Contrasting views of the past are often understood in terms of dichotomies (e.g., hegemonic–counterhegemonic and regressive–progressive), but ethnographic data gathered in a German community suggest the need for a more differentiated approach. The public presentation of history in that community corresponds to one of three conventions: (1) the commemoration of the founding of local institutions by their members, (2) “hometown history,” an avocation of the local bourgeoisie, and (3) citizens' initiatives for coming to terms with the Nazi past. German‐area specialists have tended to dismiss the first two types and to valorize the third, but different representations of the past in the present are best viewed as varieties of symbolic capital, which members of different social groups employ in the institutional settings to which they have access and in which they are authorized to play active roles.

No abstract

It has become common to distinguish between forms of collective memory that promote nation building and those that resist it. Closer examination of supposedly homogenizing discourse, however, may reveal variations that accommodate different perspectives and interests. An illustration is provided in this article with reference to case study materials from a town on the Middle Rhine. In the 19th century, different forms of collective memory developed against the backdrop of conflicts between Protestants and liberal Roman Catholics on the one hand, and conservative Roman Catholics on the other. These same forms were later adapted to changing local conditions in the 20th century. Attempts to mediate contradictions among different forms of local memory have remained partial, as actors choosefrom a range of variants depending on the demands of particular situations.

Developments in East German agriculture after 1945 and 1990 are illustrated through a case study set in the region south of Leipzig. Beginning in the 1950s, the collectivization of agricultural production had led, by the mid-1970s, to the consolidation of fully collectivized cooperative farms (LPG type III), either at the village level or in areas encompassing neighboring villages. Thereafter, planners promoted industrialization, specialization, and cooperation among neighboring LPG type III. The result was areas of “cooperation” with LPG for plant production at their centers and one to three LPG for animal production attached to them. In 1990, such areas of “cooperation” served as points of departure for privatization under the new law. In the case study, the transformation of an area of “cooperation” resulted in a new cooperative farm, a few family farms, a meat processing plant, and even a bison ranch. Explanations for these developments are provided.