Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:50:56.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Symbols, Semantics, and Sentiments in the Weimar Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2010

Kathleen Canning
Kathleen Canning
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Contests over the term politics, over the boundaries that distinguished politics from non-politics, were one of the distinguishing features of the Weimar Republic. Not only did the disciplines of history, philosophy, law, sociology, and pedagogy each define this boundary in different terms, but participants in the debate also distinguished between ideal and real politics, politics at the level of state, and the dissemination of politics through society and citizenry. The fact that Weimar began with a revolution, the abdication of the Kaiser, and military defeat meant an eruption of politicization in 1918–19, whereby political organs of state and civil society sought in unprecedented fashion to draw Germans into parties and parliaments, associations, and activist societies. “The German people would still consist of ninety percent unpolitical people, if Social Democracy had not become a political school for the people,” Otto Braun claimed in Vorwärts in 1925. Politics and politicization generated not only political acts—votes, strikes, and vocal demonstrations—but also cultural milieus of Socialists and Communists, Catholics and liberal Democrats, nationalists, and eventually Nazis. In Weimar Germany there was little room for the “unpolitical” citizen of the prewar era, held up as a model in a famous tract of 1918 by Thomas Mann.

Type
Culture of Politics—Politics of Culture: New Perspectives on the Weimar Republic
Information
Central European History , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 567 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the interesting study by Marquardt, Sabine, Polis contra Polemis. Politik als Kampfbegriff der Weimarer Republik (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1997)Google Scholar.

2 As cited in ibid., 187–88.

3 Mann, Thomas, Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1918)Google Scholar.

4 “Political Culture,” in Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) (http://www.oxfordreference.com). See also Somers, Margaret R., “What's Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere?,” in Somers, Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 171–209Google Scholar; and Rohe, Karl, “Politische Kultur und ihre Analyse. Probleme und Perspektiven der politischen Kulturforschung,” Historische Zeitschrift 250 (1990): 321–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Gay, Peter, Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (New York: Harper and Row, 1968)Google Scholar. Eric Weitz's widely lauded history of Weimar Germany has the subtitle “promise and tragedy.” See Weitz, Eric, Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar. While Weitz's book has been praised for its imaginative attention to Weimar culture, critics have pointed to a certain disjuncture between culture and politics in his analysis.

6 Eckel, Jan, “Narrativizations of the Past: The Theoretical Debate and the Example of the Weimar Republic,” in Historians as Nation Builders in Europe: Comparative Case Studies, ed. Berger, Stefan and Lorenz, Chris (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2010), 26–48Google Scholar, here 45. The German version is “Der Sinn der Erzählung. Die narratologische Diskussion in der Geschichtswissenschaft und das Beispiel der Weimargeschichtsschreibung,” in Neue Zugänge zur Geschichte der Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Jan Eckel and Thomas Etzemüller (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2007), 201–230. See also Ullrich, Sebastian, Der Weimar-Komplex, Das Scheitern der ersten deutschen Demokratie und die politische Kultur der frühen Bundesrepublik 1945–1959 (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2009)Google Scholar.

7 Fritzsche, Peter, “Did Weimar Fail?,” Journal of Modern History 68, no. 3 (September 1996): 629–56, 630–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Fritzsche, Peter, “Landscape of Danger, Landscape of Design: Crisis and Modernism in Weimar Germany,” in Danger on the Volcano: Essays on the Culture of the Weimar Republic, ed. Kniesche, Thomas W. and Brockemann, Stephen (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1994), 37, 40–41, 44Google Scholar.

9 See, for example, the special issue of Central European History, vol. 22, nos. 3–4 (1989) on “the linguistic turn” in German history and the articles by Eley, Geoff, “What is Cultural History?,” and Michael Geyer, “Why Cultural History?,” in New German Critique 65 (Spring/Summer 1995)Google Scholar. See also Burke, Peter, What is Cultural History? (Cambridge: Polity, 2004, 1st ed.; 2nd ed., 2008)Google Scholar. The influence of Alltagsgeschichte on the cultural turn in German history in North America was substantial. See Lüdtke, Alf, ed., Alltagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1989)Google Scholar.

10 Hunt, Lynn, ed., The New Cultural History (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Veeser, H. Aram, The New Historicism Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar; Dirks, Nicholas, Eley, Geoff, and Ortner, Sherry, eds., Culture. Power. History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; During, Simon, ed., The Cultural Studies Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mirzoeff, Nicholas, ed., The Visual Culture Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar; Evans, Jessica and Hall, Stuart, eds., Visual Culture: The Reader (London: Sage Publications, 1999)Google Scholar; Bonnell, Victoria and Hunt, Lynn, eds., Beyond the Cultural Turn (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Weeks, Jeffrey, “Foucault for Historians,” History Workshop Journal 14, no. 1 (1982): 106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Eley's, Geoff masterful overview of the cultural turn in his The Crooked Line: From Cultural History to a History of Society (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “Was ist Gesellschaftsgeschichte?,” in Wehler, Aus der Geschichte lernen? Essays (Munich: Beck, 1988), 115–129Google Scholar, and his five volumes of Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 5 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1987–2008). On the turn toward cultural history and the debates during the same time period in Germany, see among others Gunilla-Friederike Budde, Mergel, Thomas, and Welskopp, Thomas, eds., Geschichte zwischen Kultur und Gesellschaft. Beiträge zur Theoriedebatte (Munich: Beck, 1997)Google Scholar; and Mergel, Thomas, “Kulturgeschichte—Die neue ‘große Erzählung?’ Wissenssoziologische Bemerkungen zur Konzeptualisierung sozialer Wirklichkeit in der Geschichtswissenschaft,” in Kulturgeschichte heute, ed. Hardtwig, Wolfgang (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996)Google Scholar; Geschichte und Gesellschaft Sonderheft nr. 16, 41–77; Schöttler, Peter, “Wer hat Angst vor dem ‘linguistic turn’?,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 23, no. 1 (1997): 134–51Google Scholar; Daniel, Ute, Kompendium Kulturgeschichte. Theorien, Praxis, Schlüsselwörter (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001)Google Scholar; and Steinmetz, Willibald, “Von der Geschichte der Gesellschaft zur ‘Neuen Kulturgeschichte,’” in Neueste Zeit. Oldenbourg Geschichte Lehrbuch, ed. Wirsching, Andreas (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2006), 233–252Google Scholar.

12 Frevert, Ute and Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard, eds., Neue Politikgeschichte. Perspektiven einer historischen Politikforschung (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 2005)Google Scholar; and Steinmetz, Willibald, “Neue Wege einer historischen Semantik des Politischen,” in Steinmetz, , ed., “Politik.” Situationen eines Wortgebrauchs im Europa der Neuzeit (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 2007)Google Scholar.

13 One interesting starting point is Childers, Thomas, “The Social Language of Politics in Germany: The Sociology of Political Discourse in the Weimar Republic,” American Historical Review 95, no. 2 (April 1990): 331–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the dissertation and later book by his Ph.D. student, Sneeringer, Julia, Winning Women's Votes: Propaganda and Politics in Weimar Germany (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002)Google Scholar. Also definitive in this regard was Thomas Mergel's study of parliamentary culture: Mergel, Thomas, Parlamentarische Kultur in der Weimarer Republik. Politische Kommunikation, symbolische Politik und Öffentlichkeit im Reichstag (Düsseldorf: Droste, 2002)Google Scholar.

14 Hardtwig, Wolfgang, ed., Politische Kulturgeschichte der Zwischenkriegszeit 1918–1939 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005)Google Scholar; Geschichte und Gesellschaft Sonderheft 21. See also Hardtwig, Wolfgang, ed., Ordnungen in der Krise. Zur politischen Kulturgeschichte Deutschlands (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Fölllmer, Moritz and Graf, Rüdiger, eds., Die Krise der Weimarer Republik. Zur Kritik eines Deutungsmusters (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 2005)Google Scholar; Peukert, Detlev J. K., The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity, trans. Deveson, Richard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989)Google Scholar. Peukert's study was published in German in 1987.

16 Canning, Kathleen, Barndt, Kerstin, and McGuire, Kristin, eds., Weimar Publics/Weimar Subjects: Rethinking the Political Culture of Germany in the 1920s (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010)Google Scholar.

17 Eckel, “Narrativizations of the Past,” 39.

18 Ibid., 44.

19 See, for example, Peter Fritzsche, “Historical Time and Future Experience in Postwar Germany,” and Martin Geyer, “‘Die Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen.’ Zeitsemantik und die Suche nach Gegenwart in der Weimarer Republik,” in Ordnungen in der Krise, ed. Hardtwig, 141–64, 165–87.

20 Graf, Rüdiger, “Either-Or: The Narrative of ‘Crisis’ in Weimar Germany and Historiography,” Central European History 43, no. 4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 600, 604.

21 Ibid., 604.

22 Graf, Rüdiger, Die Zukunft der Weimarer Republik. Krisen und Zukunftsaneignungen in Deutschland 1918–1933 (Munich: Oldenbourg), 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Peter Caldwell's review of this book on H-German, Book Review, November 2008.

23 Graf, “Either-Or,” 611.

24 Ibid., 596. Graf cites Hans-Ulrich Wehler's fourth volume of Gesellschaftsgeschichte here.

25 Thomas Mergel, “Propaganda in der Kultur des Schauens. Visuelle Politik in der Weimarer Republik,” in Ordnungen in der Krise, ed. Hardtwig, 533–34.

26 Achilles, Manuela, “With a Passion for Reason: Celebrating the Constitution in Weimar Germany,” Central European History 43, no. 4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 666, 668.

27 Ibid., 678, 689.

28 Ibid., 668, 689.

29 Ibid., 667, 672, 673.

30 Ibid., 667, 678.

31 Rossol, Nadine, “Performing the Nation: Sports, Spectacles, and Aesthetics in Germany, 1926–1936,” Central European History 43, no. 4 (2010): 628CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rossol, Nadine, “Weltkrieg und Verfassung als Gründungserzählungen der Republik,” Politik und Zeitgeschichte 50 (December 8, 2008)Google Scholar, 628–629. http://www.bundestag.de/dasparlament/2008/50-51/Beilage/003.html.

32 Rossol, “Performing the Nation,” 628–629.

33 Bryden, Eric, “Heroes and Martyrs of the Republic: Reichsbanner Geschichtspolitik in Weimar Germany,” Central European History 43, no. 4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 642.

34 On the Reichsbanner's interpretation of the war, see also Rossol, “Weltkrieg und Verfassung.”

35 Bryden, “Heroes and Martyrs,” 640.

36 Rossol, “Performing the Nation,” 621.

37 Ibid., 620.

38 Ibid., 618.

39 Ibid., 625, 626.

40 See Rossol, Nadine, Performing the Nation in Interwar Germany: Sport, Spectacle, and Political Symbolism 1926–36 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Achilles, “With a Passion for Reason,” 669–671, 678, 689.

42 See, for example, the forum on “History of Emotions,” in German History 28, no. 1 (2010): 67–80 (with Alon Confino, Ute Frevert, Uffa Jensen, Lyndal Roper, and Daniela Saxer), here 75. See also “The History of Emotions: An Interview with William Reddy, Barbara Rosenwein, and Peter Stearns,” History and Theory 49 (May 2010): 237–65. See also the description of the research cluster on “History of Emotions,” directed by Ute Frevert at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin: http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/gg/index.htm.

43 Achilles, “With a Passion for Reason,” 668.

44 See Manuela Achilles, “Reforming the Reich: Democratic Symbols and Rituals in the Weimar Republic,” in Weimar Publics/Weimar Subjects, ed. Canning et al., 177. For specific discussion of Rathenau's murder, see Achilles, Manuela, “Nationalist Violence and Republican Identity in Weimar Germany,” in German Literature, History, and the Nation, ed. Midgley, David and Emden, Christian (Oxford and Bern: Peter Lang, 2004)Google Scholar.

45 Achilles, “With a Passion for Reason,” 670; Rossol, “Weltkrieg und Verfassung.”