東ドイツ農業史研究のパラダイム転換 - 「冷戦期」から「ポスト冷戦期」へ

Abstract

This paper is a review of research on East German agricultural history, focusing on the paradigm shift from the Cold War to post-Cold War eras. Both land reform and agricultural collectivization were signifi cant to East Germany's(GDR) foundation myth as a socialist state, especially since the Communist power even encouraged studies on land reform and agricultural collectivization in order to bolster its political legitimacy. It is characteristic of GDR that, unlike the other socialist states, it could not establish a foundation myth as national history. 'German' contemporary history was written exclusively by West German historians. However, West German studies on GDR agriculture were not completely free from the Cold War thinking, either, as is shown in that the fundamental paradigm had long depended upon the ideology of totalitarianism. Although Japan was also restricted by Cold War thinking, it is remarkable that strong sympathy with the socialist "democratic" revolutions of east European countries was expressed there after the Second World War. Even in the 1970's, the formation of GDR agriculture was discussed not in the context of 'German' history, but as a manifestation of east European socialism. The end of the Cold War led to a dramatic change in these research areas. Although the totalitarian approach has been revitalized, social and ordinary historical analysis has also shown remarkable development. From my standpoint of evaluating this new social historical approach, I have reviewed a study by Arnd Bauerkämper, a leading scholar of GDR agricultural history in the post -Cold War era. As a result, it was possible to point out the limitations of the so-called "traditional milieu" concept. In addition, it was not possible to find a critical argument about the diversity of the local communities in his work, although it shows a tendency to a kind of 'state history.' Finally, from the viewpoint of the continuity of East Elbe agricultural society, we emphasized the signifi cance of (1) the rural refugee problems after the war, (2) the diversity of the local communities, and (3) the social context and its effects ofn material resources within the villages.