Taking History with a Grain of Salt

While going over the different the different ideas concerning the second German Empire and its position in history (preceding the Third Reich and Nazi Germany), I found myself torn between conflicting theories. I found the Bielefeld theory (formulated by Hans-Ulrich Wehler and Jurgen Kocka) to be convincing; it seemed to cover all the bases (social, economic, political) with strong supporting evidence. The main idea the Bielefeld school presents is that of a discontinuity between Germany's modern economy and pre-modern, authoritarian political system. While other countries around Europe were undergoing parliamentarization and democratization, Germany remained a "Bonapartist half-dictatorship" (in the words of Wehler), controlled by Bismarck and the aristocratic elite. The second point they make is that of the bourgeois liberals' failure to push for political "progress" (democratization, parliamentarization). In exchange for a hand in Germany's booming economy (in addition to a number of other concessions provided by Bismarck), Wehler and Kocka suggest that the bourgeoisie compromised their political ideas, and conceded to the conservative aristocracy in the political arena. This idea of Bismarck using carrots to suppress political dissent is reinforced by the Bielefeld's school's third point - that Bismarck diverted Germany's attention from domestic tensions (political and social) by focusing on threats from abroad ("social imperialism")  and among Germany's religious and ethnic minorities ("negative integration"). 

I was pretty much sold on the Bielefeld interpretation of the Second Reich until I read the questions posed by Blackbourn and Eley's theory. Why do historians so often presume that the bourgeoisie were inherently liberal, and the aristocracy inherently conservative?   Why do we hold this period of German history up to a "European" model (exemplified by France, Britain, etc.) and judge it by its LACK of a revolution or democratization? Blackbourn and Eley also accuse the Bielefeld school of a grossly misinterpreting the Second Reich's political scene, and reducing the masses (all non-aristocratic voters) to a passive group to be manipulated by Bismarck and the conservatives.

As Lorenz points out, Blackbourn and Eley's theory asks more questions than it answers, but I found their argument just as convincing as Bielefeld's (especially when supplemented with those of Mittelage and Nipperdey). I found it disconcerting, though, how easily wooed I was by both arguments, despite their stark dissimilarities. I hate to think of myself as a passive reader of history, but after reading Blackbourn and Eley's arguments I felt presumptuous for assuming, alongside Wehler and Kocka, that one's class dictates their political affiliations. Conversely, I felt discouraged that I was so easily swayed by Blackbourn and Eley after reading their argument - but is it really possible to read and interpret history objectively? Would it be more intellectually honest to approach every theory I come across as a skeptic? I don't want to find myself so easily manipulated by well-worded arguments.