The 1990s marked a surprising return of the concept 'Historicism' to German historical studies and to international historiographical discussion. In principle two major currents conflict with each other in history and philosophy. The first, following Th. S. Kuhn, consists of 'Historicism', meaning the specific German definition used between Ranke and c. 1960, visible especially in documentary collections, which suppressed rehabilitated Enlightenment history, and is dismissed today by contemporary 'historical social science represented by Rüsen, Blanke, and Scholtz. The second current uses 'Historicism' to mean the principled and invincible historicization of all branches of knowledge (Oexle, Wittkau, Steenblock), whereby 'Historicism', given the neglect of a historical perspective, flees into the metahistorical. Theology reacts to this development with exegesis of classical authors like Harnack and Troeltsch. Given its opaque and polemical nature, Historicism is not exactly a concept designed to create a consensus amongst all branches of the humanities. This article, following the arguments of the late Bielefeld sociologist, Niklas Luhmann, advances the thesis, that the concept 'Historicisn' should serve to define only the typical modern and paradoxical self-description and self-reference associated with historical science, and the heady self-historicization of History.

Enthalten in:
Theologische Literaturzeitung; 2001/Nr.3 Monatsschrift für das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie und Religionswissenschaft (2001)

---

Serie / Reihe: Theologische Literaturzeitung

Personen: Murrmann-Kahl, Michael

Schlagwörter: Theologie Philosophie Literaturbericht Geschichtsschreibung Geschichtswissenschaft Historismus