The Long Lines of Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Ғылым және технология
2023 marks the 20th anniversary of the Holberg Prize, something which will be celebrated by a series of events throughout the year.
On 27 February, the Holberg Prize and the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities will host a discussion on the long lines of nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy in Europe and Germany.
Participants:
Jürgen Kocka, Professor Emeritus, Free University Berlin and the Berlin Social Science Center; 2011 Holberg Prize Laureate.
Hedwig Richter, Professor of Modern History at the Universität der Bundeswehr in Munich; recipient of the 2020 Anna Krüger Prize.
Michael Zürn, Director of the Global Governance unit at WZB Berlin Social Science Center; Professor of International Relations, Free University of Berlin.
Christoph Markschies (moderator), Professor of Ancient Christianity at Humboldt-University in Berlin; President of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Description:
The rise of far-right movements has led to concerns about a growing crisis of democratic institutions in Europe today. The relationship between nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy has long been debated within the field of history, and perhaps nowhere more so than in Germany. What is the contemporary relevance of these debates, and what can German history tell us about the challenges we face today?
On 27 January 2023, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (BBAW) and the Holberg Prize invite the public to a panel discussion on the long lines of nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy in Germany and Europe at large. Marking the 20th anniversary of the Holberg Prize, the 2011 Holberg laureate, Professor Jürgen Kocka, meets Professor Hedwig Richter and Professor Michael Zürn, in a discussion moderated by Professor Christoph Markschies, President of the BBAW.
The “Sonderweg approach” - that there was something particular about German history that set it apart and could explain the rise of fascism and Hitler’s ascent to power in 1933 - came under scrutiny from the 1980s onwards. Recently the debate has been revitalized, with the publication of Hedwig Richter’s book Democracy: A German Affair, drawing historical lines of German democratic traditions back to the Wilhelmine Empire. In an interview, Professor Kocka pointed out that such recent research has found new material on how the period of the Wilhelmine Empire saw rapid economic development, with societal and cultural changes that had emancipatory characteristics. However, it loses sight of how the Wilhelmine Empire was also what he calls an “authoritarian militarist-and-civil-servant state, which pursued aggressive colonial politics and bred extreme nationalism until the First World War (…)”. In political science, Professor Zürn is working on the “democratic regression” and the “contestation of the liberal script”, in both European and global contexts. In this panel discussion we therefore ask:
What can German history since 1871 tell us about the relationship between nationalism, democracy, and authoritarianism, not only in Germany but in Europe at large?
How can historians and social scientists cooperate in dealing with basic challenges to liberal democracy in the past and present?
Пікірлер: 19
It says there are four comments, but I can only see one. “Democracy” is so great! Widespread censorship is now commonplace
@angelozachos8777
Жыл бұрын
Free Speech is dangerous . Surely you must know this . Please quit your attempts to transform the word “censorship” into a negative . Censorship will save us
@JoeHeine
Жыл бұрын
@@angelozachos8777 really. Go on.
@politicas3361
Жыл бұрын
@@angelozachos8777 How would you like it if I stopped you saying what you think? Oh you call that censorship right?
@phil6bien
Жыл бұрын
Obviously you're being... Sarcastic. If not, please find a bridge...Lol. 😶 (Good one ;-) 🤺
@JoeHeine
Жыл бұрын
@@phil6bien yes, I’m being sarcastic
Bravo for discussing in your 2nd or 3rd languages, when you have a mother tongue in common. I admit it reminds me of studying German and trying to have discussions with other English students in German, which makes this very funny for me, in spite of the seriousness of the subject.
Thank you for teaching me a few new things about recent German history. However It seems to me that none of the panelists were totally wrong but no one was exactly right. In regards to democracy and liberalism in general (In Germany, in West and worldwide) and the contemporary challenges to the democracy, one must ask himself/herself the following: -How democratic is/was the democracy in the last half of the century? -Does it really matter if we live under a pretentious Democractic system vs an Authoritarian system? -Will democracy become useless even harmful in a (any) society were the majority acting carelessly due to lack of good moral compass regarding many if not most important issues OR when some stupid social trends or gestures become more important than rational thinking OR in a society where the corruption is accepted/has to be accepted OR when the brain health of many if not most is seriously reduced due to wide spread drug abuses/addictions? -Is "liberalism" really about the freedom of the majority of the people OR about putting money in the pockets of big businesses domestically and continuation of colonialism in some other countries? Also please bear in mind that the concept of nation or nationalism is not the same in every country or in every period in each country's history. I strongly believe that a rational and humanist culture, civil right, a well functional civic society, and series of useful and practical laws that are respected and enforced, are far more important than even a functional democracy. I hope that we all try to learn how to be patriotic or nationalist while still care to be humanist. I believe that perhaps for Germans Friedrich Schiller would be a good model to consider in Germany.
@revisit8480
Жыл бұрын
>nationalism was defined differently >be more patriotic or nationalistic >we need to be more humanist Nation was never defined differently - even the greeks and the romans already had that laid out, but you might as well ask the chinese, japanese or indian. It's all the same, over the entire globe, for many millenia. So the choice seems to be "patriot or nationalist"? A patriot salutes the flag that supresses his people, a nationalist salutes his people and then burns the flag he wrapped the politician in. "More humanist" is a weird one. You already stumble over the concept of patriot and nationalist, yet you wanna be above the swamp? You being a german though, you probably meant "more humanitarian"...
@SM-df9hm
Жыл бұрын
@@revisit8480 "A patriot salutes the flag that suppresses his people, a nationalist salutes his people....." So that is how you explain the difference between the patriot and nationalist? I don't think that is how most people would describe the two and that is okay for as long as you know that is not how some others see it. Yes, the concept of nation, definitely varies from one nation to another and can change /has changed over the history. In many cases, originally the tribes were considered as nations, then depending on the language you spoke you would belong to certain nation. In most cases the country that one lives in will determine what nationality he or she has but some nations won't agree with that and believe unless you were born in the country you are not a national. Then you have different tribal groups taking over the governing bodies of their country and consider the other groups as outsiders or second class. Religious affiliations, racial differences they all, for better and for worse have played roles in defining the nations in the past and to lesser degree even today, not just in Germany but around the world.
Democracy is just the right to choose. What we choose is the important thing. It seems everyone is forgetting that.
@revisit8480
Жыл бұрын
"Demo"-cracy also has to include a "Demos", and as Aristotle put it: It needs phillia. It isn't just what you vote for, but who you vote for - and who, in a country filled with the third world now, votes against you. Democracy is, ever since 1946, only a show for the ultrapowerful bankers and media types to stomp around on people - mainly on people who aren't even from their own genepool.