- History of Capitalism, Postcolonialism, Global History, History of Migration, Urban History, Urban Studies, and 21 moreFrench Studies, French colonialism, French colonial Algeria, Migration Studies, Mobility/Mobilities, History of knowledge, Architectural History, Urban Anthropology, Race and Racism, Immigration, Architecture and Urban Planning, Post-Colonialism, Environmental History, Social History, Temporality, Migration, Anthropology of ethics and morality, British History, European History, British Imperial and Colonial History (1600 - ), and Modern British Historyedit
- Current Position Chair of Modern European History; also associated member of the interdisciplinary Research Group "Th... moreCurrent Position
Chair of Modern European History; also associated member of the interdisciplinary Research Group "The Production of Knowledge on Migration" at the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrueck, Germany
I am a historian of Modern Europe, specialising in migration history, urban history and the history of the social sciences. In my work, I mostly focus on 19th- and 20th-century British, French and German history, whereby I seek to investigate these Western European histories as part of broader transnational processes such as globalization and decolonization. In my first book, Grenzen der Freizügigkeit: Migrationskontrolle in Großbritannien und Deutschland, 1880-1930 (München: Oldenbourg, 2010), I have explored the tension between globalized movement and state control in the late 19th and early 20th century. Comparing practices of immigration control in the British and German migration regime, I seek to understand how they helped produce ‘illegal migration’ as a new administrative category.
In my new book on “Urban Problem Zones in (Post)Colonial France and West Germany” I investigate a shift from “class” to “race” and “ethnicity” in the construction of social problems in late 20th century-Western Europe. Focussing on different forms of urban marginality in peripheral shanty-towns, high-rise housing estates and so-called “migrant quarters”, the book is based on my habilitation thesis.
Education
PhD Humboldt-University Berlin (2008)
M.A. Humboldt-University, Berlin (Modern History and Modern German Literature, 2003)
M.A. University College London (Modern History, 2001)
Research Interest
-Migration History (with a particular view to the history of migration regimes and the tension between modern state practices, territorialisation and globalised migration)
-Urban History (with a particular view to urban inequality and segregation and to the history of urban renewal and large high-rise housing estates)
-History of the Social Sciences (in particular with a view to the production and circulation of knowledge on inequality, on class, gender and race)edit
Dass Migration in den westeuropäischen Gesellschaften des späten 20. und frühen 21. Jahrhunderts lange Zeit in erster Linie als Problem und zumal als ‚Integrationsproblem‘ dargestellt wurde, ist in der jüngeren Migrationsforschung... more
Dass Migration in den westeuropäischen Gesellschaften des späten 20. und frühen 21. Jahrhunderts lange Zeit in erster Linie als Problem und zumal als ‚Integrationsproblem‘ dargestellt wurde, ist in der jüngeren Migrationsforschung intensiv diskutiert worden. An diese Debatten anknüpfend, beleuchtet der Beitrag den Einfluss, den sozialwissenschaftliche Daten und Narrative auf die Genese des Integrationsdispositivs im postkolonialen Frankreich und der Bundesrepublik nahmen. Mit Hilfe wissensgeschichtlicher Ansätze wird analysiert, auf welche Weise der prozentuale Anteil an ‚Ausländern‘, ‚Immigranten‘ oder ethnisch definierten Gruppen an der städtischen Wohnbevölkerung zu einem Problemfaktor gemacht wurde, der mit Desintegration und sozialen Problemen gleichgesetzt wurde und in beiden Ländern wohnpolitische Maßnahmen anleitete. Im Mittelpunkt der Analyse stehen die Soziologisierung städtischer Wohnpolitiken seit den 1960er Jahren und die Effekte einer stark von global zirkulierenden Daten und ‚racial narratives‘ geprägten Auseinandersetzung mit der wachsenden Diversität der städtischen Wohnbevölkerung.
The fact that migration in the Western European societies of the late 20th and early 21st century was primarily perceived as a problem and especially as an 'integration problem', has been intensively discussed in recent migration research. Based on these debates, this article examines how social scientific data and narratives influenced the genesis of the integration dispositif in postcolonial France and the Federal Republic of Germany. It analyses from a history of knowledge perspective how the percentage of 'foreigners', 'immigrants' or ethnically defined groups in the urban population was made into an indicator of disintegration and social problems that came to be employed in both countries' housing policies. The analysis focuses on the sociologisation of urban housing policies since the 1960s and examines how globally circulating data and 'racial narratives' impacted on the ways in which the growing diversity of the urban residential population was dealt with.
The fact that migration in the Western European societies of the late 20th and early 21st century was primarily perceived as a problem and especially as an 'integration problem', has been intensively discussed in recent migration research. Based on these debates, this article examines how social scientific data and narratives influenced the genesis of the integration dispositif in postcolonial France and the Federal Republic of Germany. It analyses from a history of knowledge perspective how the percentage of 'foreigners', 'immigrants' or ethnically defined groups in the urban population was made into an indicator of disintegration and social problems that came to be employed in both countries' housing policies. The analysis focuses on the sociologisation of urban housing policies since the 1960s and examines how globally circulating data and 'racial narratives' impacted on the ways in which the growing diversity of the urban residential population was dealt with.
Research Interests:
In order to explore the changing relationship between migrants and papers, cities and states in the early 20th century, this article takes two capital cities as starting points. It compares the use of police registries, identity papers,... more
In order to explore the changing relationship between migrants and papers, cities and states in the early 20th century, this article takes two capital cities as starting points. It compares the use of police registries, identity papers, and deportations in London and Berlin at that time and analyses how migrants sought to circumvent the attempts to control immigration, for example by forging papers or by crossing borders clandestinely. The analysis thus seeks to understand how ‘illegal migration’ came to be produced as a new administrative and social category. Pointing to the complex interactions between local actors, state officials and migrants in the field of migration control, it proposes to investigate modern states not as single entities, but as multi-sided assemblages of actors and infrastructures.
Research Interests:
Konflikte über Sprache sind weit mehr als Konflikte über Schreib- und Ausdrucksweisen: Es sind Konflikte über Gesellschaft und über die Art und Weise, wie wir gesellschaftlichen Wandel, uns selbst und andere wahrnehmen, deuten und... more
Konflikte über Sprache sind weit mehr als Konflikte über Schreib- und Ausdrucksweisen: Es sind Konflikte über Gesellschaft und über die Art und Weise, wie wir gesellschaftlichen Wandel, uns selbst und andere wahrnehmen, deuten und einordnen. Das gilt in besonderer Weise für das Sprechen über migrationsbezogene Fragen: Migration und die Diversifizierung von Gesellschaft wurden und werden besonders häufig im Modus des Kontroversen und Spektakulären diskutiert und weniger als normale und alltägliche Prozesse behandelt.
Diese Einleitung argumentiert, dass wir uns den auf Migration bezogenen Sprechweisen, Deutungskonflikten und gesellschaftlichen Aushandlungsprozessen zuwenden sollten, weil sie uns helfen, die heutige Migrationsgesellschaft mit ihren inneren Trennlinien zu ergründen und deren Genese als einen zwar konflikthaften, aber notwendigen Prozess der Selbstverständigung und der Arbeit von Gesellschaft an sich selbst zu begreifen. Auch plädiert sie für einen reflexiveren Umgang mit den eigenen Standorten und Sprechweisen; sie plädiert dafür, zentrale Kategorien der Migrationsforschung kritisch zu überdenken.
Diese Einleitung argumentiert, dass wir uns den auf Migration bezogenen Sprechweisen, Deutungskonflikten und gesellschaftlichen Aushandlungsprozessen zuwenden sollten, weil sie uns helfen, die heutige Migrationsgesellschaft mit ihren inneren Trennlinien zu ergründen und deren Genese als einen zwar konflikthaften, aber notwendigen Prozess der Selbstverständigung und der Arbeit von Gesellschaft an sich selbst zu begreifen. Auch plädiert sie für einen reflexiveren Umgang mit den eigenen Standorten und Sprechweisen; sie plädiert dafür, zentrale Kategorien der Migrationsforschung kritisch zu überdenken.
Research Interests:
In French historiography the period between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s is often characterized as a 'glorious' period dominated by economic growth, modernization, and the emergence of a more equal society. However, while still... more
In French historiography the period between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s is often characterized as a 'glorious' period dominated by economic growth, modernization, and the emergence of a more equal society. However, while still frequently employed, this narrative is currently under scrutiny. The article follows this critical perspective and discusses how it affects the analysis of later decades. Exploring representations of " modern " and " backward " living in modern mass housing and French shanty towns, it argues that contemporaries doubted the merits of urban modernization from early on. It points to the continuities in urban inequality and its perception from the late 1950s onwards.
Research Interests:
Concentrating on the production of knowledge of poverty and homelessness, this article discusses how particular spatial settings influenced the construction of social problems in the 1960s and 1970s. Exploring the practices of three kinds... more
Concentrating on the production of knowledge of poverty and homelessness, this article discusses how particular spatial settings influenced the construction of social problems in the 1960s and 1970s. Exploring the practices of three kinds of knowledge producers – social scientists in academic circles, 'practitioners cum activists' engaging in advocacy research and experts in governmental committees – the analysis focuses on the early stages of a rediscovery of poverty in Western Europe as it was debated in international fora as well as in West Germany and France. It shows that the way in which poverty was represented as a new challenge to Western 'affluent societies' was in many respects an urban story, as the ongoing housing crisis and newly defined problem areas served as major points of reference for the revived interest in social deprivation. Moreover, urban actors – locally active NGOs and municipal authorities – played a preeminent role in launching debates on the apparent paradox of poverty in affluence. With their own work often grounded in particular urban problem zones, many contemporary observers tended to spatialise poverty. For them, poverty was bound to particular places; it was an exceptional sphere that helped generate a particular behaviour that made it difficult for 'the poor' to rise. While a growing part of the population had access to housing of a standard previously reserved to the middle class and had become able to choose where to live, life in peripheral shantytowns or dilapidated inner cities became the ultimate signifier of a social position beyond the established class structure. In sociological studies today, the rise of a globalised, post-Fordist society is often closely associated with 'new' forms of poverty. Almost invariably, these new forms of advanced inequality are located in cities, as sociologists and others identify the
Research Interests:
What determines the ‚illegal status‘ of a migrant is not only defined by the legal framework, but depends on the way in which state bureaucracies penalized unauthorized movements by interning or deporting the respective migrants. By... more
What determines the ‚illegal status‘ of a migrant is not only defined by the legal framework, but depends on the way in which state bureaucracies penalized unauthorized movements by interning or deporting the respective migrants. By analyzing how the British and German authorities drew the line between legal and illegal migration in the aftermath of the First World War, this article explores how ‘illegal migration’ was produced as a new administrative category in the British and German migration regime.
Research Interests:
In France and West Germany, public opinion on modernist mass housing switched from positive to negative in a short period of time. The article explores this disenchantment with urban modernism from a history of emotions perspective. It... more
In France and West Germany, public opinion on modernist mass housing switched from positive to negative in a short period of time. The article explores this disenchantment with urban modernism from a history of emotions perspective. It investigates how contemporaries in both countries came to contrast the apparent loneliness and bleakness of modernist high-rises on the periphery of French and West German cities with the warmth and solidarity of traditional working-class neighborhoods. The article traces the genesis of this emotional framing and seeks to historize “neighborliness” as a changing social and emotional practice that was closely interconnected with discourses on emotion, space, and belonging. Analyzing TV documentaries, press reports, and sociological studies, as well as inhabitants’ reactions to them, the author foregrounds the classed and gendered ways in which different groups in France and Germany came to perceive the still new high-rise estates as spaces of isolation and angst.
Research Interests:
In the interdisciplinary field of migration studies, more and more scholars are currently calling for a more self-conscious, “reflexive” perspective on the production of knowledge about migration. Pointing to the often-close relationship... more
In the interdisciplinary field of migration studies, more and more scholars are currently calling for a more self-conscious, “reflexive” perspective on the production of knowledge about migration. Pointing to the often-close relationship between (restrictive) migration regimes, a nationalist framing of society, and knowledge about migration, they suggest critically reevaluating (and partly doing away with) central categories of migration research. Historians can both contribute to and profit from analyzing the production and circulation of knowledge about migration and diversity. They can contribute to a more self-reflexive perspective on nationalized notions of society, especially because they have rich experience in setting up transnational research designs. Historical analyses inspired by the reflexive turn in current migration research can also help us to understand different mobilities not as a given object, but as manufactured. They can help us make sense of the hierarchies inherent in mobilities, including the ways in which they are shaped by state policies and different ways of categorizing mobility.
Research Interests:
In my paper, I suggest to explore the right to housing as a contested element of urban citizenship in mid-twentieth-century Paris and Algiers. At that time, the growing number of shantytowns on the periphery of French metropolitan and... more
In my paper, I suggest to explore the right to housing as a contested element of urban citizenship in mid-twentieth-century Paris and Algiers. At that time, the growing number of shantytowns on the periphery of French metropolitan and colonial cities such as Paris and Algiers became a matter of concern for housing officials and urban planners. State officials considered the informal make-shift settlements as insanitary, dangerous and socially problematic. They repeatedly attempted to erase the bidonvilles and rehouse their inhabitants, often as part of ambitious modernization schemes. And surely, the make-shift dwellings were often cut off from urban infrastructures, and they exposed their inhabitants to health risks, stigmatization and the imminent danger of forced removal. Yet, while the bidonvilles surely were spaces of marginalization, they were also spaces of arrival that allowed for migrants and otherwise vulnerable groups to get access to the city. In order to make sense of this interplay of inclusion and exclusion in a context of decolonization and rapid urbanization, I explore the social and economic strategies of the inhabitants of informal settlements in 1950s and 1960s Paris and Algiers.
Research Interests:
This article focuses on the question of how gendered conceptualisations of citizenship, nationality and morality influenced late-19th-century deportation policies. It aims to show that Germany’s migration regime at the time was not only... more
This article focuses on the question of how gendered conceptualisations of citizenship, nationality and morality influenced late-19th-century deportation policies. It aims to show that Germany’s migration regime at the time was not only ethnically-coded, but also classed and gender-specific. In late nineteenth century deportation policy, the exclusionary logic of migration control and the legal framework of citizenship law intertwined. Women and men thereby acquired citizenship differently, and they were deported on different grounds. Moreover, while this chapter is exploring the gendered policing of the nations’ boundaries in migration politics, it also argues that foreign men and women tended to choose different strategies in order to challenge exclusionary practices. Using the petitions against deportation orders as a source, it explores the differing position of foreign men and women in the German migration regime.
Research Interests:
Verspricht eine Re-Lektüre der „Feinen Unterschiede“ wirklich neue Erkenntnisse? Schließlich sind Bourdieus Thesen zu Formen der sozialen Distinktion hinlänglich bekannt. Dennoch (oder gerade deswegen) ist es aus zeitgeschichtlicher Sicht... more
Verspricht eine Re-Lektüre der „Feinen Unterschiede“ wirklich neue Erkenntnisse? Schließlich sind Bourdieus Thesen zu Formen der sozialen Distinktion hinlänglich bekannt. Dennoch (oder gerade deswegen) ist es aus zeitgeschichtlicher Sicht produktiv, Bourdieus Werk historisch zu lesen und seine Befunde als ein Produkt der 1960er- und 1970er- Jahre zu deuten. Denn eine solche historische Re-Lektüre hilft zu verstehen, wie stark sich das gängige Verständnis von Gesellschaft und ihren zentralen Trennlinien im fortgeschrittenen 20. Jahrhundert gewandelt hat.
Research Interests:
Why did a West-Berlin high-rise social housing project gain a nationwide reputation as an urban problem zone that was synonymous with planning failures and social problems? Around 1970, an impressive number of press articles, films and... more
Why did a West-Berlin high-rise social housing project gain a nationwide reputation as an urban problem zone that was synonymous with planning failures and social problems? Around 1970, an impressive number of press articles, films and academic studies focused on the Märkisches Viertel, a high-rise housing estate on the northern margins of West-Berlin that was built alongside the wall between 1963 and 1974. The article traces the changing representation of the quarter, investigating how it came to be construed as an urban problem zone. It argues that a disillusionment with urban modernity as well as a growing concern with marginal groups impacted on its image. With their academic, social and media work, members of a new left milieu that was particularly rooted in West-Berlin were foremost in influencing the quarter’s representation in the media. Striving to uncover societal problems, they in fact contributed to the quarter’s decline.
Research Interests:
Die Beseitigung der akuten Wohnungsnot und die Schaffung besserer urbaner Verhältnisse für alle sozialen Schichten gehörten in der Nachkriegszeit zu den zentralen Versprechen westeuropäischer Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Umso einschneidender war in... more
Die Beseitigung der akuten Wohnungsnot und die Schaffung besserer urbaner Verhältnisse für alle sozialen Schichten gehörten in der Nachkriegszeit zu den zentralen Versprechen westeuropäischer Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Umso einschneidender war in den 1960er Jahren die Erkenntnis, dass die Zahl an Familien, die in Barackenlagern und Notunterkünften wohnte, nicht ab-, sondern zunahm. In Frankreich wie in Westdeutschland bildete die Auseinandersetzung mit den „schlecht Untergebrachten“ und „Obdachlosen“ einen zentralen Schauplatz der Auseinandersetzung mit Fragen der Gleichheit und Ungleichheit. Um diese Problematisierungen verstehen zu können, verknüpft die Analyse eine wissensgeschichtliche Perspektive mit der Untersuchung administrativer Praktiken und rückt das Wechselverhältnis zwischen der staatlichen Wohnungspolitik und der sich wandelnden Konstruktion sozialer Probleme in den Blick. Sie zeigt, dass sich die französische und westdeutsche Sozialverwaltung in ihrem Versuch ähnelten, über eine Politik der gestaffelten Wohnlösungen Familien zu disziplinieren, die über keine reguläre Unterkunft verfügten. Im französischen Fall war diese hierarchisierte Politik eng mit (post)kolonialen Logiken verknüpft. In Westdeutschland war es dagegen weniger die „gefährliche Klasse“ der Migranten, sondern es waren kinderreiche deutsche Familien, die im Zusammenhang mit Notunterkünften als Risikobevölkerung galten. In der Auseinandersetzung mit deren Unterbringung in Lagern und Notunterkünften zeichnete sich allerdings in beiden Ländern ein grundlegender Wandel ab: Geht man von der Wissensproduktion zu Wohnproblemen aus, verlor das Bild einer primär selbst verschuldeten Benachteiligung um 1970 an Einfluss, während sich der Fokus auf Fragen der Inklusion und Partizipation sowie überhaupt auf die gesellschaftliche Bedingtheit sozialer Randständigkeit verlagerte.
Research Interests:
In the modern era, population experts focused not just on the size and quality of populations, but also on space and spatial distributions. In fact, a variety of spatial divides have played into twentieth-century population thinking: the... more
In the modern era, population experts focused not just on the size and quality of populations, but also on space and spatial distributions. In fact, a variety of spatial divides have played into twentieth-century population thinking: the divide between low-pressure and high-pressure countries, high and low population density, between the rural and the urban. These spatial settings and the way in which they influenced population thinking deserve a closer look. This chapter explores the changing relationship between space and population in the production of population knowledge. It focuses on three fields of debate: The first part deals with migration and migration control, investigating how demographic arguments came to influence migration politics. The second part examines the lack of “living space” as a major topic of racist and imperialist thinking in the first half of the twentieth century. The third part focuses on the adaption of demographic concepts – like population density and population pressure – in urban settings, as academic experts repeatedly applied demographic ideas to the study of cities while at the same time extrapolating broader demographic arguments from their studies of urban developments.
Research Interests:
Was passiert, wenn zwar die wissenschaftliche Forschung die Gesellschaft in soziale Gruppen untergliedert und deren Einstellungen erfasst, wenn dieses Wissen der betreffenden Gesellschaft aber nur begrenzt zugänglich ist? In der DDR... more
Was passiert, wenn zwar die wissenschaftliche Forschung die Gesellschaft in soziale Gruppen untergliedert und deren Einstellungen erfasst, wenn dieses Wissen der betreffenden Gesellschaft aber nur begrenzt zugänglich ist? In der DDR wurden seit den 1960er Jahren an einer Vielzahl von Instituten empirische Studien mit Hilfe von Fragebögen oder Interviews durchgeführt, um DDR-Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu ihren Vorlieben zu befragen. Anhand der sozialwissenschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung mit sozialer Ungleichheit in der DDR geht der vorliegende Beitrag der Frage nach, welche Funktion diesen Umfragen im Rahmen des SED-Regimes zukam und in welchem Wechselverhältnis empirische Sozialforschung, Politik und Gesellschaft zueinander standen. Dabei wird deutlich, dass der Austausch zwischen politischer Elite und Sozialforschung Konjunkturen unterlag: Während in den 1960er Jahren ein politisches Interesse an der wissenschaftlichen Fundierung von politischen Entscheidungen bestand, zeigte sich die SED-Elite in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren immer weniger bereit, die Ergebnisse der Forschung in das eigene politische Handeln einzubinden: Der Parteiführung war lediglich symbolisch an der Verwissenschaftlichung ihres Handelns gelegen. Damit wurden zwar von den empirischen Sozialwissenschaften weiterhin Umfragen durchgeführt und die Durchführung dieser Umfragen wurde politisch kontrolliert, doch waren deren Ergebnisse keiner breiteren Öffentlichkeit zugänglich und das produzierte Wissen konnte nicht zirkulieren.
What happens if researchers divide society into different groups and classify their attitudes, but if, however, this knowledge is only partially accessible for said society? In the GDR, empirical studies were conducted regularly by means of questionnaires and interviews in order to survey citizens of the GDR about their attitudes and preferences. At the same time, few of these studies were published. Exploring changing ways of describing social difference in the GDR, this article investigates the role surveys played in the SED regime and examines the interplay between empirical social research, politics and society. It highlights that the communication between the political elite and social researchers changed in the course of time: Whereas during the 1960s political representatives were particularly interested in basing political decisions on scientific evidence, SED leaders during the 1970s and 1980s were less and less willing to include research findings into their decision-making process. Party leaders were in favour of scientizing their political actions at a merely symbolic level. Hence, empirical social researchers conducted further surveys and continued to be controlled by the regime. Their findings, however, were not accessible to a broader public. The social scientific knowledge they produced could not circulate. At the same time, alternative ways of describing social difference that diverged from the traditional socialist model became more and more common within the social sciences in the course of the 1980s.
What happens if researchers divide society into different groups and classify their attitudes, but if, however, this knowledge is only partially accessible for said society? In the GDR, empirical studies were conducted regularly by means of questionnaires and interviews in order to survey citizens of the GDR about their attitudes and preferences. At the same time, few of these studies were published. Exploring changing ways of describing social difference in the GDR, this article investigates the role surveys played in the SED regime and examines the interplay between empirical social research, politics and society. It highlights that the communication between the political elite and social researchers changed in the course of time: Whereas during the 1960s political representatives were particularly interested in basing political decisions on scientific evidence, SED leaders during the 1970s and 1980s were less and less willing to include research findings into their decision-making process. Party leaders were in favour of scientizing their political actions at a merely symbolic level. Hence, empirical social researchers conducted further surveys and continued to be controlled by the regime. Their findings, however, were not accessible to a broader public. The social scientific knowledge they produced could not circulate. At the same time, alternative ways of describing social difference that diverged from the traditional socialist model became more and more common within the social sciences in the course of the 1980s.
Research Interests:
In the history of immigration control, the period from the 1880s to the 1920s saw an international dynamic of growing restrictions. World War I in particular has been regarded as watershed marking the end of laissez faire migration... more
In the history of immigration control, the period from the 1880s to the 1920s saw an international dynamic of growing restrictions. World War I in particular has been regarded as watershed marking the end of laissez faire migration policy. But whether 1914 can be seen as a crucial turning-point depends on the country or region under consideration, as well as on the chosen analytical approach. Analysing Britain’s politics of immigration control before and after the war and comparing it with its Prussian equivalent, this article discusses the shifts and continuities in the concrete administration of migration. Focussing on the changing practice of deporting foreigners, it suggests a chronology of control that does not entirely correspond with the overall political changes. By 1918, the British bureaucracy possessed elaborate means to monitor aliens, and the state increasingly impacted on the migrants’ lives. In contrast, Prussia was maintaining an already tightly regulated regime, which its authorities had established well before 1914.
Research Interests:
The article explores how surveys were produced and how survey data was communicated in the popular press in the late 1 940s and 1 950s. It analyses the transnational career of representative sex surveys à la Kinsey as a knowledge transfer... more
The article explores how surveys were produced and how survey data was communicated in the popular press in the late 1 940s and 1 950s. It analyses the transnational career of representative sex surveys à la Kinsey as a knowledge transfer that complied with the rules of media society, as this transfer was not so much driven by academic concerns, but by the print media and their interest in communicable and marketable knowledge. Following up the extensive media coverage of Kinsey’s work, popular newspapers in Britain as well as in West Germany commissioned the first nation-wide sex surveys and published their outcomes. Striving to attract the attention of their readers, they employed the surveys as marketing devises, thereby emphasising both the originality and scientific objectivity of their own reporting.
Research Interests:
The term “ghetto”, as the historian Carl H. Nightingale maintains, has indeed “gone global” in the second half of the 20th century. Nightingale thereby refers to a particular understanding of “the ghetto” as a term “heavily associated... more
The term “ghetto”, as the historian Carl H. Nightingale maintains, has indeed “gone global” in the second half of the 20th century. Nightingale thereby refers to a particular understanding of “the ghetto” as a term “heavily associated with African Americans” that has become a codeword for race, as much as for urban riots, crime and poverty. In my paper, I suggest to have a closer look at this global career of the ghetto. In fact, more generally speaking, I suggest to have a closer look at what I call the language of urban crisis as it developed from the late 1960s onwards at the intersection of sociology, the mass media and urban politics. While modernist urban planning was falling into disrepute and while industrial class-society was changing profoundly, so did the naming of urban social problems – and the understanding of urban reform and how to achieve it. At least in the case of West Germany, a lot of the keywords that contemporaries used in order to denounce urban social problems were surprisingly transnational in their extent. In my paper, I ask 1) what this tells us about the ways in which contemporaries made sense of their changing urban environment and 2) how their specific framing of urban change informed their concrete policies and practices.
Research Interests:
We invite proposals for papers to be presented at the fourth Bucerius Young Scholars Forum, which will be held at UC Berkeley, October 12-14, 2020. We seek proposals from postdoctoral scholars, recent PhDs, as well as those in the final... more
We invite proposals for papers to be presented at the fourth Bucerius Young Scholars Forum, which will be held at UC Berkeley, October 12-14, 2020.
We seek proposals from postdoctoral scholars, recent PhDs, as well as those in the final stages of their dissertations with a background in history and/or related fields. We call for empirically rich and theoretically informed contributions that bring migration studies into conversation with the history of knowledge.
We seek proposals from postdoctoral scholars, recent PhDs, as well as those in the final stages of their dissertations with a background in history and/or related fields. We call for empirically rich and theoretically informed contributions that bring migration studies into conversation with the history of knowledge.
Research Interests:
Conference Venue: Centre for Metropolitan Studies, Technical University, Berlin, 5 / 6 November 2020 Organisers: Dorothee Brantz, Technical University Berlin; Joachim Häberlen, University of Warwick; Christiane Reinecke, University of... more
Conference Venue: Centre for Metropolitan Studies, Technical University, Berlin, 5 / 6 November 2020
Organisers: Dorothee Brantz, Technical University Berlin; Joachim Häberlen, University of Warwick; Christiane Reinecke, University of Osnabrueck
Current debates about urban change often circle around notions of “public” and “private space”. Researchers thus draw attention to the enclosure or privatization of formerly public realms in order to criticise the rise of urban inequalities in an age of neoliberalism and global hyper-capitalism. From this perspective, “the private” is mostly tied to forms of economic ownership and often appears as clearly defined, given space. Indeed, “the private” is frequently and rather narrowly equated with a bourgeois, primarily Western European and American notion of home as a spatially separate sphere where intimate family life is taking place. Yet, what constitutes “home”, “ownership” and “the private” for different actors in different local and historical contexts seems worth exploring. Expanding our understanding of “ownership” challenges us to consider the multiple experiences, practices and affects that actually shape life in cities and that influence the use of urban resources.
Our workshop proposes exploring ”ownership” in a broader fashion that pays attention to these dimensions. We suggest thinking about ownership beyond merely economic terms and are instead interested in what we would call an “emotional” ownership of the city. Stressing this emotional dimension of ownership, our workshop will inquire about the myriad of ways, depending on historical and geographical contexts, in which urban dwellers make themselves at home in cities and feel entitled to their use, both within and beyond their own walls, and in that sense become urban citizens participating in public life. We propose investigating both the material and the emotional dimension of their efforts to participate in urban life. By examining different ways of (physically, emotionally, economically) “owning cities” and “making home”, we hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of urban inequalities and the question of who and what gets to determine the value and use of places, infrastructures and things.
Our workshop aims to historicize various forms of home-making, of appropriating and owning urban spaces and producing privacies, both in a very material and in an emotional sense, on a global scale. We are interested in case studies addressing a variety of spaces, ranging from single-family homes, shared apartments and makeshift barracks to pubs, allotments and seemingly public spaces such as neighbourhoods, parks or stadiums as places in which city dwellers feel entitled and “at home”. We also suggest taking a multiplicity of ownerships – such as the sharing of places and resources, their seizure, privatisation or individual use – and feelings – bereavement, pride, shame or excitement – into account. Spaces such as one’s home, a backyard or a park might be related to a sense of belonging, of familiarity and entitlement, or, on the contrary, to fear and estrangement. Not least, we seek to inquire about the temporal dimension of ownership, asking if the public and private are negotiated differently during different times of the year – is the summer, for example, a more public urban time? Our workshop seeks to draw attention to how urban ownerships, privacies and privatizations are imbued with this variety of emotions, and how they are constantly produced, reproduced and contested.
While we do want to put a particular emphasis on urban change, we welcome contributions from different disciplines (history, urban studies, sociology, anthropology, human geography, urban planning). Referring to recent academic debates on emotional geographies, affective spaces and infrastructures, emotional styles and practices, we invite papers that investigate the emotions and conflicts attached to “the private” in cities across the globe from the 19th century to the present.
Possible to topics for case studies may address:
• The production of privacy and domesticity in the “home” in different local, political, and historical urban contexts (in the Global North and the Global South; in State Socialism; during Fascism; in Industrial, Fordist or Postfordist cities; in single family homes, hostels, camps, squatted houses, or high-rise estates).
• Privatisations, enclosures and transformations in ownership (due to urban redevelopment projects, slum clearance, new building schemes, the emergence of gated communities or due to urban commoning, communisation, nationalisation), and the affective implications of these transformations.
• Communal life, street life and home-making beyond the domestic (allotments, churches, clubs or parks as spheres of reproduction or belief, or as spaces of family life, sex and intimacy).
• Contested claims to the city in the context of urban moral economies and inequalities (struggles concerning the transformation of the urban landscapes, high rents, discrimination in housing, red-lining, segregation, gentrification), addressing both the material and emotional dimension of these conflicts.
We invite paper proposals from a range of disciplines relating to these questions. Submissions should include a paper title, an abstract of up to 500 words, and a short CV. Please submit proposals by the 1st of August 2019 to Joachim Häberlen, at j.haeberlen@warwick.ac.uk or to Christiane Reinecke, at christiane.reinecke@uni-osnabrueck.de.
We will apply for funding for the conference, covering traveling and hotel costs, once a provisional program is confirmed. The provisional program will be communicated to applicants by the end of August 2019.
Organisers: Dorothee Brantz, Technical University Berlin; Joachim Häberlen, University of Warwick; Christiane Reinecke, University of Osnabrueck
Current debates about urban change often circle around notions of “public” and “private space”. Researchers thus draw attention to the enclosure or privatization of formerly public realms in order to criticise the rise of urban inequalities in an age of neoliberalism and global hyper-capitalism. From this perspective, “the private” is mostly tied to forms of economic ownership and often appears as clearly defined, given space. Indeed, “the private” is frequently and rather narrowly equated with a bourgeois, primarily Western European and American notion of home as a spatially separate sphere where intimate family life is taking place. Yet, what constitutes “home”, “ownership” and “the private” for different actors in different local and historical contexts seems worth exploring. Expanding our understanding of “ownership” challenges us to consider the multiple experiences, practices and affects that actually shape life in cities and that influence the use of urban resources.
Our workshop proposes exploring ”ownership” in a broader fashion that pays attention to these dimensions. We suggest thinking about ownership beyond merely economic terms and are instead interested in what we would call an “emotional” ownership of the city. Stressing this emotional dimension of ownership, our workshop will inquire about the myriad of ways, depending on historical and geographical contexts, in which urban dwellers make themselves at home in cities and feel entitled to their use, both within and beyond their own walls, and in that sense become urban citizens participating in public life. We propose investigating both the material and the emotional dimension of their efforts to participate in urban life. By examining different ways of (physically, emotionally, economically) “owning cities” and “making home”, we hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of urban inequalities and the question of who and what gets to determine the value and use of places, infrastructures and things.
Our workshop aims to historicize various forms of home-making, of appropriating and owning urban spaces and producing privacies, both in a very material and in an emotional sense, on a global scale. We are interested in case studies addressing a variety of spaces, ranging from single-family homes, shared apartments and makeshift barracks to pubs, allotments and seemingly public spaces such as neighbourhoods, parks or stadiums as places in which city dwellers feel entitled and “at home”. We also suggest taking a multiplicity of ownerships – such as the sharing of places and resources, their seizure, privatisation or individual use – and feelings – bereavement, pride, shame or excitement – into account. Spaces such as one’s home, a backyard or a park might be related to a sense of belonging, of familiarity and entitlement, or, on the contrary, to fear and estrangement. Not least, we seek to inquire about the temporal dimension of ownership, asking if the public and private are negotiated differently during different times of the year – is the summer, for example, a more public urban time? Our workshop seeks to draw attention to how urban ownerships, privacies and privatizations are imbued with this variety of emotions, and how they are constantly produced, reproduced and contested.
While we do want to put a particular emphasis on urban change, we welcome contributions from different disciplines (history, urban studies, sociology, anthropology, human geography, urban planning). Referring to recent academic debates on emotional geographies, affective spaces and infrastructures, emotional styles and practices, we invite papers that investigate the emotions and conflicts attached to “the private” in cities across the globe from the 19th century to the present.
Possible to topics for case studies may address:
• The production of privacy and domesticity in the “home” in different local, political, and historical urban contexts (in the Global North and the Global South; in State Socialism; during Fascism; in Industrial, Fordist or Postfordist cities; in single family homes, hostels, camps, squatted houses, or high-rise estates).
• Privatisations, enclosures and transformations in ownership (due to urban redevelopment projects, slum clearance, new building schemes, the emergence of gated communities or due to urban commoning, communisation, nationalisation), and the affective implications of these transformations.
• Communal life, street life and home-making beyond the domestic (allotments, churches, clubs or parks as spheres of reproduction or belief, or as spaces of family life, sex and intimacy).
• Contested claims to the city in the context of urban moral economies and inequalities (struggles concerning the transformation of the urban landscapes, high rents, discrimination in housing, red-lining, segregation, gentrification), addressing both the material and emotional dimension of these conflicts.
We invite paper proposals from a range of disciplines relating to these questions. Submissions should include a paper title, an abstract of up to 500 words, and a short CV. Please submit proposals by the 1st of August 2019 to Joachim Häberlen, at j.haeberlen@warwick.ac.uk or to Christiane Reinecke, at christiane.reinecke@uni-osnabrueck.de.
We will apply for funding for the conference, covering traveling and hotel costs, once a provisional program is confirmed. The provisional program will be communicated to applicants by the end of August 2019.
Research Interests:
CFP for the Panel "What is holding societies together? Social cohesion and disintegration in historical perspective" organized by Antje Dietze; Maren Möhring; Christiane Reinecke (University of Leipzig) at the European Social Science... more
CFP for the Panel "What is holding societies together? Social cohesion and disintegration in historical perspective" organized by Antje Dietze; Maren Möhring; Christiane Reinecke (University of Leipzig) at the European Social Science History Conference in Belfast, 4 –7 April 2018
Research Interests:
This reader on the history of demography and historical perspectives on "population" in the twentieth century features a unique collection of primary sources from around the globe, written by scholars, politicians, journalists, and... more
This reader on the history of demography and historical perspectives on "population" in the twentieth century features a unique collection of primary sources from around the globe, written by scholars, politicians, journalists, and activists. Many of the sources are available in English for the first time. Background information is provided on each source. Together, the sources mirror the circumstances under which scientific knowledge about "population" was produced, how demography evolved as a discipline, and how demographic developments were interpreted and discussed in different political and cultural settings. Readers thereby gain insight into the historical precedents on debates on race, migration, reproduction, natural resources, development and urbanization, the role of statistics in the making of the nation state, and family structures and gender roles, among others. The reader is designed for undergraduate and graduate students as well as scholars in the fields of demography and population studies as well as to anyone interested in the history of science and knowledge.
Research Interests:
Noch vor einigen Jahren galten die von Hochhäusern dominierten Großsiedlungen am Rande vieler deutscher Städte als überkommene Produkte einer mehr oder weniger gescheiterten Stadtplanungs-und Wohnungs-baupolitik. Doch während aktuell in... more
Noch vor einigen Jahren galten die von Hochhäusern dominierten Großsiedlungen am Rande vieler deutscher Städte als überkommene Produkte einer mehr oder weniger gescheiterten Stadtplanungs-und Wohnungs-baupolitik. Doch während aktuell in zahlreichen Städten die Proteste gegen steigen-de Mieten und eine wachsende Ungleichheit im Wohnen zunehmen, ändert sich auch die Sicht auf frühere Stadtpolitiken. Der Ruf nach mehr öffentlich subventioniertem Wohnungsbau wird lauter, und eine wachsende Zahl an Ausstellungen, Konferenzen und Publikationen zeugt von einem neuen Interesse am baulichen Erbe der Nachkriegsmoderne. Dieses Interesse ist nicht auf den deutschen Raum beschränkt. Schließlich war es eine global verzweigte Planungsbewegung, die im Namen der funktionalen Moderne das Aussehen vieler Städte nachhaltig änderte. Zum internationalen Aufstieg des modernistischen Massenwohnens und speziell der Großsiedlungen trug diese Planungsbewegung entscheidend bei. Daher beschränkt sich die neue Aufmerksamkeit für die Großbauprojekte der Nachkriegszeit auch nicht auf die historische Forschung. Mindestens ebenso stark interessieren sich dafür Stadtplaner/innen und Architekt/innen.
Research Interests:
Es ist keineswegs selbsterklärend, warum der moderne Massenwohnungsbau in erstaunlich vielen westlichen Gesellschaften bereits um 1970 in Verruf geraten war. Das öffentliche Image der Großsiedlungen etwa, die seit den 1950er Jahren an den... more
Es ist keineswegs selbsterklärend, warum der moderne Massenwohnungsbau in erstaunlich vielen westlichen Gesellschaften bereits um 1970 in Verruf geraten war. Das öffentliche Image der Großsiedlungen etwa, die seit den 1950er Jahren an den Rändern französischer und westdeutscher Städte entstanden, wechselte binnen weniger Jahre von positiv zu negativ. Eben noch Inbegriff für Fortschritt und Vermittelschichtung, waren sie kurz darauf zu einem Inbegriff für soziale Randständigkeit geworden. Diesem Prozess widmet sich der Vortrag. Er geht darauf ein, wie einzelne Großsiedlungen im Rahmen soziologischer und massenmedialer Beobachtungen sowie aktivistischer Interventionen als urbane Problemzonen hergestellt wurden. Denn tatsächlich war die schrittweise Abwertung der Siedlungen nicht nur ein Ergebnis stadtplanerischer Fehlentscheidungen. Sie war auch das Resultat wechselnder Formen der Gesellschaftskritik.
Research Interests:
Spätestens seit 2015 wird in Politik und Medien, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft intensiv über die Gründe und Folgen grenzüberschreitender Mobilität diskutiert. Dabei scheint oft allzu selbstverständlich, dass und wie sich... more
Spätestens seit 2015 wird in Politik und Medien, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft intensiv über die Gründe und Folgen grenzüberschreitender Mobilität diskutiert. Dabei scheint oft allzu selbstverständlich, dass und wie sich unterschiedliche Mobilitäten und mobile Menschen voneinander unterscheiden: etwa die Flucht von der Geschäftsreise oder der Gastarbeiter von der exilierten Wissenschaftlerin. Doch die Begriffe und Kategorien, mit denen Menschen und ihre Mobilitäten bezeichnet, geordnet, zähl- und regierbar gemacht werden, sind keineswegs natürlich und gegeben. Sie sind umstritten, historisch geworden und gemacht.
Hier setzt das Inventar der Migrationsbegriffe an: Es ist ein interdisziplinäres Nachschlagewerk, das sich mit zentralen Begriffen der aktuellen und historischen Debatten über Migration beschäftigt. Es lenkt den Blick darauf, wie migrationsbezogene Begriffe hergestellt worden sind, wie sie zwischen unterschiedlichen gesellschaftlichen Bereichen zirkulieren und wie sich ihre Bedeutungen dabei ändern. Zentrale Migrationsbegriffe werden darin nicht eindeutig definiert. Die Autor:innen arbeiten vielmehr ihren unterschiedlichen und umstrittenen Gebrauch heraus, sie verweisen auf das historische Gewordensein der Begriffe und legen ihre politischen Implikationen offen. Denn, so unsere Überlegung, im veränderten Gebrauch und in der Verbreitung neuer Begriffe – wie der Rede von 'Bleibeperspektive' oder von 'Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen' – verdichten sich übergreifende gesellschaftliche und kulturelle Wandlungsprozesse. Gleiches gilt für Konflikte, die sich am Gebrauch bestimmter Begriffe entzünden, und die in der Verbreitung alternativer Sprechweisen münden können. Zudem erlaubt die Beschäftigung mit der Frage, wo Begriffe herkommen – von wo aus sie in die öffentliche Diskussion oder in Verwaltungsprozesse gelangen – einen Einblick in das Wechselverhältnis von Politik, Medien und Wissenschaft.
Die Auswahl der Begriffe orientiert sich an ihrer Diskursmächtigkeit, an ihrer Praxisrelevanz und daran, dass sie aus Sicht der Migrationsforschung eine kritische Problematisierung in besonderer Weise erfordern. Das können Begriffe sein, an denen sich bereits zahlreiche Kontroversen entzündet haben, von 'Integration' bis 'Rasse'. Es können aber auch solche sein, die vermeintlich eindeutig erscheinen und deswegen in der Regel zu wenig kritisch hinterfragt werden, wie 'Diversität' oder „(freiwillige) Rückkehr“. Vollständig oder repräsentativ ist eine solche Auswahl nicht. Die ausgewählten Begriffe des Inventars verbindet aber, dass sich an ihnen zentrale Konfliktlinien, einflussreiche Formen des Nachdenkens über Nation und Gesellschaft und bedeutsame historische Entwicklungen besonders gut aufzeigen lassen. Das Inventar gibt damit einen Einblick in gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigungsprozesse und hilft die Konflikte zu verstehen, die sich am Sprechen über Migration und Gesellschaft immer wieder entzünden – auch, um seine Leser:innen zu motivieren, sich informiert und reflektierend in Diskussionen über Migration einzumischen.
Das Inventar der Migrationsbegriffe ist ein Projekt des Instituts für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien (IMIS) der Universität Osnabrück. Entwickelt wurde es zwischen 2019 und 2021 in der ersten Förderphase der am IMIS angesiedelten und vom Niedersächsischen Vorab der VolkswagenStiftung finanzierten Nachwuchsgruppe „Die wissenschaftliche Produktion von Wissen über Migration“, die einen zentralen Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung der reflexiven Migrationsforschung leisten möchte.
Hier setzt das Inventar der Migrationsbegriffe an: Es ist ein interdisziplinäres Nachschlagewerk, das sich mit zentralen Begriffen der aktuellen und historischen Debatten über Migration beschäftigt. Es lenkt den Blick darauf, wie migrationsbezogene Begriffe hergestellt worden sind, wie sie zwischen unterschiedlichen gesellschaftlichen Bereichen zirkulieren und wie sich ihre Bedeutungen dabei ändern. Zentrale Migrationsbegriffe werden darin nicht eindeutig definiert. Die Autor:innen arbeiten vielmehr ihren unterschiedlichen und umstrittenen Gebrauch heraus, sie verweisen auf das historische Gewordensein der Begriffe und legen ihre politischen Implikationen offen. Denn, so unsere Überlegung, im veränderten Gebrauch und in der Verbreitung neuer Begriffe – wie der Rede von 'Bleibeperspektive' oder von 'Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen' – verdichten sich übergreifende gesellschaftliche und kulturelle Wandlungsprozesse. Gleiches gilt für Konflikte, die sich am Gebrauch bestimmter Begriffe entzünden, und die in der Verbreitung alternativer Sprechweisen münden können. Zudem erlaubt die Beschäftigung mit der Frage, wo Begriffe herkommen – von wo aus sie in die öffentliche Diskussion oder in Verwaltungsprozesse gelangen – einen Einblick in das Wechselverhältnis von Politik, Medien und Wissenschaft.
Die Auswahl der Begriffe orientiert sich an ihrer Diskursmächtigkeit, an ihrer Praxisrelevanz und daran, dass sie aus Sicht der Migrationsforschung eine kritische Problematisierung in besonderer Weise erfordern. Das können Begriffe sein, an denen sich bereits zahlreiche Kontroversen entzündet haben, von 'Integration' bis 'Rasse'. Es können aber auch solche sein, die vermeintlich eindeutig erscheinen und deswegen in der Regel zu wenig kritisch hinterfragt werden, wie 'Diversität' oder „(freiwillige) Rückkehr“. Vollständig oder repräsentativ ist eine solche Auswahl nicht. Die ausgewählten Begriffe des Inventars verbindet aber, dass sich an ihnen zentrale Konfliktlinien, einflussreiche Formen des Nachdenkens über Nation und Gesellschaft und bedeutsame historische Entwicklungen besonders gut aufzeigen lassen. Das Inventar gibt damit einen Einblick in gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigungsprozesse und hilft die Konflikte zu verstehen, die sich am Sprechen über Migration und Gesellschaft immer wieder entzünden – auch, um seine Leser:innen zu motivieren, sich informiert und reflektierend in Diskussionen über Migration einzumischen.
Das Inventar der Migrationsbegriffe ist ein Projekt des Instituts für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien (IMIS) der Universität Osnabrück. Entwickelt wurde es zwischen 2019 und 2021 in der ersten Förderphase der am IMIS angesiedelten und vom Niedersächsischen Vorab der VolkswagenStiftung finanzierten Nachwuchsgruppe „Die wissenschaftliche Produktion von Wissen über Migration“, die einen zentralen Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung der reflexiven Migrationsforschung leisten möchte.