“In 1926: Living At The Edge Of Time” By Ulrich Gumbrecht: Quantity And Quality Of Our Knowledge Of The Past
What is the purpose of history, and what can be done with our rapidly growing knowledge of the past? These questions have plagued historians for millennia. While there is no single, concrete answer, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht seeks to provide one in his book “In 1926: Living at the Edge of Time”. Rather than questioning our knowledge about the past, Gumbrecht queries whether it is possible to identify continuous progress in the quantity and quality of this knowledge. In doing so, he confronts the cultural turn and addresses modern historiography through the restoration of materiality and presence within his writing.
Using only sources from 1926, Gumbrecht presents fragments of life through various geographical areas, large-scale events and private practices, and perspectives of celebrities and ordinary individuals alike while pointedly omitting traditional elements such as narrative and justifiable historical explanations. By articulating the atmosphere of his chosen era as temporal, Gumbrecht argues that certain cultural events and aesthetic experiences can become present to the reader. Essentially, analyzing how everyday activities and material experiences shape individual and cultural understandings of the world helps show that history can have a tangible effect. However, unlike other historians, Gumbrecht retreats behind his sources rather than using them to write about the past. By allowing the primary sources to speak for themselves as directly as possible, readers are able to experience historical time as immediate.
All material is arranged like that of an encyclopedia, in alphabetical order with cross-references throughout. Although each entry can be read as an isolated piece, central references are repeated and developed throughout the text. For example, at the end of “murder” there are references to “gramophones” and “mountaineering”, among others. Gumbrecht’s sources vary, with a prevalence towards literature including the likes of Ernest Hemingway and DH Lawrence; newspapers, journals, and films are also used. While the chosen topics are seemingly arbitrary, there is a firm analytical purpose towards universal questions of how transcendence and authenticity are woven into everyday subjects. For instance, in the “Bullfighting” section of his book, Gumbrecht clarifies the question surrounding the transcendence of desires by stating that “from Hollywood to Berlin, concepts such as “desire for life” and “tragedy” invariably become associated with Spain, and references to them often conclude with evocations of the bullfight. ”
Gumbrecht does not try to overcome modernity or the cultural turn. Rather, he seeks to scrutinize whether modern self-consciousness is an accurate depiction of history and continues the cultural turn tradition of shifting away from economic factors and towards elements of culture and society. In this sense, Gumbrecht’s analysis is similar to that of Katherine Lebow, who uses social memoirs to allow individual authors to place their experiences within a broader context, and to deepen their thoughts about specific issues and problems. However, Gumbrecht departs from other cultural turn historians, such as Joan Scott, who focus heavily on the production and construction of knowledge.
“In 1926” critiques such aspects of the cultural turn by indicating regret over the loss of materiality. Gumbrecht addresses this regret by incorporating the production of presence, not just meaning, and by incorporating sources in a way that lets them speak for themselves. By reintegrating materiality and presence into historiography, Gumbrecht adds a dimension to the cultural turn that allows for greater breadth and depth in historical analysis. “In 1926” extends beyond modern self-consciousness by bridging the gap between cultures of presence and cultures of meaning and by allowing readers to encompass themselves in the world of 1926.
