Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History

Review: The Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe Project: From History of Ideas to Conceptual

History. A Review Article
Author(s): Keith Tribe
Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 180-184
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/178800 .
Accessed: 05/08/2011 16:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.

http://www.jstor.org

The GeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe
Project:From History of Ideas to
ConceptualHistory
A Review Article
KEITH TRIBE
Universityof Keele
Geschichtliche
editedby 0. Brunner,W. Conze,andR. Koselleck
Grundbegriffe,
Klett-Cotta,1972-1989).
(Stuttgart:
In the later 1950s, ReinhartKoselleck, then an Assistentto ProfessorWerner
Conze in the Groupfor the Study of Moder Social History at the University
of Heidelberg, proposed to Conze that the group consider publication of a
dictionaryof historicalconcepts, providing in one volume a survey reaching
from Antiquityto the present. Conze accepted the idea but argued that the
scope should be cut both in time and coverage: The dictionary should be
restrictedto the Germanlanguageand focus on the years of early modernity,
principallythe eighteenthand early nineteenthcenturies. The project proved
to be an undertakingthat far exceeded initial anticipationsof the amount of
scholarlyeffort required-the first five volumes take up well over a foot of
shelf space. Contributionsrange in length from a few pages ("Radikalismus," pp. 113-36 of Volume 5) to that of a small book ("Geschichte,
Historie," pp. 593-718 of Volume 2). The level of scholarshipis high, the
approachadoptedsurprisinglyuniformconsideringthe numberof academics
involved, and it is evident that much editorial work has gone into ensuring
complementarityratherthanduplicationamongthe contributions.Clearlythis
is an enterprisewhich is of major significance for our understandingof the
historical developmentof the concepts with which we seek to arrangeand
orderthe world-to take a few examples at randomfrom Volume 2: "Honour," "Factory," "Fanaticism," "Peace," "Progress," "Law," and
"Balance."
An undertakingof such length and detail would be hardto imagine in the
theoreticaland historicaltraditionsof Britainand North America. Germany,
on the other hand, has a long and relatively unbrokentraditionof classical
philology, and a trainingin law is not uncommonfor historiansand political
scientists. Germanhistoriansthus tend to have a greater interest in the linguistic base of their studies than that found among Anglo-Saxon social and
economic historians. And, despite the intimidating formality of historical
0010-4175/89/1955-0900 $5.00 ? 1989 Society for ComparativeStudy of Society and History

I80

THE GESCHICHTLICHE GRUNDBEGRIFFE PROJECT

181

semantics, the project of chartingthe changing structureof the conceptual

world is intended as a contributionto a deeper understandingof the social
world in its historical formation. Koselleck has himself described GG (a
convenient abbreviationfor the dictionary)as an aspect of a struggle against
the kind of Geistesgeschichtepractisedby FriedrichMeinecke-it is an attempt to historicise Geistesgeschichte and take sociopolitical experience as
the pointof departure.And, indeed, one of the most obvious featuresrepeated
through the diverse contributionsis a record of the manner in which the
conceptualworld was transformedas the eighteenthcenturygave way to the
nineteenth.In the contributionson "Revolution," "History," "Progress,"
"Police," "Politics"-but also in those on "Society," "Law," and "Development"-we find the contours of a new conceptualtopographywhich,
when taken together, constitute "modernity." In their different ways, the
concepts paradedin GG representthe coordinatesof our conceptual world.
The approachadoptedallows us to see this world in process of formation,and
also to appreciatethe distance separatingus from former worlds.
Koselleck casually nicknamed this period of change the Sattelzeit-the
"saddle-period." Before this transitionperiod, there lies a conceptual field
whose topographyis no longer immediatelycomprehensiblefor us without
exegesis and interpretation;after it, there exists a conceptualworld in which
we, more or less with justification, feel at home. Accordingly, most contributions follow a common pattern.First comes the Greek or Latin root. This is
followed by medieval scholasticism, which rapidlygives way to the periodof
the Reformationand the political conflicts of the seventeenthcentury. From
here, the detail usually becomes more intense, leading to the transformation
of word and concept in the later eighteenth century and the diffusion of a
modified understandingin the early nineteenth century. Depending on the
individual term, there is then a decrease in detail, and a summary of any
twentieth-centurydevelopments concludes the contribution.Some 150 concepts were originally envisaged for this treatment, but a strictly uniform
treatmentwas never the intention.In the actualexecutionof the project, some
leadingtermsapparentlydisappeared-"culture," for example, and "oeconomy." In these cases, contributorsentrustedwith cognate areas took on the
orphans; "culture" should now be dealt with under "civilisation."
It was also originally intendedthat the arrangementof the volumes should
emphasisethe structuralaspects of semanticchange, but in the end, resorthad
to be made to a purely alphabeticalarrangement.As in the actualselection of
concepts for treatment,there was a generalpragmatismin the enforcementof
the standardslaid down duringthe later 1960s for contributions.It is certainly
possible to criticise the organisationof the volumes andto questionthe criteria
employed in the distributionof space. Ultimately, however, it is necessaryto
recognise that any such large-scale collaborativeproject will always rest on
compromise and theoretical accommodation.As it is, GG is set to take its
place among a number of German handbooks and dictionaries that have

I82

KEITH

TRIBE

served as valuable supports to high-level scholarship since the nineteenth

century. In this, GG continues a noble tradition.
What, then, is Begriffsgeschichte?More than a "history of concepts," it is
"conceptualhistory" of a sortunfamiliarto the Anglo-Americanreader.Otto
Brunnerwas one of the leading practitionersof this form of history, which is
embodied in his most importantsingle text, Land und Herrschaft, first published in 1939. The subtitle of this book runs: "Basic Questions on the
History of TerritorialOrganisationin Medieval Austria." The form that the
"questions" take involves a continual interrogationof the concepts associated with "territorialorganisation": peace and feuding; state, right, and
constitution;Land and Landrecht;house and domination;Landesherrschaft
and Landesgemeinde.These are in fact the headings of the chapters, and so
the argumentbegins with the question:what is "politics"? By examining the
regulationof plunderand feuding, Brunneris able to demonstratethe manner
in which such aspects of social organisationescape moder conceptions of
political conflict. "Politics" would usually be assigned to an interstate
sphere, while internalstrife would then be described in terms of individual
ambitionor greed. Brunnershows that the late-medievalpolitical orderdoes
not admit of a rigid distinction of "internal" from "external," and that a
proper understandingof the arrangementof structuresof power and social
orderdependson a "substantive" appreciationof the language in which life
was expressed. Indeed, Land und Herrschaftrepresentstheoreticalpositions
more familiarto an Anglo-Americanreadershipthroughthe work of legal and
economic substantivistsworkingin social anthropologyduringthe 1960s, the
fruitsof whose work have only recentlybegun to entermodernsocial history.
Begriffsgeschichteis thus a very long way from Geistesgeschichte.
Brunner'smain intellectualeffort was over by the mid-1950s, but his work
remained an inspirationto Koselleck and many other German historians.
Conze was a social historianof a more conventionalcast, althoughhe contributed, as has Koselleck, several articlesto GG, as well as sharingthe editorial
burden.Conze became one of the leading "managers" of the Germanhistorical professionduringthe expansion of the 1960s and early 1970s, and to a
greatextent GG owes the broadspectrumof its contributorsto the networkof
contactthatConze had established.The threeeditorsare thus in large measure
complementarycontributorsto the conception and execution of the project,
now solely in the hands of Koselleck following the deaths of his co-editors.
Whatshape, then, does the methodof Begriffsgeschichtetake in GG? First,
key concepts are selected that articulate political, social, and economic
organisation.These can be of a most general order, like "politics," "movement," or "progress." They can also be more specific in their fields, like
"conservative," "communism," "liberalism," or can focus on more ideological currents, like "race" or "reaction." Finally, there are names for
dominatingsocial groups-"noble," "peasant," "worker," "middle strata." Some critics have arguedthat the sole consistent definition of a central

THE GESCHICHTLICHE GRUNDBEGRIFFE

PROJECT

183

historicalcategory is merely its inclusion in GG; there is some truthin this,

but it would be difficult to establish any other, more consistent, principle of
selection. An "historicalconcept" is thereforedefinableas a concept selected
by the editors for inclusion in GG.
The "Introduction"which Koselleck providesin Volume 1 discusses some
of these problems, and also gives a rubricfor the project- "to investigatethe
dissolutionof the old world and the emergence of the moder world through
the history of its conceptual comprehension." The organising role of the
Sattelzeithas alreadybeen noted, and there are a numberof furtherideas that
lend this rubricsubstance. First, the moder world is implicitly conceived as
"economic society," a central concept of Brunner'sown work, but which
derives principally from Lorenz von Stein, notably his study of the French
Revolution, Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung in Frankreich von 1789 bis
auf unsere Tage (1850). Von Stein emphasised the way that the French
Revolution had altered the conceptions of time organising the sociopolitical
world. Whereasbefore, "revolution" had carriedthe connotationof repetition and return,the futurehad now become open and "constructible." This
provideda space for the transformationof polity and economy and the development of "social movements" that sought to design and implement their
visions of the futureworld. Within this framework,then, there is great scope
for the considerationof the various levels and rhythmsin and throughwhich
the conceptualstructureof the social world could be reconstitutedas "modernity." In this process, historyitself moved from being a set of accountsthat
provided lessons for action, to a real movement of events that could be
controlledby the "agents of history." Quite evidently, both liberalism and
socialism are parts of this process, as well as a conservatismthat recognises
the transformationof the world and seeks to stabilise the forces thereby
unleashed.The world as describedby von Stein was a world in motion;and in
this world there was scope for the ideologisationof numerouscategories and
classifications, placing them at the service of groups that sought to contain,
control, or acceleratethe "movement of historical forces."
To many readers, this might seem to representa kind of Marxist historiography. In the German intellectual context, however, it would be more
accuratelydescribedas "social liberal"; and in fact the recourseto von Stein
was in partmotivatedby a desire to presenta coherentand theoreticallyrobust
alternativeto Marxisthistoricalwriting. The potentialof von Stein's approach
is indeedgreat, and its apparentsimilarityto Marxismcan be accountedfor by
the mannerin which it comprehendsmajorfeaturesof Marxistunderstanding
of modernitywhile also being theoreticallyopen and capable of descriptive
elaboration.
Within this general approach,then, it is possible to identify leading terms
and categories that lend themselves to description and analysis; while it is
clear that no consistent formal criterioncan be employed, a high degree of
consensus can be developed aroundthe issues involved and the various crite-

184

KEITH

TRIBE

ria of selection. The problem that then arises concerns the techniques of
analysis. How does one develop a systematic historical semantics?By what
means can descriptivestatementsestablisha "truthvalue"? What is to count
as a complete or finished analysis? Ideally, of course, each contribution
shouldcombinethe qualitativerangeof historicalresearchwith the evaluative
rigour of theoreticalsemantics;but such an ideal is one that could perhaps
never be achieved, and is certainlyunrealisablein collaborativeresearch. As
previously indicated, most contributionsfollow a set pattern; sources are
marshalledthat contain the use of the term in question, or which instance its
cognates or counterconcepts.A wide range of sources is drawn upon, but
attentionremains strictly upon the term under study-no great deviation or
elucidationis permitted.Out of this paradingof evidence the importantfeature that emerges is the structuralchanges of language and language-usage
according to a perceivable pattern of meaning. At this level, the editors
succeed in establishing the structureof linguistic transformationand empiricallychartingits progress. At the level of the individualcontributions,the
result is inevitably more mixed. For some reason ManfredRiedel provides
two articles on society, the first "Society, Civil," the second "Society,
Community." The first is of major interest and in eighty pages provides a
convincing and succinct account of the development of this concept. The
second contribution, however, covers much of the same ground in sixty
pages, and it is not clear why this materialwas not placed in the first article.
Some of the articles with a more institutionalbasis, such as those on social
groupsor social ideologies, occasionally lapse into simple historicaldescription, forgetting the emphasis on linguistic analysis. Some articles are, for
whateverreason, disappointinglyuninformative.
Any project of such length or involving so many collaboratorscannot,
however, be subjectedto critical standardsthat demandabsolute consistency
or uniformsuccess. A great deal of intellectualand editorialeffort has gone
into the productionof these volumes, and the cumulativeeffect of the articles
is stimulatingand humblingin equal measure. English-speakingscholarscan
judge the merits of the approachfrom two translatedarticles:Franz-Ludwig
Knemeyeron "Polizei," and RudolphWaltheron "Economic Liberalism"
(Economyand Society, 9 (1980), 172-96; 13 (1984), 178-207). A collection
of essays composed during the period in which the project was being
organised, and which illustrateaspects of the method of Begriffsgeschichte,
was publishedin 1985 as Koselleck's Futures Past.
There are plans to produce a cheaper paperbackversion of the work that
would be thematic in organisation,ratherthan alphabetic. It is to be hoped
that translationswill eventually appear in this guise, for Begriffsgeschichte
has much to offer historicalresearchin terms both of the results it has so far
producedand of the methods that it has developed.