<br>
Annotation 6
Analytic Note:
Type: Knowledge Production
Restating the Claim: Section 1.2 of the paper raised the epistemological question about the theory-laden descriptions and hence whether its underlying facts have sufficient epistemological autonomy to serve as empirical benchmarks for evaluating description. Section 1.2 and the conclusion show that descriptions vary in their theory-ladeness and that the epistemological problem is not a severe as constructivists imply. This broad discussion about the theory-laden nature of analysis applies to the Goldhagen debate additional and interesting ways. Its public nature brought out broader sociological factors that potentially shaped either Goldhagen’s own analysis or that of its critics. It thus illustrates that, it is not just theoretical foreknowledge, but also broader sociological and personal factors, that shape analysis. This broader sociological foreknowledge thus goes beyond the structuring effects that theoretical foreknowledge and its epistemological underpinnings might have, I briefly review here some of these factors to make their potential impact as transparent as possible. Source: I encountered three sociological factors. Andrei Markovits (1997) noted that many German reviews dwelled on the biographical details of Goldhagen and his initial American reviewers. The reviewers pointed out that Goldhagen is Jewish and that his father was a Romanian Holocaust survivor. (A fact shared by Goldhagen in his acknowledgements) They also pointed out that many positive reviews came from American journalists who were Jewish. Markovits infers from this pattern a latent anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism among Germans. He attributes those sentiments to an unwillingness by Germans to accept Goldhagen’s premise of Germany’s eliminationist anti-Semitism. Werner Bergman (1998) discusses the interesting and complex interactions between the scholarly and journalist discussions and their very different modes of intellectual engagement. He points out that scholarly debates defer to expert judgments and are guided specific guidelines of empirical validation. Journalistic accounts, by contrast, are driven by novelty, controversy, personalization, and stimulating public debate. (133) He argues that Goldhagen and his publisher were playing a media game, aimed at attracting publicity, while historians were playing a scholarly game, and were resentful of the media game. (141-43) Goldhagen and his publicists were emphasizing the book’s moral message that highlighted in new ways the brutality with which Germans killed and downplayed the shortcomings of his deterministic explanation. They accentuated this point further by pointing out that earlier historians had downplayed this brutality and thus insinuated they were morally compromised. (Deák 1997, 298) István Deák also speculated the professionally jealousy maybe played a role “for the violent professional critique. Historical works seldom become bestsellers, and it is even less common for historians to become public figures. As Josef Joffe put it, ‘one can imagine the resentment of scholars who have worked hard for decades on the history of the Third Reich without getting anything like the attention given to Goldhagen.’” (Deák, 297)
Analytic Commentary: These various sociological factors may have influenced the judgments of various reviewers. But these effects are almost impossible to empirically substantiate which is why they are usually not considered in scholarly discussions. I have no way to verify them, but I am reasonably confident that they did not play any role in my assessments. But given they could and given my Swiss-Austrian ancestry, it still might be helpful to make them transparent.
Full Citations:
- Bergman, Werner. 1998. “Im falschen System. Die Goldhagen Debatte in Wissenschaft Und Öffentlichkeit.” In Geschichtwissenschaft Und Öffentlichkeit. Der Streit Um Daniel Goldhagen, ed. Johannes Heil and Rainer Erb. Frankfurt: S. Fischer: 131-47.
- Deák, István. 1997. “Holocaust Views: The Goldhagen Controversy in Retrospect.”Central European History 30(2): 295–307.
- Markovits, Andrei. 1998. “Discomposure in History’s Final Resting Place.” In Unwilling Germans? The Goldhagen Debate, ed. Robert R. Shandley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hopscotch, a children's sidewalk game, holds the abstract appearance of an arrow and in addition has a fixed direction from 1 to 10
