hunt, eds. Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society
and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Bösch, Frank. “Öffentliche Geheimnisse: Die verzögerte Renaissance des Medienskandals zwischen
Staatsgründung und Ära Brandt.” In Die Politik der Öffentlichkeit – die Öffentlichkeit der Politik:
Politische Medialisierung in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik, edited by Bernd Weisbrod, 225– 50.
Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003.
Bösch, Frank, and Norbert Frei, eds. Medialisierung und Demokratie im 20. Jahrhundert. Göttingen:
Wallstein, 2006.
Chabal, Patrick, and Jean-Pascal Daloz. Culture Troubles: Politics and the Meaning of Interpretation.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

Chicago: Hurst, 2006.

Conrad, Christoph, and Martina Kessel. “Blickwechsel: Moderne, Kultur, Geschichte.” In Kultur und
Geschichte: Neue Einblicke in eine alte Beziehung, edited by Christoph Conrad and Martina Kessel.
Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998.
Daniel, Ute. “Einkreisung und Kaiserdämmerung: Ein Versuch, der Kulturgeschichte der Politik vor dem
Ersten Weltkrieg auf die Spur zu kommen.” In Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen?, edited by
Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, 279– 328. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2005.
Derix, Simone. Bebilderte Politik: Staatsbesuche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949– 1990.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Föllmer, Moritz, ed. Sehnsucht nach Nähe: Interpersonale Kommunikation in Deutschland seit dem 19.
Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004.
Foucault, Michel. Der Wille zum Wissen: Sexualität und Wahrheit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1977.
Frevert, Ute, and Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, eds. Neue Politikgeschichte: Perspektiven einer historischen
Politikforschung. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus-Verlag, 2005.
Geppert, Dominik. Pressekriege. München: Oldenbourg, 2007.
Hunt, Lynn. Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984.
———, ed. The New Cultural History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Huntington, Samuel P. Kampf der Kulturen: Die Neugestaltung der Weltpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert.
Hamburg: Spiegel-Verlag, 2006.
———. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Janecke, Christian, ed. Haar tragen: Eine kulturwissenschaftliche Annäherung. Köln: Böhlau, 2004.
Joyce, Patrick. Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1840– 1914.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Julliard, Jacques. “Reflections on Its Present and Future.” In The New History: The 1980s and Beyond,
edited by Theodore K. Rabb and Robert I. Rotberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Kittsteiner, Heinz-Dieter. “Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Kulturgeschichte?.” Geschichte
und Gesellschaft 23 (1997): 5 – 27.
Kohlrausch, Martin. Der Monarch im Skandal. Die Logik der Massenmedien und die Transformation der
wilhelminischen Monarchie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2005.
Kraus, Hans-Christof, and Thomas Nicklas, eds. Geschichte der Politik: Alte und neue Wege. München:
Oldenbourg, 2007.
Landwehr, Achim. “Diskurs – Macht – Wissen. Perspektiven einer Kulturgeschichte des Politischen.”
In Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 35 (2003): 71– 117.
———. Historische Diskursanalyse. Frankfurt: Campus, 2008.
Lehmkuhl, Ursula. “Diplomatiegeschichte als internationale Kulturgeschichte: Theoretische Ansätze und
empirische Forschung zwischen Historischer Kulturwissenschaft und Soziologischem Institutiona-
lismus.” In Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27 (2001): 394– 423.
Mergel, Thomas. “Überlegungen zu einer Kulturgeschichte der Politik.” In Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28
(2002): 574– 606.
Nicklas, Thomas. “Macht – Politik – Diskurs: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Politischen
Kulturgeschichte.” In Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 86 (2003): 1 – 25.
Osterhammel, Jürgen. “Transnationale Gesellschaftsgeschichte: Erweiterung oder Alternative?.”
In Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27 (2001): 464– 79.
Pedersen, Susan. “What is Political History Now?.” In What is History Now?, edited by David Cannadine.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
 586 F. Bösch and N. Domeier

Plunkett, John. Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Pyta, Wolfram. Hindenburg. München: Siedler, 2007.
Requate, Jörg. “Die Lebedame und der Querulant: Zu Grenzverschiebungen zwischen Öffentlichem und
Privatem in der Gerichtsberichterstattung der 60er Jahre.” In Die Veröffentlichung des Privaten – Die
Privatisierung des Öffentlichen, edited by Kurt Imhof and Peter Schulz. Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag, 1998.
Rödder, Andreas. “Klios neue Kleider: Theoriedebatten um eine Kulturgeschichte der Politik in der
Moderne.” In Historische Zeitschrift 283 (2006): 657– 88.
Sarasin, Philipp. “Subjekte, Diskurse, Körper: Überlegungen zu einer diskursanalytischen Kultur-
geschichte.” In Kulturgeschichte heute, edited by Wolfgang Hardtwig and Hans-Ulrich Wehler.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.
Schorn-Schütte, Luise. Historische Politikforschung. Eine Einführung. München: Beck, 2006.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Twente] at 22:25 09 December 2014

Sicko, Corinna. Das Kopftuch-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und seine Umsetzung durch die
Landesgesetzgeber. Zur Vereinbarkeit des an Lehrkräfte gerichteten Verbots religiöser Bekundungen
im Dienst mit den Vorgaben des Grundgesetzes. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2008.
Stedman Jones, Gareth. “Rethinking Chartism.” In Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class
History, 1832– 1982, edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Steinmetz, Willibald, ed. Politik: Situationen eines Wortgebrauchs im Europa der Neuzeit. Frankfurt a.M.:
Campus-Verlag, 2007.
Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara, ed. Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen? Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,
2005.
Thompson, John B. The Media and the Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Vernon, James. Politics and the People: A Study in English Political Culture, c. 1815– 1867. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Wahrman, Dror. Imagining the Middle Class: The Political Representation of Class in Britain, c.
1780– 1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.