The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany

by David Blackbourn, Geoff Eley

"A well-written, stimulating. . . piece of scholarship." -German Studies Review. In a major re-evaluation of the cultural, political, and sociological assumptions about the "peculiar" course of modern German history, the authors challenge the widely-held belief that Germany did not have a Western-style bourgeois revolution. Contending that it did indeed experience one, but that this had little to do with the mythical rising of the middle class, the authors provide a new context for viewing the tensions and instability of 19th-and early 20th-century Germany.

Genres: History, Germany, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, Academic, Grad School

308 pages, Paperback

First published December 20, 1984

Reviews

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors, David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, originally prepared their respective essays as separate endeavors, which were presented at several conferences in Britain and Germany. It became apparent that their works were complementary and the process of writing this book was undertaken. The book is divided into two parts, each written by one author, and a lengthy introduction that initiates the historiographical discussions that comprise the majority of the book. Blackbourn and Eley are both academics at prestigious universities; Blackbourn is a professor of Modern European History at Harvard University, and Eley is a professor of History at the University of Michigan. Both authors used critical analysis in examining the most prevalent theories explaining the peculiarities of German history and ultimately park themselves in the camp of social history for their own analysis. Their work adds to the wealth of information on modern German history.
Blackbourn and Eley saw a need to produce a work on modern German history that would examine the historiography of modern Germany, probe the basic assumptions of those theories, and provide answers for what the authors believe to be certain deficiencies, most particularly the Sonderweg thesis. The Sonderweg thesis asserts that Germany developed along a “special path” which was significantly different from the path other western countries took on the road to modernization. The basic assumption of this theory is that Germany suffered a failed bourgeois revolution and was therefore backwards, in comparison to Britain and France, in the achievement of a liberal, capitalistic, democratic society. Further, this lack of success on the part of the bourgeoisie left in tact an authoritarian power structure that did not crumble until the collapse of the Third Reich when Germany truly gained the status of a modern nation-state.
This work is primarily a critical historiography of the theories accounting for the peculiarity of German history and a response to the basic historical assumptions of causal relationships in the formation of the modern nation-state, most notably class-formation and class-consciousness in the nineteenth century. Blackbourn and Eley argue that the basic assumptions of bourgeois revolution, upon which the theories of German peculiarity are based, are inappropriate when the actual successes of the German bourgeoisie are examined. In a broader sense, the authors also seek to re-define the idea of “Bourgeois revolution.” They further argue that the complacent acceptance by historians of the basic assumptions found in the Sonderweg analysis has led to a stagnation of fresh historical inquiry. The standard of bourgeois revolution merits closer scrutiny.
In the introduction it is asserted that, “ Our own arguments are not in any sense an attempt to roll back these substantial achievements . . . . Our book was written in response to arguments that these historians helped to establish”(9). This book is a dialectical discussion of the prevailing interpretations on German peculiarity and of the two author’s own thesis.
The original essays were clearly written for the academic arena. Although in this book the authors have attempted to appeal to a wider audience, it is nonetheless apparent that the reader must be fluent in not just modern European history but more specifically modern German history. The bibliographical note offers a list of “salient works in English for the guidance of the non-specialist reader” which further demonstrates the point that this work is for specialists in Modern German History (293).
A pivotal question asked by the authors is what does make for a successful bourgeois revolution. German history has been described as an aberration, but the authors point out that when there is an aberration there must be a norm, or standard, against which it is compared (10). The argument is made that by historian’s ready acceptance of the “norm” several important questions regarding the nature of class-consciousness, up rising, and the ushering in of the “isms” are neglected. Blackbourn and Eley argue that German history should not be compared against these “standards” of western history
The authors, and historians in general, agree that Germany developed along a “special path” or Sonderweg. However, the authors dispute the notion that this special path is due to the failure of a proper bourgeois revolution. On the contrary, it is only a failure when measured against the success of the British and French bourgeois revolutions. It is further argued that not only did the German bourgeois revolution not fail but that the traditional arguments upon which we measure the success of a bourgeois revolution are flawed as well. Eley argues that the development of class-consciousness in Britain and France and the subsequent upheavals are not solely responsible for the social and political changes resulting from that period.
Blackbourn and Eley question the standards by which German history is compared. Why must a bourgeois revolution follow the recipe of “bourgeoisie-liberalism-parliamentarization-democracy” in order to be labeled successful (16)? Blackbourn and Eley argue against the acceptance that the standard for successful bourgeois revolution is the experience of France, America, and Britain. The authors uncover the unique qualities and special aspects of the German bourgeoisie that make it a successful revolution in its own right. Blackbourn finds that the strength and effectiveness of the German Bourgeoisie lay in its “silent and anonymous” nature (204). More explicitly, the German bourgeoisie got what it wanted from above, without a significant political upheaval disrupting the established power structure and without bringing about the institutions of liberal democratic reform. This is what Eley terms “the German pattern of revolution from above between the years1807-12 and 1862-71”(144). The objectives the bourgeoisie obtained included “a national market, the Reichsbank, . . . and patent laws” among others (178). However, the primary conclusion of this work is that there continues to be a need for historians to question the basic assumptions and accepted definitions of a bourgeois revolution.
Blackbourn and Eley’s final conclusion is that the German bourgeoisie was successful when examined independently from France and Britain and further assert that the idea that “the insurgent bourgeoisie triumphantly realizes its class interests in a programme of heroic liberal democracy is a myth” (144). In their view, the term bourgeois revolution needs to be defined in broader terms; they argue that a bourgeois revolution is more than a political process of democratic reform (144).
The two essays are topically related, however it is clear that they are two very distinct and separate essays related through a common thesis and questioning attitude towards historical standards. The larger portion of the text is a systematic evaluation of Sonderweg through the works of other historians. It is at times difficult to decipher the author’s own assertions within this complex fabric of historiographical analysis. It seems that the authors question the prevailing theories, assert their own view, then comment that this is only “the tip of the ice-berg”, leaving the reader with a hypothesis awaiting significant supportive research.
While several interesting and insightful aspects of the German bourgeoisie are introduced, Blackbourn and Eley fail to completely convince the reader of their thesis. A bourgeois revolution is a definable term with a particular set of expectations, which include a clearly defined and unified class-consciousness, a mass movement for political change, and the achievement of liberal-democratic reform. The German middle class did fail to achieve these defining features of a revolutionary movement of the bourgeoisie. A system of reciprocity between the Bourgeoisie and the state was the method used to gain certain measures of reform, not revolution.
The authors provide a carefully crafted dissection of the prevailing theories. Rather than provide the reader with appropriate primary sources to support their claims, the authors offer only their own assertions as evidence to support their argument of deficiencies in Sonderweg theory. Blackbourn and Eley profess a desire to add a new dimension to the study of nineteenth century Germany but clearly refute the Sonderweg theory with great meticulousness as they dismantle the work of other historians.
In conclusion, Blackbourn and Eley offer an interesting new interpretation of the peculiarities of German history. They do not, however, adequately support their claims. Blackbourn and Eley are successful in bringing to light the problem of complacency by historians through the ready acceptance of what they have deemed “standards” or “norms”. The greatest lesson of this work is a warning against the acceptance of assumptions in historical discourse and a reminder to look critically, question, and approach topics from a fresh perspective.

[andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

eley's essay in particular reads like a good mathematical proof

[Nikhil · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some may take issue with its conclusions as well as arguments, but no one can fault either of the essays for a lack of clarity or a rigorous systematic approach. It's great argumentation and challenges many of the assumptions and teleologies which arise all too often in many classic works covering European history and politics, assumptions which still work themselves into present day writings. For this reason, it's a must-read.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good.

[William Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an amateur historian of modern Germany, I have read this book several times now and I cannot stress enough how important this text is to understanding the historical evolution of the German nation. Superb!