COMPARATIVE AND

TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY

Central European Approaches

and New Perspectives

- -
-=~~

Edited by

Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jiirgen Kocka

Berghahn Books
New York . Oxford
 , '11':11 IlIiI,111:llI'd III :.!( )( )II by
CONTENTS =
/I""gl"i/III /I""l' ,1
www .berghahnl .uoks .ron,

(c:)2009 Heinz.. Gerh ard Haupt and Iurgcn Kocka

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages

for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book

Preface vii
may be repr oduced in any form or by any means , electronic or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any informati on

Comparison a n d Beyond: Traditi ons, Scope, a nd Perspectives of
storage and retrie val system now known or to be invented,
Comparative History 1
without writt en permi ssion of the publisher.
Iurgen Kocka/Heinz-Gerhard Haupt

PART I
,ra r y of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Comparative and Entangled History in Global Perspectives
nparative and tran snational history: Central European appr oaches and new CH APT ER 1
spectives / edited by Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Iurgen Kocka. Between Comparison a nd Transfe rs-and Wh at Now?
p. cm.

A French-German Deb ate 33

Includes bibliographi cal referen ces and index.
Hartmut Kaelble
ISBN 978-1-84545-615-3 (hbk. : alk. paper)

. Germ any (West)- Historiography. 2. Germany-Historiography. 3. Europe, CH APT ER 2

Itral-Historiograph y. 4. Germany-Social conditions- Historiography. A ' Tra ns natio nal' History of Society: Continuity or
mop e, Central-S ocial conditions- Historiography. 6. Transnationali sm­ New Departu re? 39
toriography. 7 . Acculturation-Historiography. 8. Social history­ liirgen Osterhammel
hod ology. 9. Histor y-Methodology. 10. History-Comparative method.

aupt, Heinz-Gerhard . II. Kocka, Iurgen.

CH APTER 3
86.C652009
Double Margin alization: A Plea for a Transnational Perspective
)7.2--d c22
on G erman Hist ory 52
Sebastian Conrad
2009025428
CHAPTER 4
Entangled Hi st ories of Une ven Modernities: Civil Society,
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Caste Councils, a nd Legal Pluralism in Postcolon ial India 77
A catalogue record for this boo k is available from the British Library Shalini Ran deria

~~~~~I~~G-;~::.I~,~ "..
~~. \~ \\n l.!:- ___
CHAPTER 5

~- Print;a-m::t~ e United States on acid-free paper. Lost in Translat ion? Transcending Boundaries in Comparative
liMOJIliOT CKti '. History 105
Monica Iuneja / Margrit Fernau
. a I·? ~~: ; :'8-1-84545-615-3 Hardback
~ 1, ! br . .%~.o
:/.);:;-------- __---.",..~ ~/. .
\,\ '\..

~JC \ \ !~~~
--====-_ .~
 1'1\ I~'J' 1/

PR EFAC E ==

TrallsnationnliznUol\ and lssucx ill European Bislory

CHAPTER 6

The Nation as a Developing Resource Community:

A Generalizing Comparison
133
Dieter Langewiesche

CHAPTER 7

Birds of a Feather: A Comparative History of German and

Comparative history deals with similarities and differences between his
US Labor in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
torical units, e.g., regions, economies, cultures, and national states. It. is ,Ilt'
149
Thomas Welskopp classical way of transcending the narrow boundaries of national history,
Comparative history is analytically ambitious and empirically demandin g.
CHAPTER 8
The last decades have witnessed the rise of comparative history, but it s
Visions of the Future: GDR, CSSR, and the Federal Republic of
practitioners have remained a minority, and its critics have not been CO l li
Germany in the 1960s
178 pletely convinced.
/OrgRequate Entangled history deals with transfer, interconnection, and mutual ill
fluences across boundaries. It can be another way of moving beyond tI\('
CHAPTER 9
limits of national history. Its rise is more recent. It has been fuelled by post ­
Comparisons, Cultural Transfers, and the Study of Networks: colonial perspectives, by a renewed interest in transnationalism, and by [hl'
Toward a Transnational History of Europe 204 intellectual consequences of globalization. It has been practiced in diffe r­
Philipp Ther
ent contexts, e.g., in the overlap between French and German history, ill
CHAPTER 10 the study of transnational migration, with respect to cultural transfer, or ill
the expanding areas of global history.
Germany and Africa in the Late Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries: An Entangled History? There is much tension, but there is also productive and innovative co
226 operation between comparative history and entangled history. German ­
Andreas Eckert
speaking historians have dealt with these issues, over the last years, pro ­
CHAPTER 11 grammatically, empirically, and with new results . They were influenced by
Losing National Identity or Gaining Transcultural Competence: the international discussions, but also could build on their own traditions.
Changing Approaches in Migration History 247 Most of their research and debate has been conducted in German. Theil'
Dirk Hoerder approaches and results deserve to be brought to the attention of readers
who do not have access to this language.
Notes on Contributors It is the aim of this book to introduce readers to this type of research
272
and debate. It presents a selection of unpublished and published articles
Select Bibliography 276 and essays dealing with comparative and entangled history. The introduc­
tion surveys the field and discusses issues of theory and method. It pro­
Index poses different ways of cooperation between comparative and entangled
291
history. Five contributions follow whose autho rs play an important role in
the German debate about comparative and entangled history. Finally, six
case studies are presented, which apply and frequently combine compara ­
tive and entanglement approaches. The focus is on European history in the
twentieth century, but there is also attention to global contexts and their
impact on European and German history. In one way or another, the con ..
I'lH l'rcta«,

tributionx deal with the changing rolo of national hblory under tho present
conditions of Europeanization and globalization.

The editors express their indebtedness to a large number of discussants

and commentators, particularly at the Berlin School for the Comparative
Comparison and Beyond
History of Europe, the European University Institute Florence, and the
University of Bielefeld. They want to thank Britta Schilling, Oxford, for
Traditions) Scope) and Perspectives
carefully translating most of the texts from German into English, as well as of Comparative History
Nancy Wegner, Berlin for working on the index and the proofs.

Florence and Berlin, July 2009 JURGEN KOCKA and HEINZ-GERHARD HAUP'[
Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Iurgen Kocka

The discussion on comparative history (vergleichende Geschichte, histoir«

comparee) is ongoing. Its value is praised; its benefits are acknowledged .
But most historians are not interested in systematic comparison. Ind eed.
there is no lack of old and new objections to comparative history, or at le,wl
to certain types of comparative history. The topic remains controversial. I
The current boom in transnational and transregional approaches -in 1Ill'
form of 'entangled histories' (Verflechtungsgeschichte or histoire croisllc:)
gives the issue of comparison a new timeliness. We can observe a certain
upsurge in comparative history over the past decades; progress, how ever,
has been limited, and comparison has remained a matter for a minority of
historians."
This introductory essay starts out with a discussion of what 'cornpurn
tive history' means. We follow this up with a discussion of the differ ent
purposes and types of historical comparison in existence today, and we
survey the role comparison plays in various narratives. We then discuss till:
tension between some classical historical methods and the principles of
historical comparison, which help to explain why comparison has had su ch
a difficult time internationally in historical studies. From this, we develop
the traits that are or should be specific to comparison in historical studies.
Finally, we discuss recent changes in the field of comparative history: th u
impact of cultural history, the changing units and spaces of cornpnrison ,
and the opportunities and problems of transnational approaches that rc
ccntly have moved into the foreground. Particular attention is given to rhc
relation between histoire comparee and histoire croisee, i.e., comparut ivi­
history and entangled histories (including connected and transfer history).
 ., WIl !t' 11 /\ 111 /,, 1 1/11" " "/11' i ;I' , I/rll " II." 'liI
'I It" I'/Iapl,'[' <'1(1,';" ,'; wlt h nu uvi -rv h -w o f Ihl ' (;'H III'II'lll loI H: 10 th is volum «.
We pay mos t. auen rio n to (/1(' (;1.: 1'1 11:\ 11 Iilt ~ r lllll r l.: und d('hal, '.
Definition and Goals of Comparison
Similarities and differen ces
In comparative hi story, two o r more historical phen omena a re syst em ati­
ca lly s tud ied fo r similarities a nd di fferen ces in o rde r to co n tribu te to their
better d escription, ex pla na tio n, an d interpret ati on.
By e m p hasizing the s tudy o f the s im ila rities a nd differences of a t least
two comparati ve cases as ce n tra lly c ha rac te ris tic, co m pa ra tive history is
di stinguish ed fro m s tud ies devoting th emselves to th e ana lysis a nd inter­
pretati on of one constellati on, as differentiated an d co m p re he nsive as it m ay
be. Th e re are excelle n t exa m ples of transn ation al an d tr anscultu ral works
th at ar e nev erthel ess not co m pa rative.' When defined in this way, co m pa r­
at ive hi st ory is also distingu ish ed from entangled histori es (Verfl echtungs­
geschichte, histoire croisee), wh ich does n ot seek sim ila rities and differ ences
betwe en tw o (o r m or e) units of res ear ch- e.g" between Fran ce and Ger­
m an y, between Christian ity and Isl am, or b etween three village co m m u n i­
ties or se vera l dis courses-but, rather, in sists o n relationships, transfers,
a nd inter acti ons , i.e., th e en ta ng lemen ts between th em. Ho wev er, it will be
sh own th at hi stoire comp a ree a n d hi stoire croisee are co m pa ti ble an d h ave
m an y points of co n tac t.'
Studies th at ar e co m para tive in th e full se nse of th e term sh ould also be
distingu ished from tho se in wh ich co m pa riso ns show up o nly en passant,
by th e waysid e or implicitly. Su ch implicit co m pariso ns frequently ap pea r.
In th e foll OWing, we will look at s tudies in which comp a rison pl ays a ce nt ra l
m ethod ologi cal rol e an d is a ke y ele me n t of res earch an d narrati on. Fin all y,
th e abo ve d efinition indicat es th at comp ari son in h ist ory is se ldo m a n e nd
in its el f, but usually ser ves o the r goa ls.
O n th e m ost general le vel, o ne ca n distinguish bet ween two basic type s
of historical co m pa riso ns, n amely, between th ose which a re aimed m ainly
at we igh ing co n tra s ts , i.e., w h ich are targeted at insi ghts into th e differences
between ind ivid ua l co m pa ra tive cases, a nd th ose whic h focus o n insights
into ag ree men ts, i.e., ge ne ra lisa tio n and, thus, th e under standing of ge ne ra l
patterns.
This distin ction h as b een discuss ed rep eat edly in th e lit erature. John
Stu art Mill al read y co n t ras te d the ' m e th od of difference' with th e 'm ethod
of ag ree men t: A.A. va n d en Braembuss ch e refers to Mill, as do a utho rs
suc h as Th ed a Skocpol and Ch arl es Tilly, in o rde r to distin gu ish between
th e 'co n tras ting typ e' a n d th e 'univers alising typ e' o f historical co rnpa ri­
t " 1I1/hll l\ ,'1/ ,1I,d /I" I'llIltI: 'I ;" II II /l tll ' ,\ , .'il ',II" ', """ / " '/ ,'/ " '1III ''' .', ;1
SO li , Oldy to sltll alt: varlou n 11l 1.\( 'd rO l'l ll S I>('IWI;(;II lh t;sl ' mu ln Iy p l.:s ," ( lIlo
l Iint zc mude a simi la r dlst luct lon al read y in 1 ~:2Y : 'O ne <::111 co rn purc III
n rd t' r to lind a gl'llCr'alily up on whi ch th at. w h ic h is co m pared is ba sed: 0111'
ca n co m p a re in o rd er to more d earl y co m p re he nd o ne o f th e po ssibl e o h
jcc ts in it s in divid ua lity an d to distinguish it fr om th e othe rs:"
C o m p a rative hi sto ri ans usually d o bo th in d iffer ent co m bina tio ns. '1Ill'
distin ction mad e by O tto Hintze a nd o the rs, howev er, is fundam ental, ;\ l1d
co m pa ra tive studi es ca n be differ entiat ed acco rd ing to the wa y th ey CO ll i
bin c a nd weigh th es e two dim ensi ons.
Methodological Fun ctions
O n a secon d level, whi ch a llo ws a som ewhat more pr ecise distin cti on, W('
ca n id entify differ ent m eth odological purpo ses th at are se rve d by hi storical
com pa riso ns :
a. In heurist ic terms, compa rison allows schol ars to identify problems
and quest ions that would oth erwi se be impossible or difficult to pose.
Drawing from his own research , Marc Bloch provided an example from
agra rian histor y to show what comparison is capable of uncovering,
After investigating the English enclosures from the sixtee nth to nine ­
teenth centuri es and assess ing their functions, he thought it likely that
comp arabl e pro cesses could have taken place in France, even if schol­
ars had not yet uncovered them . Proceedin g from the assum ptions of
French analogies or equivalents , as inspir ed by the English example,
Bloch uncovered corresponding, if not identic al, changes in agrarian
property structures in Provence in th e fifteenth, sixteenth, and seven­
teenth centuries. In this way, he contributed to a profound revision of
this region's history. This productive act of scho larly transfer was based
on the conviction that the problems of agra rian societies were similar
on both shores of the English Channel. They called for parallel, if not
identi cal, solutions if cert ain innovat ions-in this case, the emergence
of a capitalistically mana ged agriculture-were to occur.'
b. In descr iptive terms, histori cal comparison, above all, helps to apply
a clear profile to individu al cases and often to a single. parti cularly in­
teresting case. For exam ple, one discovers that the German workers'
movement emerged as an independ ent force relatively early on only
when compared to othe r workers' movement s, such as those in Eng­
land or the United States. The unusually powerful position, rem arkable
cohesion, and great historical impact of th e German Bildungsburger­
tum (educated middle classes) only becom e visible in comparison
with other Euro pean socie ties. 'The delayed development of the West
. , III/ ;ti l'll 1\ 1I 1 ' ~'if n un 11'111/1' ("fill /iill " l lu u p !
G Cl'lllll ll l ll d ll sl l'i ll 1city o j' l )1)('rh iHt~(i11
Oldy 1J()('Ollh':llIPPIII'l,'ll( III cou
trast to other comp uruble places.' Hlsto rlcu] pccullnrIuo« ollly l>t'COI1W
clearly visible when one refers to compara ble examples, which arc suf­
ficiently similar in some respects, but differ in oth er respects.
c. In analytical terms, comparison makes an important contribution to
the explanation of historical phenomena. On the one hand, it serves
to criticize pseudo-explanations. Again, Marc Bloch provided a good
example. When historians discovered by comparative studies that the
intensification of pressure by the medieval and early modern manorial
system in most regions of Europe took place more or less simultane­
ously (although in different forms), they took a sceptical look at all 10­
cally specific explanations of this phenomenon that local and regional
historians had been quick to proffer. Instead of focusing on regional
explanations, historians using the comparative method looked for
more general explanatory models and, in this case, arrived at the de­
clining ground rent and its causes."
On the other hand, comparisons can serve as indirect experiments and
can help to 'test hypotheses: In this respect, it is important to think
carefully about the 'experimental design: When a historian attributes
the appearance of phenomenon 'b' in a society to condition or cause 'a;
he or she then can subsequently check this hypothesis by looking for
societies in which 'b' appeared without 'a; or 'a' existed without lead­
ing to 'b' In this way, one can either accept the hypothesis for the time
being or continue refining it .!" To be sure , this procedure can run up
against tight limits, since historians-unlike natural scientists in their
laboratories-rarely find the ceteris paribus condition sufficiently ful­
filled between the constellations they compare.
Along similar lines, comparison helps to find or check generalizations.
is (are) used for purposes of background o n ly, while intensive investiga ­
Thus, the comparative observation of specific forms of social protest
in different societies can help determine the link between state power
and social protest in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The com ­
parison of different national cases can also demonstrate that and how
the organizational ability of specific industrial workers was influenced
by their system of work and by the structure of their communities. II
d. In paradigmatic terms, comparison can help to de-familiarize the fa­
miliar. When examined in light of observable alternatives, a specific
development can lose the 'matter of course' appearance it may have
possessed before. Comparison opens our eyes for other constellations;
it sharpens what Robert Musil has called our Mdglichkeitssinn (sense
of the possible). It transforms one case into one among many possible
cases. Comparison leads to de-provincializing historical observation.
",II I/i' ll I {II ' " ,1//,1 11" \'1111'/" '/;1/,111/111/:" S i ll/I" , " 1I r1 / "JI ,I / II." ,'I " ',:-, i.
I\ S lohu H. 1 ~llioll put II: '1I1llIl' (' 1111 II compurat lvc appm ac h f'lII'l;l.'S us III
reconsider our assumpu u u» a bo u t th e un iqueness of' our OWIl hl stllrl
cal explanation."
This has an impact on the atmosphere and style, the mood and culture
of historical studies, including the way in which central term s arc used.
Frequently, comparison reveals their cultural specificiti es and hl sto­
ricity. A broad-based comp arison with different, e.g., non -West ern 01'
historically remote, alien cultures can lead scholars to challenge tl1l'
most general of terms. In th is way, it is possible to highlight th e cultural
framework within which one works and which is often not discuss ed in
noncomparative studies. Comp arison encourages the histor ian to reflect
on his own cultural foundations and on the culture of his own scholarly
disciplin e.n
Comparison in different plots
Comparis on is rarely practised in a pure form or for its own sake. Compari ­
sons are usually built into different narratives or plots. There, they serve
different functions within different contexts. Without an y claim for CO Ill ­
pleteness, we shall examine four different cases.
Asymmetrical Comparison
Frequently, o ne looks into another country, another society or an other c u l­
ture in order to better understand one's own. One hopes to understand th e
peculiarities of one case by looking at ot h ers. Often the other case (cases)
tion is reserved for the area or problem in th e centre of attention . This has
been the way in which proponents of the German Sonderweg thesis usually
looked into West European examples-or more generally 't he We st'-in
order to specify (and frequently criticize) 'German particularities: This has
been the way in which proponents of the 'American exceptionalisrn' thesis
used to compare their findings with o the r cases in order to pinp oint (and
frequently praise) particularities of US history. Max Weber's compar ativ e
studies were n ot completely void of this attitude when he looked into no n­
Western religions and civilizations with the purpose of understanding bet ­
tel' what he te rmed 'Western rationalizati on ' (or modernization)."
These are contrasting comparisons of an asymmetrical type. They arc
asymmetrical in that the cases used for the comparison merely get ske tc he d
in as background. Instead of a full-bl own comparison, we are usually kf't
 - • ••. .. - ...,.- ··' ·T • ""'/'"'
"" ~
with a national -historical analysis ina compuruttvc pcrspcctlv«. F,vl; n this
reduced form of comparison can be extraordinarily fru itful and has the
added benefit of greater feasibility. However, it also runs a risk of excessively
stylizing the history of the 'comparative case' or of the 'comparative cases;
of homogenizing it or them without justification, and even systematically
missing the point. One should also point to the danger that, in this way,
the comparative historian may implicitly fall victim to those 'asymmetrical
counterconcepts'15 with which the nations, classes, and groups he or she
studies distinguished themselves from others. Such a comparison may end
up reproducing political and cultural self-definitions and stereotypes with­
out analysing the mechanisms that brought them into existence in the first
place . This was one of the main arguments advanced against comparative
history by Michel Espagne, when he promoted transfer history approaches
instead."
But such comparative theses about specific patterns of national history
frequently become starting points of challenging comparative question­
ing, leading into productive debate and research. This was the case when
David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley started to criticize the German Sonder­
weg thesis, or when C.B.A. Behrens dealt with Franco- Pruss ian differences
during the eighteenth century. Behrens argued that the French Revolution
should not only be seen as a heroic moment of French history, but, when
compared to the efficiency of Prussian politics, as the result of a failure of
administration and governance during the eighteenth century. In another
example, Roger Brubaker reaffirmed the importance of traditional German
and French particularities when he compared principles of citizenship and
opposed the German ius sanguinis to the French ius solis; the first being
exclusive, the second more inclusive. But research done by Patrick Weill
and Dieter Gosewinkel has shown that the differences between the two
countries are not as clear from the beginning, and that the idea of the ius
solis is shifting to France due to German influences. The construction of
national differences or Sonderwege is questioned by these kinds of compar­
ative studies, which in turn would not have come into being if the Sonder­
weg construction had not been presented in the first place. I?
Comparison and Stage Theories
Comparisons have long been central to stage theory and, thus, to diachronic
arguments. These are based on the assumption that institutions, economic
systems, societies or even entire civilizations follow certain regular devel­
opment patterns and, thus, are essentially comparable, even if they differ in
terms of space, time, and details. Stage theories have rightly fallen out of
fashion, not least because precise comparison has helped to demonstrate
( ill/"'/Hi rl lII l/ {{ li d /fI ',I'1I11ff1 t ramt nm s, nun /'t·r ,v ".r ll l" ',\'
,~ " /l IJ(' , ,
111 <.:11' llllll;ll:Ihillly, UIIe laic r-xruupl c of'th ls was WIIlt W, RoSlow's ln llucutl ul
:1I1dintri guing th eory oflndustrlulizuttou . At its cor e lay tile convlctlo n thut
every industrialized country passes through the same phases of dcvclu]
mcnt with th e same problems and similar solutions. Rostow's schem e Willi
shored up with international comparisons at the beginning of t111~ I!J(l()s,
but it was later challenged by more systematic international comparisons,
Today, it is of only limited significance in scholarship, particularly sin ce I hI'
history of industrialization has continuously moved the notion of compurl
son from the national to the regional level. 18
Comparison and Typology
If comparison is intended to lead to a typology, then it is essential that it
include at least three cases on a more or less equitable basis. One example
for this approach is Theodor Schieders old, but still influential study of thl'
development of the nation state in western, central, and eastern Europe. By
comparing national movements in Europe in the nineteenth century, he ar­
rived at the following typology: while the national movements in the West
of the continent emerged in the frameworks of already existing territorial
states, in central Europe, e.g., in Germany and Italy, these movements aim ed
at assembling smaller existing territorial units into nation states. In the East
of the continent, they turned against existing supranational empires in or­
der to break them up and form nation states. According to Schieder, this
was linked to profound differences in the national movements' respective
programmatic-ideological orientation and 'tim ing; which can be examined
through systematic comparison. " A different typology can be arrived at if
one does not look for structural types, but, rather, for types of outcomes.
In his study of the small states of central, eastern, and northern Europe,
Miroslav Hroch set different caesuras depending on the social bearers and
the respective spread of national ideas, and distinguished three phases lead­
ing up to the development of mass movements." Both typologies have been
strongly criticized by empirical research over recent years and have been
revised to some extent. Ulrike von Hirschhausen and lorn Leonhard sum­
marize the current state of research under the programmatic title: 'From
Typology to the Determination of Difference?' They also use comparative
analysis, although not with the intention of typologizing, but, rather, in order
to challenge conventional typologies. Today, the anti-typological mood pre­
vails. But it is ultimately focused on what it rejects. The value of comparative
typologies lies not least in the way they provoke research and arguments
with a critical thrust and thus contr ibute to the progress of knowledge.
One could cite other examples of successful typological comparisons .
Scholars have examined variants of 'political modernization' of the nine­
Ii /1 1',1:1'/1 11111'1.. 11 .tnd I lrln t; O,',hll l'll llll lll JI
tccnt.h and twc n t i.-th cc n tu r ics, establish ing lypolo g !l' ~: I hut ('lI l11p ll lT Wl 's t­
e rn Eu rope with Russia, Indi a, a ncl jap an ." Des pite decad es or rrit ici sm
a imed at m odern iza tion th e ori es and co nce p ts, the h is to rlc al usc of th e
terms 'mode rniza tio n' a nd 'mode rnity' h as recently experie nced a new
boo m , m odified by the pluralize d notion of 'm ult ip le modernities." Suc h
stud ies fre q uently work o n a co m pa rat ive basis. The t ran sition fr om totali ­
tari an, au t hori taria n, a nd o ther di ctat o rsh ips int o va rious fo r ms o f repre ­
senta tive d emo c racy in th e seco nd h alf of the twen tieth ce n tu ry is being
resea rc hed fro m a hi sto ri cal perspective. Su ch s tu dies ca n no t d o with out
co m pa ra t ive typologies." Resea rc he rs h ave rece n tly d iscov e red a n interest
in th e d ev elopment of Euro pea n c ivil so ciety in the period fro m th e e igh­
t eenth to the twentieth ce n t u r ies. Th ere are m an y d ifference s to be reg­
istered a nd ex p lained - no t o nly in regard to thei r co n te n t, bearers, a nd
fo r ms, but also their s uccesses and failures . ' Pa th de pe nde nce' pl ays an
imp ortant rol e, but so d o es th e mutual imp act of th ese di fferent path s. A
historical typ ology is the goal."
W h ile t yp ol ogi cal co mpariso ns yield co ns iderable ben efits, they also
c rea te pro ble ms . So met imes, th ey underestim at e th e multi -dimensi onality,
co n t inge ncy, a nd o pe n ness o f hi stori c al si t ua tio ns; th ey m arginalize resis ­
ta nce to th e gen e ral tre nds a nd co ve r u p t he non -re ali ze d alte rna t ives th at
m ay have be en p resent in a hi sto ri cal s itua t io n. Typol ogi cal co m pa r iso ns
p rivilege the hi st o r y o f th o se tr ends th at ulti m ately asse r te d themselv es .
Th e ge ne ra lly acc u ra te notion th at the n at ion sta te-a nd not th e ci ty or th e
em p ire -asse rted it sel f as th e h ist oric ally m o st sig n ifica n t fo r m of la rge ­
scale pol it ic al o rgani zati on in nin eteenth -century Europe also led Th eodo r
Sch ie de r an d o thers to belittle all efforts d evi ating from th is goal as 'par­
ticularist." Th e co mpa ra t ive- ty po logical ap proac h fre q ue n tly focus es o n
success an d th e co nd it io ns fo r s uccess a nd not o n the cos ts and victims of
st r uc tu ra l d ecis io ns a nd d evelopments. Fin all y, s tud ies ta kin g a typol ogic al
ap p roac h t end to in sinu at e that certain d ev elo p m ents and st r uct u res a re
'n or ma l; s uc h as Eng lish indu striali zation, A nglo -Saxon d emocracy, a nd
Weste rn ci vil soc iety. In th e p ro ce ss, s uch phe no me na a re ofte n reduced to
a fe w cha rac te ris tic t raits . They are eve n idealized and used as benchmarks
in th e study o f di ffe rent nati onal a nd reg ion al cases ." If o ne o nly m easu res
the di stan ce betwee n o ne case (w hich h as bee n s tylized as a pro to ty pe) a nd
o t he r n ational or regio na l cases, one fre q uen tly e nds up with th e th esis
of the (alle ge d) backwardness of the on e behind th e other. Su ch a char­
ac te riza t io n says a nd exp la ins little. Th is m ethodol o gical weak ne ss ca n be
reduced if o ne uses the argu men ta t io n mo d el of th e 'fu nc t io nal equ ivalent:
Fo r exa m ple, A rno ld H eidenheim er not only exa m ine d th e di fferent deve l­
opm ent ra tes o f we lfa re sta te st r uct u res in Fr an ce a nd Ger ma ny, but also
po in te d o u t that soc ial pacifi c ati on a nd th e cre at ion of m ass lo yalty, which
( ' 0 /11110/1 / 111/1 , /1 // 1111 ' )'1111'/: '/ h " I1 I/I1 I1.\, S(U/'I1, 1II 1I /I " , ,.,\/ J (! ~(/I " ':' II
Wil:: IIl' h ie ve d ill <';l: I' 11Iill l)' h)' I ill' w ull uro state , was ul t c u rpl cr! ill F I' i1I I<'I' h y
IJlea nS o r a soci ully op e II, mc rltocr ut icully organized edu ca tio na l SyS IWII,'11i
Comp a risons in Comprehensive A rguments
C o m p a ris o n Illay appea r as th e ce n t re piece o f analyses th at exclus ively
rio not a rg ue co m pa rat ively, but also emp loy othe r ap p roaches . 'l hi » ,'I.'
rl' l'S to co m prehe ns ive, e m pi r ica lly based, th e oret ic all y o rie nted, hi st o rical
il}'s te rnCl tic a na lyses w ith a comparati ve co re, w h ic h a re a imed at II brund ,
hut s patia lly, c hro nologica lly, a nd th em aticall y lim ite d s u bject. '1hesc at'"
studies th at have tradition ally been u nder take n by social scien tists ruther
th.m by hi storians. Ka rl Polanyi's s tudy is o ne ou tsta nd ing ex ampl e of th ls.
Mi ch ael M ann p ro d uces this ty pe o f am b it io us a na lys is today." Alcxund o:
icrsc he n kro n w ro te a co m p re he nsi ve a na lysis- o ne co u ld pe rh a ps say a ll
r-m plrically s u pporte d th e ory - of Europe's ind us t r ia l d evel opm en t, w h ic h,
while one would ce rta in ly critici ze it em p ir ica lly today, remains a scicn ti lk:
m ast er pi ece in its str uc ture. At its ce n t re sta nds th e co m pa riso n be tw een
na tion al in dustriali zati o n processes in Euro pe . G ersch enkro n pr esent S a
lis t o f th e ir fu ndame n ta l sim ila rities a n d th eir sign ifica n t differen ces, which
he s u m med up in t he p h rase 'different so lu tions for id entical pr oblem s und
lunctional eq uiva le nts : Bu t G ersch enkro n d id not s top there. H e co nce ive d
(d' the co m pa ra tive cases he st ud ied as co mponen ts of a co m prehe ns ive s}'s
tern of European indust riali zat ion. He explai ne d th e difference s bc tw c c »
(he m by th ei r di ffe rent position in th e ove ra ll sys te m (' re lati ve ba c kward
ness'); by their d iffe rent timing o n th e o ne hand a nd by their mutual inllu­
«nee, i.e., th e hi st o ry of th e rel atio nsh ip be twee n th em, o n th e o the r."
Anoth e r o u ts ta nd ing exa m ple for th e ana lys is o f a co m p re he ns ive proh ­
lcm ati c w it h a comparat ive co re is Ba rring ton M o ore's m ast erly study o f
I he di ffe rent pa t hs to mo de rnity t ak en by Eng la nd, Fra nc e, th e US , C h in a ,
Japan, a nd In di a in reg ard to th e d ev elo p m ent o f d emo cracy a nd d ictat or
ship. Th e ge neral desc rip t io n, c ausal analysis, and interpretati on o f diller
cn t d evelo pments are ni cely linked up , th e 'co n nec te d hi story' ele me nts ,1I'1l
a ll in pla ce, a nd ye t t he co m pa riso n is th e ce n t ra l m otor o f a com p re he nsive
I heor eti cal-hist or ical Iin e of ar gument ."
This a lso ap plies to recent wor ks in the field o f wo rld history. Th e lar ge
scale st ud ies by Roy Bin Wo ng, David Landes, Gund er Fr ank , a nd Kenn et h
Pome ra n z pu rsue th e famous que st ion , o nce asked by M a x We be r a nd stili
tim el y today, o f w hy a nd how th e West ac h ieved its m oderni za tion head
start befo re o the r parts o f the world . But u nlike We be r, th ey a re COn(;('11
tru ti ng on eco no m ic modern iza tio n-self-s us ta ini ng g row th a nd ind us
lri alil'.at ion· a nd have co me to n otice tha t th e Eu ro pea n head sl;lr l onl y
1)l'C'am e man ifest in th e e igh te e n th cen tu ry. For exa m p le, it is d irriclIll to

l (I JI'II :'~( :/I [.;oc:/w (/1/(1 l lcln r-Gcrttart! lln.upt.
speak of European superiority vis-a-vis China in previous ce n tu ries. 'This
literature poses very complex causal questions, which are linked explicitly
and implicitly with assessments of the success and costs of Western mod­
ernization in relation to other civilizations. This literature does not rely
on comparison alone, but, rather, is based on highly diverse approaches
toward analysis and interpretation. Unlike Weber, it also examines the
interaction between the different regions of the world and enquires par­
ticularly into non-Western influences on the West's development. Com ­
parison, however, plays an important role all the same. The question of
which comparative units and benchmarks should be used becomes acute."
Without systematic comparison, this kind of broad-based, comprehensive,
ambitious 'wo rld history' would quickly fall prey to speculative and impres­
sionistic commonplace. It revalorizes historical comparison.
The Whole and the Parts
Hartmut Kaelble, among others, has spoken in favour of global compari­
sons. He advocates the 'explicit and systematic comparison of two or more
historical societies in order to investigate differences and similarities, as well
as processes of divergent and convergent development." Indeed, numer­
ous comparative studies have adopted such a macro-historical approach,
But they have been criticized for concentrating too much on general so­
cial structures and functional contexts, rather than on the perspectives of
affected and participating agents themselves. Increasingly, comparativists
have learned to include the meso- and micro-historical levels."
One typical example of comparing global structures is the already men­
tioned classic work of Barrington Moore (1966). While more recent agrar­
ian historical studies have tended to emphasize the variety of situations in
the countryside, Moore was concerned with a comparison of entire societ­
ies. Within them, he traced various expressions of rural structures and their
consequences for the democratization process. Hartmut Kaelble pursued a
similar logic when he sought the social-historical substrate of the political
integration process in twentieth-century Western Europe." On the basis of
quantitative and qualitative evidence, Kaelble emphasized the tendencies
toward convergence between European societies in fields such as urbaniza­
tion, the family, and employment structures in contrast to the United States.
It is preferred to use developmental-logical models or general theories in
comparative studies of large-scale structures. References to the bourgeois
revolutions, within the framework of which individual revolutionary upris­
ings are compared, belong just as much to the comparative historian's tool
kit as the recourse to corporative or bourgeois society, as well as modern­
('/lIII/ ,,,r/'.,,'11 mu l 1l 1 '~I" " /l I; 't' mdttunu: .'l(.'fll"', f / I / t! ""/ ',1/1/'1'1 11 '/''\ II
1",11 1io u, urbunizut lnn, and illdu sl riulizutiou process es , 'Jhe mo re ~;l.roIlJl,ly
tlw ~ O(: mod els are exposed to crttlcism and crnpiri cal revision, th L' g reate r
Ill(' c hance that historical comparison can contribute to their sp cclficutton ,
n -vls io n , and reformulation. The more rigid and Inflexible the I.h('orL:l icul
nxsumptions arc, however, the greater is the danger that comparison will do
uol hln g more than turn up illustrations of similar cases."
Large-scale comparisons with broad and even global reach can have lm
I'ortant functions . They can develop the distinctions and aspects thai ar t'
ni-ccssary for historical-political orientation and hypoth esis formation, with
out which individual studies would often remain systematically unlinked,
\ '01' example, the successful large-scale global comparisons of B. Moore,
Ie Ikndix, and others have, so to speak, pre-structured various Iicld » or
historical praxis and have thus served as systematic hypothesis-generators.
l lowcver, this sort of research also reveals the narrow limits within whi ch
historians usually work. In globally conceived comparisons, empiri cal cvl
/k nee can become a mere illustration of theoretical pr e-decisions and uSt'd
In a way that confirms the validity of the opening premise by nc cesslt y,
While a holistic view of societies may well enhance the coherence or \h«
.Icmo nst ratio n, it can easily underestimate the highly differentiated co m
position of historical processes and structures . Particularly when appli ed to
Eu ro pe as a whole, there is great danger of overemph asi zing the contin cut ' ~~
«ohc rence and homogeneity."
On the other h and, historical comparisons are often applied not to c utire
s ys tems, but to partial aspects and partial areas that are clearly distingui sh
able in thematic , geographical, and chronological terms. The meaning or
co nfessio nal identity in local elections, comparisons of various villages in
difterent settlement regions of a nation state or the agrarian movements o!'
various countries in the early phase of the European Revolution of 1HIJ,H - ­
these are examples of partial (limited) comparisons, which can be bol h
international and intrasocietal." The meso -level also provides num erou s
opportunities for comparative research. Social practices such as cooptation
mechanisms, marriage, and social mobility patterns or association stru c­
IUl'CS can be profitably compared with one another in a chronologically
specific and locally transcendent manner."
To be sure, the whole and its parts do not always fit neatly togeth er,
'Ihcir relationship can be determined analytically as long as the parts - ,Io
quote a succinc t formulation by Pierre Vilar'lO- are interpreted as factors,
results or indicators of the overall social context. Case studies can be llsl;d
to find out 1.0 what: exten t and in which way specific aspects or objrct s W('I'\'
co n ne c ted with general processes and structures: whether they WI :/'( ; lut
pa ct ed by the 111 , whether they CUll be se en in analogy to th em, or wh t.;tl\(' 1'
they rea ct ed upon and change d them. '\ his broad anchorin g or co nlparaliv«
 I. fI /I :~ 1.'I 1 K iJrA ll "I/d " ,'Iil l n l!/ ltil ll l llOIlI Jl
studies is also dcslr ublc {i ll' co mpara tive local ~;Ill d k :i j ,.llIn · II (' 11 11110 1 be as ­
s umed that every thi ng that is local has excl usiv ely locHI (; rlll:l c~ : . 1 1
If indivi d ua l ph e no mena o r pa rtia l areas from vario us xoc lc ties are co m ­
pared wi th o ne ano the r (wh ich is th e rul e), one s ho uld reali ze th at a single
ph en omenon ca n ha ve d ifferent mean ings in different co n tex ts. M utatis
m utandis, th is also ap plies to intrasocietal co m pa ris o n. For exa m ple, evi ­
dence th at , befo re 1914, aristo cra ts in m an y central and wes tern Eu rop ean
co u nt ries held lead ing p osit ions in bu siness means little as long as o ne ig­
nor es th e different meaning of 'aristocracy' in, say, Galicia or Hungar y, in
Fran ce's lar gely de- ar ist ocr at iciz ed soci ety, and, by contrast, in German so­
ciety, which was st rongly influe nced by aristo cratic models. Behind what
Arno M ayer ca lled the 'pe rsis te nce o f the Ancien Regime' (1981), we can
find hidden a w id e ar ray o f lifestyl es and strategies, channels of influence,
and development processe s." Th at which looks identical can-depending
on its co n tex t- m ean something very different. Comparative studies must
take thi s se r ious ly.
The Peculiarities of Comparison in Historical Studies
Comparisons play a lar ge rol e in th e vario us social sciences and in the hu­
manities-often m ore th an in history. W he the r in linguistics, law, sociology,
political scie nce, eth nology or literary studies, international comparisons
are well kn own." Dep ending o n th ei r nat ional tr ad itions, historical stud ­
ies adopted internat io nally co mpa ra tive q uestio ns in different countries to
varying exte n ts . In G erman historical stud ies, internati onal comparison
has been generally m or e widesp rea d th an in French o r Italian scholars hi p.
Today, the method is not limited to demographic or eco no m ic hist o ry, as
in th e 1970s, or to social hist o ry, as in th e 1980 s and 1990s; th e re ar e also
numer ou s examp les of compa rison in cultural hist ory."
Does historical co m pariso n possess ce rta in peculiarities th at distingu ish
it from co m pa ra tive meth ods in o t her disciplines? We s ho uld se t our sigh ts
on gradual a nd not fu nda me n ta l differ ences."
a. Since the late Enlightenment, an attit ude has been spreading among
professional historians to the effect that historical research and presen­
tation must adhere closely to the sources if they want to claim academic
validity. Such an approach, historians hoped, would be parti cularly au­
thenti c. Since then, the critical reconstruction of past times from the
vast arr ay of different Sources has been among the disciplinary stan­
dards of modern historical studies. Proceeding from the principle of
proximity to the sources used, histor ians cultivate a healthy scepticism
toward quick generalizations. We too see proximity to the original
( '!lll ll " " / \ 1/1/ " /11 1 11/1\'1/1/1 11 '/ h " I/I /I/I/,I , S(l i/./I'. 1/111 / / '/11'01/" '/ '1/ 1'(/,\ I il
as all uuussnllubl« prln ciplc o f the hlsto rlcul \!I'ol'essloll, Stili,
SO Il l"('( 'S
Ol\('has to dlll (~ l'ell ll a k, While it can be achieved ill specialized s tll dl (' ~: ,
it is much less feasible in grand syntheses, and its value must not ))('
onc-sidcdly emphasized vis-a-vis other fundamen tal principles of IIII'
discipline, e.g., the goal of und erstandin g broader historical contexts.
b. Historians are always concerne d with comprehending the LI':ll\ sI'OI'
mation of reality over time. Our interests, explanations, and pres(H!
tational patterns (even if they are of a systematic and argumentat ive
natu re) generally display a 'before and after' structur e. The dlsclplhu­
is characterized by its special relationship to tirne. To many historians,
their discipline is fundamentally committed to comprehending chang«
over time in terms of development. This means that while new events
occur over the passage of time, the new is not a repetition of the old,
but, rather, the new emerges from the old. The old already contains the
new as a possibility. The historical meaning of empiri cal findings docs
not becom e evident unless they are interpreted within their diachronic
contexts. History is not a sum or sequence of cases that can be used to
exemplify general laws. In this way, the great significance of the indio
viduality principl e in historical studies becomes understand able.
c. Historians assume that individual components of reality cannot be un­
derstoo d outside of their connection with other components of this re­
ality. TIle perspectivist view of the differently interpr eted whole is part
of the understandin g of the comp onents . In turn , unless these compo
nent s are reconstructed, no accurate und erstandin g of the whole can
be possible. Historical findings gain their meanings from their relation­
ships within synchro nic and diach ron ic contexts. Thus, the isolation or
variables is less feasible and more limited in histor y than in economics
or emp irical social research.
Th e com pa ra tive ap proach maintains a somewh at tense relat ionsh ip (li
th ese three pr in ciples of th e hist orical method:
a. TIle more comparative cases are included, the smaller is the oppor '
tunity to adhere to the sourc es and the greater is on e's dependence
on secondary literatur e. But the use of secondary literature for com,
parative arguments is not without problems. If one does not want to
uncrit ically repeat the vision a certain historiography is presenting on
a certain problem or country, one has to immerse oneself thorou ghly
in the histor iographic al debates. If one studies a Spanish topic of the
nineteenth century on the basis of original materials and compares it
with a Japanese case of the same time, for linguistic reasons , the study
of the Asian society may have to be based on secondary literatu re
 I II 1/11 :1:1'11 "lIdli II lit! 1ll'illz' (;crhrl/'ll Haupt
which, outside Japan, is published largely in English. A careful look at
English and American studies of Japan becomes necessary and a re­
flection between this vision of Japan and the state of Japanese studies
in the country itself would seem obligatory.
b. The notion of comparison assumes that the subjects being compared
can be separated analytically, i.e.i.that the development context can, so
to speak, be chopped up. Units of comparison are not normally seen
as stages of one development or as moments of one complex constel­
lation, but, rather, as mutually independent cases that are placed into
relation with one another via general questions-according to simi­
larities or differences in certain respects. Those who compare do not
conceive of the objects of their investigation as individualities only, but
as exemplary cases of a general phenomenon (tertium comparationisi,
which resemble each other in some respects and differ in others. Com­
parison shatters continuities and interrupts the flow of a narrative.
Comparison usually does not deal with the passage of time, but, rather,
with similarities and differences.
c. One cannot compare phenomena in their multi-layered totality-as
complete individualities-but only in certain regards. Comparison
thus assumes to some degree a selection, abstraction, and detachment
from context. This necessity becomes particularly evident when one
compares large numbers of cases. Someone who compares twenty in­
dustrialization processes or slavery in sixty countries has no choice
but to examine the objects of investigation largely abstracted from
their synchronic and diachronic contexts. Historians have reserva ­
tions about this approach. The problem shrinks, but does not disap­
pear altogether if one restricts oneself to just two or three comparative
cases . In other words, comparison always means abstraction. Deborah
Cohen is concerned about the costs of this reduction: 'While national
historians' arguments tend towards the rnultlcausal, drawing upon all
of the factors that can explain a particular phenomenon, comparat­
ists are often caught in a mono -or bicausal trap." This argumentation
overstresses the totality of arguments within national history and un­
derstresses their selectivity. But it emphasizes the necessity for com­
parative historians to reflect on their selective procedures and the
highly constructed status of their results.
This explains why, ever since the age of historicism, which helped bring
the above-mentioned basic principles to the fore , historical studies have
maintained a certain reserve toward comparison. Comparing is something
for conceptually explicit, theoretically orienrcd, analytical historian» with a
Comparison and Beyond : Traditions , Scope, and Perspectives I;'
certain distance to the classical historicist tradition. So far it has been the
concern of a minority.?
But it also follows that historical comparisons should be of a certain kind
that minimizes the tensions with the stated basic principles of histori cal
studies. Historical comparisons differ and should differ from comparisons
in the systematic social sciences to some degree in regard to the following
characteristics: Historical comparisons tend to limit themselves to only a
few cases, often just two or three. They are usually situated on an interrnc­
di ate level of abstraction and go by the rule: as much abstraction as nec es­
sary, as much concretion and contextuality as possible. They usually pla ce
more value on contrasts than on generalizations and are more interested
in the differences than the commonalities of the comparative objects. They
strive to include changes in time and dynamics, whether by selecting pro ­
cesses as objects of comparison, by classifying non-processual compara­
tive findings in terms of before and after, or by complementing comparison
with other approaches. Finally, it is typical of historical comparisons thut
t.hey frequently attempt to link structural-processual analysis with the re­
construction of experiences, perceptions and actions.
On the other hand, we find not only tensions, but also affinities be­
tween the principles of historical studies and the principles of comparison,
'[he more analytical historical studies have become," the more they have
opened themselves up to comparison. There is a close and mutually help
CuI relationship between comparison and the analytical orientation in his ­
tory. After all, when it is understood correctly, history's approach is always
dependent on points of view, whether comparative or not. It is always se­
lective and (re- )constructive. These attributes only become more manifest
in comparison. As a matter of fact, historians always should define th eir
units of investigation sharply in order to avoid misunderstandings and to
achieve clarity. They only become particularly aware of this when making
comparisons. For reasons of intellectual honesty, historians are called upon
to reflect on their choice of terms and their references to non-scholarly
conditions and consequences anyway. Comparison only forces them to \11\­
dcrtake such a self-reflection in a particularly unavoidable way.
Comparative history is theoretically ambitious. It should constantly 1'('
(leer on the conditions underlying its own approach , Among the qucsrions
it s practitioners must consider and pass judgment on ar e the followilll', :
a. Which comparative unit s are appropriate (nation s, regions, cultures,
epochs, crisis situations, institutions, groups)? Whil e the decision nwy
depend on the availahilit.y of source s, it particularly depends Oil til<'
guiding qucxtious. Take the history of the welfare sLall' us an exnmpl«.
\X!1H'il lis l~\dcl"ll', J!riJI( 'lpll'~; and its oril~il1s WI'J'(' to 1)(' analysed, 1111'
II. Illt:lit'll Knrl;« II/1d / Il'im ' {)(,I'IIiI/'I{ 1111111 11 ( '///1 11" 1/1"" 11 011/.1 11,1\iI I/I,{: ·l i 'll,{IIIIIII.I , ,','('/)/11.', ,1I//l l b .' III' I'II 1·,·... 17

comparative unit would be the nation state. If we were interested 111 the it makes SI' lI S(: tu Iw;(~ I'( one's probe at a specific po int In t lnu -,
L1ll'1I
implementation of particular social laws, then the local level would be su ch as 1818 or 1H~(), and t hus to undertake a sync hro nic compu rl
more promising."? son ." If one wants to know how individual societies have solved COil
b. With what, and with whom, should the comparison be made? One crete problems, then a time-staggered comparison may be 1H' (I 'SS<ll'j'.
says one should not compare apples with oranges. This means that one On a time-staggered basis, one could examine how the individual Ell
should not compare incomparable things. However, the comparability ropean societies defined the 'social question' and how they dealt wlth
of two or more objects is primarily based on the question asked. So mass poverty, housing problems, uncertain livelihoods, and old -age
one should not compare apples and oranges if one wants to determine poverty. While the social welfare laws of the 1880s can be viewed as the
the benefits and drawbacks of different varieties of apples. However, core of Germany's development toward the welfare state, for Pran ce,
one can and should compare apples and oranges if one's topic is fruit. the early decades of the twentieth century and the years following the
Before beginning the comparison, one must know which aspects one Second World War, and, in the US case, the 1930s, would have (0 be
wishes to compare, whether these aspects are relevant to the question exarnined.P The diachronic comparison can extend over short or long
being posed, and whether one's selection of 'com parison partners' is periods of time. Festivals during the Revolution of 1848 may be just
justified in regard to these aspects . as worthy of examination as the Revolution's long-term impact on the
second half of the nineteenth century in Europe. Intertemporal com ­
It also makes sense to ask whether the comparison undertaken today
parison is less developed, although contrasting phenomena from an ­
by the historians already has been practised by contemporaries in
cient and modern history has proven to be highly intriguing."
the past. Very often societies are defining themselves in relation to or
against other societies. Social movements, towns or social groups do
There is a close affinity between analytically oriented historical research
the same. It is useful to look comparatively at the categories at stake
and historical comparison. This explains the particular strength, the par
and the historical development of stereotypes, metaphors, and syrn­
ticular appeal, the particular difficulty, and-in our opinion-the particu
hols , A comparative cultural history of comparisons as used by differ­
lar desirability of historical comparison. History's present-day situation is
ent historical actors is prornising.P'
characterized by high specialization and, still, a primarily national -histori cul
c. However, even after solving the 'apple and orange' problem, the ques­ orientation. The danger that too much will be compared and that the bask
tion of the appropriate 'comparison partner' is not yet completely principles listed above will be deeply violated is minor. At the same tim e, ill
solved. Should one contrast the German Biirgertum (middle classes) of order to make history less nation-specific and Eurocentric and in order to
the nineteenth century with western or with eastern European 'com­ make it more open and innovative, historical comparison deserves a high er
parison partners'? The result will vary depending on the comparative status within historical studies than it has been accorded so far."
perspective one ends up choosing. If, for example, one compares them
with western European cases, then the German middle classes appear
relatively weak and underdeveloped; if one compares them with east­
ern Europe, then they appear rather powerful and very bourgeois."
The selection of the comparative reference is often influenced by non­
scientific experiences and valuations. One cannot always avoid this,
nor will one always want to. But it is essential to reflect on this context
and pay close attention to it.
d. Nor can the decision whether to make synchronic or diachronic com ­
parisons be made a priori. Instead, it all depends on one's epistemo­
logical interests. If one wants to discover the development status of
European societies in the twentieth century and compares them with
respect to their blend of urban and rural elements, industrial capital­
ist and pre-capitalist structures, traditional and modern orientations ,
I II lill :~"11 /\f !l ' ~ (1 111/./ 11t'i 1l'f. ( ;,.,.!tIlI'lI I /fl lI/JI
a nd co ns tel latio ns have been deepl y questi on ed. Th e recon struc tion and
in tegr at ion of exper iences, attit udes, a nd ac tio ns has gai ne d a majo r place
o n th ei r age nda. Different varia tio ns of cultu ra l histo ry have moved to th e
forefro nt. Sym bolic forms, cultu ral practices, valu es, and mean ings became
im portan t to pic s of hist o rical researc h. Lan gu age has ga ined add itio na l im ­
po rtance, both as a n objec t of histori cal resear ch , as well as a m edium of
hist oric al st ud ies up onwhich co n tin uo usly to be reflect ed ." Confiden ce in
quan titati ve dat a has bee n sha ken. By reflec ting o n th e ways in whic h sta­
tist ical dat a have been pr oduced , on e has learned to pe rce ive the m as arte­
facts with so me times very limited value . By stressi ng the ir ca tego rica l and
de finitional diversi ty, as well as th eir co ntex t-depe nde ncy, one has becom e
mo re aware tha n previously tha t straightforwa rd quantitative co m pa riso n
m ay lead th e hist ori an astray,
In the co urse of th ese reorientations, which have resh ap ed th e pr ofess ion ,
as well as neighbouring d isciplines, th e co ntex ts, objects , and meth ods of
compari son have cha nge d and continue to cha nge." Ce rta inly, structures
and p ro cesses mu st not be negle ct ed. Th e reconstruction of ex pe rience s,
discourses, ac tio ns, and ideas remains o ne -s ided if not relat ed to th e struc­
tures, processes, and instituti on s with wh ich th ey are usu ally inter related
In vary ing fo rms . This hold s true for co m pa rative histor y, as well as for his­
to rlca! stu dies withou t a co mpa rative foc us. Ce rta inly, turning away fro m
cvvry l ill'llI of qu an tifica tion wo uld b e a tr em endous loss for hist o rical stud­
il's, whether co m parative 0 1' not. Certainl y, co m pa rative histor y has never
bee n predo mi na ntly quantitative, nor has it eve r neglected the sp he res
of ex pe rie nce , perce pt ion, ac tio n, a nd cult ure alto ge the r. But it is, o n th e
oth er hand, clear th at th e co m pariso n of cultures and cul tural pr actices,
of symbols and sym bolic acti ons, of me ntalities and ideas, st er eotyp es an d
or ientat ions, m em ories and memori al site s h as ex pa nde d and adva nce d."
Co mp arative stud ies have become more ca utio us and se lf- reflec tive as to
th e use of ge ne ral co ncepts , the assumptions of comp arability, and th e ac­
cepta nce of quantitat ive ev ide nce. Historians have st arted to engage in th e
co m pa rative history of co ncepts and se ma n tic pr act ices." Along th ese lines
mu ch rem ain s to be do ne. But it is beyond a doubt th at co mpa rative history
neith er m ask s experience and ac tion in favo ur of str uc tu res a nd pro cesses ,
nor is th er e any basic tensi on between com pa ra tive ap p roaches a nd th e
recon struction of cul tures. Cultura l hi story ca n pr ofit from co m pa riso n as
much as so cial, eco no m ic, and instituti onal hist or y, as well as th ose numer ­
ou s studi es th at cut ac ro ss th ese distinct ion s.
Beyond the National Historical Fram ework
Trad itionally, co m pa ra tive histo ry of th e m od ern worl d has privileged co m ­
par ison between nati on al st ates o r phe no me na belon ging to d iffer ent na­
( '/1 1//11/ 11 /' <1 1/ '" 11 1 " ") '"I/'/: '/ h/l Il1 ;(}II ,~ , S,'IlI 'I', ;1I 11 / / " 'I'S/ ",,.I/ I" ." ~ II'
I iun st ates , c.g., s uc ial mohll l! y III ll crmany a nd t,lH: US, or hi stor! ographl l::l
in differ en t co u ntries of EUI'o IH:, or th e relati on between nation alism and
feminism in a comparative pr-rsp ecti ve.?' Internati on al comparison CO lI l i II
lies to be pr ominent. Th e mo st mature co m pa rative hi st or y of Eu ro pe unul
yses sim ila ritie s and differ ences in resp ect to co nve rge nce a nd di ver ge nce
be tween nation al ide ntities, nati onal societi es, and nati on al cu ltur es,"
' Ih ere ar e goo d reasons fo r s uc h an approach th at are relat ed to th e h Ug< '
imp ortan ce of nation al borders, identiti es, cult ures, a nd politics in stru t:
Lu ring both th e life of th e past and th e pr esent im ages of hi st or y,
But, clearl y, reg ional and loc al identities ha ve always played a role and
co nt in ue to do so, both in str uct u ring past realities and with respect 10
the fram ew o rks of historical underst anding today. And , clearl y, in rec e nt
years both the Europ eaniza tio n and th e globa liza tion of econ omic uud
politlc al life, and cultu re and co mm unication have crea te d and intensified
rela tio ns, co nnec tio ns, e nta ng leme nts and co ns te llatio ns th at exte nd Iw
yond th e borders between nati on states, regions, and civ ilizatio ns. C O Jl ·
scq ue nt ly, h ist ori c al studies have co ntin ue d to place th eir quest ion s an d
answe rs w ith in local an d regio na l fra me wo rks. Tr ansnati on al ap proac hes
have recently gain ed mu ch ground."
Co mpa ra tive histor y is not at all marri ed to international co m pa riso n.
Ma rc Bloch already sta te d tha t th e decision abo ut th e ap pro priate sputinl
exte nsio n of th e units of co m pariso n vari es with th e qu esti on s asked and
the pro blems investigated ." 'The re have always been man y comp ariso n
betw een villages, cities, a nd region s. Th e recent rise of tr an sn at ion al al
pre ach es has given a new im petus to br oad co m pa riso ns between world
regions, c ultures, and civiliza t io ns.f
Comparative History and Entanglem ent History
As argued above, co m para tive stud ies investigat e d iffer en ces a nd siml larl
ties, conve rge nces an d d iverge nces for d iffere nt pur poses, 'TI1is holds tr ue
for all sor ts of co m pariso n, incl ud ing th os e moving beyond th e borders
o f a specific national hist o ry by co mparing between nati on s, cultu res , and
civ iliza t io ns, o r be twee n ph en omen a of a transnation al exte ns io n, suc h as
man y religion s, int ernat ional or tr ansnat ion al institution s, gendercd ph e
nomen a o r multinational eco nomic structu res . But in recent years, a differ­
e nt mode of exte nd ing h ist ori cal stu dy beyo nd nati on al border s has galncd
mu ch gro u nd , in diffe re nt fo rms and un der different lab els, suc h as histor y
of tra ns fer, enta ng led h istori es o r h ist ory of enta ng leme nt, co nnected his
lo ry, histoire croisee and Verflech tungsgeschichte. Wh al th ese dll lc ren t ap
pr ouch cs sha re is a co m mo n inte res t in the cross ing of bord ers bet wee n
nntions, region s, co ntine nts or ot he r SP 'H :C.~ , in all kinds of 1:1I('Ollllll:I'S,
I' t ~"l'l:l'l ions , movcm cn ts , rda tions and int eracti on s IWlwl't'1I t hcm , alld III

20 Iurgen Kocka and Heinz-Gerhard Haupt
the way they perceived, influenced, stamped, and constituted one another.
Interest in the cultural relations between two national states, particularly
Germany and France, has been one of the roots of such approaches . Inter­
est in the deeply asymmetric but entangled relation between colonial pow­
ers and colonies, between metropolis and periphery, between the West and
other parts of the world has been another source for such approaches. They
received an additional push by the recent upsurge of global history."
The logic of comparison and the logic of entanglement history/histoire
croisee clearly differ. While the comparative approach separates the units
of comparison (in order to bring them again together under the viewpoints
of similarity and difference), entanglement-oriented approaches stress the
connections, the continuity, the belonging-together, the hybridity of ob­
servable spaces or analytical units and reject distinguishing them clearly
(although, contrary to their self-understanding, they cannot do without
distinguishing between them, either).
Some advocates of histoire croisee have rejected comparative history as
too analytical, in the sense of drawing distinctions where they do not exist.
They have stressed the incompatibility of histoire croisee and comparison.
These positions are not convincing and have largely been given up." But
there continue to be many examples of histoire croisee and entanglement
history that are satisfied with reconstructing relations and influences with­
out practising a clear-cut comparison. This is problematic, because it is
nearly impossible for transfer and entanglement historians to reach their
aims if they shy away from precise comparison. As Johannes Paulmann put
it: 'In order, as a historian, to recognize what is happening during a transfer,
one must compare the following: the position of the object under investi­
gation in its old context with that in its new context, the social origins of
the intermediaries and of the affected parties in one country with those
of another, terms in one language with those of another, and finally the
interpretation of a phenomenon within the national culture from which it
comes with that in which it has been Introduced." Without explicit com­
parison, historical studies of transfers and of entanglements are in danger
of becoming airy and thin.
On the other hand, comparative studies are not damaged, but improved
by considering connections between the units of comparison wherever and
whenever they exist. Apart from those interesting studies that compare so­
cieties very far removed from one another and unconnected /" comparative
research can and must take connections between the compared cases into
account. Such connections-i.e., mutual perceptions and influences, trans­
fers and tr avels, migrations and trade, interaction, relations of imitation
and avoidance, shared dependence from one and the same constellation or
common origin -Illay coutriburc lo l~xpl;lil1in g similurit ics nud cllllcr cncc s.
( 'III1I/ J11 I'IM' I ' " It1 /I'.t\II," d : Triullt lans, 8 ': 11/1" , illltll "'I'SIJI ,(,tli'"s 'l l
!'ilIIVl;l'ge nces and divergences Il\'l.wl:l~11 the cases compared. 'I his hns been
t\1 ;t cll~; sed th eoretically, and good con,parative studies hav e co ns idc rc d th ls
III p ructi cc.?" 'The rise of entanglement history has reconfirmed this m el h.
'If\ologknl necessity, It is the task of the future to better combine co mpu ru
l i ve and entanglement history."
II Is in this sense that we are moving 'be yo n d comparison: It means 10
" ~'lIt:r embed comparison in other intellectual operations and to modify it
III this process . Historical comparison is changing and will continue 10 ad
)11 :;1 lo new needs and tasks . It is becoming more subtle and self-reflective.
( :' II 11 parative history and entanglement history are being combined in new
W;I)' S, '[his is demonstrated by the following contributions to thi s volume,
whic h show in which directions relevant work and debates of German his ­
1III'IailS are moving.
The Contributions to this Volume
I h e articles in this volume are either discussions on the scope and prob ­
\I,IIIS of comparative and transnational history or innovative case studi es,
'l ilt: journal Geschichte und Gesellschaft in 2001 opened a discussion on I Ill'
ptlssibilities and limits of transnational history. Two of the most challcn g­
i l l ~ :ll'ticies published in this context are reproduced here. Iurgcn Osl er
II HIJtll1cl, who not only demands for more internationally oriented wr it in g
nul research in Germany but is practising it, continues to defend the m cth ­
,)(\ological principles of comparative history, but would like to open so cial
hlslory research to broader transnational prospects. Migration history, (or
«xumple, could be one of the more promising fields. In his article, O st er­
hummel does not abandon the national perspective, but wants to situate
I i l l a global context, as does Sebastian Conrad. \'qith a critical historic
J!, ra ph ic perspective, Conrad argues against the exclusion of colonialism
from the main historical narratives, as well as against the assumption that
( ;c r ll1a n y's short colonial experience did not have any pertinent effects Oil
( icrm a n society. Andreas Eckert takes up this argument and, based olt rc ­
".'Ill studies on Africa, uncovers the layers of the historical relationship
In:1 ween Germany and its colonies. One of the underlying assumptions or
I h cs~' approaches is the 'e n ta n gle m e n t' of histories in- and outside of F,ll
rop<\ Shall ni Randcria criticizes a Eurocentric approach by stressin g I hr
V:lri('\y of co nce pts of modernity and civil society us ed outsid e 0(' Europe
I hal also influen ced European development. '[11C different. forms 'cJtlall gl(o'
111 \:nl' call take ar c al the co re of the article by Monica [unu]a and Mn rgrl:
l'l:l'Jlall, wh e rein th e authors stress th e importu nc c of stuclyinj: I rallsl:\[iollr.
(d' l'()IICl:pl s, :\ S well as the Ii11('a)\\'s h('lw( 'CII ltiSlol'iographil's .
 Ifh ,~1/1 1 ", /<,'AII .u«! !!"h lt (; ,'1'11,II i t t " "11'1
Besid es the de bate initiated and dev eloped by histo rians .uul :'lld ologists
wo rking on extra-European history, a more Europe-oriented debate on the
concept of 'cultural transfer' qu estions certain assu mptio ns of co mpa rative
history. Hartmut Kaelbl e argues in favour of a compa rative approac h th at
takes into account linkages and relationships between the un its of analysis
and in tegrates them in a field of multi ple contacts. In this co ntext, Philip
Ther makes the point th at central Euro pean experiences should not be con­
sidered outside European history, but analysed in terms of tr ansfers and
communication pro cesses with other European societie s.
Among the comparative case studies, some of the most pr omising fields
of comparative, tr ansnational, and entangled history are pr esented. Dirk
Hoerder sh ows the difficult integ ration of concepts of migration history
into German historical narratives and argues no t only for a comparative
study of migration, but also for a careful study of the 'signs of m igration in
its many variants: Iorg Requate, like Hoerder, co mbines comparative and
transnational persp ectives when he situates th re e different societies-the
GDR , CSSR, and FRG-within a broad internat ional discussion on plan­
nin g, showing how each soc iety was trying to implement economic plans
and accep t cultural pluralism. Arguing in favour of a broad, un iver salizing
comparison, Diet er Lang ewiesch e presents differ ent features and fun ctions
of nationalism by following the arguments of B. Anderson , E. Gellner, and
A. Sm ith. Thomas Welskop p, who chooses a nat ional framework, compares
the characteristics of German and US lab our or ganisations over a long pe­
riod of time and co mes to some impor tant conclusions. The two final ar­
ticles thus sho w particul arly that comp arative history, in all of its different
conceptualizations, remains important in the G erman discussion.
NOTES
1. Cf. B. Z. Kedar, ed., Explorations in Comparative Histo ry (Jerusalem, 2009).
C. Ragin, The comparative method. Mov ing beyond qualitative an d q uantita­
tive strategies (Berkeley/ Los An gele s, 1987). W ith co m p rehe n sive biblio gr aphi­
cal information: Iurgen Kocka, 'St orla cornparata; in Enciclopedia delle scienze
sociali, 8 (1998): 389-96; H artmut Kaelble, Del' historische Vergleich. Eine Ein ­
f uhrung zum 1 9. und 20. lahrh undert (Fra n kfu rt/New York, 1999); Hein z­
Gerhard Haupt, 'Co m para tive History; in International Encyclop edia of the
Socia l and Beha vioral Sciences, vo l. 4 (Londo n, 200 1), 2397-2403. D. Co he n
and M. O'Connor, eds. , Comp arison and History. Europe in cross-national p er­
spective (N ew York/London , 2004) . - The following text is a th oroughl y revi sed,
enlarged and updat ed versio n of th e in trod uc tion to: Hein z-G erhar d Haupt and
Iurg en Kocka, ed s., Geschichte un d Vergleich. Ansiitze und Ergebnisse interna­
tional vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung (Fran kfurt/N ew York, 1996),9- 4 5.
( '0/111" " 1\ ,1/, ,' lI d ll " I'II//(I: Ttru lli lou», .'i1'1I1"·, /1" '/ I "'/ ,I J!" ,"," "' ," :La
'L. Surveys in l luupt and I\ lll' k ll , ,'/1:... <i" ,w'lt/d ll l' UJIIJ VI:/:!!!;·;,·It, ,r; I :l() i I< "dlll',
('d.,I;'xploratio ns, 1- '211; K:wlh!t·, lu -rhl stori chc VGrglil't.:h, and J luupt, 'Corupu
rative Histor y:
:1. Cr. e.g., Fcmand Bran del, Civi lisation ma terielle, econom ie (;1 caplta lisn«"
XVe-XVllle steele (Paris, 197 9); Eric }. Hobsbawrn, The Age of Extremes. 1\ / lis
lory of th e World, 1914 -1991 (N ew York , 1994); Immanuel W all/:rsll'i ll, 'JIll'
Mode rn World-System, vols. 1- 3, (New York, 1974-1 989).
1\" For a previous discussion of this rel ati on d. }. Kock a, 'Co m pa r iso n and lit­
yond ; in History and Theory 42 (2003) : 39- 44.
,), John Stuart M ill, Philos op hy of Scientific Method, ed . E. Nage l (New York,
1881 ), 211-33; A.A. van den Bra em bussc he, 'Historical Explanation and C OI11
par at ive Method: Towards a The or y of the Hist o r y o f Society: in History 1/./11/
Theory 28 (1989): 2- 24; Th eda Skoc po ll M argre t Som ers, 'The Uses of CO I1l
parative History in M acrosocial Inquir y; in Comparative Studies in Soclcty
and History 22 (1980): 174-1 97, es p. 176, 181 ; Ch arl es Till y, Big Stru ctures,
Large Processes, Huge Comparisons (N ew York, 1984), 80,82.
(i , Otto Hintze, 'So ziolog isc he und gesc hichtliche Sta at sauffassung' (1929), ill
Hintze , Soziologie und Geschichte (Ge sa m me lte Abh andlun gen, vol. 2) (Gil l
tingen, 1964) , 239- 305, esp. 25 1.
7. Marc Bloch, 'Po ur un e hist oir e co m paree de s societes eu rop een nes' (1928), i ll
Bloc h, Me langes historique s, vo l. 1 (Pa ris , 1963), 16-40, esp. 20ff .
R, Cf. }. Kocka, ed ., Europiiische Arbeiterb ewegungen im 19, [ahrhundcrt.
Deutschland, Oste rreich, England, Fran kreich im Vergleich (Go ttinge n, 1981) ;
H.- U. Wehler, 'Deu tsc he s Bildungsburgertum in vergleichender Per spektiv c.
EIem ente ein es 'Son de rw egs'?' in Bildungsbiirgerturn im 19. la hrh undert, vol,
4: Pol itischer Einflu ss und gese tlsch aft liche Fo rmation , ed . }. Koc ka (Stu ttga rt .
1989) , 215-37; Heinz Reif, Di e verspiitete Stadt. Industr ialisierung, std dti schcr
Raum und Politik in Oberhausen 1846-1 929 (Co log ne , 1993).
9. Blo ch, ' Pour une hist oire compar ee; 5.
10. This as pect of comparison is strongly em phas ized in William H. Sew ell, [r,
'Ma rc Bloch and the Logic of Co m parative H ist or y; in History and Theory ()
(1967) : 208 - 18.
11. Cf. Ch, Tilly et al., The Rebelli ous Century 1830-1930 (Ca m bridge, MA , 197 :'» ;
Th . W elsko pp, A rbeit un d Mac ht im Hiitten werk. Arbeits- und industriellc f ir'
z iehungen in del' deu tschen un d amerikanischen Eisen- und Stahlindustrie VOII
den 1860er bis z u den 1930er Iahren (Bo n n, 1994).
12. John H. Ellio tt, Natio nal and Com para tive History. An Inaugu ral Lectu re drl!
vered bef ore th e Univ ersity of Oxfo rd on 10 May 1991 (Ox ford , 1991), 2:3,
13. C f. ). M atthes, ed ., Zwischen den Kul turen? Die Sozialwissenschaften VOl' til 'I II
Problem des Kulturvergleichs (Soz iale Welt, s pe cial vo lume 8) (G ottin gcu,
1992), es p. 75 - 99. Th e value of com parison fo r the hi st ory of historiography
and th e social scie nc es has been d em on st rat ed for di ffe re nt Euro pe a n co u ntries :
C. Conrad and S. Conrad, ed s., Die Nation schreiben. Geschichts wisscuschait
im internationalen Vergleich (G ottingen, 2002); P. Wa gn er, Sozial wissenscha]­
ten und Staat, Frankreich, Itali en, Deu tschland 18 70-1 <.J80 (Frank furt. I'NO),
'1,1 II I' ;~ "1I /" ,,'i((/ 111111 / " '/lIt · ( i,', luu»! / Ittll/I/
IlL C r. lurgen Kocka, 'Asy m me trical historical co m par ison: till' (' :1::1' 01 II\(, G er­ 'Ci vil Sod dy In NIiIl'I"('lllh L:l:Il I Ill' Y Em-ope: Contpal'ison and III,yolld: III
man "Sonderw eg"; in History and Theory 38 (1999): 4.Q - 51 ; !Ut I.olberg,
'How many Exceptionallsms" , in Working-Class Formation . Nineteenth­
Century Patterns in Western Europ e and the United States, eds. I. Katznels on
and A.R. Zolberg (Princeton, 1986),397-455; Stephen Kalberg , Max Webers
comparative-historical sociology (Cambridge, 1994).
15. Reinhart Koselleck, 'Zu r historisch-politischen Semantik asymmetrischer Ge­
genbegriffe, in Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher
Z eiten (Frankfurt, 1979), 211-59 ,
16. 'Sur les limites du comparatisme en histoire culturelle; in Geneses 17 (1994):
112-21.
17. David B1ackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities of German History. Bour­
geois Society and Politics in 19th-Century Germany (Oxford, 1984); C.B .A.
Behrens, Society, Government and the Enlightenment: The Experience of Eigh­
teenth Century France and Prussia (New York, 1985); A.R. Brubaker, Citizenship
and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, 1992); D. Gosewinkel,
P.Weill , and A.Fahrmeir, Citi zens and Aliens: Foreigners and the Law in Britain
and German States 1789-1870 (New York, 2000).
18. W.W. Rostow, The Stages ofEconomic Growth (Cambridge, 1960); the regional
historical approach in Sidney Pollard, Peaceful Conquest. The Industrialisa ­
tion ofEurope (Oxford, 1981). Patrick K. O'Brien, 'Industrialisation, Typolo­
gies and History of; in International Encyclopedia ofthe Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 11 (Lon don, 2001), 73 60-67.
19. 1heodor Schieder, 'Typologie und Erscheinungsformen des Nationalstaates in
Europa: in Histori sche Z eitschrift 202 (1966 ): 58-81.
20. Miroslav Hroch, Die Vorkampjer der nationalen Bewegung bei den klein eren
Volkern Europas (Prague, 1968).
21. Ulrike v, Hirschhausen and lorn Leonhard, 'Europaischer Nationalismus im
Wc st-OstVergleich: Von del' Typologie zur Differenzbestimrnung; in Nati ona­
lismus in Europa. West- und Osteuropa im Vergleich, eds. Hirschhausen and
Leonhard (Gottingen, 2001), 11- 45.
22. Cf. Reinhard Bendix, Nation-Building and Citi zenship (Berkeley/Los Angeles,
1977); Bendix, Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rul e (Berkeley/Los
Angeles, 1978).
23. Cf. Paul Nolte, 'Modernization and Modernity in History; in International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15 (London, 2001) ,
9954-61; D. Sachsenmaier and J. Riedel, eds., Reflection s on Multiple Moder­
nities. Europ ean, Chinese and Other Interpretations (Leiden, 2002) (including
a seminal contribution by S.N . Eisenstadt). Still important: H.-U. Wehler, Mo­ Cf. Peer H.H . Vries, 'G overn ing Growth: A Comparative Analysis of th e Rol« o(
derni sierungsth eorie und Geschichte (Gottingen, 1977).
24. Cf. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Tran siti on and
Consolidation. Southern Europ e, South America, and Post-Communist Europ e
(Baltimore/London, 1996).
25. Cf. Manfred Hildermeier et al., eds., Europdische Zivilges ellschaft in Ost und
West. BegrijJ, Geschichte, Chan cen (Frankfurt/New York, 2000); Iur gen Kocka ,
( '(I/ II / Irll il' " 1 flllf l ll ,,o I'lJll tI: 't radlttuns, SC'ojJl', lI /1 d 1",/','/ 't'C II\'('" ~n
lllstortrnl Concepts 1,,'IIt't" !11 Hfl sl el'll (/1/11 Weslcl'II I:'U I"I/I IC, (·d. Man('n·d IliI
dcrmcicr (New York/Oxford, ·J.007), 85- 100; Iurg cn Schm id t, /./l'llgl'sd/st'II"lt.
Iw'r:'{t;rschaftliches Engagem ent von der Antike bls z ur Gegeu wart. 'icx u: 1111'-/
Kommentare (Reinbek, 2007) .
" Cl, 'Ihec dor Schieder, ' Par tikular ism us und nationales Bcwussts eln 111\ 1)1'll k \'11
des Vorrnarz; in Schieder, Na tionalismus und Nationalstaat. Studicu ;; 1111/ III/
tionalen Problem im modern en Eur opa (Gottingen, 1992 ), 166 - %.
').7 , Criticism of this approach can be seen in Jean Bouvier, 'Libres prop os :llIll II II '
d'une demarche revisi on iste ; in Le Capitalisme franc ais. X/XC-XXI: S/,lt'I,'s,
Blocages et dynamismes d'une croissance, ed s. Patrick Fridenson and Aud r
Strauss (Paris, 1987), 11-27.
~~ H . A.J. Heidenheimer, 'The Politics of Public Education, Health and Wclfan' III
the USA and Western Europe: How Growth and Reform Potentials Huvu I HI'­
fer ed ' in British Journal ofPolitical Science 3 (1973): 315-40. Cf. the though tflll
essay of P. Baldwin, 'C om par ing and Generalizing: Why all history is com nn
rative, yet no history is sociology: in Cohen and O'Connor, Comparison, I -22,
Especially when compari son of organizati ons is intended, one should 1101 lllst
look for corresponding institutions in an other society, but also ask how pro
blems to which specific in stitutions try to respond ar e resolved by oth er 1I11:all :,
in other institutional, political, and cultural contexts. cr. Kiran Patel, ISolt l il 'r,~
of Work': Lab or Service s in Na zi Germany and New Deal America, IY:l.'I 1<)1/;.
(Cambridge, 2005) .
,),9 , Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. The Political and Econ omic Or/gills of
Our Tim es (1944) (Boston, 1957 ); M ichael Mann, The Sourc es a/Social !'C !lt'I 'I'\',
2 vols., (Cambridge, 1986, 1993) .
:10. Alexander G er schenkron, Economi c Backwardness in Hi storical Perspective
(Ca m bridge, MA , 1962). In terms of criticism: P.K. O'Brien, 'Do We Have II
Typology for th e Study of European Industrialization in the XIXth Cenllll'y'{ :
in Journal ofEuropean Economic Histor y 15 (1986 ): 291-334.
:11 , Barrington Moore, Social Origin s of Dictatorship and Democracy. Lord au «!
Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, 1966) .
:, 2, Cf. Roy Bin Wong, China Transformed. Historical Change and the Limits I!lllllt'll
pean Exp erience (Ithaca /London, 1997); David S. Landes, The Wealth and ['01'''''/,)'
of Nations. W hy Some Are So Rich and Som e So Poor (New York, 1998); Gu nder
Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley/Los AlIgdl:NI
London, 1998); Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, China, Europe aut!
the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton University Press, :WOO),
th e State in the Rise of the West: in Journal of World History 13 (2002): C!7- 1:IH,
:B. Kaelble, Der Historische vergleich , 12.
:H . Cf. Th. Welskopp, ' Die Sozialgeschi chte del' Vater. Grenzen und Per spekllvc»
del' H ist orischen Soz ialwi ssenschaft; in Geschichte und Gesellscha]t '2/1 (I ~' )Ii ):
173-98; Jacques Revel, [eu x d echelles. l.a micro-analyse Cl. lexp cricna : (l'urls:
I.e Scull, 1996).
" i' II'/" ~I 'I/ 1" ,/"1.." ,11111Ill'll/! ( h'rl ll ll '" Iltlllill ( '/11111" " / ..." III iii 11" 1'111 /'/1Tra.lltlon», ,':rll/ J1'. ' 1IIrl l " ·(.I/ ,,·('tl l',.'.\ '),7

: l~ " II. Kuclblc, /sufdcm W(:g z u eine r europiiischen Gcscltsctuijt, mil,' ,~·II:irtlg c · IH, r, ~l', : dlllly III till' I 'J'i'Os 1\ 11 .1 I " H() ~; , U . <';I'OI'g Ci. Iggl'l's. M '1l' D ln -ctton « I II 1:11
schi ch te West europas, 1H8U-198U (Munich, 1987). Cf. Kaclblv, ' Europ iiisch c / 'IIIWIIII I list.or!lIgmI'/ty, n -v, ('d , (Middletown, C'I', 19H1.), lur II ~ p i l' i l l.~d aurl

Geschichte aus westeuropaischer Sicht?; in Gunilla Budde et al., cds. , Tran s­
nationale Geschichte. Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Gottingeu , 2006),
105-17. Most recently: Hartmut Kaelble , Sozialgeschichte Europas. 1945 bis
zur Gegenwart (Munich, 2007). But see P. Baldwin, The Narcissism of Minor
Differences. How America and Eur ope Are Alike (Oxford, 2009).
36. Cf. H.-G. Haupt, 'Historische Komparatistik in del' internationalen Geschichts­
sc h reibung; in Budde et al., eds., Transnationale Geschichte, 142f.; ]. O ster­
harnmel, 'Sozialgeschichte im Zivili sationsvergleich. Zu kunftigen Moglich ­
keiten komparativer Geschichte, in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22 (1996) :
143-64.
37 . Cf. S.N. Serneri, 'L'Europa: identita e storia di un continen te, in Conte m pora­Iurgen Koc ka, 'Th e European Pattern and the German Case; in Bourgco!» ,""0
nea 2 (1999): 79-102.
38. Cf. Deborah Cohen, 'Co mparative History: Buyer Beware; in Bulletin of th e
German Historical Institute 29 (2001): 23-33. See also ].L. McClain et al., eds .,
('(lIlviud ng statem ent in favo ur' of analytical (not ne cessarily quuntiuu lvc) up­
pro ,ll:hcs ill hist ory, d . Hans-Ulri ch Wehler, Literarische I:r:tiih!l(./)g oil,,/, 1\/,11
g i ll; A na lyse? tin Du ell in del' gegen wa rtigen Geschich ts wlssenscha it (Vlenn a,
:J..O( 7).
I' ), Ct. P. Baldwin , The Politics of Socia l Solida rity: Class Ba ses o] till: 1~lll'/Illl 'rl/l
Welfar e State, 1875-1975 (New York, 1999) ; G . Espin g-Ander sen , 'lhc '1Im'I'
VVorlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, 1990); D. Cohen, The War COllie I luun:
Disabled Veterans in Britain an d Germany, 1914-1 939 (Berkeley, 20()I).
\(), Cf G. Sluga, 'Th e Nation and the Comparative Ima gination; in Cohen .uul
O 'Con no r, Comp a rison, 103-14,
,I .
ciety in Nineteenth-Century Europe, eds. ]ilrgen Kocka and Allan Mit<'i H'1I
(Oxford/Providence, 1993), 21-39.
,:.!. See D. Dowe , H.-G. Haupt, and D. Langewiesche, eds ., Europa 1818. Rcvolu

Edo and Pari s. Urban Life and th e State in th e Early M odern Era (London, tion und Reform (Bonn, 1998),

1994); D. Lehnert, Kommunale Politik: Parteien system und Interessenkonflikte !~ : l. Cf. lens Alber, Yom Armenhaus zum Wohlfahrtsstaat. Analysen zur Eutw irk
in Berlin und Wien 1919-1932 (Be rlin, 1991) . lung del' Sozialversicherung in Westeuropa (Frankfurt, 1982); S. Rudi schhuu
39. H.-G . Haupt, ed ., 'Les rnobilites dans la petite bourgeoisie du XIXe siecle' ser and B. Zimmermann, "'bffentliche Arb eitsvermittlung" und "placeme nt
Spec . Issue of the Bulletin du Centre Pierre Leon d'Hi stoi re econom iq ue et so­ public" (1890-1914). Kategorien del' Intervention del' offentlichen llund .
ciale (1993). Reflexionen zu einem Verglei ch' in Comparati v 5 (1995) : 93-120. Christoph
40. P. Vilar, 'Croissan ce economique et analyse historique, in Premiere Conference Conrad, 'Wohlfahrtsstaaten im Vergleich: Historische und sozialwissenschalt
internationale d'Hlstoire econom iq ue, vol. 1 (Sto ckholm, 1960) , 35-82. liche Ansatze, in Haupt and Kocka , Geschichte und vergleich, 155-80.
41. Marc Bloch, 'Po ur une histoire com paree: C. Fumian, 'Le virtu della co rnpara­ ~ , (I" Cf. Chr istian Mei er, 'Aktueller Bedarf an historisch en Verglei chen. Uberlcgun
zione; in Meridiana 4 (1988 ): 197-221. gen aus dem Fach del' Alten Geschichte, in Kocka and Haupt , Geschi clite 1/1/ ,/
42 . A. Mayer, The Persistence ofthe Old Regime. Europe to the Great War (London, vergleich, 239-70 .
1981) . ;,:i, Cf. also the argument in Haupt, 'Historische Komparatistik; 137-50,
43. See the bibliographies in Ernst Wilhelm Muller, 'Pladoyer fur die komparati­ ~ ) () . Cf. the bibliography of comparative works by European historians put tog('llwr
ven Geisteswissenschaften, in Paid euma 39 (199 3): 7-23. by Hartmut Kaelble in Haupt and Kocka, Geschichte und vergieich, 111- :10.
44. Overviews of co m parative historical literature in Germany, England, and !i7. Thi s story has often be en told. Cf. e.g., Lutz Raph ael, Geschichtswissensclu!fi
Fran ce can be found in: Haupt and Kocka , eds., Geschichte und vergleich, 47­ im Z eitalter del' Extreme. Theori en, Meth oden, Tendenz en VOn 1900 his W I'
90 ; here, 91-130, a report by Hartmut Kaelbl e on comparative social history in Gegenwart (Munich , 200 3), chs. IX, XIII; Rolf Tor st endahl, ed ., An A ssessment
the research of European historians. of 20th-Century Historiography. Pr ofessionalism, M ethodologies, Writings
45. On this issue, see also Kaelble, Del' historische vergteich, 93-113. (Stockholm, 2000); Doris Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns. Neuorientlc
46. D. Cohen , 'Comparative History: Buyer Beware; in Cohen and O'Connor, rungen in den Kulturwissenschaften (Reinbek, 2006).
Comparison , 63. !' H. Cf. Nancy Green, ' Fo rm s of Comparison; in Cohen and O'Connor, Comport
47. Some new developments within th e discipline have not promoted the trend son, 41 -56; Green, 'Religion et ethnicite, De la comp araison sp atia Ie e t 1('111
toward comparison. Alltagsgeschichte, which was discussed so exha ustively porelle, in Annales HSS (2002 ), 127-44; Green, 'Th e Comparat ive Method
in the 1980 s, and which concentrated on the reconstruction of experiences and Poststructural Structuralism-New Perspe cti ves for Migration Studies, iu
and lifestyles within a micro-historical framework, remained sceptical tow ard Jour nal ofAmerican Ethnic History 13(4) (Summer 1994) : 3- 22 .
analytical approaches and produced few comparisons . Alf Ludtke, ed ., All­Cf. C. Tacke, Den kmal im sozialen Raum. Nationale Symbole in Deutschland
S9.
tagsgeschi chte. Zur Rekonstruktion hist ori scher Erfahrungen und Leb ensweisen und Frankreich im 19. [ahrhundert (Gottingen , 1995 ); Tack e, 'Festc del' Rc­
(Frankfurt, 1989). The mo st recent emphasis on 'entangled histories' and hi­ volution in Deutschland und Italien, in Europ a 1848 . Revolution und R~/i}/'J/I.
sto ire croisee has led to a situation where scholars have shown less interest in eds. D. Dowe e t al. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 1998 ), 1045--88; H, Rausch, {(1I11
similarities and differences than in relationships and transfers . jigur und N ati on. Oifentliche Denkmdler in Paris, Berlin and l .ondon 1M,';
 'J.H It'lJgt '/I I\ockfl and Hein s-Gerhard Jlattpt
1914 (Munich. 2006) ; j. Boutier and D. juli a, eds., Passes recomposes. Cha mps
et chan ti ers de l'histoire (Par is: Autrernent, 1995 ); M . Ieisrn ann, Da s Vater ­
land der Feinde. St udien z u m nationalen FeindbegrijJ und Selbstverstdndnis
in Deutschland und Frankreich 1792-191 8 (Stuttga r t, 1992); E. Francois e t al.,
eds. , Na tio n und Emotion. Deutschland und Frankreich im Verglei ch. 19. und
20. lahrhundert (Go tti nge n, 1995 ); A rno M ayer, The Furies. Violence a nd Ter­
ror in the French and Ru ssian Revolutions (Pri nce to n, 2000); A . Liesk e, Arbei­
terkultur und biirgerliche Kultur in Pilsen und Leipzig (Bo n n, 2007 ).
60. R. Kos elle ck et al., 'Drei biirgerlich e Welten ? Zur ve rg leic hen de n Semantik d er
biirg erlichen G esellschaft in Deuts chl and, England und Frankreich, in Burger
in der Gese llschaf t der Neu zeit. Wir tschaft-Politik-Kultur, ed. H.j. Puhle (Got­
tingen, 1991), 14- 58; W. Stein metz , ' In tro d uctio n. Towards a Comparati ve
History o f Legal Cult ures 1750-1950; in Private Law and Social Inequality in
th e Indu strial Age, ed . W. Stei n metz (Oxford, 2000), 1- 41 ; I. H amsh er -Monk,
K. Tilmans, and F. van Vree, ed s., History of Concepts: Comparative Perspec­
tive s (Ams ter dam , 1998); P. Wagner, ed. , The Languages of Civil Society (N ew
York/Oxford, 2006) .
6 1. Cf. Hartmut Kaelble, 'Soz ia le r Au fsti eg in den USA und D eutschl and, 1900­
1960. Ein vergleichender Forschungsbericht; in Sozi algeschichte Heute. Fest ­
schrlft fiir Hans Rosenberg, ed. Han s-Ulrich W ehler (Go ttingen, 1974), 525-42;
C h r istoph Con rad e t aI., eds ., Writi ng National Hist ories. Western Eu rope
since 1800 (Lo nd o n/New York, 1999); Id a Blom, ' Das Zusammenwirken vo n
Nationalismus und Feminismus urn d ie jahrhundertwende. Ein Ver su ch zur
vergleic he nden G esc hlec htergeschic hte; in H aupt and Kocka, Geschichte und
Vergleich, 315-38.
62. Hartmut Kaelbl e, Soz ialgeschichte Europ a s. 1945 bis z ur Gegen wart (M un ich,
2007).
63. Michael G eyer, 'Historical Fictions of Autonom y a nd the Euro p ea n iza tio n
of National Hi st ory; in Cen tral Eur opean Hist ory 22 (1989): 3 16- 42 ; lurgen
O ste rh am m e l, Geschichtswi ssenschaft jense its des Nation alstaats. Stu dien
z u Bezi ehungsgeschichte und Z ivilisa tionsvergleich (Gottinge n: Vande n hoeck
& Ruprecht, 2001); Patrick M annin g, Na vigating World History. Historians
Crea te a Global Past (Ne w York, 2003) ; C. A . Bayly, The Birth of th e M odern
World 1780-1 914 (O xfo rd, 2004); F. Osterhammel, D ie Verwandlung der Welt.
Ein e Geschichte des 19. fahrhunderts (M u nic h, 2009 ).
64. Bloch, ' Po ur une histoire compare; 37.
65. C f. the co ntrib utio ns to Budde et al., Tran snationale Geschichte, Iurgen Oster­
hamrnel, 'Transkulturell vergleichende G eschichtswissenschaft; in H aupt a nd
Kocka, Geschichte und Verglelch, 271-3 14 (wit h many referen ces) ; S.N . Eise n­
sta d t, 'Die Dimen sionen komparati ver Analyse und di e Er for schung sozialer
D ynamik. Von der ve rg leiche nden Politikwissensch aft zum Z lvillsa tionsv e r­
gleich; in Diskurse und Ent wicklungspf a de. Der Gesellschaftsvergleich in den
Geschichts- und Soz ialwissenschaften, eds. H . Kaelbl e and I. Sc hric we r (Fra n k­
furt/New York , 1999), 3-28; Hartmut Kaelbl e, ' Der hist ori sch e Zivilisati ons ­
ve rgle ich; in Kaelble, Der histor ische vergleich, 29 - :'2.
Compa rison and Beyond: Traditions, Scope, a nd Perspectives 29
OIl . O n tr an sfer history see M . Espagne a nd M. W erner, e ds ., Transferts cultu
rels. Les relations in tercult ure lles dan s l'espace fran co-allem and (X VII-XXI!
siecles) ( Pari s, 1988); M . Espag ne , Les transferts cult u rels f ranco-allemands
(Pa r is, 1999); H . Lose brink an d R. Reich ardt, eds. , Kulturtran sfer im Epoc he ­
nu m bru ch. Frankreich-D eutschland 1770 bis 1815 (Leipzig, 1997); L. jordan
and B. Kortlander, eds., Nationale Gren zen und international er A usta usch,
Studien z um Kultur- und Wiss ens chaftstransf er in Westeuropa (Tubingcn ,
199 5); R. Muhs e t al., ed s., Aneignung und A b wehr. Int erkultureller Tra nsfer
zwischen Deutschland und Groflbritannien im 19. [ahrhundert (Bode n hei m,
1998). Se ba stian C o nrad and Sh alini Randeria, eds ., Ienseits des Euro zentris
m us. Post kolon ial e Persp ekt iven in den Geschichts - und Kulturwissenschaftcn
(Fran kfurt/ M a in, 2002); R.j .C. Youn g, Postcol onialism. An Hi storical lntro duc
tion (O xford, 2001); A.L. Sto ler and F. Coop er, 'Between M etropole a nd Col
o ny. Rethinkin g a Research Agenda; in Tensions ofEmpire, ed . A .L. Stol e r a nd
F. C o op er (Berkele y, 1997); H. Bh ab a, The Location ofCultu re (Lo nd on, 1991) .
Iurgen Oste rha m m el, 'Transnational e G esellschaftsgeschichte: Erweiterunu
o der Alternati ve; in Geschichte und Gesellschajt 27 (200 1): 464 - 79; S. Co n ra d,
' Dopp elte Margin alisierung . Pladoyer fur eine transn ationale Perspektive auf
di e deutsche Geschi chte, in Geschichte und Gesellschaf t 28 (200 2): 145- 6'J;
Co nrad, Globalisieru ng und Nation im Deutschen Ka iserreich (M un ich : Beck,
2006) ; S. C onra d a nd J. Osterhamrnel, eds. , Das Kais errei ch tran snational.
Deutschla nd in der Welt, 18 71-1 914 (Gottin gen, 2004); M atth ias Middell,
ed., Globa lisierung und Weltgeschichtsschreib ung (Le ipz ig . 200 3). C h r isto ph
C harle, La crise des societes imperiales. A llem agne, France, Grande-Bretugnc
1900-1 914 (Pa ris, 200 1). S. Spiliotis, 'Wo find et G eschichte sta tt? oder Dux
Konzept der Tr an sterritorialitat; in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27 (200 1):
480ff.
1,7. C f. th e early works by Esp agne and W erner in footnote 66 ab o ve with th e more
recent a rticle by Michael W erner an d Ben edicte Z im m e r ma n n, ' Verglcic h ,
Tr ansfer, Verfl echtung. Der Ansat z der Hi stoire c ro isee und di e Herausfordv
ru ng des Tran sn ati onal en' in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28 (200 2): 607 - 2 (l .
(.H. johann es Paulm ann , ' Internationaler Ver gleich und interkultureller Tran sfer.
Zwe i Fo rsc hu ngs a nsa tze zu r europais chen Gesc hic hte des 18. bis 20. Iahrhun
derts; in Historis che Z eitschrift 267 (1998): 649 - 85.
(,9 . A classic ex am ple is Otto Hintze's co m pa r iso n of feud ali sm in Euro pe and Ja
pan . C f. Hintze, 'Wese n und Verbreitung d es Feudali smus' (1929), in Hin tz",
Sta a t und verfassung, vo l. 1, Gesammelte Abha ndl ungen (Go t ti ngcn. 1%:0,
84·- 119. A no the r exa m p le is jam es L. McCl ain e t aI., eds ., Ed o and Paris: II I'
ba n Life and the State in th e Ea rly Modern Era (Ith ac a: Co rne ll Univr rslt y
Press , 1991.). An interesting di scu ssion of thi s typ e o f co m pa riso n in Nutalk:
Zc m o n Davis , 'Beyond C ompari son : Co m pa ra tive H ist ory a nd its ( joa ls; III
Swin t historii, cd. W o jc icc ha Wrzos ka ( Pozna n: ln st ytut Hist orii Ui\M, I') ~)H ),
11\-9 - 57, csp, I:':Ur.; it is interestin g th at Geo rg« M. Fredri ck son ('o n"" I1 II'1llt' c1
hl s review of couiparauvc histor y Hr crutu rc o n llw 'smull but sig llilil'a lll hod y
'o r sd \o li\l'sh lp lhnl ha s as lIs m ain Objl'('llv!' ll\(' Sysl l'lllal !l: ('llillpa rlsllil ll!'Slllll('
.10 /l" ~~1' 1I '\111'1,0 II /III I lcln«. ( ;,·r/ lt m i l lil ll /Il

pro cess or institutio n in two or m ore so cieties that are not IIslI:t1ly conjoined
with in one of the tradition al geographical areas of historical specialization:
Cf. Fredrickson, 'Comparative History: in The Past Before Us: Contemporary
H istorical Writings in th e United Sta tes, ed. M. Karnmen (Ithaca, NY, 1980), _ PART 1 ­
457-73, esp. 458.
70. Cf. H. Kleinschm idt , 'Galton s Prob lem . Bemerkungen zur Theorie der trans­
kultur ell verglei chenden Geschichtsfor schung; in Zeitschrift fur Geschichts­ .omparative and Entangled History
wissenschaft 39 (1991): 5-22. As a pra ctical exam ple: Kaelble, Sozialgeschichte
Europa s; clearly, th e author explains th e ob ser ved convergences and diver­ in Global Perspectives
gen ces between the nati onal socie ties of Europe by takin g mutual perceptions
and influences between them in to account (among other factor s).
71. Cf. Kocka, 'Comparison and Beyond: J. Os terhammel is more sceptical about
the fruitfulness of the linke age in: J. Oster hammel, 'Transferanalyse und Ver­
gleich im Fern verh altnis ; in H. Kaelble an d J. Schriewer, eds., Vergleich un d
Tran sfer. Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschi chts- und Kulturwissenschaften
(Frank furt a.M., 2003), 439- 66, esp . 466.