Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYIt is known, though, that Schliemann did indeed find a “treasure ofgold,” but that he was incorrect in bringing it in direct connection toHomer’s Iliad as the “treasure of Priam.” His results were included inthe second step of science, which may be called that of “critiquing.” Asmuch as Schliemann was a trailblazer, he was not alone in the scientificworld, but had expert colleagues, co-researchers who were able to introduceother aspects and to point out other facts. On this {p. 9} levelscience is a back and forth criticism between experts, and in these dialogues“directions” and “schools” develop. Already Schliemann was ledby an “image,” an imagination, an interpretation, or else his elicitingwould have resembled the haphazard collecting of any treasure hunterwho has nothing else in mind than sales to tourists. Even scientificschools of thoughts are exposed to the danger of temptation by suchimages and assumptions: the historian of ideologies primarily pays attentionto ideologies, for the social historian societal relations are ofprime importance, for the political historian mainly the decisions ofthose in power are conspicuous. The formation of schools of thoughtfrequently even exacerbates the one-sidedness of perception, but anotherschool confronts this bias, and the next generation of scientists mayarrive at a synthesis from that school’s biases.However, a certain amount of self-criticism and willingness for revisionshould exist in each direction. Wherever this is completely lacking,a direction calling itself scientific may justly be described as a kind ofunscientific dogmatism, and the following would serve as a hallmark:an excess of polemics, proffering unproven claims, restriction to quotesfrom one’s own school of thought, and as an extreme case a fanaticismwilling to destroy an enemy rather than respond to an adversary. Buteven science has its own extremes: with regard to popular concepts orcontents of belief, science is not rarely {p. 10} iconoclastic, as isdemonstrated by the grand example of “Bible criticism,” and frequentlyeven that is perceived as an extreme provocation which should becommon to all science: distance to the immediate issue, which appearsto be callousness in no rare cases. Hence distrust is appropriate, wherescience is all too prepared to serve matters of the “heart,” as has beenthe case during the discussion about the war guilt after World War I.But an abrupt separation is inadmissible here as well: With regard tosuch sensitive topics, an entire array of possible interpretations regularlyevolves, and even the poles of exclusive blames of culpability can beuseful as ideal types. He who claims the sole guilt of Russia could, for267