The Midterm conference of the Collaborative Research Centre 1288 at Bielefeld University addressed the overarching themes of comparing and change. By focusing on three concepts that link comparative practices to phenomena of change, namely orders, models, and perceptions, the research centre’s vision was to discuss its research done so far as well as its future course. Despite several challenges — both conceptual and methodological for the interdisciplinary endeavour — in analysing diverse comparative practices, historical change, models and modelling, the conference was very successful. The conference brought these challenges into order through its rich panel and participant discussions, bridging the different research areas and yielding courses of action to address them.

The Keynote address by MARY MORGAN (London) defined the conference’s agenda that various panels connected to. Situated in the field of history and philosophy of science, the keynote asked, “how do things get measured?” Morgan presented three recipes to compare the well-being of countries by employing different practices of observing, measuring and numbering. Bringing complex wholes (e.g., poverty) into concepts, creating wholes from numbers, and breaking wholes into comparable parts played a major role. Morgan exemplified the first recipe with Charles Booth’s poverty map of London households based on income surveys done manually. The second recipe was explained by looking at the measuring practices of National Income Accounting regarding the Gross National Product at the state level. The third recipe focused on the Millennial Development Goals of the United Nations Development Programme of 2000 as well as the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015 and the challenge of putting numbers to the measures deemed relevant.

The conference’s second day started with a panel on models and modelling, discussed through interdisciplinary case studies. REBECCA MERTENS (Bielefeld) and SILKE SCHWANDT (Bielefeld) introduced the case study of the institutionalisation of molecular biology in Europe between 1958 and 1968 and the formation of the Digital Humanities as a community of practice since 1949. Problematising the contemporary socio-politically-driven “structure-function” understanding of macromolecules in European biology1 and the financial dependence on the USA, Mertens brought attention to practices of comparing in the existing literature and how molecular biology became institutionalised in Europe. Furthermore, Schwandt argued how emerging applications of digital tools of the sciences, especially the contributions by Roberto Busa and IBM in Italy, helped accelerate the institutionalisation of Digital Humanities and Digital History research.2 Jumping back to medieval times, MAXIMILIAN BENZ (Bielefeld) elaborated on self-concepts as models in Christianity’s ideal of piety. Benz focused on Thomas von Kempen’s Imitatio Christi of Franciscan piety or “Heterosyncrisis”, Christian art of living or “Homosyncrisis”, and ethical subjectivity or “Autosyncrisis”. Drawing from Michel Foucault’s “aesthetics of existence” and Pierre Hadot’s “way of life”, Benz showed how the two approaches dealt with the issue of “the good life.” DANIEL ESCHKÖTTER (Bielefeld) showed how forms of satellite imaging can be framed as practices of comparing when the logic of before-after-comparisons takes centre stage. Using visual examples from conflict and climate journalism, Eschkötter elaborated on how such visual comparisons served as tools for advocating practices or investigating practices.

The second panel discussed models and comparing from transnational and entangled perspectives. ANTJE FLÜCHTER (Bielefeld) asked to which extents premodern models served as an instrument to describe or even motivate change. She approached this topic from two perspectives: large models that provide world interpretations (the four-empire-model of Daniel3, Giovanni Botero's4 comparative work) and models used to change the individual actor (medical and confessional guidebooks). Their results can support a theory extension of modern modelling, including new parameters. Talking about change was possible, but only within the system. More importantly, practices of comparing regarding the world or human history were different in pre-modern times: 1. humans were neither the only actors nor the most powerful ones, 2. comparisons could be made without a sense of this-worldly telos or European superiority. DAVID NIRENBERG (Chicago/Princeton) suggested conceptualising a long history of race, arguing that while modern sources employ a biological language, racism’s modern reality is rather cultural. Using Iberian/North African understandings of race, Nirenberg showed that analogies between animals/plants and humans were made since the Bronze Age. For example, the analogy to ‘seeds’ was apparent in ancient Egypt, Christianity, and Islam as a transregional relation. The challenge Nirenberg brought to the discussion was the question of which rationalities are dominant for building such a “long history”: comparisons, connections, or causality? JOAN-PAU RUBIÉS (Barcelona) addressed Early Modern intellectuals and their idea of historical progress. He emphasised that comparing was essential for this idea when Europeans compared themselves with ancient cultures on the one hand and non-Europeans on the other hand. Against this background, Rubiés identified a hierarchy of cultures in Early Modern thinking – with each civilisation on a different level, depending on its stage of historical progress. He argued that based on the theological principle of ‘common ancestry’ “wilds” of variant times and cultures were seen as one.5

The conference’s second day was concluded by a panel discussion of five doctoral researchers presenting their projects at the Collaborative Research Centre. FREDERIC KUNKEL (Bielefeld) shared his work on the British real estate market in the late 20th century. He focuses on practices of comparing in the context of market value fluctuations. JACOB BOHÉ (Bielefeld) presented his approach to the German case of the same period, examining the determination of real estate market values. Kunkel and Bohé connected to Mary Morgan’s remarks on models, especially regarding hierarchies of models for explaining market fluctuations. ANGELA GUITERREZ (Bielefeld) shared her project on racist practices of comparing in late 19th century Cuba, exemplifying her observations with the case of Casta paintings. Guiterrez underscored that triangulation (comparata and tertia) helps to construct models detecting comparative practices that would otherwise not become visible. MALTE WITTMAACK (Bielefeld) talked about body-related practices of comparing by early modern European travellers to the Ottoman Empire. While conceptualising eating habits as tertia, Wittmaack elaborated on how the travellers utilised ‘positive’ comparisons to influence eating habits among Christians. Furthermore, Wittmaack argued that Europeans constructed models of nutritional habits through comparisons. CHARLOTTE FEIDICKER (Bielefeld) began her presentation with remarks on digitisation practices in the Digital Humanities. These practices produce data through text-recognition as a basis for analysis. The data become annotated and interpreted, which can be regarded, as Feidicker argued, as a modelling practice. Feidicker applies such techniques in her project, where she engages in network analyses on late-medieval law sources from England.

The third panel was dedicated to practices of comparing in global and ethnographic contexts. WALTER ERHART (Bielefeld) focused on Charles Darwin’s travelogues to point to a shift in this genre from 1810 to 1860. While earlier naturalists compared a unified nature to culture in their world travel reports, this understanding gradually gave way to the recognition of many aspects and parts of nature. Specialists in ethnography introduced a new tertium comparationis by ordering the world in (pre-)historical terms, as Erhart demonstrated. He presented the work of German ethnographer Adolf Bastian as a notable example. In an excellent display of scholarly collaboration, ANGUS NICHOLLS (London) picked up from Erhart’s remarks to focus on theories of stadial change in the humanities. Nicholls drew from the cases of Adolf Bastian, Wilhelm Dilthey, Wilhelm Scherer, and Franz Boas to highlight a scientification of the conception of social and cultural change. More precisely, Nicholls focused on comparative literature that took a bearing on stadial change theory. He examined how polyglotism came to be one of three principles of comparative literature, where translation and decaglotism were the other two.6 KIRSTEN KRAMER (Bielefeld) looked at transformations of the comparative method in early 20th century French ethnography. The older tradition of universalistic anthropology produced the image of a uniform and linear evolution of humankind. Comparisons carved out similarities in a deductive manner. After 1900, a more complex understanding of individual phenomena prospered, leading to a more systematic and inductive approach leading to a widespread critique of comparability. Kramer exemplified this finding with case studies, of which Victor Segalen’s work on exoticism played an essential role.7

Panel four engaged with practices of comparing at a global level and their theoretical conceptualisation. MATHIAS ALBERT (Bielefeld) and THOMAS MÜLLER (Bielefeld) thematised world political changes from 1970 to 2020. They stressed that actors that make sense of change employ narrative strategies, each with a specific reference system and concepts of ‘tipping points’ of historical change. Albert and Müller focused on larger periods and seemingly unproblematic narratives of security communities instead of concentrating on single events or individual tipping points. In doing so, they identified three ideal types of narrative strategies, namely periodisation, history as guidance, and anticipation of trends. For each of these ideal types, they discussed an example: Statements by Henry Kissinger, Goldman Sachs, and the European Union. Albert and Müller argued that these examples reveal informal models of narrative, which express how world politics function, as well as formal models, which are “used only for some aspects of world politics”. They represent a spectrum spanning from contingent explanations of political developments and rather deterministic forecasts to urge interventions. ANGELIKA EPPLE (Bielefeld) raised the question of whether side-effects of human plans are the real drivers of historical change, instead of the plans themselves. Epple advocated a contingency-sensitive theory on globalisation, claiming that practices of comparing and globalisation processes share a structural affinity. In what became an exciting point of discussion, Epple argued that globalisation is about the simultaneity of connectivity and disconnectivity, making globalisation a singular and pluralistic phenomenon at the same time. Globalisation has, following Epple, no telos but a direction. She gave the example of Fernando Ortiz’s “race-based theory of cultural differences and convergences for overcoming racism”. This illustrated the unintended effects of race discourses that first established the category of difference at a local level while approaching the dismantling of differences at a global level.8

At the end of three stimulating days, a roundtable of principal investigators and external experts discussed the outcomes of the midterm conference as well as possible future courses. Both ULRIKE DAVY (Bielefeld) and WILLIBALD STEINMETZ (Bielefeld) summarised practices, processes and models of comparing and change as addressed during the conference. As one of the most critical challenges, Davy identified the question of how to conceptualise “big changes”. Can we differentiate them from more minor changes by assessing the number of affected people? Is it rather about fundamental change of fundamental concepts? The conference panels yielded promising approaches to answering these questions. Steinmetz, on the other hand, emphasised the essential role of narrative for comparative practices. On this basis, narratives became debated as means of modelling by the conference’s participants. CARLOS SPOERHASE (Bielefeld) posed an important question regarding the future of the research centre: Should it go for a contingency-sensitive theory of change, or rather a model-based theory of change? While he appreciated how models represent empirical relations, Spoerhase expressed his concern that they might also omit, simplify, and generalise. While appreciating the interest in historical change, ANDREAS PEČAR (Halle) warned not to neglect continuity. He invited the principal investigators to deliberate more on the relationship between change and continuity. During the further discussion, Steinmetz argued that models might impose constraints on the research agenda by expressing general scepticism about whether the research centre should adopt models and modelling as conceptual terms. He raised his concern that the conference displayed too many definitions and applications of models, which resonated with the participants perceiving the danger of either defining models too broadly or too specifically. Similarly, Davy expressed her concerns regarding constraints that certain comparisons could impose on change, citing Flüchter’s examination of Botero’s case and various case studies on racist comparisons. Flüchter and Steinmetz remarked that the research centre seems keen on models and change but not so much on stabilisation of core concepts. In her concluding statement, Flüchter expressed her large optimism for the future course of the research centre in the face of the conference’s outcomes. She remarked that, in the end, the research centre might bring forth either a model-based theory of change or a contingency-sensitive theory.

In summary, the conference started with questions on how to bring together various practices and types of comparison, change, and models in a conceptualised relation. While committed to interdisciplinary research and a focus on global entanglements, the conference’s contributions shed light on many contexts and ways in which phenomena of change are brought about by comparing, ordering, and modelling . This helped to identify conceptual bridges between the diverse research areas. In view of these positive observations, the research centre can be confident about its further course of conceptualising historical change – through models or a contingency-sensitive theory – with full justification.

Conference Overview:

Conference opening

Antje Flüchter (Bielefeld) / Kirsten Kramer (Bielefeld) / Rebecca Mertens (Bielefeld)

Evening lecture
Moderation: Antje Flüchter (Bielefeld)

Mary Morgan (London)

Welcome

Antje Flüchter (Bielefeld)

Panel I
Moderation: Carsten Reinhardt (Bielefeld)

Silke Schwandt (Bielefeld) and Rebecca Mertens (Bielefeld) / Maximilian Benz (Bielefeld) / Daniel Eschkötter (Bielefeld)

Panel II
Moderation: Cornelia Aust (Bielefeld)

Antje Flüchter (Bielefeld) / David Nirenberg (Chicago and Princenton) / Joan-Pau Rubiés (Barcelona)

Panel discussion of SFB 1288 doctoral students
Moderation: Tobias Werron (Bielefeld)

Panel III
Moderation: Elisa Ronzheimer (Bielefeld)

Walter Erhart (Bielefeld) / Angus Nicholls (London) / Kirsten Kramer (Bielefeld)

Panel IV
Moderation: Peter Kramper (Bielefeld)

Thomas Müller (Bielefeld) and Mathias Albert (Bielefeld) / Angelika Epple (Bielefeld)

Round table
Moderation: Antje Flüchter (Bielefeld)

Ulrike Davy (Bielefeld) / Carlos Spoerhase (Bielefeld) / Willibald Steinmetz (Bielefeld) / Andreas Pečar (Halle)

Notes:
1 Bruno J. Strasser, Institutionalizing molecular biology in post-war Europe: a comparative study, in: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33 (2002), p. 515-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(02)00016-X
2 Steven E. Jones, Roberto Busa, S. J., and the Emergence of Humanities Computing: The Priest and the Punched Cards, Routledge 2016.
3 Jerome, Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, ed. Gleason Leonard Archer, Grand Rapids 1958.
4 Giovanni Botero, Allgemeine Weltbescreibung 2, Gymnicus 1596.
5 Hugo Grotius, De origine gentium Americanarum dissertatio, 1642.
6 Wilhelm Scherer, Poetik, Weidmann 1888. p. 10.
7 Victor Sagalen, Essai sur l'exotisme, 1904-18.
8 Fernando Ortiz, Contrapunteo Cubano Del Tabaco Y El Azucar, 1940.