Arbeit und Zeit,Körper und Uhr: Die Konstruktion von ‚effektiver’︁ Arbeit im ‚Scientific Management’︁ des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts

The concept ‚Scientific Management’︁ was invented in 1910 for what was then called the ‚Taylor‐system’︁ of shop management. Frederick W. Taylor had developed his system to eliminate the “waste of human effort” mainly by “time study”, the analysis of the work of “first‐class workman” with a stop‐watch and the synthesis of standard times for given tasks which make the “waste” of effort visible and measurable. A reading of Karl Marx's work shows the “paradigm of productivity” governing mid‐century discussion of the value of labor. Time is a central element in the valuation of industrial labour, but only with Taylor the precision of the stop‐watch is introduced to observe and control the productivity of the body of the worker. As disciples of Taylor Frank and Lillian Gilbreth introduced motion studies and micromotion studies into Scientific Management. Their analysis of the motion of workers, technically assisted by high‐speed watches and cameras, goes beyond the surface‐observation of the first‐class workman to enable the design of efficient motion. The body of the worker is represented in lines of light and tables of data. The objects of desire are the time‐lines of efficiency and productivity. In both cases, Taylor and the Gilbreths, various observations further lead to the conclusion that science and schooling are an important historical background to the rise of Scientific Management that deserves closer inspection.     

Zur Pluralisierung im Luthertum des 17. Jahrhunderts und ihrer Bedeutung für die Deutungen von ‚Natur’︁

Building on methodological considerations in cultural history and historical anthropology, the following contribution proceeds from the concept of ?nature’? rather than from ?natural science’?, with the former understood here as the object of culturally determined projections, values and practices. This ?constructive’?, practice‐oriented concept of nature exposes perceptions of and attitudes towards nature that, owing to the usual reduction of nature to natural science, would otherwise have remained hidden, but which may well be essential to its constitution. To a certain extent, the term ?nature’? continues the terminological extension from ?natural science’? to ?natural philosophy’?, but as a heuristic device it more strongly implies the significance of culturally mediated practices and dynamics. The essay raises the following questions: Which religious conceptions entered into which attitudes towards nature and which religious expectations and interpretive matrices were the motivating forces behind which studies of nature? The figures within seventeenth‐century Lutheranism who shaped and promoted nature‐oriented attitudes and practices were not the ?orthodox’? scholars more strongly tied to academic and controversialist theology, but rather reform‐oriented theologians critical of the church. In the context of the inner differentiation and pluralization of seventeenth‐century Lutheranism, these reform‐oriented groups not only inspired innovate theological projects but also assumed a leading role, along with liked‐minded Christian laypersons, in interpreting and studying ?nature’?.     

Akzentverschiebung - Zur Geschichte der Semitistik und Islamwissenschaft während des ‚Dritten Reichs’︁

Fifty years after World War II the history of Semitic and Islamic Studies during the period of nazism has more or less remained ‘terra incognita’. The article shows that academic activities in this field did not remain uninfluenced by that period. In addition to the banishment of Jewish scholars, a concentration on Arabian Studies took place and scholars contributed for the weltanschauung of the Third Reich. To date not all the outcomes can be presented. Yet, one of them is easily observable: The study of Jewish religion, history and culture became a special branch, it is no longer part of Oriental studies.     

Die ‚Deutsche Physik’︁ in der Selbstkritik des NS‐Ideologen Alfred Bäumler

In 1944, the Nazi ideologist Alfred Baeumler wrote a memorandum for his boss Alfred Rosenberg, Adolf Hitler's commissioner for the political education of party members. In this sensational memo, which did not become known until long after 1945, Baeumler spoke out against the promotion of under‐performing physicists who oust highly‐qualified non‐Nazi scientists at the universities without submitting adequate research results. – Rosenberg's response is not known. What is known, however, is that Baeumler did not manage to change the situation criticised by him.