Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal Article (926)
- Online Publication (715)
- Part of a Book (407)
- Book (48)
- Preprint (9)
Keywords
- Forschungsfelder (86)
- Begriffe (63)
- Methoden (23)
- Grundlagen (18)
- Deutschland (DDR) (13)
- Länder (12)
- Deutschland (8)
- Klassiker (8)
- Debatten (7)
- Geschichte (7)
It would be easy to presume that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had always been a symbol of opposition and dissent in the German Democratic Republic. Passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, the UDHR contained a number of provisions that contradicted the political and social order of the GDR as run by the Socialist Unity Party (SED). It demanded an independent judiciary, prohibited arbitrary arrest and invasion of privacy, and guaranteed the right to leave one’s own country. In East Germany, where the judiciary was firmly an ideological organ, the Stasi regularly conducted mass surveillance and arbitrary detention and those seeking to leave the country illegally were shot at the border, this would seem to be a document seen to be inherently hostile to SED rule. Even the social rights contained in the UDHR, in particular the right to strike, were contrary to the legal realities of East Germany where citizens could not demand rights from the state that would obstruct the will of the party.
Yet over the course of East Germany’s existence, the Universal Declaration was more likely to be invoked by the SED than by its domestic opponents. The SED came to view the Universal Declaration and the UN human rights system as a whole as an ally to the Socialist Bloc and the contents of the UDHR reflected in the achievements of socialism within the borders of the GDR. For decades this was not challenged by East Germans on a mass scale, until very suddenly in the late 1980s, human rights and the UDHR became symbols of the democratic opposition. This article will trace the trajectory of the UDHR in East German public discourse from its passage in 1948 and the reaction by the SED in the Soviet Occupied Zone, through the commemorations of the UDHR on its many anniversaries before the ultimate collapse of SED in 1989.
Heavy Metal ist Extase, ist Rausch, ist performative Härte. Mit Politik haben die meisten Heavy-Metal-Fans und -Bands zumindest als Teil ihrer subkulturellen Identität nichts am Hut. Eine frappante Ausnahme stellt der National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM) dar, ein nicht klar abgrenzbarer, international agierender und offen rechtsextremer Teil der Szene. Hier ist die Szenezugehörigkeit inhärent mit Politik und explizit geschichtsphilosophischen Diskussionen verwoben. In einer Vielzahl an Fanzine-Texten schreiben die Anhänger (größtenteils sind es Männer) nicht nur über Musik, sondern tragen über die Reproduktion rechter Narrative zur Ideologisierung und Stabilisierung der NSBM-Szene bei. Der Untersuchungsgegenstand NSBM ermöglicht einen Blick darauf, wie rechte Geschichtspolitiken in popkulturellen Kontexten Eingang finden, dort tradiert und verbreitet werden. Denn aus dem NSBM bestehen zahlreiche Verbindungen in rechtsterroristische Milieus und die Szene kann auch sonst als Teil der „Neuen Rechten“ verstanden werden.
Historians have analyzed films, novels, records, theater plays etc. primarily in reference to their meaning and reception. This article makes a case for moving the focus to the actors, structures and processes that shape symbolic objects before these are consumed. To this end, we present a framework established in US sociology to study the fabrication, distribution and evaluation of symbolic content. We discuss the production of culture perspective as an approach that appears to be particularly useful for historical research and, by reviewing selected works from the sociological literature, demonstrate how this perspective can be applied to phenomena like popular music and literary fiction. We focus on genres as bundles of conventions as one lens through which historians may analyze the creation, reproduction, evaluation and consumption of culture.
My Road to Berlin, or Mein Weg nach Berlin, presents a Willy Brandt that confounds a present-day reader’s expectations. While the 1960 autobiography of the then-mayor of West Berlin links his career with the familiar story of democracy’s development in Germany, this work nevertheless retains an unexpected edge. In one surprising scene, the mayor denounces his East Berlin SED counterparts as a ›Communist foreign legion‹ whom ›the citizens of my city had decisively defeated‹ during the Second Berlin Crisis of 1958 (p. 17). In the book, Brandt comes off as a Cold Warrior of steely determination rather than a Brückenbauer bridging ideological divides. Far from being out of character, however, My Road to Berlin captures Brandt at a pivotal moment in his career, when he sought to offer himself to both West German voters and a global public as a viable alternative to Konrad Adenauer.
Among Soviet historians it has become a kind of truism that the Soviet Union was in a permanent state of contradictions and that Soviet society adopted to these contradictions with a variety of survival mechanisms that ranged from ignoring contradictions to circumventing their challenges. One of the most significant contradictions was the tension between the Soviet Union’s self-declared anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism and the fact that it asserted its own imperial and colonial structures, especially in the post-WW II period. Many more qualified people have written on this and debated which of the two elements should be considered primary or how one should characterize the resulting entity. I shall try to address a different question here: What does and did empire mean to Russians, especially vis-à-vis Ukraine?
The Holocaust and Genocide
(2004)
How does the Holocaust relate to genocide as a concept and an event? This question has caused considerable controversy because scholarly discourse and identity politics cannot be separated neatly. While the term 'genocide' was coined during the Second World War and enshrined in International law in 1948, the Holocaust as a specifically Jewish tragedy did not become an object of consciousness until almost two decades later. Ever since, those highlighting a distinctive experience for European Jewry have sought to separate it from that of other victims of the Nazis as well as other cases of ethnic and racial extermination.
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.
The fiftieth issue
(2021)
At first glance, the seventeenth year of this journal’s publication would not appear to mark any particular anniversary. And yet the present edition is quite special for the editors and the editorial team: it is the 50th issue overall. (There was a double issue in 2007, otherwise there have always been three issues each year.) This milestone is the occasion for a brief review of the original objectives and of developments thus far, as well as a (self-)critical look at what the future may bring. Scholars in the nascent field of the cultural study of periodicals have rightly observed: ›The production of periodicals is often accompanied by reflections on the value, conditions, and promise of producing periodicals.‹
At the beginning of the twenty-first century the problem of European frontiers ceased to exist. This is because they are no longer determined by a sense of European identity, but rather by a consensus reached in Brussels. The European borderlands disappeared generations ago and were substituted by peripheries of the capitalist world-economy. It may be said that both concepts are of only academic interest. However, I am not convinced.