Die Digitalisierung der Lebenswelt durchwi rkt sämtliche Bereiche gesellschaftlicher Erfahrung und verändert sie: W eder Kunst noch Wissenschaft\, weder Hochkultur noch Alltagsleben können sich dieser Neustrukturierung entziehen. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des auf all e Lebensbereiche wie Erfahrungsformen zielenden ‚algorithmic turn’ ist dringend geboten. Wie gehen wir mit den Veränderungen um\, die dabei die innersten Schichten gesellschaftlichen Interagierens zu betreffen scheine n? Das schließt insbesondere auch die Frage ein\, ob und wie hier neu zu justieren ist\, was Urteilskraft heißt und was sie erfordert.
\nDie Tagung versteht sich als eine grundlegende Reflexion darüber\, welche Be deutung den Begriffen Erfahrung und Urteilen unter den Bedingungen der Ver änderungen zukommt\, für die Digitalisierung das Stichwort ist. Der Vers uch\, die soziokulturellen Entwicklungen zu klären und zu verstehen\, die damit einhergehen sind – etwa als Normativ ‚Transparenz’ –\, weiß sich dem Denken von Hannah Arendt verpflichtet. Arendt\, von den Erfahrun gen der totalitären Regime des 20. Jahrhunderts geprägt\, entwickelte in ihrem Werk Konzepte von Privatheit und Öffentlichkeit bzw. von Politik u nd Urteilen. Ob diese Konzepte eine akkurate Analyse der mit dem ‚digita l/ algorithmic turn’ verbundenen gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen erlau ben\, soll auf der Tagung diskutiert werden.
\nWeitere Informationen zur Tagung finden sich auf der Tagu ngshomepage.
LOCATION:BIS-Saal END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-arbeitsmarkt-fuer-promovierte-geisteswissenschaftlerinnen DTSTAMP:20180309T150708Z DTSTART:20181115T080000Z DTEND:20181115T170000Z SUMMARY:Arbeitsmarkt für promovierte GeisteswissenschaftlerInnen DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION:A3-1-109 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-global-microhistory-great-expectations DTSTAMP:20181128T185630Z DTSTART:20181206T083000Z DTEND:20181207T150000Z SUMMARY:Global Microhistory: Great Expectations? DESCRIPTION:Global Microhistory is\, without question\, one of the hottest topics in current discussions about the future of historiography. It has been established and promoted as an innovative research perspective\, as a new approach that promises to bring togetherb and fruitfully combine the advantages of Global History and Microhistory. Some historians have gone s o far as to hail the success of this new approach as a "Renaissance" and a s a long-overdue further development of these older\, wellestablished rese arch approaches (Medick 2016). Other\, gloomier\, historians have suspecte d that Global Microhistory is barely more than a shiny new label stuck on old perspectives and methods (Levi 2016). Despite this criticism\, the las t decade has clearly brought some substantial and innovative historiograph ic results which have proven the significance and relevance of this new ap proach (Trivellato 2009/2011\, Aslanian 2011\, Epple 2010\, Gerritsen 2012 /2016\, Hunt 2014\, Rothschild 2011\, Ghobrial 2014).\nDrawing on the new research perspective\, these - by now widely known – publications and st udies have shown the innovation potential of the approach for maritime and economic history\, for family history\, for the history of labour or of k nowledge transfer etc\; and so Global Microhistory has found its place in the canon of historiographic approaches. And yet: While its general signif icance and relevance appear to have been established\, its concrete method ological foundation and agenda still seem unclear and vague to many histor ians. How is Global Microhistory actually done\, from an empirical point o f view? In terms of methodology\, the various books and researchprojects v ary considerably\, although they all identify as Global Microhistories.\nT his certainly leaves room for criticism. Are Global Microhistories the fam iliar histories of individual or everyday lives\, distinctive only because of their globalsetting? Or - on the other end of the spectrum - is Global Microhistory maybe just a clever stratagem to adorn or supplement the oft en seemingly anonymous and structural\, and sometimes seemingly static\, l arge scale approaches such as Global History through the human factor\, th rough the experiences and actions of historical agents? Since Global Micro histories often focus on cross-cultural encounters\, the permeability of s ocial and cultural boundaries as experienced by various individuals\, and on people and things on the move (Trivellato 2011\, Putnam 2006)\, another important question would be how this kind of historiography still allows us to acknowledge the clear existence of power structures and institutiona l practices\, borders and boundaries which were an undeniable and relative ly constant factor which shaped Early Modern global encounters? In general \, one of the more pressing questions that still needs to be answered is w hat research unit should and could best be chosen as a suitable basis for investigation when doing Global Microhistory? Is\, for example\, a focus o n social practices a possible and suitable approach to integrate both the more structural and the more individual and contingent elements of social global life in the Early Modern Era? Equally pressing is the question of h ow we actually define the "global" and the "micro" in the approach. Is Glo bal Microhistory in the end primarily a question of scale\, with us simply expanding the scope of our investigations to global phenomena? Or does th e chosen research focus also entail changes of what is possible in terms o f historical narratives? From a methodological point of view\, how do we e nsure and actually go about the “decentering“of our Eurocentric perspe ctives\, something which has frequently been postulated in past and curren t discussions (Zemon Davis 2011)? How is it methodologically possible to " address multiple contexts\, and consider the flexibility and variability o f scale and distance" (Warwick conference call for the Global Microhistory Conference 1\, 2018)?\nAll of these questions (and likely more) will be a ddressed during the workshop. Over the course of two days\, we will discus s different ways and methods of doing Global Microhistory\, from data anal ysis to network analysis to Historical Anthropology or materiality studies . We want to try and identify a red thread for Global Microhistory on the basis of nine papers/presentations from very different fields of Early Mod ern History\; there will be a diversity of subjects\, sources and methodol ogies\, and hopefully also of positions towards the concept of Global Micr ohistory. We would like to invite you to approach this workshop not as a t iny conference\, but rather as a “History Lab”\, in which work in prog ress is presented and discussed. Papers should not exceed 20-25 minutes\, which will be followed by 40 minutes of discussion for each paper.\nWe hav e deliberately chosen this format for the workshop to also address a much more general issue with regard to Global Microhistory\, which is how this approach might\, in the end\, affect future ways of doing research\, shari ng knowledge and cooperating with each other in our “globalized” world . We believe that Global Microhistory thrives through international cooper ation and joint research projects – and pursuing such projects would mea n counteracting current political and cultural developments that increasin gly favour a return to\, or a continuation of\, nation-based historiograph y and nationalist historical narratives.\nWorkshop programme (PDF download )\nLocation guide X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:Global Microhistory is\, without question\ , one of the hottest topics in current discussions about the future of his toriography. It has been established and promoted as an innovative researc h perspective\, as a new approach that promises to bring togetherb and fru itfully combine the advantages of Global History and Microhistory. Some hi storians have gone so far as to hail the success of this new approach as a "Renaissance" and as a long-overdue further development of these older\, wellestablished research approaches (Medick 2016). Other\, gloomier\, hist orians have suspected that Global Microhistory is barely more than a shiny new label stuck on old perspectives and methods (Levi 2016). Despite this criticism\, the last decade has clearly brought some substantial and inno vative historiographic results which have proven the significance and rele vance of this new approach (Trivellato 2009/2011\, Aslanian 2011\, Epple 2 010\, Gerritsen 2012/2016\, Hunt 2014\, Rothschild 2011\, Ghobrial 2014).< /p>\n
Drawing on the new research perspective\, these - by now widely kn own – publications and studies have shown the innovation potential of th e approach for maritime and economic history\, for family history\, for th e history of labour or of knowledge transfer etc\; and so Global Microhist ory has found its place in the canon of historiographic approaches. And ye t: While its general significance and relevance appear to have been establ ished\, its concrete methodological foundation and agenda still seem uncle ar and vague to many historians. How is Global Microhistory actually done\ , from an empirical point of view? In terms of methodology\, the various b ooks and researchprojects vary considerably\, although they all identify a s Global Microhistories.
\nThis certainly leaves room for criticism. Are Global Microhistories the familiar histories of individual or everyda y lives\, distinctive only because of their globalsetting? Or - on the oth er end of the spectrum - is Global Microhistory maybe just a clever strata gem to adorn or supplement the often seemingly anonymous and structural\, and sometimes seemingly static\, large scale approaches such as Global His tory through the human factor\, through the experiences and actions of his torical agents? Since Global Microhistories often focus on cross-cultural encounters\, the permeability of social and cultural boundaries as experie nced by various individuals\, and on people and things on the move (Trivel lato 2011\, Putnam 2006)\, another important question would be how this ki nd of historiography still allows us to acknowledge the clear existence of power structures and institutional practices\, borders and boundaries whi ch were an undeniable and relatively constant factor which shaped Early Mo dern global encounters? In general\, one of the more pressing questions th at still needs to be answered is what research unit should and could best be chosen as a suitable basis for investigation when doing Global Microhis tory? Is\, for example\, a focus on social practices a possible and suitab le approach to integrate both the more structural and the more individual and contingent elements of social global life in the Early Modern Era? Equ ally pressing is the question of how we actually define the "global" and t he "micro" in the approach. Is Global Microhistory in the end primarily a question of scale\, with us simply expanding the scope of our investigatio ns to global phenomena? Or does the chosen research focus also entail chan ges of what is possible in terms of historical narratives? From a methodol ogical point of view\, how do we ensure and actually go about the “decen tering“of our Eurocentric perspectives\, something which has frequently been postulated in past and current discussions (Zemon Davis 2011)? How is it methodologically possible to "address multiple contexts\, and consider the flexibility and variability of scale and distance" (Warwick conferenc e call for the Global Microhistory Conference 1\, 2018)?
\nAll of th ese questions (and likely more) will be addressed during the workshop. Ove r the course of two days\, we will discuss different ways and methods of d oing Global Microhistory\, from data analysis to network analysis to Histo rical Anthropology or materiality studies. We want to try and identify a r ed thread for Global Microhistory on the basis of nine papers/presentation s from very different fields of Early Modern History\; there will be a div ersity of subjects\, sources and methodologies\, and hopefully also of pos itions towards the concept of Global Microhistory. We would like to invite you to approach this workshop not as a tiny conference\, but rather as a “History Lab”\, in which work in progress is presented and discussed. Papers should not exceed 20-25 minutes\, which will be followed by 40 minu tes of discussion for each paper.
\nWe have deliberately chosen this format for the workshop to also address a much more general issue with re gard to Global Microhistory\, which is how this approach might\, in the en d\, affect future ways of doing research\, sharing knowledge and cooperati ng with each other in our “globalized” world. We believe that Global M icrohistory thrives through international cooperation and joint research p rojects – and pursuing such projects would mean counteracting current po litical and cultural developments that increasingly favour a return to\, o r a continuation of\, nation-based historiography and nationalist historic al narratives.
\n\n LOCATION:A3 1-109 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-k-kreis-28 DTSTAMP:20181024T161018Z DTSTART:20181212T130000Z DTEND:20181212T150000Z SUMMARY:K-Kreis DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION: END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-weihnachtsfeier-1-1 DTSTAMP:20181024T161125Z DTSTART:20181212T170000Z DTEND:20181212T225900Z SUMMARY:Weihnachtsfeier DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION:Graduiertenkolleg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-sprecherinnenrat DTSTAMP:20181206T113359Z DTSTART:20181219T130000Z DTEND:20181219T140000Z SUMMARY:Sprecher*innenrat DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION: END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-sprecherinnenrat-1 DTSTAMP:20190114T112642Z DTSTART:20190124T080000Z DTEND:20190124T090000Z SUMMARY:Sprecher*innenrat DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION: END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:calendarize-intensivkolloquium-2-1 DTSTAMP:20180711T173339Z DTSTART:20190131T080000Z DTEND:20190201T170000Z SUMMARY:Intensivkolloquium DESCRIPTION: X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html: LOCATION: END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR