SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tarihyazımı / 2026 / Sayı: 1

Conceptual history in Germany from the nineteenth century to the present: Historical semantics, political transformation, and epistemological reorientation

19. Yüzyıldan günümüze Almanya’da kavramlar tarihi çalışmaları: Tarihsel semantik, politik dönüşüm ve epistemolojik yeniden konumlanış

Feride Durna0000-0003-1340-7953
Pages
135–161
Publication Date
2026-10-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article argues that Begriffsgeschichte should not be understood as a ready-made German model to be directly transferred into Turkish historiography, but rather as a critical approach that needs to be reinterpreted in light of the specific semantic ruptures of Ottoman-Turkish modernization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the epistemological transformation of conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte) in Germany from the nineteenth century to the present.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It traces the field’s development from philological and philosophical origins to Koselleckian historical semantics and, more recently, to digital, discursive, and transcultural approaches in the twenty-first century.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article argues that Begriffsgeschichte should not be understood as a ready-made German model to be directly transferred into Turkish historiography, but rather as a critical approach that needs to be reinterpreted in light of the specific semantic ruptures of Ottoman-Turkish modernization.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Almanya Kavram Tarihi · Tarihsel Semantik · Hermeneutik

Abstract

This article examines the epistemological transformation of conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte) in Germany from the nineteenth century to the present. It traces the field’s development from philological and philosophical origins to Koselleckian historical semantics and, more recently, to digital, discursive, and transcultural approaches in the twenty-first century. Rather than treating conceptual history as a narrow philological field concerned merely with changes in the meanings of words, the article approaches it as a critical methodological framework for interrogating the relationship between language, time, politics, and social experience in modern historiography. In this respect, concepts are not passive indicators of historical processes; they are historical-semantic structures that help make political struggles, social transformations, and future expectations possible. While placing Reinhart Koselleck’s notions of Sattelzeit, temporalization, space of experience, and horizon of expectation at the center of the analysis, the article also considers the relationship of conceptual history to political semantics, discourse history, systems theory, and the digital humanities. The final section discusses the methodological possibilities that this legacy offers for Turkish historiography. The article argues that Begriffsgeschichte should not be understood as a ready-made German model to be directly transferred into Turkish historiography, but rather as a critical approach that needs to be reinterpreted in light of the specific semantic ruptures of Ottoman-Turkish modernization.

Özet

Bu makale, Almanya’da 19. yüzyıldan günümüze uzanan kavramlar tarihi çalışmalarının (Begriffsgeschichte) epistemolojik dönüşümünü incelemektedir. Bu dönüşüm, filolojik-felsefi kökenlerden Koselleck’çi tarihsel semantiğe ve 21. yüzyılın dijital, söylemsel ve transkültürel açılımlarına uzanan bir gelişim hattı içinde ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, kavramlar tarihini yalnızca kelimelerin anlam değişimini izleyen dar bir filolojik alan olarak değil, modern tarih yazımında dil, zaman, siyaset ve toplumsal deneyim arasındaki ilişkiyi sorgulayan eleştirel bir yöntemsel çerçeve olarak ele almaktadır. Bu bağlamda kavramlar siyasal mücadeleleri, toplumsal dönüşümleri ve gelecek beklentilerini mümkün kılan tarihsel-semantik yapılardır. Makale, Reinhart Koselleck’in Sattelzeit, zamansallaşma, deneyim alanı ve beklenti ufku kavramlarını merkeze alırken, kavramlar tarihinin politik semantik, söylem tarihi, sistem teorisi ve dijital beşerî bilimlerle kurduğu ilişkileri de değerlendirmektedir. Son bölümde bu metodolojik mirasın Türk tarih yazımına sunduğu imkânlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, Begriffsgeschichte geleneğinin Türk tarihçiliğine doğrudan aktarılacak hazır bir model değil, Osmanlı-Cumhuriyet modernleşmesinin özgül semantik kırılmalarını dikkate alınarak yeniden yorumlanması gereken eleştirel bir yaklaşım olduğunu savunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Durna, F. (2026). Conceptual history in Germany from the nineteenth century to the present: Historical semantics, political transformation, and epistemological reorientation. Tarihyazımı, Sayı: 1, 135–161. https://doi.org/10.17497/tarihyazimi.1975833

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.
  3. Benjamin, W. (1974). Gesammelte Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
  4. Berkes, N. (1964). The development of secularism in Turkey. London: McGill University Press.
  5. Berkes, N. (1973). Türkiye'de çağdaşlaşma. Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi.
  6. Blumenberg, H. (1971). Beobachtungen an Metaphern. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 15, ss. 161–214.
  7. Blumenberg, H. (2007). Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  8. Bloch, M. (1992). The historian’s craft (P. Putnam, Çev.). New York: Manchester University Press.
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed., G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Çev.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  10. Brunner, O. (1965). Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Österreichs im Mittelalter. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  11. Brunner, O., Conze, W., & Koselleck, R. (Ed.). (1997). Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Klett-Cotta.
  12. Cheng, S. (2021). Conceptual history, the will to power, and a new politics of translation. Global Intellectual History, 6(1), ss. 47–59.
  13. Dipper, C. (2016). Reinhart Kosellecks Konzept „semantischer Kämpfe“. Forum Interdisziplinäre Begriffsgeschichte, 5(2), ss. 32–41.
  14. Febvre, L. (2006). Civilisation: Le mot et l’idée. La Renaissance du Livre. Québec: Université du Québec. Fernández Sebastián, J. (2014). Political concepts and time: New approaches to conceptual history. Cantabria: Cantabria University Press.
  15. Fickers, A., Tatarinov, J., van der Heijden, T. (2022). Digital history and hermeneutics: Between theory and practice: An introduction. In Digital history and hermeneutics: Between theory and practice (ss. 1–20). De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
  16. Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
  17. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Çev.). New York: Pantheon Books.
  18. Gadamer, H.-G. (1970). Begriffsgeschichte als Philosophie. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 14, ss. 137–151. Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH
  19. Gadamer, H.-G. (1990). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. J. C. B. Mohr. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, ss. 167–198. Oxford University Press
  20. Habermas, J. (1993). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Çev.). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  21. Hartog, F. (2003). Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expérience du temps. Paris: Le Seuil.
  22. Hegel, G. W. F. (1986). Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  23. Humboldt, W. von. (1963). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  24. Karaaslan, E. (2021). Şerif Mardin’in metinleri bağlamında Yeni Osmanlılar ile Jön Türklerin fikrî derinliklerine dair bir izah denemesi. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 26(104), ss. 73-99.
  25. Koebner, R. (1953). Semantics and historiography. The Cambridge Journal, (7), ss. 131–144.
  26. Koebner, R. (1964). Imperialism: The story of a political word 1840–1960. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Kollmeier, K., & Hoffmann, S.-L. (2010). Zeitgeschichte der Begriffe? Perspektiven einer historischen Semantik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Einleitung. Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History, 7(1), ss. 75-78.
  28. Koselleck, R. (1972). Einleitung. O. Brunner, W. Conze, & R. Koselleck (Ed.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (ss. xiii–xxvii). Klett-Cotta.
  29. Koselleck, R. (1979). Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  30. Koselleck, R. (2000). Zeitschichten: Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  31. Koselleck, R. (2006). Begriffsgeschichten: Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache. Suhrkamp.
  32. Jordheim, H. (2007). Conceptual history between chronos and kairos: The case of “empire”. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 11(1), 115–145.
  33. Landwehr, A. (2023). Diskursgeschichte als Geschichte des Politischen. Potsdam: Springer VS.
  34. Lenzen, D. (1997). Lösen die Begriffe Selbstorganisation, Autopoiesis und Emergenz den Bildungsbegriff ab? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 43(6), ss. 949–968.
  35. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  36. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  37. Mardin, Ş. (2015). Jön Türklerin siyasi fikirleri, 1895-1908. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  38. Mardin, Ş. (2017). Yeni Osmanlı düşüncesinin doğusu. İstanbul: İletişim
  39. Meriç, C. (1997). Mağaradikler. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  40. Moretti, F. (2013). Distant reading. London: Verso.
  41. Müller, E., Picht, B., & Schmieder, F. (2024). E. Müller, B. Picht, & F. Schmieder (Ed.), Das 20. Jahrhundert in Grundbegriffen: Lexikon zur historischen Semantik in Deutschland. Schwabe Verlag.
  42. Nietzsche, F. (1999). Zur Genealogie der Moral. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Ed.), Kritische Studienausgabe, 5, ss. 245–412. Leipzig: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
  43. Oncina Coves, F. (2015). Die Bedeutung und Rezeption von Reinhart Koselleck im spanischsprachigen Raum. Forum Interdisziplinäre Begriffsgeschichte, 4(1), ss. 21–26.
  44. Ranke, L. von. (1824). Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtschreiber: Eine Beylage zu desselben romanischen und germanischen Geschichten. Leipzig: G. Reimer.
  45. Richter, M. (1995a). The history of political and social concepts: A critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  46. Richter, M. (1995b). Appreciating a contemporary classic: The Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe and future scholarship. H. Lehmann & M. Richter (Ed.), The meaning of historical terms and concepts: New studies on Begriffsgeschichte (ss. 25–38). German Historical Institute.
  47. Richter, M. (2005). More than a two-way traffic: Analyzing, translating, and comparing political concepts from other cultures. Contributions to the History of Concepts, 1(1), ss. 217–228.
  48. Richter, M. (2012). A note on the text of Reinhart Koselleck: “Offene Fragen an die Geschichtlichen Grundbegriffe”. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 54, 249–266.
  49. Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. New York: Columbia University Press. Rosanvallon, P. (2003). Pour une histoire conceptuelle du politique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
  50. Schmitt, C. (2007). The Concept of the Political. (G. Schwab, Çev.) Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  51. Şimşek, A. (Ed.). (2025). Kavram tarihi çalışmaları. İstanbul: VakıfBank Kültür Yayınları.
  52. Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), ss. 3–53.
  53. Troeltsch, E. (1922). Der Historismus und seine Probleme. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
  54. Underwood, T. (2019). Distant horizons: Digital evidence and literary change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  55. Ülken, H. Z. (1982). Türk tefekkürü tarihi. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  56. Ülken, H. Z. (1992). Türkiye’de çağdaş düşünce tarihi. Ülken Yayınları.
  57. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  58. Yıldız, A. (2012). Niyazi Berkes ve Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma’nın gelişimi. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 46, ss. 1–33.