|
| |
| |
| |
Summaries
1650
Heinz Schilling
The paper evaluates the 1650-IJkpunt-volume as a well-conceptualized and well-written example of up-to-date, national cultural history in a European perspective, which should serve as a historiographical model for research and syntheses on other national cultures and histories in early modern Europe. It comments in detail first on the theoretical and methodological principles of research and writing on early modern European societies after the end of the continent's division into two power blocs (§ I). Second, on the implications of ‘time’ and ‘space’, in which 1650 acts as a starting point for both the geographical meaning of ‘Europe’ and its cultural history, and it is argued, from a cultural perspective, that a specific type of Latin-European civilization should be distinguished from the Orthodox-European type of civilization on the one hand and from the transatlantic offshoots of Latin civilization on the other. Research should focus on the exchange between these different civilizations, with emphasis on the benefits and returns of this exchange for Latin Europe, especially for the agents of European expansion such as Dutch society (§ II). Finally, the paper focuses in more detail on issues such as the meaning of education and literature, political culture, the relationship between Church and State and tolerance within early modern Dutch society and culture.
| |
Anton van der Lem
It is highly regrettable that a history of the Netherlands seen from five focal points starts with the year 1650. Could this be a nineteenth-century interpretation of Dutch history, to consider the Dutch Republic as the starting point of our past? The years 1500 or 1550 - or an even earlier date - would have been a far more appropriate starting point. Despite the fact that the Dutch pride themselves on being very European-minded, they often neglect the history of the Southern Netherlands and Belgium. This negligence has to do with the tendency of the Dutch to overestimate the importance of their own culture: Many historians believe that the entire world is fascinated by the (contemporary) history of the Netherlands. Within the series, the lack of coherence between the cultural and the political history of the country is striking. The authors and the publisher are also to blame for the inconsistency between the content and the illustrations.
| |
Willem Frijhoff, Marijke Spies
In their rejoinder, the authors of 1650: Bevochten eendracht discuss the main criticisms brought forward by those taking part in the debate at the final conference on the Vantage-points Programme. Basically, they reject two claims as inappropriate with regard to their book and its intentions. Firstly, there can be no question of a political, let alone a holistic framework for this study which is meant to be an interpretation of Dutch culture in the specific language of cultural history. Secondly, they stand up against the reproach that their book would be purely subservient to present-day political questions about identity, Dutchness, and national consensus. Instead, they show that the key terms which they used to describe and explain the specific quality of Dutch culture at its 17th-century zenith (pluriformity, discussion culture, burgher participation, ecumenism of everyday life, etc.) are used in this cross-section of Dutch society as analytical, descriptive terms, without any teleological view towards future developments. Finally, they explain the sense in which the European context should be understood and where the limits of European comparison lie at the moment with regard to 17th-century culture.
| |
| |
| |
1800
F.R. Ankersmit
In this essay I express my greatest admiration for Mijnhardt's and Kloek's Blauwdrukken. Not only does the book discuss with an unparalleled richness of historical detail a period in Dutch history that was often dismissed as not being worthy of our interest, but it also proposes a most original and fruitful approach to the major problems of Dutch culture at the end of the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, the authors of this marvelous book could be criticized for not having been sufficiently aware of what one might call ‘the cognitive dissonance’ between late eighteenth century Dutch culture, on the one hand, and what happened in the world of culture at the same time in England, Germany and France, on the other. A tentative suggestion is made for how a greater awareness of this cultural gap might have altered the picture presented in this impressive and most valuable study.
| |
N.C.F. van Sas
‘1800. Blueprints for a society’ argues the case for the primacy of culture in late 18th-century Dutch society. Drawing upon the work of a generation of dix-huitiémistes it presents an impressive and highly readable overview of the Dutch Enlightenment. Unfortunately, this cultural vantage-point also results in a rather one-sided, if not positively unhistorical reading of this period which - by all accounts so far - was highly charged with politics. In fact, an opportunity is missed to connect the Enlightened civil society of the 1760s and 1770s with the revolutionary developments of the 1780s and 1790s.
| |
W.W. Mijnhardt
In ‘1800 a reply’ the various reviews of Blauwdrukken voor een samenleving [Blueprints for living together] are dealt with. The most interesting criticism was put forward by Frank Ankersmit. According to him, Dutch intellectual culture after 1750 failed to make the transition to intellectual modernity. The Republic's literati remained prisoners of the Cartesian culture that in the 17th century had been responsible for their central position in the cosmopolitan Republic of Letters. This reply contends that the opposition of a unified intellectual Europe on the road to modernity versus a unified Republic that was intellectually backward-looking does not do justice to the cosmopolitan character of European culture. In Blauwdrukken it is argued that in the 18th century differences between national cultures were slight and that European authors (including the Dutch) shared a common vocabulary and a common set of intellectual instruments. What made the Dutch stand out was that their problems differed from those in surrounding aristocratic and monarchical countries. As a result, most solutions debated in these countries did not fit the problems of the Republic. The Republic had to beat out its own path to modernity. It not only did so in the field of intellectual culture, but also in the areas of politics, economics and the arts.
| |
| |
| |
1900
Wessel Krul
In their publication entitled 1900: Hoogtij van burgerlijke cultuur, the authors, Jan Bank and Maarten van Buuren, failed to pay adequate attention to the contrasts and differences that typified Dutch culture at the fin de siècle. The book therefore lacks analytical precision. The term ‘bourgeois culture’ should not have been applied in such an all-inclusive and unambiguous manner.
| |
Ido de Haan
Bank and Van Buuren erroneously state that 1900 was the year in which bourgeois culture reached its peak in the Netherlands. They overlook the antibourgeois movement that sprang up after 1880. These oversights coincide with an interpretation of cultural history that views culture as a separate entity rather than as part of the symbolization and meaning that permeates every aspect of community life. Based on this last viewpoint, it is apparent that bourgeois culture reached a crisis point around 1900 due to a shift in the relationship between culture, politics and economics.
| |
Jan Bank
A historiography centred around the year 1900 produced a synchronic, not a diachronic, view. The kaleidoscopic character of the present monograph is therefore consistent with the basic options of the whole project. During their years of research (1992-2000) the authors were inspired, or became inspired, by three themes in particular: the obvious optimism that people living in 1900 had for the state of the nation and the arts; a retrospective on immigration at the turn of the century; and, the fact that the processes of secularisation and religious revival took place at the same time during the decades around 1900.
| |
1950
James Kennedy
1950: Welvaart in zwart-wit deserves praise for putting the economic and social history of the postwar period of the Netherlands (1948-1973) into wider international frameworks, such as ‘Americanization’. The book also offers analysis of fields seldom explored in the traditional historiography, including the postwar planning of town and country, and the role of the arts and sciences in Dutch society. At the same time, the book suffers from a lack of focus that might have given this 600-page book more energy and direction. And although it addresses some of the factors that set postwar Netherlands off from its neighbors, Welvaart fails to explore systematically the particular contours of Dutch culture, as one of its original research mandates dictated. Though the book suffers from these and other weaknesses, Welvaart is a book of real achievement, wide in scope, well-informed and stylishly presented.
| |
| |
| |
Doeko Bosscher
The author tries to assess the merits of Welvaart in zwart-wit [Affluence in black-and-white] by Kees Schuyt and Ed Taverne. He concludes that notwithstanding a certain lack of originality, Schuyt and Taverne have written a highly interesting and valuable book which convincingly captures the enigmatic spirit of the period around 1950. Schuyt and Taverne show themselves to be extremely well-versed in their established areas of expertise and answer a number of questions on the 1940s and 1950s with outstanding flair. It is rather disappointing, however, that a joint endeavour by two such erudite scholars ultimately produced so little added value. Their approaches did not in fact lead to a synthesis of scholarly disciplines, and sadly especially not concerning the issues that originally prompted the creation of this series of books: the theory of demography, culture and multiculturalism.
| |
Rekenschap
Karel Davids
What value does the ‘benchmarking’ concept (IJkpunten) bring to Dutch history? Can the selection of the first ‘benchmark’ and the subsequent benchmark-years convincingly be defended and if so, on what grounds? What do the results of these inquiries on benchmark-years tell us about the specific features of Dutch culture? These three key questions form the basis of the review of the IJkpunten-project as a whole. The author argues that the implementation of the project has in part been more satisfactory than its defective theoretical base would have led us to expect, but that the series as a whole also shows a number of glaring shortcomings, such as an inadequate justification of the choice of the benchmark-years and insufficient communication between the various authors concerning the use of crucial terms and concepts. Although ‘specific’ features of Dutch culture are hinted at, a systematic, comparative analysis of these matters has not been pursued. Finally, it is suggested that the volumes of IJkpunten-project, considering their manifest focus on the importance of harmony, consensus, consultation and candid debate in Dutch history and their relative disregard for the role of coercion, violence, conflicts and tensions between different groups in Dutch society, can be taken as a quintessential product of the prevailing beliefs and opinions in the Netherlands in the 1990s.
| |
Douwe Fokkema, Frans Grijzenhout
The authors take issue with the critical remarks that were levelled at the research project ‘Dutch Culture in its European Context’ and, in particular, those made about the series entitled Rekenschap: 1650-2000 which they edited. They maintain that Dutch culture was correctly depicted as a ‘debating culture’; one in which consensus was actively pursued and which in turn led to compromises being reached. Open debates were feasible because of the small-scale nature of the discussions and the absence of a powerful aristocracy or any other strict hierarchical social structure, for example in ecclesiastical quarters. The project focussed on the cultural exchange with other nations rather than on giving a description of the cultural identity of the Netherlands. It was inspired by the idea of a united Europe.
|
|
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd