ABSTRACT
There are comparatively few empirical studies of the processes of historical socialization in the Federal Republic of Germany. This in itself precludes an overview of the state of research. After some qualitative work using classroom protocols, autobiographies, and interviews (cf. Borries, 1988), a series of quantitative studies was conducted with four main aims: (a) to provide measures of the basic dimensions of historical consciousness (knowledge, attitudes, collective identity, etc.); (b) to trace the developmental logic of historical awareness; (c) to map the relationships among cognitive, motivational, moral, and affective constituents of historical learning; and (d) to explore correlations between interpretations of the past, perceptions of the present, and expectations of the future. The findings of a major study conducted in 1990, using closed-response questionnaires (N = 1,915 respondents from 6th-, 9th-, and 12th-grade classrooms, from both East and West Germany), is worth mentioning here (Borries, 1992). Some of the more important findings were:
Cognitive, motivational, moral, and affective responses can be identified as representing four distinct dimensions; these can be measured with some degree of validity as separate traits.
Cognitive differences among students are closely associated with age, type of school, and scholastic achievement in history. Differences in moral judgments are linked to gender, party preference, and attitudes toward present-day issues. Motivational and emotional differences are almost completely independent of social background variables. Motivation and knowledge are almost completely uncorrelated.
The eminent outcome of historical learning as a whole (both within and outside school) appears to be an orientation toward fundamental values, such as the internalization of human and civil rights. It is likely, however, that this orientation is not derived from historical material, but transferred from highly generalized social norms and applied to past conflicts.
Past constraints on action, if deviating from present-day concepts, are hardly ever reconstructed historically. Moral judgments rooted in the present are substituted for historical analysis. Empathy with the historical other does not take place.
The findings concerning students understanding of historical origins, transformations, and progress are particularly puzzling and inconsistent. Indeed, probably the outcomes of historical learning themselves lack clarity.
The differences between East and West Germany appear to be substantial, but only at the surface level. In terms of deep structure, differences are negligible or nonexistent. At least this was true in the euphoric situation during the summer of 1990; new differences since that time may have emerged.
