A Systematic Balance Sheet: What Did Historicism Gain and What Did It Lose?
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume I, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
What Was Gained
-
Rigorous source criticism: methods for examining historical testimony were systematically developed.
-
Attention to the particular: the distinctiveness of each epoch, each culture, each event was defended against premature generalization.
-
Professionalization: historical scholarship was established as an independent discipline with clear standards.
-
Hermeneutic reflection: Droysen in particular developed an awareness of the methodological problems of understanding.
What Was Lost or Became Problematic
-
Systematic reflection: the question of the general structures of history was rejected as “speculative” - but with it disappeared also the possibility of understanding history rather than merely describing it.
-
Normative evaluation: if every epoch is “immediate to God,” how can history be judged at all? Historicism tended toward relativism.
-
The perspective of totality: the connection between the various domains of history (politics, economy, culture, spirit) was dissolved.
The Open Question
The basic question of historicism remains: how can rigorous work with sources be combined with conceptual reflection? How can one grasp the particular without losing the general?
Droysen saw this tension most clearly - and resolved it least. His “ethical powers” are Hegel’s objective spirit, methodologically reformulated. But whether this reformulation succeeds - whether one can preserve Hegel’s insights without adopting his system - is the question historicism left to its successors.