Politik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal Article (48)
- Online Publication (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
Language
- English (55) (remove)
How have Jewish intellectuals reflected on the German language both in relation to and in the aftermath of the ›catastrophe‹? This essay explores one perspective, that of H.G. Adler (Prague, 1910 – London, 1988), a scholar, author, and survivor of the Shoah. Adler’s relationship to and reflections on the German language offer insights into the experience of persecution and survival as well as into the memory and representation of the Holocaust. His vast body of work testifies to both the possibility and the necessity of writing ›after Auschwitz‹, and indeed to the necessity of writing in German after the Holocaust. A survivor of Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, and two satellite camps of Buchenwald (Niederorschel and Langenstein-Zwieberge), Adler went on to write in various forms, from the analytic to the poetic, about National Socialism, antisemitism, and life and death in the concentration and extermination camp system. His scholarly work made an important contribution to establishing the international and interdisciplinary field of Holocaust Studies, and his poetry and novels bear witness to his own personal experiences in the camps, albeit not in a directly autobiographical form.
The Language of Eichmann in Jerusalem. Nazi German and Other Forms of German in the 1961 Trial
(2024)
The Eichmann trial granted the German language a degree of audibility unprecedented in the short history of the State of Israel, with the defendant, the judges, prosecutors, and witnesses frequently resorting to speaking in German. Drawing on archival materials, protocols, footage, and press reports, this article shows how the Eichmann trial brought to the surface several historical tensions around the postwar status of the German language. The various forms of German heard in the courtroom challenged notions of German as a Nazi language and contributed to a gradual mitigation of its status as a tainted language. The article concludes by reassessing Hannah Arendt’s 1963 Eichmann in Jerusalem and specifically her postulate that Eichmann’s language faithfully reflected his mindset. It is argued that Arendt’s understanding of Eichmann’s language echoed prewar ideas on German’s distinctive power.
The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was a landmark event, encoding the lessons learned from five years of total war on the European continent. The debates over the universality and inalienability of rights that dominated the writing of the document brought together statesmen and -women from across the world. But, one state was conspicuously left out of this discussion: Germany. The defeated state’s exclusion was understandable given the violence, destruction, death, and genocide the Nazi regime had unleashed on the European continent from 1939 to 1945. In many ways, it was Germany’s waging of the Second World War and their perpetration of genocide that created the urgency for a document that codified the most basic rights of men and women in the immediate postwar years.
As Hannah Arendt anticipated in 1951, refugees have become a major issue in contemporary societies. Writing just three years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been adopted in 1948, Arendt argued that refugees exposed a fundamental tension between universal human rights and the sovereignty of nation-states. For Arendt, human rights were an abstraction; the only real rights were those possessed by citizens.
How will Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine end? What kinds of political scenarios could stop the suffering and bring stability to the region? Of all the different future scenarios none is particularly encouraging. In particular, the prospect of a ›Finlandized‹ Ukraine has met with near universal rejection. Yet, ever since Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea, ›Finlandization‹ of Ukraine has been discussed as a potential solution.
During the first five-year plan, the Soviet state turned to an unusual source to cope with the challenge of factory-induced deafness and disability: the deaf community. From 1930 to 1937, deaf activists, alongside specialist doctors, organised a yearly, three-day event known as Beregi slukh! (Take Care of Your Hearing!) to propagandise the prevention of deafness. During these years, more than 46,600 lectures were held in venues across the Soviet Union and 7,900,000 brochures, leaflets and posters printed. While the event reflected the Soviet belief that disability was a relic of the ›backward‹ past that would be eliminated as communism approached, the deaf activists involved in these events used them to make the alternative case for their own identity as a legitimate part of the Soviet body politic. By foregrounding their labour capacities and demonstrating aspects of deaf cultural practices (including sign language) to a hearing audience, Beregi slukh! became a powerful means to advocate for the centrality of the deaf community to Soviet visions of self and society.
Access Activism. The Politicization of Wheelchairs and Wheelchair Users in the Twentieth Century
(2022)
For millions of disabled people around the world the wheelchair has been one of the most important technological innovations of the twentieth century. From its inception as a relatively cumbersome, heavy machine, designed principally for indoor use, the wheelchair has evolved into a sophisticated and highly technical mode of transport. Wheelchairs are, at least in the Global North, relatively widely used and universally recognizable – so recognizable that they have become the cultural symbol to represent all disabled people. Wheelchairs are often viewed with trepidation: as machines that disable, confine, and deprive their occupant of independence – as medical devices that doctors prescribe only to the sick, the wounded or the elderly. Such definitions and perceptions infiltrate the public lives of wheelchair users, cause considerable macro and micro political difficulties, and consequently disable users in a myriad of different ways.
While British coal miners are often cast in the collective memory as traditionalists, the article reveals a more complex conception of identity. During the 1970s and 1980s, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) combined ideas of heroic masculinity with support for the workplace rights of women and ethnic minorities. ›Muscular masculinity‹ was used as a resource to further the opportunities of disadvantaged groups and to defend the miners’ own interests, as is demonstrated with reference to the ›Grunwick‹ dispute of 1976–78 and the great miners’ strike of 1984/85. The miners’ prioritising of muscular masculinity did not go uncontested at the time. Yet it was not until the events of 1984/85 that the NUM’s cult of masculinity came to be seen as a cause of the miners’ defeat and a problem for the British Left in general. Following a famous dictum by E.P. Thompson, the article argues that historical conceptions of masculinity should be measured by the standards of the time rather than the expectations of our present.
Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht die Sozialfigur des britischen Bergmanns in den 1970er- und 1980er-Jahren. Während der Bergarbeiter im kollektiven Gedächtnis der Gegenwart gern als traditionsverhaftet dargestellt wird, rekonstruiert der Aufsatz einen vielschichtigeren Identitätsentwurf, der eine heroisierte Form von Männlichkeit mit dem Einsatz für die Rechte von Frauen und ethnischen Minderheiten am Arbeitsplatz verband. »Muskuläre Männlichkeit« galt der National Union of Mineworkers als Machtressource, die sowohl zur Ausweitung der Lebenschancen anderer als auch zur Verteidigung eigener Interessen eingesetzt werden konnte, wie am Beispiel des »Grunwick«-Arbeitskampfes der Jahre 1976–1978 sowie des großen Bergarbeiterstreiks von 1984/85 dargelegt wird. Bereits zeitgenössisch blieb die gewerkschaftliche Betonung heroisierter Männlichkeit nicht unwidersprochen. Erst infolge des verlorenen Streiks 1984/85 setzte sich allerdings eine Sicht durch, die diese Form von Männlichkeit mitverantwortlich machte für das Scheitern der Gewerkschaft und die Krise der britischen Linken in den 1980er-Jahren. Im Anschluss an ein berühmtes Diktum E.P. Thompsons plädiert der Beitrag dafür, historische Männlichkeitsentwürfe stärker an den Maßstäben der Zeit als an den Erwartungen unserer Gegenwart zu messen.