No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2018
In their 1991 monograph on Nazi Germany, The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann asked why it was “acceptable to use anthropological categories in the case of youth or women, and apparently unacceptable to employ them in the case of men?” The expansive historiography of Nazism, they complained, offered nothing “beyond an isolated venture into the realm of male fantasies, or a few studies of homosexuals.” The answer, in fact, had a lot more to do with scholarly motivation than acceptability. Put starkly, there was no intellectual frisson in recovering the history of “men” as a social category in Nazi Germany. Influential as The Racial State proved to be in driving the research agenda for historians of National Socialism, the authors’ ensuing chapter, “Men in the Third Reich,” merely confirmed as much. It presented a dry, empirical overview of Nazi racial and economic policies, excised of those specifically directed at women and children. The terms gender, masculine, or masculinity do not appear once in thirty-six dense pages of text. To be sure, this reflected the wider state of knowledge in the academy. Now, almost three decades later, historians can draw on a sociology of gender relations that was still in its infancy when Burleigh and Wippermann were writing. They study “men” to decode historical configurations of power. They no longer conceive of women, children, and men as discrete actor groups, but as protagonists in systems of gender relations. A sophisticated interdisciplinary literature has rendered men legible as gendered subjects, rather than as an unmarked norm. This scholarship stresses the plurality of masculine identities. It advises that a racial state, like all known states, will be a patriarchal institution, and that the gendering of oppressed ethnic minorities plays a key role in the construction of majority femininities and masculinities. By pondering the relationship between racial and social identities in Nazi Germany, Burleigh and Wippermann nevertheless raised questions with which historians continue to grapple. Each of the contributors to this special issue of Central European History focuses productively on the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and power in the “racial state.”
1 Burleigh, Michael and Wippermann, Wolfgang, The Racial State: Germany 1933–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 267Google Scholar. On “male fantasies,” which Thomas Kühne discusses at length in his Introduction to this special issue, see Theweleit, Klaus, Male Fantasies, vol. I: Women, Floods, Bodies, History; vol. II: Male Bodies: Psychoanalyzing the White Terror, trans. Conway, Stephen (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989)Google Scholar.
2 On the historicization of masculinity, see esp. Tosh, John, “The History of Masculinity: An Outdated Concept?,” in What is Masculinity? Historical Dynamics from Antiquity to the Contemporary World, ed. Arnold, John H. and Brady, Sean (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 21-22Google Scholar.
3 Burleigh and Wippermann, Racial State, 267-303.
4 Connell, Gathered in R. W., Masculinities, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005)Google Scholar.
5 For an exceptionally lucid overview, see Horlacher, Stefan, Jansen, Bettina, and Schwanebeck, Wieland, eds., Männlichkeit: Ein Interdisziplinäres Handbuch (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Connell, Masculinities, 73-80.
7 Levy, Oscar, ed., The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, vol. 16 (Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, 1911), 51Google Scholar.
8 Lewy, Jonathan, “Vice in the Third Reich? Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs,” in Life and Times in Nazi Germany, ed. Pine, Lisa (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 50Google Scholar.
9 This total includes the forcibly incorporated nationalist Stahlhelm. See Longerich, Peter, Geschichte der SA (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1984), 184Google Scholar.
10 The notion of “entrepreneurs” of violence is developed in Haslam, S. A. and Reicher, Stephen, “Identity Entrepreneurship and the Consequences of Identity Failure: The Dynamics of Leadership in the BBC Prison Study,” Social Psychology Quarterly 70, no. 2 (2007):125-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Westermann also addresses alcohol abuse on this localized level; see Westermann, Edward B., “Stone Cold Killers or Drunk with Murder? Alcohol and Atrocity in the Holocaust,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 30, no. 1 (2016): 1-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 For a fascinating study, see Ehrick, Christine, Radio and the Gendered Soundscape: Women and Broadcasting in Argentina and Uruguay, 1930–1950 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Germany, see Lacey, Kate, Feminine Frequencies: Gender, German Radio, and the Public Sphere 1923–1945 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Keden, Helmke Jan, “‘Kommst du auch zum Kaffeeklatsch?’ Ein Beitrag zur ‚Arbeitersängerbewegung’ im Nationalsozialismus,” International Journal of Musicology 8 (1999): 301-20Google Scholar. On labor movement traditions, see Lammel, Inge, Arbeitermusikkultur in Deutschland 1844–1945 (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1984)Google Scholar.
13 Guido Fackler, “Cultural Behaviour and the Invention of Traditions: Music and Musical Practices in the Early Concentration Camps, 1933-1936/7,” Journal of Contemporary History 45, no. 3 (2010): 601-27.
14 Kirchhoff, Rosel, Am Lagertor: Gesellschaftskritischer Roman aus dem zwanzigsten Jahrhundert in dreiunddreizig Bildern (Munich: Bayerland Verlag, 1972), 26Google Scholar.
15 Kühne, Thomas, The Rise and Fall of Comradeship: Hitler's Soldiers, Male Bonding and Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 See the cogent stocktaking in Connell, R. W. and Messerschmidt, James, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept,” Gender & Society 19, no. 2 (2005): 829–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For some mixed applications, see Messerschmidt, James W., “Engendering Gendered Knowledge: Assessing the Academic Appropriation of Hegemonic Masculinity,” Men and Masculinities 15, no. 1 (2012): 56-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity,” 838.
18 For an excellent study, see Wackerfuss, Andrew, Stormtrooper Families: Homosexuality and Community in the Early Nazi Movement (New York: Harrington Park Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 This is stressed throughout Messerschmidt, “Engendering Gendered Knowledge.”
20 Grady, Tim, The German-Jewish Soldiers of the First World War in History and Memory (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.
21 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, Between Men: English Literature and Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Tosh, John, “What Should Historians Do With Masculinity? Reflections on Nineteenth-Century Britain,” History Workshop Journal 38, no. 1 (1994): 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Giles, Geoffrey J., “The Denial of Homosexuality: Same-Sex Incidents in Himmler's SS and Police,” in Sexuality and German Fascism, ed. Herzog, Dagmar (New York: Berghahn, 2005), 257-70Google Scholar; Dillon, Christopher, Dachau and the SS: A Schooling in Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 184-86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 213-14.
23 Goldhagen, Daniel J., Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (Abacus: London, 1996)Google Scholar.
24 For a nuanced assessment, see Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 192-207Google Scholar.
25 Tosh, “What Should Historians Do With Masculinity?”
26 Dillon, Dachau, 165.
27 Wünschmann, Kim, Before Auschwitz: Jewish Prisoners in the Prewar Concentration Camps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 196-210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sofsky, Wolfgang, The Order of Terror: The Concentration Camp (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar. Sofsky's inattention to gender is criticized in Caplan, Jane, “Gender and the Concentration Camps,” in The Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany: The New Histories, ed. Caplan, Jane and Wachsmann, Nikolaus (London: Routledge, 2010), 82–107Google Scholar.
28 Bourdieu, Pierre, In Other Words: Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans. Adamson, M. (Cambridge: Polity, 1994), 168-71Google Scholar. On Bourdieu's development of the concept, see Maton, Karl, “Habitus,” in Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, ed. Grenfell, Michael (Durham: Acumen, 2008), 47-68Google Scholar. For sociological applications to male concentration camp guards, see Sofsky, Order; Buggeln, Marc, Arbeit und Gewalt: Das Außenlagersystem des KZ Neuengamme (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2009)Google Scholar.
29 Pilarczyk, Ulrike, Gemeinschaft in Bildern. Jüdische Jugendbewegung und zionistische Erziehungspraxis in Deutschland und Palästina/Israel (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2009)Google Scholar.
30 This recalls the methodologically problematic use of 1990s testimonies in Johnson, Eric and Reuband, Karl-Heinz, What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany (London: John Murray, 2005)Google Scholar.
31 Schippers, Mimi, “Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony,” Theory and Society 36, no. 1 (2007): 85-102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Budgeon, Shelley, “The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change,” Sociology 48, no. 2 (2014): 317–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paechter, Carrie, “Rethinking the possibilities for hegemonic femininity: Exploring a Gramscian framework,” Women's Studies International Forum 68 (2018): 121–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Connell, Masculinities, 77.
33 Heineman, Elizabeth D., What Difference Does a Husband Make? Women and Marital Status in Nazi and Postwar Germany (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 76Google Scholar.
34 Ibid., 108-36.
35 See the studies in note 28.
36 Heineman brilliantly explores the “woman standing alone” trope throughout What Difference Does a Husband Make?
37 Caplan, “Gender,” 84.
38 Pasture, Patrick and Art, Jan, eds., Gender and Christianity in Modern Europe: Beyond the Feminization Thesis (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara, ed., “Als Mann und Frau schuf er sie”: Religion und Geschlecht (Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 2014)Google Scholar.
39 Wildmann, Daniel, Der veränderbare Körper. Jüdische Turner, Männlichkeit und das Wiedergewinnen von Geschichte in Deutschland um 1900 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009)Google Scholar; Rossol, Nadine, Performing the Nation: Sports, Spectacles, and Aesthetics in Germany, 1926–1936 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)Google Scholar; Springmann, Veronica, “Boxen im Konzentrationslager: Erzählmuster und Interpretationen,” in Männlichkeitskonstruktionen im Nationalsozialismus, ed. Dietrich, Anette and Heise, Ljiljana (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2012), 185-200Google Scholar; Bahro, Bernd, Der SS-Sport: Organisation–Funktion–Bedeutung (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2013)Google Scholar.
40 Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity,” 849.
41 Harvey, Elizabeth, Women and the Nazi East: Agents and Witnesses of Germanization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Reagin, Nancy, Sweeping the German Nation: Domesticity and National Identity in Germany, 1870–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 181-217Google Scholar; Lower, Wendy, Hitler's Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2013)Google Scholar.
42 Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity,” 849-51.
43 Scott, Joan W., “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” American Historical Review 91, no. 5 (1986): 1053–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 For a lucid discussion, see Rose, Sonya O., What is Gender History? (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), 102-5Google Scholar, 112-15.
45 Budgeon, “The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony,” 319.
46 Zalc, Claire and Bruttmann, Tal, eds., Microhistories of the Holocaust (New York: Berghahn, 2017)Google Scholar.
47 Caplan, “Gender,” 83-85.
48 Tosh, “The History of Masculinity,” 23.