[Stöcker, Lars Fredrik]

Hello to you all! I am very sorry that I was not productive enough earlier and that I only at this point do the easy job of using your thoughts and commenting on them. The hard part is to start thinking, so I apologize for raising my voice while all of you already have been writing on the issue. I just think that it would be senseless if I would write an autonomous CfP myself at this point – I will do it if a volunteer is needed, but I thought that I will bring up some points I have been thinking about, just in order to continue the discussion. Then we’ll see, which draft we can put together.
The main point is the question, why we organize this conference. This is our most important justification, we will have to raise key questions, which will be discussed. First I was on my way to develop own thoughts about demarcation as an aspect of the approach that transfer studies open to historians, but then I realized that this is not the point. Our task is only to come up with the topics which all of us and all of the people wanting to join the conference have to think about – everything else will be developed during the conference thanks to the papers, in which the participants will touch upon phenomena of demarcation during transfer processes, illustrating them empirically. So – we need only some very concrete key questions, which we should address very concisely and precisely in the CfP.
The most important need concerning the title is the elaboration of the addressed notions. So we need a very concise definition of transfer and – most importantly – “demarcation”, which is only a notion we (or Prof. Ther) have chosen to address a dilemma we want to point out within the approach of transfer. (NB Just to be clear: I see demarcation as a problematic aspect of the approach of transfer, here I would like to hear your comments about the dilemma transfer as approach/method and demarcation as concept/aspect etc. – We should have a clear and consistent way of naming things, but first we have to agree on certain terms.)
To make it short, this is why we have to keep the CfP concise and extremely focused. What I send you is a set of comments to Joonas’ version of the CfP (thank you very much for taking your time in order to combine the work of all three of you!). I will not work everything out in detail and then send it to you, as I will never finish then. So see it as just spontaneous comments that all of you can comment on, I just address some things that we should think about and what I wrote is very much like brainstorming and not elaborated. Take is as that, please.
Let’s go! (Essential points are kept in thick letters, parts that according to me also could be abandoned are in red brackets, then there are lots of general comments to both essential and not so essential parts of the CfP – as I said: subjective and spontaneous critical remarks)
PS: One VERY important point: I have been in contact with Francesca Parenti (practical stuff like hotel and room booking), Philipp Ther (who is constantly asking me for a first draft of the CfP, which he needs in order to form a dynamic group in Vienna (i.e. organizers for the GRACEH 2012 and participants for 2011) and loosely with profs. Kontler and Iordachi in Budapest, who have to be informed currently. But I have unfortunately continued the correspondence with Antonella Romano (basically because there was nothing new to discuss). Is anyone at the EUI in order to establish regular contacts with Antonella during the winter?
Best, Fredrik

JOONAS:
CALL FOR PAPERS:
5th Annual Graduate Conference in European History
organised by European University Institute (EUI) and Central European
University (CEU).
28th – 30th April, 2011 at European University Institute, Villa
Schifanoia, Florence.

Transfer and Demarcations


PART NUMBER 1 (1. Introduction: the theme and the aims of the conference)
Let’s keep this introduction very short! Two sentences, then we should come directly to our point.

(The last 20 years have seen an outpouring of literature challenging
the nation-state as the obvious unit of historical analysis.)
A wide variety of approaches, perspectives and concepts are offered in its
place (in order to challenge the nation-state as the obvious unit of historical analysis), among them the concept of transfer. < this sentence could be an immediate starting point (short contextualization of transfer studies in order to map it in the historiographical landscape), but should then be reformulated!
(Along with transnational and comparative studies, transfer studies posit a challenge to the
methodological nationalism that dominated the study of history for so
long. It offers an alternative to a history revolving around the
nation-state, challenging the inherent essentialism nation-state -
oriented academia has been plagued with.) < do we need such a lengthy general introduction? no, we don’t need to summarize the discourse about nationalism in historiography, earlier focus on national borders etc., it has been done many times and its place is not a CfP (after all, historians will read our CfP)
Instead, transfer studies stress connections, interactions and circulation across borders, often
looking at the actors involved in such processes. History is perceived
as a number of shared experiences changing, adapting and transforming,
over time and space. < sentence number 2 (definition of transfer, which should make way for out point, which comes next)

PART NUMBER 2
 (2. Theoretical discussion)
Despite the fact that transfer studies have offered fresh viewpoints
on often so nation-centered history, there are problems in the studies
of transfer too. First, the approach has been criticized for focusing
on successful transfers, neglecting situations where transfer failed
as well as overlooking the resistance such movements encountered. < use that formulation for the second part
combined with something like: “Although the contemporary Zeitgeist and political developments lead the historians’ attention and energies towards all kinds of entanglements, shared and common histories deconstructing borders and strictly national units of analysis, it should be remembered that transfer processes are multifaceted and that their outcome can be very different. Conscious and unconscious rejection of transfers tells us as much about the essential importance of boundaries and borders, even their construction through rejected transfers, as successful transfers about epochs and circumstances of border-crossing flows. These phenomena are still part of transfer studies, though more easily overlooked.”
< at this point we should continue to develop our point

(Secondly, transformation of the object itself during the transfer is
taken too rarely into account. Since transferred objects
tend to change during the diffusion, also the transformation of the
object should be taken into consideration.) < this point has been addressed by scholars already (see Zimmermann/Werner, a text which everyone dealing with transfer surely knows – I don’t think that the readers of the CfP do have to learn about fundamental problems with transfer studies, it is too general and apart from that known to the majority of the readers) < we should keep strictly to our point, which is demarcation as an aspect of transfer we want to highlight
(Thirdly, It has also been
claimed that the approach, despite its origin as a critique of the
self-evident use the nation as a unit of historical analysis, might
actually reinforce this unit by postulating that the points of
reference of the transfer, the beginning and the end, are fixed.) < this is more or less a similar problem as above < these things should be addressed in discussions at the conference itself, but again, let’s keep to demarcation so that it becomes clear at once why we are having the conference
Thus, the transfer of cultural goods and ideas < I don’t think we should focus on cultural transfers only should be considered as a complex process with numerous intersecting and varying factors. This,
however, creates a major methodological problem: how to demarcate
transfer. < ???

Demarcation can be seen as a concept < I don’t understand why it is a concept, but the notions used are a point of discussion anyway closely connected to the concept
of transfer. One cannot talk of transfer without having concepts of
demarcation, whether these are framed in spatial, social or cultural
terms. < three essential reasons why transfers could fail In other words: no transfer without demarcation. The concept of demarcation raises the question of ‘why the transfer is perceived as a
transfer at all?’
Thus demarcation is a central concept when it comes
to investigating the obstacles of transfer whether spatial, social or
cultural.  But demarcation is also a key concept when it comes to
understanding the perceived foreignness of a given transfer and the
different positions adopted, ranging from different attempts of
appropriation to actively resisting and rejecting the transfer. < when we change “concept” to “aspect”, this sentence is very good in depicting what we are looking for

< in general (I have touched upon this above): demarcation is not a concept, it is an aspect of transfer processes which is often overlooked (I have understood it in that way, that we want to address the issue that it is implied in transfer studies that historians are looking for a successful transfer and tend to be blind for unsuccessful transfers, which did not leave marks, but could just because of that tell us a lot about complex historical developments.
e.g. (just to imagine case studies):
+ take the Turkish minority in Germany as an example:
The migration of the group in itself is already a transfer process, as it has lead to a major influence of both contemporary German society and especially its self-understanding as a multicultural society with all problems and challenges that come along with that. Furthermore, the confrontation with the German host society has developed a very specific Turkish culture abroad, including language, forms of communication among the minority members from rural areas in metropolitan areas as Berlin etc. At the same time, we have a double demarcation of possible transfers, which are made visible when failed transfers are focused on. Firstly, there is a transfer process from – let’s say – young and integrated Turks, which sometimes fails and leads to rejection among parts of the group, which is so strong that it in many cases leads to the development of a very specific orthodoxy of traditions, so that the overemphasizing of the past and past values are artificially preserved. This is not the case in contemporary Turkey, where values are moving. Here we have the second failed transfer: modern Turkey’s changing reality does in many cases not influence the diaspora’s values, which is a rejection closely connected to the current confrontation with the equally constantly modernizing German society. This just can be an explanation of why failed transfers, which are not visible (clear and visible are the transfers I mentioned in the beginning of this example), are of central importance and tell us much more about our case than the successful transfers.)
+ other examples could be what happened in Estonia or Finland after their independence after WW I: in the language policy we can find the evidence of clear demarcations < no foreign words, especially from the former masters, were to be accepted < the renaming of material and abstract things is not only an indicator for actively enforced demarcations and rejections of transfers, but of the unmaking of earlier successful transfer processes itself. This could also be an example of phenomena that remain ignored when facing on successful, borderless transfers only.

(3. What kind of papers can be sent)

Is the concept of transfer useful and usable for historians? Has
transfer studies together with other historical trends such histoire
croisée, and transnational and global history, succeeded in
challenging long-lived historical master narratives? Is process,
experience and transformation a viable, and useable, alternative to
the traditional stories of modernization, nation-building and
Occidentalism? If the nation state is no longer the self-evident unit
of study and comparison, how the scales of transfer can be demarcated?

We want to know your experiences with the concept; As a perspective,
inspiration or dead-end. Have you used it, and if so, how and when? If
not, why? The approach is more common among historians interested in
culture, economy and technology than among social and political
historians. Does this imply that the approach is more useful to some
sub-categories of the discipline than others?

We welcome both more theoretical papers discussing methodological
issues connected with transfer and demarcations as well as empirical
ones. I think the ideal case would be a combination of empirical and theoretical sessions, which can be combined and summed up in public discussions for all participants during the conference. (Still, let’s keep to our topic, “demarcation (=failed transfers in all their different shapes) as a neglected aspect of transfer studies”.) The chance of our conference is especially: it is international (hopefully), so it is a perfect possibility of discussing the demarcations in the process of the travel of the approach itself < in what countries do historians enthusiastically join the discussions about transfers, in what countries do historians criticize or ignore the concept and why? Is it conscious or unconscious, are there needs to emphasize borders in certain countries etc etc. (Could be a topic for a summarizing discussion or so)
The deadline for proposals for papers is …

(4. General nformation about the conference.)

The conference will take place at the Europan Univestiy Institute.

There will be no registration fee and lunches and coffee will be
provided. Funding for travel and accommodation may be available on an
individual basis based on request. Information regarding accommodation
in Budapest will be sent along with notification of acceptance. (Is
this still relevant???) < I think that it is a general rule that partial funding is always granted (at least for two nights (from April 28th-30th)). I don’t know about the travel costs – we should ask Francesca.



Lars Fredrik Stöcker
Researcher, Department of History and Civilization
European University Institute
Via Boccaccio 121
50133 Florence
ITALY

tel.: +39 388 175 98 56

[MQ]

Dear Fredrik (and the rest of you)

I have now carefully read through your comments, and though I agree
with some of them, I don’t agree that the call for papers needs to be
slimmed down, as I would be if you remove the text in the red
brackets.
1) I think that we should keep the introduction, as it places the
conference in the context of previous research – I don’t think that we
should count on that everybody who may benefit our conference think
along the same lines as we, historians or not. In other words, I
think, we should keep it. 2) This goes for your point about “the
basics problems of transfer studies” as well. – But this may just be
because I don’t know what you have in mind instead. (I you have time,
could you write some alternative text? Otherwise, I think, we should
keep it).
3) The concept of demarcation: If you want demarcation to be an aspect
rather than a concept, then it is fine with me, but how the two
relates to one another is, I think, fairly complex and depends on the
level one talk about it. (I we call the field “transfer studies” then
it is obvious that demarcation is something that falls within that
field. However, if we more loosely talk about transfer (in the sense
of “stuff being moved”) then the operation of demarcating (as a
cognitive or lingual process) precedes any notion or concept of
transfer. It may be clear from this that I don’t want demarcation only
to mean a failed transfer – though it is involved when transfer fails.
(I can write more lengthily about it if it is needed)

Best
Magnus

Nb. You can upload your file to the group – I have just uploaded your
word-document.






On Oct 12, 1:34 pm, Stöcker, Lars Fredrik <Fredrik.Stoc...@EUI.eu>
wrote:

[Joonas]

Dear all,
demarcation is then an aspect rather than a concept. This is fine.
Since I took it as a methodological problem (which is, at least in my
study, a very relevant issue as well) from the very beginning, my
writings about it can be ignored.

Otherwise, I think, that in CfP we should try to explain the
demarcation aspect in transfer as clearly as we can. Therefore, I
suggest that at first Fredrik would write the part number 2, after
which we others would fill the missing parts.

Is this okay?

Best,
Joonas

> ...
>
> læs mere »- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -