The main research concentration of the department of Eastern European History focuses on economic, social as well as cultural history, with topics ranging from the Early Modern Age to contemporary history (i.e., from the 16th to the 21st century). While Russia and the Soviet Union receive particular attention, other Eastern European nations are taken into consideration as well. Their role, however, is by no means restricted to the post-World War II era, when the Eastern bloc formed a closed-off political, economic and social space. Since approximation to “The West“, whether in form of imitation, delimitation or exchange, has been a central paradigm in Russian history since at least the Early Modern Age, comparison, transfer and linkages/interdependences and the processes underlying them assume a central role in our research. As a result, and depending on the respective epoch and approach, different national and regional focal points, such as trade relations, cultural exchange, social and geographic mobility, migration as well as the exchange of cultural goods and concepts, emerge as potential topics to be investigated.
The widespread cliché of a supposed “Russian backwardness“ is not solely based on a Western-style model of modernization; in addition, it tempts the research community to portray Russia exclusively as recipient in a unilateral cultural transfer from West to East. These stereotypical constrictions must be overcome. Much similar to postcolonial studies, which treats the feedback of asymmetrical colonial relationships towards the hegemon, Russia’s involvement/embedment in European and global contexts can be analyzed reciprocally.
In this manner, the ethnographic point of view, which, in the case of Russia, but also in what is referred to as the New World, gains momentum during the Early Modern Age, constructing a somewhat exotic alterity in people, which accordingly exerts a crucial influence on the self-conception of observers and readers alike. With regard to Russia, it is not only the concept of alterity that is constituted, even though this seems to be the pre-dominating perspective, considering the ethnic groups located in the east of the multi-ethnic nation. However, the description of revolts and upheavals yields parallels rather than differences, and such events remind observers of conflicts with which they are confronted “at home“ in a very similar fashion.
Comparison to the West is the pivotal leitmotif in 19th-century Russia, dominating debates about the future, i.e. about reform and reaction. Ever since the Napoleonic Wars, which had established first-hand contact with foreigners for large parts of society, it is no longer only the government dealing with the West for the exclusive sake of military competitiveness. Most importantly, discussions and debates on adaptation and/or delimitation increase significantly, particularly attracting those groups rather distant from the state. These groups constitute what is known today as the “Intelligencija”, hitherto almost always connoted with dissent towards the status quo in the Russian Ancien Régime, primarily thanks to the large-scale discussions mentioned on the above. The pretense is to speak for “the people”, yet the distance to the vast majority of the rural population becomes continually greater. At the same time, the Intelligencija is maintaining solid networks and is politically active, for instance as a result of long stays abroad. It is at this point that efforts to build a civil society in Russia come into play, with the axes of center and periphery as well as capital and province occupying prominent roles.
20th-centry Sovietification embodies another significant field of complex interdependences (and the process leading to them, for that matter), even if it is frequently read as a manifestation of isolation. Soviet communism can be traced neither to Russian sources nor Western concepts. It is an amalgamation created from a plethora of sources, but above all from transnational practice. Even if many doors to the outside world are shut under Stalin, the Sovietification of Eastern Europe after World War II functions as a re-adaptation of sorts which, in spite of the massive use of force, cannot be reduced to a mere transfer. Quite the contrary, one might say, as these processes include reforms and transformation differentiating the Eastern European people’s democracies effectively from the Soviet model.
The Sleeping Beauty metaphor, however, is misleading particularly when it comes to the the “renaissance“ of Islam in the central Asian former Soviet republics, for it ignores the manifold convergences of most diverse religious and secular traditions, emerging as a new variety of the Islamic faith.
All of these imminently historic processes serve as examples of the multi-layered nature of transnational circulation and complexity investigated in the course of our research. Cooperation with partner from academia as well as economy in Central Eastern and Eastern Europe as well as in Asia plays an important role. In this context, we regularly offer Summer Schools -particularly in Russia - enabling students to be in direct exchange and immediate contact with scholars and students from these countries.
Research projects comprise topics from the following paradigms:
Economic, Social and Cultural History
Political Communication
Biographical Approaches
Center and Periphery
Deutsch