1980er
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (13) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (13) (entfernen)
In this article I examine the context for the British bank Barclays’ decision to disinvest from South Africa in 1986, with special attention to the impact of the Anti-Apartheid Movement’s campaign against the bank. The 18-year long campaign against Barclays – the largest bank in South Africa at the time and the fourth largest foreign-owned corporation – points to significant developments within the fields of corporate social responsibility and the potential influence of social movements on multinational corporations. Applying the theoretical approach of subpolitics as developed by Ulrich Beck in combination with the later subdivision by Boris Holzer and Mads P. Sørensen into a passive and an active form, it is possible to analyse the decisions of both anti-apartheid activists and Barclays on similar terms. The conclusions drawn in this article emphasise the idea that economic decisions taken by multinational corporations may have unintended political consequences and, furthermore, that the awareness of this phenomenon has contributed to the development of corporate social responsibility. Finally, I suggest that the campaign against Barclays generated public attentiveness towards the social responsibility of businesses.
Music played an important role as a political medium for the anti-apartheid movement, particularly in the 1980s. Drawing on sources from the UK and South Africa, the article investigates the controversy surrounding Paul Simon’s album Graceland (1986) against the backdrop of the cultural boycott against South Africa. The aim of the boycott was to isolate the apartheid regime in the field of culture, but from the middle of the 1980s, the opposition within South Africa increasingly regarded it as an obstacle. The African National Congress (ANC) pursued a modification of the boycott against the resistance of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM). The controversy over Graceland only served to compound the confusion: opinions differed as to whether Simon had really breached the cultural boycott by collaborating with South African musicians, and on how this could potentially be sanctioned (in either sense of the word). The incident shows that the attempt to control transnational cultural currents through political institutions in times of increased mediatisation was ultimately doomed to failure.
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.
This article reassesses the emergence of human rights advocacy in 1970s West Germany from the perspective of memory politics. Focusing on the campaigns against political violence in South America, the article first traces the boom and bust of antifascist activism against the Chilean junta in the early 1970s. It then analyzes the displacement of abstract antifascist discourses by a more humanitarian human rights talk closely intertwined with concrete references to National Socialist crimes. Taking the perspective of grassroots advocates, this article explores how and why activists referenced the crimes of Nazism to defend human rights in the present. Finally, the article moves beyond the claim that human rights politics were minimalistic and even anti-antifascist, by showing how some human rights activists continued to think of themselves as antifascists. They infused antifascism with entirely new meanings by recovering the 20 July 1944 assassination attempt against Hitler as an acceptable example of anti-government violence.
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.