Intentionalist vs Structuralist debate

Hiya,
I have got my history exam coming up soon on the Nazi state, and I'm almost positive that the main question will involve the Structuralist/Intentionalist debate. However, I'm still torn between the two. Because in terms of scoring marks, I believe arguing the structuralist debate would get me further, and provide a lengthier essay to write. However, my personal belief is that of an intentionalist. But this side of the debate doesn't seem to have as many things to talk about as the structuralist. I was wondering if anyone could offer me any advice in order to come to a conclusion as to what to write, or to help me boost my intentionalist argument. Cheers

Reply 1

-xsarahx-

Our teacher is a intentionalist, so i find the whole intentionalist debate sooo much easier!!! It all depends on the question...in the exam i'll just go for whatever seems the best argument at the time! What board are you with? And what part of Nazi Germany are you doing? Like leadership/popularity v. force etc?

Reply 2

Drowned World

Our teacher was a structuralist, and so was most of my class, so I was slightly outnumbered lol. Our exam board is AQA, and we're studying the Nazi state which covers popularity and resistance, racial policy, Gleichschaltung and some on economy and foreign policy. I've been told a number of things to discuss on the structuralist/intentionalist debate, such as working towards the Fuhrer, Hitler's lieutenants, radicalisation etc, but I don't know how to elaborate on them. I feel as if I could answer th question in half a page, and that's not right!

Reply 3

Grifter

could go for the Kershaw synthesis- "working towards the Fuhrer"- structuralist in that the administration of the regime was chaotic, but intentionalist, in that concerning policy, people "worked towards the Fuhrer-" ultimately Hitler's will was implemented and there's no evidence to show that any of his policies were ever abandoned to please anyone (public/deputies etc..)

Reply 4

Drowned World

My teacher said we had to come up with either structuralist or intentionalist, and that not making a decision would make us lose marks. Which is why I have this problem! I've read around and heard about the synthesis, but my teacher has scared me, so I feel I should make a firm conclusion.

Reply 5

Nellz

You should definitely come down on one side of the other. Also use the sources to back up your argument - or disqualify the sources for being structuralist or intentionalist to back up your argument. I don't think it matters what you argue.

I would also say that for edexcel you are unlikely going to be asked a question outright on structuralism/intentionalism - rather you need to work it into your argument, but be careful not to get embroiled in a debate about this and focus on answering the actual question.

Reply 6

Grifter

Siding with Kershaw interpretation is just as valid as arguing for structuralism/intentionalism... then there's also the totalitarianist view. arghhhh.

Reply 7

Woodrift

For the intentioanalist arguement, you could always argue the dive and rule concept.

Reply 8

epitome

For the intentioanalist arguement, you could always argue the dive and rule concept.

Do you mean 'divide and rule"?!
That's one of the main bits of the intentionalist debate, as a way of explaining the administrative chaos and overlapping agencies. Can't really separate it from the whole point of view, as it's all lumped together.

As Grifter says, Kershaw's view is just as valid as either intentionalist/structuralist - it's the well respected synthesis which is just as valid, if not more so because of its balanced nature.
I love Jershaw... :biggrin: