070331 KU Globalgeschichtliche Theorien, Quellen und Methoden (2018S)

In this course, we will theoretically and practically challenge the assumption that global history scholars can understand historical and contemporary issues of different world regions and languages.
Evidently, English is the lingua franca in this field. Therefore, we are used to see global history through the lens of English syntax, a set of rules for the analysis of the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language. That implies much more than the mere comprehension of the English language itself; one has to understand the mind-set of a scholar. Furthermore, the still frequently used method and theory of historical interpretation is hermeneutic. This means that understanding a text that describes specific circumstances will also be biased by the mind-set of the interpreter. Together, both aspects–syntax and hermeneutic—are sources of confusion and often provoke the repetition of one-sided mainstream interpretations.
Aim of the course
Theory and methods will be set into practice. By profiting from the students’ multicultural background of the global studies and global history master program, issues with comprehension will be selected according to student’s choices.

Method
The onsite course will provide the space to discuss individual cases brought up by the students. This requires a serious engagement both in class and individual research, which will be subjected to weekly debates. No final papers need to be prepared but assignments will be required for discussions on Moodle and in class.
In any case, we will work on questions that come up in the course of the students’ individual academic learning process. In order to profoundly work on them, we plan two four hour sessions on Friday afternoons. This arrangement reduces the weekly sessions to three meetings.
No exemptions will be made from our rule that students must not miss more than four hours per semester. If a student misses more than hours, for any reason, he/she will not be graded.

To get an idea what types of problems exist in global studies, consider the following example from our own field.
In Mexican history and contemporary economics, the extraction of crude oil and gas was and is the third most important single economic activity of the country. As a consequence of the Mexican Revolution, in 1938, the government expropriated all private oil producing companies. To operate the national oil industry PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos), a state-owned company, was established. This part of the phenomenon is easy to understand. However, since the debt crisis of the 1980s hit the Mexican economy, PEMEX refuses to leave the headlines. Accusations against the pro-privatisation campaigns basically target corruption.
Now, we know that corruption exists everywhere and in every state of the globe with fine nuances. In the case of Mexico, a specific form of kinship relations, the so called compadrazco or, in its negative form cacequismo, needs to be understood. In both expressions, the phenomenon is rooted in the colonial past of the country when the colonizers established specific power relations. Thus, insiders, to say scholars of the PEMEX legacy and of contemporary disputes about the legal economic constitution, need to scrutinize on what a cacique was and is. The term, rooted in the lingua franca of the Aztec empire and the colonial domination alike, has a long history and “corruption” is but a partly translation. This being said, the question whether PEMEX would be better off when privatized or should remain a national holding, has to imply the knowledge of the specific social institutions which emerged in the long course of 500 years of external dominion. Any research that does not imply the specific features of the PEMEX corruption will level the case of study and lead readers into misconception.

Therefore, we need to address the question to which extent accuracy concerning the specific details of a case would change the understanding of