Объяснить, «как... на самом деле функционирует политика»: немецкий историк Вольфганг Райнхард, теория переплетений и микрополитика

Abstract

The conceptualization of the role of informal relationships, including patron-client relations, in the development of Early Modern state institutions in modern European historiography is usually associated with the names of R. Munier, S. Kettering and A. Maczak, whose works have long since become classics. Less well known in this context is the Verflechtungstheorie (lit. theory of entanglement), developed in the 1970s by the Freiburg historian W. Reinhard. The aim of this article is to examine the Verflechtungstheorie in historical perspective and its theoretical foundations, as well as the history of its reception in the context of the development of social history in Germany. In doing so, the author explains the reasons why Reinhard's approach occurred less influential in comparison with the works of the historians mentioned above. The article is based on a detailed study of Reinhard's works dedicated to the Verflechtungstheorie (since the 1990s micropolitics), starting from his 1979 monograph Freunde und Kreaturen (“Friends and Creatures”) and ending with the most recent publications in the 2010s. The beginning of the article is devoted to the formation of the conceptual apparatus of Reinhard's theory. He understands the term Verflechtungen as the result and foundation of social interaction based on four relationship types - kinship, compatriot, friendship and patronage, playing, according to Reinhard, a key role in premodern times. The theoretical basis of Reinhard's explanatory model is formed by the sociometry of the American sociologist J. L. Moreno, and Reinhard viewed his concept of elite relations as a kind of network analysis. Further on the article moves on analyzing the reception problem of the presented theory. According to Reinhard, the Verflechtungstheorie experienced reception difficulties within historical scholarship mostly for being technically ahead of its time. However, as the article shows, the main reason was that the concept failed to meet the zeitgeist prevailing in postwar German historiography. While social history developing under the influence of the Bielefeld school focused on the study of microhistorical subjects, Reinhards's approach was mainly a political one. Abandoning the term Verflechtungen in the mid-1990s and replacing it with the term micropolitics, Reinhard did not solve the problem. This change was a merely linguistic one, and Reinhard continued to argue that informal relations mark a negotiable stage, which is characteristic for societies with a high level of mobility and an underdeveloped statehood. In conclusion, the article shows that the results of Reinhard's scholarly work should not be considered a failure. The main merit is its continuity: some of Reinhard's former students proved that informal relationships are by no means a parasitic atavism associated solely with corruption.