Debate on Europe since 1989 by Philipp Ther 376 east central europe 47 (2020) 361-394 Towards the “History of Meaning” of 1989 Michal Kopeček Institute of Contemporary History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czechia; Imre Kertész Kolleg, Jena, Germany kopecek@usd.cas.cz Philipp Ther’s Europe since 1989 is an important book that produced a wide echo in the field of contemporary history and beyond. So far, critical reviews have praised it for its social historical perspective and smart combination of macro and regional perspectives showing, among other things, the fast grow- ing divergence of urban and rural standards of living. Ther was commended for a novel geographical focus including not just post-communist countries but Germany and Austria as well, and for his fair treatment of neoliberalism’s supposed faults and achievements. At the same time, many criticized its vague if not fuzzy understanding of the central notion of neoliberalism, and its mis- leading title and ambition to render a broad European story, although mostly only Central and Eastern Europe (the core of author’s scholarly focus) are ana- lyzed with only a cursory view of southern Europe in one chapter. The “core” European countries of the neoliberal turn, especially Great Britain, France, Scandinavia, or the Benelux countries, are outside of his portrait. Some also disliked the activist, quasi social-democratic position, from which Ther is al- legedly speaking. From a distance, the book could be understood as a part of the current re- newed interest in the history of capitalism, even though it does not engage much in discussion with this growing body of literature. Coming from the tra- dition of German Sozialgeschichte, Ther strives for a social-cultural history of capitalism in the post-1989 period, while simultaneously enjoying the distinc- tion of being one of the first scholarly reactions to the growing demand for a historical treatment of this period. It is the latter motive, the historization of post-communist development, that I will focus on in my comments, as I ulti- mately argue that we need a more profound historization than the one offered by the author, both in regard to time and methodology. I am sympathetic to Ther’s historization aim, and I think generally his book is a great achievement in this respect, particularly in the central passages of the book, where he provides a description of the internal dynamics of the con- struction and implementation of the “neoliberal order” in the region, its vari- ous phases, and different, mutually influencing temporalities. The biggest