|
|
|
|
Gunnar Heinsohn
|
| |
|
| |
Gunnar Heinsohn (born 1943 in the German-occupied city of Gotenhafen (today Gdynia, Poland) is a German sociologist. Since 1984, he has been a tenured professor at the University of Bremen, where he heads the Raphael-Lemkin-Institute for Comparative Genocide Research. His list of publications includes almost 700 scholarly articles, conference presentations, and books His research has been focused on developing new solutions to a number of previously unsolved problems regarding the history and theory of civilization:
- the so-called "Dark Ages" of antiquity, where Heinsohn proposed a revision of ancient chronology based upon stratigraphy.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Gunnar Heinsohn' Start a new discussion about 'Gunnar Heinsohn' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Gunnar Heinsohn (born 1943 in the German-occupied city of Gotenhafen (today Gdynia, Poland) is a German sociologist. Since 1984, he has been a tenured professor at the University of Bremen, where he heads the Raphael-Lemkin-Institute for Comparative Genocide Research. His list of publications includes almost 700 scholarly articles, conference presentations, and books His research has been focused on developing new solutions to a number of previously unsolved problems regarding the history and theory of civilization:
- the so-called "Dark Ages" of antiquity, where Heinsohn proposed a revision of ancient chronology based upon stratigraphy. Taking Immanuel Velikovsky´s revised chronology as a starting point, Heinsohn went on to criticize Velikovsky's chronology as Biblical fundamentalism, proposing an even more drastic revision that is being disputed in circles of chronological revisionists, but is generally being rejected by mainstream historians. What seems to be unique with Heinsohn's approach is that his relative chronology is exclusively based on stratigraphy.
- the origin of sacrifice and priest kingship in Mesopotamia, where Heinsohn suggested an explanatory model based upon a catastrophist view of ancient history and a psychoanalytic interpretation of sacrificial rituals.
- the origins and structure of antisemitism. Heinsohn holds that the Jewish people were the first in occidental history to abolish sacrifice in the name of a general prohibition of killing, thereby providing an example to other religions still practicing sacrifice that this is unnecessary. As the Jewish prophet Hosea stated: "For kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, And a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings.". According to this view that is in some respects similar to a psychoanalytic view, antisemitic hatred has its origins in the feelings of guilt towards the sacrificed human or animal; turning those feelings of self-hatred towards those who do not take part in the ritual of sacrifice allows for continuing with the sacrificial practice. Heinsohn contrasts Jewish abstinence from sacrifice with the Christian belief in Jesus as someone who died for the Christians' sins, which he interprets as a regression to sacrificial practices of prehistory and as a core source of Christian-Jewish controversy. While this view may illuminate some aspects of antisemitism, it leaves unclear why other religious groups who abolished sacrificial practices like Buddhism or enlightenment philosophy are not confronted with similar hatred. However, the last point is not so relevant. Heinsohn's main point was that Hitler, as the exemplary modern anti-Semite, wished to erase -- physically and intellectually and spiritually -- the meaning and heritage of Judaism and Jewish ethics for Germany and his European allies by literally destroying the Jews as a people. This is how Heinsohn explained the Holocaust: as an attempt by Hitler and his Nazi cohorts to wipe out the memory and the idea of Jewish ethics, which Heinsohn describes at length in his book on the subject, so that the Germans as a people could have the stomach to wipe out and conquer other people and lands they wished to conquer, have the stomach either to make others slaves or to murder them without any pangs of what Hitler called the "Jewish invention": the conscience or ethical norms brought into Western civilization on the part of the Jews -- and carried on by the Christians. According to Heinsohn, Hitler felt that it was the "Jewish conscience" he was fighting against and trying to eliminate for the Germans, so they would be capable of acting either like pagans or cavemen and be able to do what Hitler thought they should do, to act with utter conscienceless brutality to get what he felt was entitled to them. Hitler also saw in the Christian churches signs of this "Jewish conscience," so the Christian ethics he wanted to wipe out was a "Judaized" ethics and the church, insofar as they followed this "Jewish ethics," was equally endangered. That this was totally irrational on the part of Hitler is not the point. For Heinsohn, it is this aspect of Hitler's thinking and his intentions and the power this form of anti-Semitism possesses that are vital -- as an explanation for the Holocaust as well as an explication of anti-Semitism in general.
- the historical origin and theory of property, interest and money and the role of free wage labour for the technical progress and continual process of innovation of modern European civilization that is seen as a central feature of capitalist modernization (whereas socialist modernization has been mainly imitative and not innovative). In collaboration with his colleague, economist Otto Steiger, Heinsohn criticized the "exchange paradigm", the idea that money was historically invented as a medium of exchange to facilitate barter. He replaced it with a property based credit theory of money that stresses the indispensable role of secure property titles, contract law and especially contract enforcement, liability and collateral to create secure, transferable debt titles that central banks will accept as collateral for issuing bank notes. This paradigm provides institutional microfoundations for monetary theories of production developed in the keynesian tradition. Credit theories of money have existed since mercantilism but have not become the dominating paradigm in monetary theory. Besides promoting their paradigm it as an alternative foundation for triggering economic development (much in line with the insights of Hernando de Soto, Tom Bethell and Richard Pipes), Steiger has applied it to an analysis of the eurosystem. While this approach has similarities with institutional economics, its major differences are (1) a non-universalist, cross-cultural approach that is in line with results from economic anthropology (Marshall Sahlins, Karl Polanyi, Marcel Mauss and others) and strongly doubts "homo oeconomicus", providing instead a specific explanation for how strategies of economic efficiency become functional only in monetary economies based on property and enforceable contracts; (2) a systematic reconstruction of the connection between property, enforceable contracts, interest, credit/money and the banking system as a basis of a monetary theory of production, and (3) a systematic explanation for technical progress and innovation based on this reconstruction and the phenomenon of free wage labour, which explains the differences in innovativity and progress between the monetary economics of antiquity and modern times. Heinsohn and Steiger's model has been discussed in some postkeynesian circles, and it has been criticized by Nikolaus K.A. Läufer.
- the historical origin and theory of large scale modern European demographic patterns (starting with an intense increase in population growth in early modern times, leading to sub-replacement fertility at the dawn of the 21st century), including an interpretation of the European witch-hunts of early modern times as pro-natalist re-population policy of the then dominant catholic church after the population losses the black death had caused This interpretation has received mixed responses. It has been criticized and rejected by German historians Walter Rummel, Günther Jerouschek , Robert Jütte and Gerd Schwerhoff - replies to those criticisms can be found in . Prominent historian of birth control John M. Riddle has expressed agreement.
- comparative genocide research - in this field his major contributions include an encyclopaedia of genocides , a generalized version of youth bulge theory and a new theory of Hitler´s motivation for the Holocaust.
He is known most widely for his theory of the Youth Bulge. He argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the "third and fourth sons" that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology. Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built up youth bulge, including European colonialism, 20th century Fascism, and ongoing conflicts such as that in Darfur The Palestinian uprisings in 1987-1993 and 2000 to present, and terrorism.
His work on ancient chronology, based on an examination of the stratigraphic record, has reached some dramatic conclusions. He finds, for example, that 19th century archaeologists constructed their picture of the region around the chronology provided in the Old Testament, with the result that they created a "phantom" history which began two thousand years before any real history began. In other words, Heinsohn's interpretation of the stratigraphic evidence suggests that Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations arose around 1,100 BCE, not 3,200 BCE, as the textbooks say. He emphasizes, for example, the fact that the chronology now found in the textbooks does not differ to any great degree from the chronology established by Eusebius in the fourth century, who sought to "tie in" the histories of Egypt and Mesopotamia with that of the Old Testament, for the purpose of validating the latter. It was such Bible synchronisms which originally placed Menes, the first pharaoh, in the fourth millennium BCE (he was equated with Adam, the first man) and placed Ramesses II in the fourteenth century (he was believed to have been the pharaoh of the Exodus, owing to the Book of Exodus giving the name of "Ramesses" to one of the cities built by the Hebrew slaves). That this chronology was well entrenched long before the scientific investigation of the past is illustrated by the fact that Napoleon famously placed the Great Pyramid "forty centuries" before his time. The French commander therefore dated the structure to circa 2200 BCE - not far removed from the date still found in the textbooks. Yet Napoleon made his famous speech over twenty years before Champollion had even begun to crack the hieroglyphic code.
Heinsohn's ideas on ancient chronology were introduced to the English-speaking world in the Velikovskian journal Kronos in 1985. They have found support with a small number of writers and academics, most of whom are favorably disposed towards Velikovsky; amongst whom are Professor of Philosophy Lynn E. Rose, Professor of Classics at Bard College William Mullen, Professor of Art History Lewis M. Greenberg, speech writer and long-time observer of the Velikovsky scene Clark Whelton, German independent scholar Dr Heribert Illig, and British writer Emmet Sweeney. However, his views have been severely criticized by several students of Velikovsky-inspired ancient chronology revision: Aeon editor Dwardu Cardona, New Zealand researcher Lester Mitcham, University of New Orleans Professor of History William H. Stiebing, Jr., British researcher Anthony Rees and Aeon publisher Ev Cochrane. Stiebing's critique argued four points: (1) The great antiquity of civilization is based on more evidence than just the Old Testament, (2) epigraphy and philology disprove Heinsohn's revision, (3) scientific dating is more reliable than Heinsohn admits, and (4) archaeological stratigraphy is more complicated than Heinsohn's simplistic perspective would have it. Mitcham concludes ". . . [I]t is quite clear that none of Heinsohn's claimed alter-ego identifications can be regarded as valid. Claimed alter-egos have totally different reign lengths, while within a dynasty it is often necessary for Heinsohn to omit mention of kings who have no corresponding alter-egos. The ancient records themselves prove Akkad as Babylonia, that rulers who Heinsohn claims did not exist are well documented, as are many others who receive no attention at all - probably because they cannot be placed within Heinsohn's revision." Cochrane concluded his critique of Heinsohn's equating Hammurabi with Darius as follows: ". . . Heinsohn's reconstruction cannot be taken seriously for the simple reason that it is entirely at odds with the historical record it seeks to reform. . . . [I]t seems clear that his theory raises more problems than it solves and requires ad hoc suppositions galore. That Heinsohn is forever misrepresenting his sources does not inspire confidence in his methodology. . . . Heinsohn's reconstruction cannot be made to square with the historical record." These critiques have been ignored by Heinsohn. Because of the problems with his methodology almost all professional ancient historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archaeologists, and specialists in scientific dating methods reject Heinsohn's claims.
See also
External links
- at University of Bremen
- Interview with Heinsohn by Lars Hedegaard. Covers Youth Bulge Theory in context with world demographic trends and European demographic decline
- Gunnar Heinsohn:
- Gunnar Heinsohn: , Financial Times
- : Christopher Caldwell discusses Heinsohn's generalized Youth Bulge Theory, Financial Times article
- : Heinsohn on German TV, commenting on terrorism from the perspective of Youth Bulge Theory (in German)
- , commenting on 2005 civil unrest in France (in German)
- (mostly in German)
-
- Anne Hendrixon criticizes Youth Bulge Theory
|
| |
|
|
