regional übergreifend
Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (20) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (17)
- Online Publication (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (20)
By using a 60s workplace as its setting, Matthew Weiner’s Mad Men (2007-2015) does not merely provide insight into historical gender and sex relations in the workplace of the 60s. It also reflects current sex and gender relations in the workplace of 21st century America (e.g. the #MeToo Movement). As Sara Rogers, leaning on Horace Newcomb and Paul Hirsch, argues, tv shows’ strength lies in their raising questions, rather than answering them. This is precisely what Mad Men, with its representation of 1960s sex and gender dynamics does. In the following blogpost I will show that Weiner’s hit show is very aware of – among others – Helen Gurley Brown’s influence on the American workplace of the 60s and that it uses its nostalgic effect for reflecting contemporary sex and gender relations in the workplace.
In der aktuellen Debatte um Holocaust, Kolonialismus und Erinnerung hat Per Leo jüngst angeregt, dass Historikerinnen und Historiker irritierende Fragen stellen sollten. Diesem, wie ich finde, klugen Vorschlag folgend, möchte ich hier diskutieren, ob und inwieweit die Rede von der Singularität des Holocaust angemessen, sinnvoll, erkenntnisfördernd ist. Wie ist sie (in der Bundesrepublik) entstanden, und worin könnte heute ihre Aussagekraft liegen? Müsste die Perspektive nicht erweitert werden? Solche Fragen führen in das Zentrum einer Debatte, die hierzulande seit der Auseinandersetzung vom Frühjahr 2020 um den afrikanischen postkolonialen Theoretiker Achille Mbembe heftig entbrannt ist, dem der Antisemitismus-Beauftragte der Bundesregierung Felix Klein vorwarf, den Holocaust zu relativieren. Die vor allem in den Feuilletons geführte Debatte verschärfte sich, als der in den USA lehrende Historiker A. Dirk Moses im Mai 2021 mit einem provokanten Essay die deutsche Erinnerungskultur kritisierte: In der Fixierung auf den Holocaust würden die Kolonialverbrechen ausgeblendet. Die Kontroverse um Antisemitismus auf der diesjährigen documenta bildete mit den schrillen Tönen zweifellos den vorläufigen Tiefpunkt dieser Debatte. Nachdenkliche Argumente wie von Micha Brumlik, Sebastian Conrad, Charlotte Wiedemann oder Natan Sznaider scheinen kaum noch Gehör zu finden.
In 1892, the year the American writer Pearl S. Buck was born, the US Congress renewed the Chinese Exclusion Act, initially passed in 1882, for another ten years. It sought to prevent all laborers of Chinese ethnicity from entering or reentering the US, with breaches punishable by law. Three months after her birth, Buck moved with her missionary parents to China and spent most of her life until her early forties there. During the global Cold War, Buck, already a Nobel Laureate (1938), sharply criticized US foreign policy and its racism, the ignorance of American diplomats about China, and the arrogant belief in solving conflicts in Asia through military means in her book Friend to Friend (1958). While there is little doubt about Buck’s official US nationality, her cultural belonging of choice – which decisively shaped her lifelong literary writing, in particular the novel The Good Earth (1931) that earned her the Nobel Prize – is inherently multivalent. In The Good Earth, Buck depicts the lives of Chinese peasants and their loyalty to the earth that nurtures humanity and provides all that lives on it with nutrition. In the following pages, I will discuss Buck’s bicultural biography and several aspects of this extremely popular and influential novel and, rather than viewing it as a piece of classic American literature, I will propose re-reading it as a work in the Chinese tradition of literary realism and in the context of the emerging trend of rural realism in the early twentieth century. The purpose of my re-reading of The Good Earth is to highlight less apparent global connections in the tradition of rural nostalgia and to complicate the paradigm of national literature and national history. Indeed, the earth, ruralism, nutrition, and food, as the novel describes, constitute the very foundation of human existence across borders, political camps, language barriers, and cultural differences from antiquity to the present day.