The Meaning of Things: Human-Thing Relations in German

The Meaning of Things:
Human-Thing Relations in German Philosophy, History and Memory
José Brunner, Tel Aviv University
Director, Minerva Institute for German History
Project sponsored by Minerva Foundation, October 2011 – December 2012
I. Abstract
Current debates concerning social and cultural phenomena have led to what has come to
be called the “material turn” in the social sciences, by which things are moving into the
focus of attention; but neither the role of things in historical processes nor the history of
thinking about human-thing relations have hitherto been explored sufficiently (For the
purpose of this project a thing is defined as a material object transcending its exchange or
utility value as tool, commodity or something to be consumed).
The aim of this project is to add a historical dimension to the current focus on
human-thing relations by exploring three interrelated questions:
1.
How did modern German philosophers, from the 19th century to today
conceptualize the role of things in human affairs?
2.
How may awareness of the role of things impact on the writing of history?
3.
What role can things be said to play in the development and diffusion of
historical memory?
While this project suggests a novel look at each of these three questions, it also proposes
an innovative integrated framework for thinking about humans as historical creatures, the
study of historical events and processes, as well as for the understanding of how historical
memory is shaped, maintained and transmitted.
II. Objectives
Most will agree that history is about the actions of humans – as individuals and in groups
– their consciousness and intentions, hopes, dreams and suffering, the processes,
structures and contexts in which these actions were embedded, as well as the
consequences they had on other individuals, communities and entire societies. Although
2
current debates concerning social and cultural phenomena have led to what has come to
be called the “material turn” in the social sciences, neither the role of things in historical
processes nor the history of thinking about human-thing relations have hitherto been
explored sufficiently.
For the purpose of this project, a “thing” (“Ding”) is defined as a material object
transcending its exchange or utility value as tool, commodity or something to be
consumed. A thing may be a personal or family possession, a book, letter, toy,
photograph or gadget; a device, such as a pair of glasses, a walking stick or a kitchen
utensil; an article expressing one's talent or taste, such as a musical instrument, garment,
piece of furniture or painting; an item issued by an official authority, such as a form,
document, passport or identity card; as well as an object on public display in a gallery,
memorial or museum. In other words, the thing is a durable artifact endowed with
meaning – as trace or relic of the past, because it represents or defines its owner's social
status and distinction, enables a person to grasp the world and expressing her- or himself
in it, provides orientation and mirrors one's identity, or for a plethora of other emotional,
social or cognitive reasons.
Assuming that the role of things in the life of humans deserves attention, this
project endeavors to explore three interrelated questions:
A. How did modern German philosophers conceptualize the role of things in
human affairs?
B. How may awareness of the role of things impact on the writing of history?
C. What role can things be said to play in the development and diffusion of social
memory?
Accordingly, the project is divided into three interrelated parts, dealing with
A. philosophy,
B. historiography and
C. historical memory.
While this project suggests a novel look at each of these components, it also proposes an
innovative integrated framework for thinking about humans as historical creatures, the
study of historical events and processes, as well as for the understanding of how historical
memory is shaped, maintained and transmitted.
3
This is an endeavor, whose full elaboration will take more than the year to be
budgeted in response to this call for proposals. However, if granted, the funds offered by
the Minerva Foundation will make it possible to get this project off the ground. It will
allow both to undertake a significant step toward its further development and to produce
tangible results in the course of this year, in form of three international events that will
take place at Tel Aviv University, as well as the publication of a selection of essays in
German, detailing and illustrating the research agenda proposed here.
Thus, the result of this project will be a volume of essays, divided into three parts
and introduced by a conceptual opening statement written by the Principal Investigator.
The aim of the three events and the volume resulting from them is to have a double
impact on debates on the writing of history: first, by offering a series of philosophical,
historical and interdisciplinary case studies on a theme that has not yet been sufficiently
explored, and second, by offering an innovative methodological approach and raising farreaching historiographical questions.1
A. Philosophical Things
In the second half of the 19th century Karl Marx initiated a particular type of materialist
thinking about history. He argued that in order to understand historical processes one had
to examine the relations of production, that is, the changing social relations humans enter
in order to produce their means of subsistence. Under the impact of accelerated
industrialization, this form of materialism regarded artifacts primarily as commodities,
examining humans above all in their role as producers of goods. However, even in this
economic context Marx attributed to humans the tendency to endow “goods” (“Waren”)
with transcendent powers, fetishizing them, and thus turning them into “things”
(“Dinge”).2 While the notion of “commodity fetishism” is well-known and has been
widely commented upon,3 other conceptions of human-thing relations developed by
German philosophers have not received the comprehensive and profound consideration
they deserve.
The first part of the project re-examines the history of modern German thought,
focusing on the way in which attempts to develop philosophical approaches to history
include the changing relations of humans to things. The goal of this part is to establish
that there is a tradition of German thought distinguishing the thing (“das Ding”) as object
4
transcending its utility and exchange function, from other material objects. On closer
examination, this tradition (whose members would not necessarily define themselves as
materialists or as belonging to a single tradition) presents a series of varied and often
highly sophisticated perspectives on the multifaceted and changing relations of humans to
things. To reveal the richness of this thought, historical inquiries into German philosophy
will be conducted and solicited, focusing on the diverse ways in which modern German
thinkers ranging from Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach4 and Marx and Engels, through Nietzsche,
Heidegger,5 Scheler6 and Gehlen,7 to Horkheimer and Adorno,8 Arendt,9 Benjamin,10
Bloch11 and Fromm,12 have conceptualized a) things, b) the way humans relate to them,
and c) the impact of human-thing relations on historical consciousness.
A conference entitled “Philosophical Things,” to be organized in cooperation with
the Philosophy Department of Tel Aviv University in fall 2012, will bring together young
and established German and Israeli scholars dealing with this theme.
B. Historical Things
Approaches deployed since the late 1990s in the field of science studies, such as the
Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) developed by Paul Latour and Michel Callon,13 suggest
considering the interrelation of things and humans from a new perspective. Investigating
primarily the way scientific research is conducted, they accord material objects of all
kinds the dignity of actors in their own right, endowed with the power to transform the
status and consciousness of humans. Drawing on this approach, but broadening its scope
significantly, the second part of this project focuses on the fruitfulness of a historical
perspective that highlights the fact that humans are embedded in a network of both
human and non-human actors. Thus this part examines the role and significance of things
for the definition, stabilization or alteration of social roles and structures.
These issues will be explored within the particular context of modern German
history. Hence the second part of the project will be composed of a number of case
studies illustrating both how the role of things in German history can be researched, as
well as depicting the way in which things actually can be said to be historical actors, that
is, impacting on the actions and fate of humans. To give just one example, one of the
topics to be explored in this part is the effect of forms, signs and other material markers
of identity on various groups in German society.14
5
An international conference, to be held at Tel Aviv University in summer 2012,
will not only constitute a venue of the presentation and discussion of case studies, but
also create an opportunity for a historiographical discussion on how to conceptualize
things as actors, both in general and more specifically, in German history.
C. Memorable Things
The third part of the project proceeds to some extent under the impact of the concept
“postmemory” introduced by literary scholar Marianne Hirsch.15 Hirsch has stressed the
importance of meaningful material objects, such as photographs, in the development and
transmission – some might say, construction – of historical memory. Inspired by Hirsch’s
work, but also aiming to reflect upon it critically, an international and interdisciplinary
conference will be held at Tel Aviv University in spring 2012. Its purpose is to examine
the way in which the Holocaust memory has been maintained or modified within a
lifespan and across generations. Entitled “Memorable Things”, the conference will
include Israeli, German and Austrian scholars from history, psychology and
anthropology, focusing on the role of photographs and documentary films in triggering,
shaping and transmitting Holocaust memory and on the way displays in historical
museums and memorials impact on historical memory.16
In addition to the papers to be presented at the conference, scholars will be
approached for papers dealing with the role of things in German memory in contexts
unrelated to the Holocaust. Thus an attempt will be made to provide a new impetus into
the debate on collective memory and memorial culture, their origins, dynamics and
effects.17
6
1
Hitherto most studies on the role of things in modern society have been undertaken from
psychological and sociological angles, above all from the perspective of cultural sociology, while historical
and philosophical dimensions have been somewhat neglected. See Arjun Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life
of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge 1986; Roland Barthes, Mythologies, New
York 1972 (1957); John Brewer/Roy Porter, Consumption and the World of Goods, London 1993; Jean
Baudrillard, The System of Objects, New York 2005 (1968); Rüdiger Dannemann, Das Prinzip
Verdinglichung. Studie zur Philosophie Georg Lukács, Frankfurt a. M. 1987; Mary Douglas/Baren
Isherwood, The World of Goods, New York 1982; Susanne Fohler, Techniktheorien. Der Platz der Dinge
in der Welt des Menschen, Munich 2002; Urs Fuhrer/Ingrid E. Josephs (eds.), Persönliche Objekte,
Identität und Entwicklung, Göttingen 1999; Albert Grote, Die Welt der Dinge. Eine Phänomenologie ihrer
formalen Struktur, Hamburg 1948; Tilmann Habermas, Geliebte Objekte. Symbole und Instrumente der
Identitätsbildung, Berlin 1996; Hans Albrecht Hartmann/Rolf Haubl (eds.), Von Dingen und Menschen.
Funktion und Bedeutung materieller Kultur, Wiesbaden 2000; Joachim Israel, Der Begriff Entfremdung.
Zur Verdinglichung des Menschen in der bürokratischen Gesellschaft, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1985; Scott
Lash, Another Modernity, a Different Rationality, Oxford/Malden, MA 1999; Hans Linde, Sachdominanz
in Sozialstrukturen, Tübingen 1972; Stefan Laube, Von der Reliquie zum Ding. Heiliger Ort –
Wunderkammer – Museum, Berlin 2011; Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness. Studies in
Marxist Dialectics, Cambridge, MA 1972 (1923); Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Der Mensch und die
Widersetzlichkeit der Dinge”, in: idem, Das Auge und der Geist, Hamburg 1984; Daniel Miller (ed.),
Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter, Chicago 1998; Museum für Angewandte Kunst Frankfurt
(ed.), Der Souvenir – Erinnerung in Dingen von der Reliquie zum Andenken, Cologne 2006; Charles
Panati, Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things, New York 1987; Krzysztof Pomian, Der Ursprung des
Museums. Vom Sammeln, Berlin 1988; Wolfgang Ruppert (ed.), Fahrrad, Auto, Fernsehschrank. Zur
Kulturgeschichte der Alltagsdinge, Frankfurt a.M. 1993.
2
Marx uses the expressions “fetish” and “fetishism” already in his early writings, but only in his
later work does he fully integrate them into his critique of political economy, commenting for instance:
“Daß ein gesellschaftliches Produktionsverhältnis sich als ein außer den Individuen vorhandener
Gegenstand und die bestimmten Beziehungen, die sie im Produktionsprozeß ihres gesellschaftlichen
Lebens eingehen, sich als spezifische Eigenschaft eines Dings darstellen, diese Verkehrung und nicht
eingebildete, sondern prosaisch reelle Mystifikation charakterisiert alle gesellschaftlichen Formen der
Tauschwert setzenden Arbeit.” Marx-Engels Werke [MEW], vol. 13, p. 35; “Fetischismus [verwandelt] den
gesellschaftlichen, ökonomischen Charakter, welchen Dinge im gesellschaftlichen Produktionsprozeß
aufgeprägt erhalten, in einen natürlichen, aus der stofflichen Natur dieser Dinge entspringenden Charakter
(…).” MEW, vol. 24, p. 228.
3
E.g., Terrence Carver, “Marx's Commodity Fetishism”, in: Inquiry 18 (1975), pp. 39-63; Massimo
De Angelis, “Social Relations, Commodity-Fetishism and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy”, in:
Review of Radical Political Economics 28 (1996), pp. 1-29; Norman Geras, “Essence and Appearance:
Aspects of Fetishism in Marx’s Capital”, in: New Left Review 65 (1971), pp. 69-85; Samuel Knafo, “The
Fetishizing Subject in Marx's Capital”, in: Capital & Class 76 (2002), pp. 145-174.
4
Klaus Erich Bockmühl, Leiblichkeit und Gesellschaft. Studien zur Religionskritik und
Anthropologie im Frühwerk von Ludwig Feuerbach und Karl Marx, Göttingen 1980.
5
Martin Heidegger, “Das Ding”, in: Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste (ed.), Gestalt und
Gedanke. Ein Jahrbuch, Munich 1951, pp. 128-148; idem, Die Frage nach dem Ding. Zu Kants Lehre von
den transzendentalen Grundsätzen. Freiburger Vorlesung, Wintersemester 1935/36, Frankfurt a. M. 1984 [=
Gesamtausgabe 41/ 2, Vorlesungen 1923-1944].
6
Max Scheler, The Human Place in the Cosmos, Evanston 2009 (1928).
7
Arnold Gehlen, “Der Mensch und die Technik”, in: idem, Anthropologische und
sozialpsychologische Untersuchungen, Reinbeck bei Hamburg 1986.
8
Max Horkheimer / Theodor W. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente.
Amsterdam 1947.
9
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago 1958.
10
Walter Benjamin, Berlin Childhood around 1900, Cambridge, MA 2006 (1950); idem, “Das
Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit”, in: Rolf Tiedemann/Hermann
Schweppenhäuser (eds.), Walter Benjamin. Gesammelte Schriften VII/1, Frankfurt a. M. 1989.
7
11
Ernst Bloch, Subjekt-Objekt. Erläuterungen zu Hegel, Berlin 1951.
Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be?, London 1979.
13
Bruno Latour, “On Actor-Network Theory. A Few Clarifications”, in: Soziale Welt 47 (1996), pp.
369-382; idem, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford 2005.
14
For an essay pointing in this direction see Amos Goldberg, “Trauma, Narrative, and Two Forms of
Death”, in: Literature and Medicine 25 (2006), pp. 122-141.
15
Marianne Hirsch, Family Frames: Photography, Narrative, and Postmemory, Cambridge, MA
1997; idem, The Generation of Postmemory: Gender and Visuality After the Holocaust (forthcoming).
16
For other works that are relevant in this context see Detlef Hoffmann (ed.), Das Gedächtnis der
Dinge. KZ-Relikte und KZ-Denkmäler 1945-1995 (=Reihe des Fritz Bauer Instituts 4), Frankfurt a. M.
1998; Claus Leggewie/Erik Meyer, “Ein Ort, an den man gerne geht”. Das Holocaust-Mahnmal und die
deutsche Geschichtspolitik nach 1989, Munich/Vienna 2005; Peter Reichel, Politik mit der Erinnerung.
Gedächtnisorte im Streit um die nationalsozialistische Vergangenheit, Frankfurt a. M. 1999.
17
Aleida Assmann (ed.), Kultur als Lebenswelt und Monument, Frankfurt a. M. 1991; idem,
Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, Munich 2003; Jan Assmann,
Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Cultural Memory in the Present), Stanford 2005; Bettina
Bannasch/Almuth Hammer (eds.), Verbot der Bilder – Gebot der Erinnerung. Frankfurt a. M./New York
2004; Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember, Cambridge 1989; Christoph Danelzik-Brüggemann/Rolf
Reichardt (eds.), Bildgedächtnis eines welthistorischen Ereignisses. Die Tableaux historiques de la
Révolution française, Göttingen 2001; Astrid Erll, Kollektives Gedächtnis und Erinnerungskulturen,
Stuttgart 2005; Maurice Halbwachs, Das Gedächtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen, Frankfurt a. M. 2006
(1925); idem, On Collective Memory, Chicago 1992 (1939); Dietrich Harth (ed.), Die Erfindung des
Gedächtnisses, Frankfurt a. M. 1991; Iwona Irwin-Zarecka, Frames of Remembrance – The Dynamics of
Collective Memory, New Brunswick/London 1994; Kerwin Lee Klein, “On the Emergence of Memory in
Historical Discourse”, in: Representations 69 (2000), pp. 127-150; Jeffrey K. Olick/Joyce Robbins, “Social
Memory Studies: From ‛Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices”, in:
American Review of Sociology 24 (1998), pp. 105-140; Jay Winter, “The Generation of Memory:
Reflections on the Memory Boom in Contemporary Historical Studies”, in: German Historical Institute
(GHI) Bulletin 27 (2000), pp. 69-92.
12