A New Perspective on Post-Migration German Identity

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2015
A New Perspective on Post-Migration
German Identity
Sandra Digruber
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON POST-MIGRATION GERMAN IDENTITY
By
SANDRA DIGRUBER
A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2015
Sandra Digruber defended this thesis on April 3, 2015.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Christian Weber
Professor Directing Thesis
Birgit Maier-Katkin
Committee Member
A. Dana Weber
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1
2. ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE GERMAN IDENTITY IN THE 19TH-CENTURY ......................... 3
2.1 Johann Gottlieb Fichte ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Richard Wagner ................................................................................................................ 12
3. WHAT IS GERMAN TODAY? .............................................................................................. 22
3.1 ‘Germans’ about Themselves ........................................................................................... 22
3.2 The Situation of Turkish Germans .................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Germans with Migratory Background about Being German ................................. 25
3.2.1.1 Literature ................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1.2 Movies and TV ......................................................................................... 35
3.2.1.3 Music......................................................................................................... 44
3.2.2 Recent Political Questions and Movements ........................................................... 53
4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 57
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 59
Biographical Sketch ...................................................................................................................... 62
iii ABSTRACT
This paper examines the question of what it means to be German. Its goal is to show a historic
comparison between what was published in the 19th-century and what has changed since the end
of WWII. The basis of the first part will be, among others, Richard Wagner’s article “Was ist
deutsch” (1865/1878) and Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s “Reden an die deutsche Nation” (1807/1808).
In the second part, these concepts and ideas will be put into relation with today’s situation. That
means, there will be a short introduction to the historical events that lead to today’s situation of
many people of Turkish descent living in Germany and constituting an inherent part of German
society. This part also uses different media to show how Germans address the question of
German identity since 1945.
I argue that nowadays, especially people with migratory background, i. e. second- or
third-generation immigrants deal with the topic of national identity and what it means to be
“German,” although these people do not comply with all categories of German national identity
established in the 19th-century by personalities such as Fichte or Wagner. So, I will investigate if
these categories are still applicable today. After few examples of what 19th-century thinkers
would qualify as “pure Germans,” my main focus will be on literature, music, and films by
people with migratory background and how they express themselves towards German identity. I
will show that Germany is more multicultural than pure and does to a certain extent no longer
correspond to the ideals of the 19th-century, even though recent political movements raise their
voice against this kind of new national identity.
iv CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Before the question “What is German?” can be addressed in terms of national identity and
especially from the point of view of second- and third-generation Turkish immigrants, it is
important to first take a closer look at the terminology. In order to talk about German identity,
another question has to be addressed first, namely: What exactly is meant by the term nation?
The reason is that the term ‘nation’ has to be made clear before ‘national identity’ can be
addressed. To begin with, as German sociologist Max Weber noted, ‘nation’ is not the same as
‘people of a state’ but rather a “community of sentiment . . . which normally tends to produce a
state of its own” (M. Weber 176). The idea of a nation therefore goes beyond the territorial
aspect of people living in the same state and requires common ground on an intellectual level.
This goes hand in hand with the idea of French philosopher Ernest Renan, who explained that
national communities are not natural but cultural artefacts. What he means by this is that natural
borders are not necessary for defining a nation. In fact, there are quite a few nations that extend
beyond their natural borders, such as France with its overseas départments and territories. Also,
with the examples of Switzerland or Canada we see that nations can even have more than one
official language (Schneider 19-20). Cultural aspects such as religion or language are
consequently not seen as crucial for the establishment of a nation (Schneider 20; M. Weber 173).
Even though a collective historical consciousness is often said to define a nation, this argument is
self-evident and, according to Schneider, even tautological: “Die Nation leitet sich aus dem
Bewußtsein einer gemeinsamen Geschichte ab, aber diese Geschichte ist nur bewußt, wenn und
weil die Nation sie entsprechend vermittelt – und das ist niemals ‘objektiv’ oder neutral”
(Schneider 20). Since it is impossible to empirically prove the existence of a nation, it is an
1
imagined community (Anderson 5-7; Schneider 21), for example through media. Moreover,
these communities are “imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (Anderson 6). Their
clear distinction to other communities shows that they have finite boundaries and the fact that
they cannot be placed under a specific authority makes them sovereign. Just as a nation’s
boundaries are not as concrete as a country’s natural borders, the idea of a nation changes in the
course of history and has to be seen as a “flexible construct” (C. P. Weber 430). The same
applies consequently to one’s national identity, which is not the same at all times. It is for this
reason that I want to explore how German national identity has changed from the beginning of its
emerge in the 19th-century to the present day, or, if the same ideas are still true today.
In the following, I will begin by shortly outlining how German national identity evolved
in dependence on the formation of a nation in general. I will focus on sources from the 19thcentury, particularly Richard Wagner and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Both writers considerably
contributed to the development of a unified German identity, and their ideas challenge the idea
that this process has only taken place since the end of WWII. That is, I will point out the
concepts and ideas that these two personalities qualified as “typically” German in the 19thcentury. This serves as the basis to explain why Turkish immigrants could be seen as the Jews of
the 21st-century. After briefly addressing examples in which people that would be characterized
as “true” Germans by Fichte or Wagner define Germanness, I will then describe how secondand third-generation Turkish immigrants express themselves towards (their) German identity by
looking at examples from literature, film, and music. In the last part, I will refer to recent
political questions and movements that pick up on some of the ideas from the 19th-century as
seen in Fichte or Wagner.
2
CHAPTER 2
ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE GERMAN IDENTITY IN THE 19TH-CENTURY
Defining what it means to be German seems to be a challenge for authors. Richard Wagner, for
example, mentions the following at the beginning of his article “Was ist deutsch?,” which will be
discussed further at a later point: “War die hier vor mir stehende Frage: ‚was ist deutsch?’
überhaupt so schwierig zu beantworten, daß ich meinen Aufsatz, als unvollendet, der
Gesamtausgabe meiner Schriften noch nicht beizugeben mich getraute . . . .” (“Was ist deutsch?”
1). I am not trying to find a holistic definition here. I will rather point out some of the most
common characteristics that have been mentioned over time. This will give an overview of the
most influential ideas that are believed to have shaped the concept of German identity and
nationhood.
One of first important steps towards a national identity was made by Johann Gottfried
Herder in the 18th-century with his Essay on the Origins of Language (1772), in which he refuted
the claim that language should be seen as something created by God. He was one of the first to
assert that language is created by people and helps them to bind their communities together
(James 38). However, it was not until the 19th-century that the idea of German unity really
started to develop. Before that, it was impossible to speak of one common nation or a specific
German identity because Germany consisted of more than three hundred separate states (James
34). This might be part of the reason why it has always been a challenging task for geographers,
political scientists as well as historians to define Germany (Silberman 297). However, these
individual states started to develop certain patriotic sentiments when they either fought against
each other, or against non-German powers such as France or Russia (James 34). There was a sort
of national sentiment, which slowly emerged,
3
[b]ut because of the fragmented state of Germany, because of the territorial
multiplicity, Kleinstaaterei, doctrines of nationalism were at first scarcely
convincing guides to political action. They began, not as political theories, but
rather as a belief in a shared culture and a shared history. Cultural unity and
political diversity stood in sharp contrast to each other. (James 34)
So, in the case of Germany, which was an agglomeration of loosely federated but sovereign
states at the time, one can say that a common enemy led in the end to unity as the German states
decided to fight against Napoleon and the French. The defeat of Napoleon in Germany on
October 18, 1813 in the battle of Leipzig even resulted in 19th-century nationalists celebrating
this day. In 1815, the German Confederation was created because of political threats and the
vulnerability of the German states, which was the result of a lack of unity among these many
individual states among the European Great Powers. Since Prussia and Austria politically
dominated this confederation, and since it still consisted of 38 independent states, it was not yet
one stable unity (James 35-37). It should be mentioned here that there are different opinions and
debates about how nations and nationalism developed. Some argue that nations are a natural,
timeless phenomenon; others take the position that they are modern and constructed (Smith 1819). I will not include an in-depth discussion about the development of these terms, for it would
go beyond the scope of this paper. I will rather focus on the first mentionings of German unity,
nationalism, and the establishment of the German nation in literary, historical, and cultural
publications.
Although it first appeared in 1983, the concept of imagined communities established by
Benedict Anderson, as briefly referenced earlier in this paper, can already be attributed to the
German nation as it was at that time, because there was a feeling of community as a “deep,
4
horizontal comradeship” (Anderson 7) without knowing each singe one of its members. In
addition to that, “[t]he group became a nation only when it started to define itself by observing
other groups or nations. A nation required something external to it in order to realize an identity”
(James 38-39). A German nation came into being by discovering and/or establishing certain
similarities among the majority – but not every single one – of its members and by contrasting
these similarities to other nations, therefore seeing what did not correspond to them (James 39).
Hence, “national identity is a formulation of coherence charged by distinctions, by notions of
exclusion and inclusion” (Silberman 298). And it should not be forgotten that “sich die nationale
Identität vor allem auf die Idee der Nation und weniger auf die konkreten Grenzen,
Landschaften, Leute oder das politische System [bezieht]” (Schneider 39).
An official legal basis was not given until 1913 when the Nationality Act, das Reichs- und
Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz, was put into force, according to which it seems at first relatively
easy to define a German person in legal terms: “Deutscher ist, wer die Staatsangehörigkeit in
einem Bundesstaat . . . oder die unmittelbare Reichsangehörigkeit . . . besitzt” (§ 1 des Reichsund Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetzes 1913, in Göktürk et al. 215). Of course, this definition did not
stay as simple as that and is not all-encompassing either. Especially since the “Gesetz über den
Widerruf von Einbürgerungen und die Aberkennung der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit”
(Göktürk et al. 217) of 1933, a law that revokes naturalizations and divests of German
nationality, the aforementioned definition is clearly not a universal one. Around the same time as
the Nationality Act, Max Weber’s concept of the Kulturnation was first published.
If the concept of ‘nation’ can in any way be defined unambiguously, it certainly
cannot be stated in terms of empirical qualities common to those who count as
members of the nation. In the sense of those using the term at a given time, the
5
concept undoubtedly means, above all, that one may exact from certain groups of
men a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups. Thus, the
concept belongs in the sphere of values. (M. Weber 172)
Therefore, the legal sphere as well as the state as such is for Weber as a sociologist not essential
for the concept of a nation, since for him, it goes beyond that and is an idea or imagination. That
means, the term ‘nation’ is not the same as the ‘people of a state’ and they do not even
necessarily need to have a common language (M. Weber 172-173). Nevertheless, it is possible
that a nation creates a state: “a nation is a community of sentiment which would adequately
manifest itself in a state of its own; hence, a nation is a community which normally tends to
produce a state of its own” (M. Weber 176). Since it took Germany that long to form a unity out
of so many different states in the 19th-century and since it experienced other divisions in the 20thcentury, the connection and membership of a cultural community in the Kulturnation1 can be
seen as a form of compensation. Even though it is a more abstract kind of unity, it creates
connections between separated states and makes up for the lack of political stability. Hence,
culture plays an important role in defining a nation (Silberman 297). When the National
Socialists came to power in 1933, a more radical image of Germanness was imposed on the
people. It was an image which was based on ethnicity and genetic heritage, i. e. blood (Silberman
299).
In the following, I will use Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Richard Wagner to show what
people in the 19th-century thought about German national identity and what being German meant
to them. The reason behind is that these personalities are among the first to express themselves
towards this topic and my goal is to show which of their concepts are still true for the German
1
According to Silberman (297), Kulturnation can mean both a nation that feels united by their
cultural accomplishments and a cultured nation.
6
nation today and which are obsolete from today’s perspective. In other words, I want to explore
if the concepts from the 19th-century which shaped national identity at the time when Germany
was first united have persisted throughout history, or if the course of history has given rise to
dynamic and evolving identity constructions.
2.1 Johann Gottlieb Fichte
In his speeches “Reden an die deutsche Nation,” given in the winter of 1807/1808 and first
published in 1808, Johann Gottlieb Fichte expresses his thoughts on nation building, the German
nature, and on the German nation, although the latter had not even really existed at that time, but
by presupposing its existence, “the imaginary nation becomes real in the very moment that the
audience convenes to hear Fichte’s lectures” (C. P. Weber 446). In some of his speeches, he
makes the attempt to define Germans by contrasting them to other nations and peoples.
Especially the fourth speech centers on this topic and is called “Hauptverschiedenheit zwischen
den Deutschen und den übrigen Völkern germanischer Abkunft.” He consequently compares
peoples that are not entirely different but share a common decent and solely developed into
different tribes in the course of time. These are his first main arguments of this speech.
Der zu allererst und unmittelbar der Betrachtung sich darbietende Unterschied
zwischen den Schicksalen der Deutschen und der übrigen aus derselben Wurzel
erzeugten Stämme ist der, dass die ersten in den ursprünglichen Wohnsitzen des
Stammvolkes blieben, die letzten in andere Sitze auswanderten, die ersten die
ursprüngliche Sprache des Stammvolkes behielten und fortbildeten, die letzten
eine fremde Sprache annahmen, und dieselbe allmählig nach ihrer Weise
umgestalteten. (312)
7
So, what he stresses here are mainly two aspects: first, the territorial aspect and the ground which
has been in German possession and which has been inherited to the next generations. Second, he
points out that the language is crucial for Germans,2 since they kept their original language and
only developed it further without neglecting its original state, whereas their Germanic relatives
abandoned their original language by adopting an entirely new one and then altering it according
to their needs and will. Thus, what is true for both arguments is that Germans, according to
Fichte, have the advantage of nativeness. Fichte then explains the modifications that Germans
made to their language in more detail and also mentions to what extent there is a contrast to other
Germanic folks:
Bedeutender aber, und wie ich dafürhalte, einen vollkommenen Gegensatz
zwischen den Deutschen und den übrigen Völkern germanischer Abkunft
begründend, ist die zweite Veränderung, die der Sprache; und kommt es dabei,
welches ich gleich zu Anfange bestimmt aussprechen will, . . . allein darauf [an],
dass dort eigenes behalten, hier fremdes angenommen wird; . . . dass diese
Sprache ohne Unterbrechung fortgesprochen werde, indem weit mehr die
Menschen von der Sprache gebildet werden, denn die Sprache von den Menschen.
(313)
For Fichte, language is a medium to preserve the German spirit and it is used in order to educate
the people by whom it is spoken. In this process, it happens that the language becomes object to
2
Both aspects, the land and the language, are also mentioned by Richard Wagner: “’Deutsche’
Völker heißen diejenigen germanischen Stämme, welche auf heimischem Boden ihre Sprache
. . . sich bewahrten” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5). This will be further discussed at a later
point.
8
alterations.3 Furthermore, the race and origin of the people using the language is not of primary
importance to Fichte (313). Its continuous use is much more at stake. Fichte’s argument suggests
that a certain originality has to be kept even if the language is altered, as long as it does not lose
connection with its roots. This can be compared to the image of a tree, which can be grafted – in
this case with people from different descents – but the original tree will still exist since it has its
roots in the same place. Grafting is in fact one of the major metaphors in terms of nationalism.
Even if it is predominantly associated with England and Great Britain (C. P. Weber 433-438), I
argue that in this specific point –the process of altering the language as Fichte describes it – this
metaphor can be applied to the German context as well. The German language keeps its roots by
continuously speaking it, but is altered by influences of people from different Germanic origins.
Fichte goes on to contrast German as a living language to those which he calls extinct languages.
Die Verschiedenheit ist sogleich bei der ersten Trennung des gemeinschaftlichen
Stammes entstanden, und besteht darin, dass der Deutsche eine bis zu ihrem ersten
Ausströmen aus der Naturkraft lebendige Sprache redet, die übrigen germanischen
Stämme eine nur auf der Oberfläche sich regende, in der Wurzel aber todte
Sprache. Allein in diesen Umstand, in die Lebendigkeit und in den Tod, setzen wir
den Unterschied . . . (324)
He then draws the conclusion that language is the basis of feelings, thoughts, and desires and that
Germans are therefore able to fully understand foreigners, even better than they can themselves.
The reason is that their living language makes it easier to fathom out dead, Roman languages,
whereas the same is not possible visa versa: “der Ausländer, ohne eine höchst mühsame
Erlernung der deutschen Sprache, [kann] den wahren Deutschen niemals verstehen” (325).
3
The word “gebildet” (Fichte 313) is used in an interesting way here, because in combination
with people (‘Menschen’), it also means ‘to educate,’ whereas it changes its meaning to ‘to form,
to produce’ with the word ‘Sprache.’ So, its meaning can be seen as ambivalent.
9
German speakers have another important characteristic that makes them distinct from others who
speak a dead language. It is the fact that education and philosophy affect the life of the former,
but mental education and everyday life are two separate things for the latter (Fichte 328).
Besides, it was mentioned earlier that for the German language, it is not important who its
speakers are as long as it is continuously spoken. That is, it is not crucial for Fichte whether or
not they come from a different origin, because he said in his speech “es [kommt nicht] an auf die
vorige Abstammung derer, die eine ursprüngliche Sprache fortsprechen, sondern nur darauf, dass
diese Sprache ohne Unterbrechung fortgesprochen werde” (313). Nonetheless, at a later point he
explains the term “Volk” (380) from his point of view, apart from the fact that there should be
some sort of spiritual and intellectual enrichment among people, he also mentions that they
should only reproduce among themselves. If these two aspects are given, there can even be
something divine developing out of it: “. . . das Ganze der in Gesellschaft mit einander
fortlebenden und sich aus sich selbst immerfort natürlich und geistig erzeugenden Menschen, das
insgesammt unter einem gewissen besonderen Gesetze der Entwickelung des Göttlichen aus ihm
steht“ (380). At this point, it has to be mentioned that Fichte only talks about Germanic tribes.
So, when he expresses himself towards a different origin, he still means a Germanic one. In other
words, he says that, as far as language is concerned, it has to be continuously spoken, but it does
not matter if its speakers are originally from a different Germanic people, whereas, in terms of
the people (‘Volk’) themselves, he demands absolute purity. According to Douglass (162) it is
natural to strive for purity because it gives a feeling of security, if everything can be organized in
fixed forms. In this case, Fichte wants to preserve the German nation. Therefore, he strives for
purity, which is “the enemy of change, of ambiguity and compromise” (ibid.). At the same time,
it must be kept in mind that Fichte is not that strict when it comes to language. Tthere is a
10
difference between his point of view and, for example, “the rigid black and white thinking of the
anti-semite. Whereas, of course, the yearning for rigidity is in us all. It is part of our human
condition to long for hard lines and clear concepts” (ibid.). This statement suggests that Fichte’s
demand for purity could be explained as an attempt to give Germans a concept of their own
nation which is as clear as possible.
Then, after having established the divine state German people can reach, Fichte addresses
immortality. He wants to make people aware of the possibility of their own immortality by
ensuring their peoples’ continued existence.
Der Glaube des edeln Menschen an die ewige Fortdauer seiner Wirksamkeit auch
auf dieser Erde gründet sich demnach auf die Hoffnung der ewigen Fortdauer des
Volkes, aus dem er selber sich entwickelt hat, und der Eigenthümlichkeit
desselben, nach jenem verborgenen Gesetze; ohne Einmischung und Verderbung
durch irgend ein Fremdes und in das Ganze dieser Gesetzgebung nicht Gehöriges.
Diese Eigenthümlichkeit ist das Ewige, dem er die Ewigkeit seiner selbst und
seines Fortwirkens anvertraut, die ewige Ordnung der Dinge, in die er sein Ewiges
legt. (381)
That means, even if Germans cannot be immortal they can live through their people and
therefore reach a state of immorality. Here as well, Fichte distances himself from impurities – it
is important that the Germans keep their “Eigenthümlichkeit” (ibid.) in order to be able to reach
eternal persistence and being able to persist eternally through their nation. By referring to the
human desire of immortality, Fichte establishes a sense of unity as well as a national sentiment.
The nation, that is, “das Volk” (380) becomes a life task: “Sodann thätig, wirksam, sich
11
aufopfernd für dasselbe” (382). He then goes even further by saying that for the larger goal of a
persisting nation, people have to sacrifice their own life if necessary.
Das Leben, bloss als Leben, als Fortsetzen des wechselnden Daseyns, hat für ihn
ja ohnedies nie Werth gehabt, er hat es nur gewollt als Quelle des Dauernden; aber
diese Dauer verspricht ihm allein die selbstständige Fortdauer seiner Nation; um
diese zu retten, muss er sogar sterben wollen, damit diese lebe, und er in ihr lebe
das einzige Leben, das er von je gemocht hat. (382)
That is to say, Fichte appeals to the Germans’ “Vaterlandsliebe” (383) and wants them to see
their nation above all and consider it even more important than their individual lives, so that they
are willing to die for it.
2.2 Richard Wagner
One of the most well-known personalities who – in the 19th century – tried to explicitly define
what it means to be German is Richard Wagner. He himself was also convinced to be truly and
purely German and according to Salmi (2) he used to be classified as “a kind of prototype of
Deutschtum.” Consequently, Wagner believed he knew what it means to be German and was
especially in the 1860s and 70s an important personality in this respect. In this context and in
combination with his belief to be a genius (Salmi 7), his article “Was ist deutsch?” came into
being. In this article, which was designed in 1865 and published in 1878, Wagner establishes
some general characteristics that were crucial to him for the definition of a German identity,
Deutschtum or Germanness. In the following, I will take a closer look at these terms and point
out how he defines them in his article “Was ist deutsch?”
12
At the beginning, Wagner mentions that the true German nature developed only after the
German nation had been almost entirely extinguished as a result of the Thirty Years War: “es
[war] diese innerlichst heimische Welt, aus welcher der deutsche Geist wiedergeboren ward”
(Wagner, “Was ist deuscht?” 2). That means, Germanness has its origin in the inner-most sphere
of being, from where also the German poetic art, music, and philosophy arise. He illustrates this
point with an example of poems in foreign languages (5). According to him, Germans want to
understand all poems in a German manner, that is to say, their aim is to get to the actual gist and
origin by translating them and, therefore, cleaning them from every influence of the foreign
culture in order to discover the so-called “reinmenschlichen Motive” (Wagner, “Was ist
deutsch?” 5) within them. Wagner sees the latter as the reason why German free renderings have
a greater poetic value than the original foreign poems. The concentration on the inner life and the
insignificance of everything that only touches the surface is for him essential for the definition of
German identity, which is why he mentions this fact over and over again throughout the whole
article. What ties in with this point is that Germans have an inner desire to know what the
German spirit or identity is. Therefore, they try to contrast themselves with other peoples.
Als Goethes ‘Götz’ erschien, jubelte es auf: ‚das ist deutsch!’ Und der sich
erkennende Deutsche verstand es nun auch, sich und der Welt zu zeigen, was
Shakespeare sei, den sein eigenes Volk nicht verstand; er entdeckte der Welt, was
die Antike sei, er zeigte dem menschlichen Geiste, was die Natur und die Welt sei.
Diese Taten vollbrachte der deutsche Geist aus sich, aus seinem innersten
Verlangen, sich seiner bewußt zu werden. (“Was ist deutsch?” 7)
That is to say, the spiritual differences, which also become apparent in the literature of for
example Goethe and Shakespeare, help Germans satisfy this desire to define their own identity.
13
Besides, in a footnote of Wagner’s “Was ist deutsch?,” the editor adds that in 1867
Wagner wrote in his article “Deutsche Kunst und deutsche Politik” the following about what it
means to be German: “Deutsch sein heißt, eine Sache um ihrer Selbst willen treiben” (Wagner,
“Was ist deutsch?” 8). This statement goes together with his aforementioned claim that the inner
motivation is at stake and not outside influences – or in this case, that the motivation lies in the
object itself. From a historical perspective, Wagner defines the German nature as follows:
“‘Deutsche’ Völker heißen diejenigen germanischen Stämme, welche auf heimischem Boden
ihre Sprache und Sitte sich bewahrten” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5). This quote incorporates
two significant aspects: first, it stresses the importance of the land that has been in German
possession; second, the meaning of the German language and customs, which are, according to
Wagner, aspects that clearly distinguish the German people from others. Here, we see a clear
parallel to what Fichte said in one of his speeches, because he, too, stresses the importance of the
land as well as the language and the tribes. In contrast to Fichte, who mentions that the German
language has been altered, Wagner only uses words such as “bewahrten” (“Was ist deutsch?” 5)
or “[e]rhalten” (ibid.) when it comes to language. Even though Wagner does not explicitly
exclude alterations to the language, the overall impression of his text leans more towards purity
and origin that Fichte’s speech does, because, for Wagner, it is important that the German
language keeps its origin and at the same time remains pure, whereas Fichte acknowledges that
languages are constantly subject to changes and adjustments to its speakers. The latter still
believes that the language’s originality can and has to be maintained in this process but does not
see purity as a necessary goal.
Another aspect, which he calls “Herrschergelüst” (2), already played a role in German
history by the time he wrote this article but also afterwards with the Nazi regime. What this term
14
means is basically just the wish to have the upper hand over other countries, or a “Verlangen
nach Obergewalt über andere Völker” as Wagner (2-3) puts it. Nevertheless, Wagner expresses
his criticism towards this attitude, because he refers to a negative example of this Roman concept
of a state and its negative influence on the German people in the course of history (Wagner,
“Was ist deutsch?” 3).
Besides, it is clear that for Wagner, being a composer himself, music is an important
element in life. In his article “Was ist deutsch?” he expresses his admiration for (Johann)
Sebastian Bach, since he is for Wagner responsible for the reincarnation of the German spirit,
which has almost been destroyed in the course of the Thirty Years War. He calls Bach the
“einzige[r] Horte und Neugebärer des deutschen Geistes” (“Was ist deutsch?” 7) and he is also
the one who managed to create masterpieces of German spirit with effort and willpower. Thus,
Wagner sees these two concepts as crucial for German identity, because this is what it took to
resurrect the German spirit. Generally speaking, Wagner summarizes his argument as follows:
“Das deutsche Volk hat seine Wiedergeburt, die Entwicklung seiner höchsten Fähigkeiten, durch
seinen konservativen Sinn, sein inniges Haften an sich, seiner Eigentümlichkeit erreicht: es hat
für das Bestehen seiner Fürsten sich dereinst verblutet” (“Was ist deutsch?” 8).
Being a very explicit anti-Semite, as I will show later, Wagner also addresses, of course,
the question of religion. Although he states that the Christian religion4 is not specific to certain
peoples, he says that “das christliche Dogma wendet sich an die reinmenschliche Natur” (3).
Insofar, it definitely plays a role in the constitution of German identity from Wagner’s point of
view because, as we have seen, Germans are always striving for purity and “das
Reinmenschliche” (3). At this point, it is important to stress Wagner’s attitude towards Jews.
4
This aspect is one of the most interesting when it comes to comparing this article, which was
designed already 150 years ago, with recent events in Germany. These will be discussed further
towards the end of this paper.
15
This will be discussed in further detail with his article “Das Judenthum in der Musik” at a later
point. Even though he addresses it only briefly in this specific article, it plays an important role
in his worldview as a whole and therefore also in his definition of what it means to be German,
which is the reason for taking a closer look at this aspect. In “Was ist deutsch?,” Wagner
contrasts Jews several times with people of different nationalities such as Poles, Hungarians, and,
of course, Germans. Consequently, Jews belong for him to a race rather than to a religious group.
When he, for example, says that “[d]ie christliche Religion gehört keinem nationalen
Volksstamme eigens an: das christliche Dogma wendet sich an die reinmenschliche Natur”
(Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 3), one could conclude that what he really wants to stress is: the
Christian religion does not belong to a national tribe, but Jews do. Although, Wagner himself
does not make use of the word ‘race’ very often, translators interpret his writings in a different
way. Some of them use for example the English word ‘race’ more frequently than Wagner did in
the original text (Salmi 43). That means, Wagner was clearly an anti-Semite, but expressed it
sometimes in a more subtle way. In other texts, such as “Das Judenthum in der Musik,” Wagner
clearly ridicules Jews, not only for their outer appearance, which has something “unangenehm
Fremdartiges” (Wagner, “Das Judenthum in der Musik” 13) and of which he wishes “mit einem
so aussehenden Menschen Nichts gemein zu haben” (ibid.). But he also ridicules their alleged
incompetence to talk and sing in German5, which is for him the reason why they cannot be part
of art.
Im Besonderen widert uns nun aber die rein sinnliche Kundgebung der jüdischen
Sprache an. Es hat der Cultur nicht gelingen wollen, die sonderliche
Hartnäckigkeit des jüdischen Naturells in Bezug auf Eigenthümlichkeiten der
5
I will point out the difference between Wagner’s and Weber’s arguments about Jews and
Germans a little bit later in this paper.
16
semitischen Aussprechweise durch zweitausendjährigen Verkehr mit europäischen
Nationen zu brechen. Als durchaus fremdartig und unangenehm fällt unsrem Ohre
zunächst ein zischender, schrillender, summsender und murksender Lautausdruck
der jüdischen Sprechweise auf: eine unsrer nationalen Sprache gänzlich
uneigenthümliche Verwendung und willkürliche Verdrehung der Worte und der
Phrasenconstructionen giebt diesem Lautausdrucke vollends noch den Charakter
eines unerträglich verwirrten Geplappers, bei dessen Anhörung unsre
Aufmerksamkeit unwillkürlich mehr bei diesem widerlichen Wie, als bei dem
darin enthaltenen Was der jüdischen Rede verweilt. (Wagner, “Das Judenthum in
der Musik” 15)
So, in this text, Wagner demonstrates both his anti-Semitism and the fact that he believes Jews
are not a religious group but an own race and he even uses the biological term “Gattung” (“Das
Judenthum in der Musik” 14) in reference to them, which translates with the word ‘genus’ in
English. According to Mary Douglas, it is true that “[e]ach culture must have its own notions of
dirt and defilement which are contrasted with its notions of the positive structure which must not
be negated” (159). Consequently, it seems comprehensible why Wagner wants to contrast
himself from the Jews in any possible way and why he establishes such clear categories. Since he
uses the word “das Reinmenschliche” over and over in his article, it can be concluded that he
believes Germans should be pure and human. Jews are neither pure nor even human for Wagner,
since they are the other that he contrasts Germans with. Any deviation would equal impurity or
what Douglas describes with the word “dirt” (ibid.). That is to say, Wagner does the same thing
as Fichte: contrasting Germans to other peoples. Wagner, however, compares Germans with the
kind of people towards whom he feels the deepest aversion and creates distinct categories of
17
discrimination, such as language or outer appearance. The latter is a common feature to do this,
because “[t]he body, . . . provides a basic scheme for all symbolism. There is hardly any
pollution which does not have some primary physiological reference” (Douglas 163-164). All in
all, it can be said that, even though Wagner defined Germans more on a deeper, spiritual level,
his anti-Semitism is grounded on these distinct characteristics, which show that he strived for
purity among others also on this kind of superficial level.
Besides, Wagner defined his idea of what it means to be German in dependence on the
past. That means that Germans can only find themselves by recovering their past, because
Germans as they were during Wagner’s time, developed out of their self-regeneration (Salmi 33;
Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 7). Anthony D. Smith (18-19) explains that the question of whether
or not the past plays an important role in present times is one of the most controversial ones
among theorists of nationalism. According to Wagner, the Thirty Years War and its
consequences of destroying the German people set the basis for the German intellect being able
to rebuild a new form of German people with an intellect that arose from the most inner sphere.
The outer existence does not play an important role within this concept. What Wagner wants to
stress is the rebirth of the genuine German nature (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 6). This can as
well be seen as the underlying principle of the whole article, since Wagner uses references to the
past and historic events several times when he tries to show what it means to be German, e. g.:
Mit dem Verfalle der äußeren politischen Macht, d. h. mit der aufgegebenen
Bedeutsamkeit des römischen Kaisertumes, worin wir gegenwärtig den Untergang
der deutschen Herrlichkeit beklagen, beginnt dagegen erst die rechte Entwicklung
des wahrhaften deutschen Wesens. . . . Nach dem gänzlichen Verfalle des
deutschen Wesens, nach dem fast gänzlichen Erlöschen der deutschen Nation
18
infolge der unbeschreiblichen Verheerungen des dreißigjährigen Krieges, war es
diese innerlichst heimische Welt, aus welcher der deutsche Geist wiedergeboren
ward” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 2).
For Wagner, being German is above all a spiritual principle, but there are some keywords in his
article which are decisive for the German nature in general, such as the pure human, or “das
Reinmenschliche” (3), and in combination with them also the inner constitution and purity. Other
characteristics for him are the Christian religion, inherited land, language, freedom, customs,
genius – which manifests itself for example in poetry, music or philosophy – persistence, depth,
seriousness, and loyalty. Language is a very interesting point here because, according to Max
Weber, it is not necessarily part of the concept of a nation. “Of those cultural elements that
represent the most important positive basis for the formation of national sentiment everywhere, a
common language takes first place. But even a common language is not entirely indispensable
nor sufficient by itself” (177-178). That means that language can constitute an important element
but the fact of a common language alone does not build a nation or national sentiment.
Nevertheless, for Wagner as well as for Fichte, language plays an important role when it comes
to German identity. We have seen in Fichte’s speech that, for him, it is crucial to dedicate one’s
whole life to the nation, which underlines Max Weber’s point and shows that it takes more than
just one common language to form a nation and a national identity.
Considering all of Wagner’s arguments that we have just seen, on the majority of these
points, Turkish immigrants who came to Germany as guest workers after the Second World War
and who constitute a part of the German people today would never be considered German. Turks
with a migratory background would rather be Wagner’s Jews of the 20th- and 21st-century for
19
many different reasons.6 First, just like the Jews for Wagner back then, they are not able to speak
the German language without sounding strange.7 Second, Turkey is a mainly non-Christian
country; therefore, most Germans and Turks do not share the same religion. Third, they have a
different history. This also indicates both the fact that they originally inherited land outside of
Germany and that they have a different culture and different customs. Forth, similar to Wagner’s
descriptions of the Jews and their outer appearance, Turks usually have a slightly darker
complexion, darker hair and eyes by which they differ from many – of course not all – “native”
Germans. At this point, it should be mentioned that Max Weber takes the attitude that “‘national’
affiliation need not be based upon common blood. Indeed, everywhere the especially radical
‘nationalists’ are often of foreign descent” (173). So, his concept of a nation clearly differs from
Wagner’s utterances. However, Weber acknowledges at the same time that “the idea of the
‘nation’ is apt to include the notions of common descent and of an essential, though frequently
indefinite, homogeneity” (ibid.). Therefore, the Turks’ foreign descent might interfere with this
sort of homogeneity which he also regards as a condition for the nation and which contributed to
Wagner’s strict categories of what the term German means to him.
Associating Turks with Jews is a fairly new idea. In April 1995, there was an interview
with Zafer Şenocak, a Turkish-German author, entitled “Darf man Türken und Juden
vergleichen, Herr Şenocak?” in a German newspaper. Şenocak notices the following there:
6
Like also mentioned in Gökturk et al. (449), the comparison of Turks and Jews as well as
Jewish-German debates has become more and more important for Turkish-German authors.
Among others, Zafer Şenocak’s novel Gefährliche Verwandtschaft (1998) and Emine Sevgi
Özdamar’s Seltsame Sterne starren zur Erde (2003) treat this topic. The latter will be discussed
in more detail at a later point in this paper.
7
This simply refers to the fact that German was for most Turkish immigrants a foreign language.
In addition to that, it belongs to a different language family than Turkish, which makes it harder
to acquire than a language of the same family. This does, of course, not mean that Turkish people
are incapable of being fluent in German or to acquire its pronunciation.
20
Im 19. Jahrhundert nach der Emanzipation der Juden, auch Anfang des 20.
Jahrhunderts, haben sich Fragen gestellt, die heute zeitverschoben, ähnlich für die
Türken in Deutschland anstehen: eine Mehrheitsgesellschaft betrachtet die
“Anderen” als Fremde, als nicht zugehörig, vor allem die Religion stellt eine
Trennungslinie dar” (Göktürk et al. 450).
Furthermore, he admits that there is a huge difference of time because Jews had a history of more
than a thousand years in Germany, whereas Turks are confronted with the same question after
only three decades. Also, it has to be discussed if these minorities actually wish to assimilate or
keep their distinct culture (ibid.), which is a question for both Turkish and Jewish groups. This
realization suggests that Germany might culturally be compared to the United States as the image
of a melting pot and a salad bowl. In other words, if the minorities in Germany assimilated to its
culture, Germany could be represented by the metaphor of a melting pot and if they decide to
keep their cultural characteristics, it could be seen as a salad bowl. From my point of view,
Turkish immigrants represent the image of a salad bowl, because they brought their own distinct
culture and customs with them to Germany and did not simply assimilate and leave everything
behind. This will be shown in the following by examples of second- and third-generation
immigrants, after a short transition about what “native” Germans define as German.
21
CHAPTER 3
WHAT IS GERMAN TODAY?
3.1 ‘Germans’ about Themselves
The opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the German reunification in 1990 also had an impact
on German cinema culture. This includes how Germany and Germanness are represented on
screen. The films or movies produced since then are in general more popular domestically and
more similar to Hollywood standards, while preserving a certain uniqueness through typically
German themes (Brockmann 417). “The turn toward lighter, comedic fare and away from serious
aesthetic and political challenges to the status quo significantly predated the collapse of the
German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1989 and the reunification of Germany in 1990”
(Brockmann 418). Nevertheless, there were film productions during the 1980s and 90s – and this
trend even went on until the first decade of the twenty-first century – which reflect the Nazi
past8, but in a dramatic and/or romantic way, such as Das Boot in 1981. Oliver Hirschbiegel is
the producer of Das Experiment (2001) and Der Untergang in 2004. The latter depicts Adolf
Hitler’s downfall in 1945, the former shows fascism and the voluntary torture of people from a
contemporary view. Das Experiment is about a group of people who take part in a psychological
experiment in which some individuals are given power over other people (Brockmann 419-420),
because some of them are prison officers and other are inmates. Therefore, it can be argued that
this movie represents what Wagner (2) called “Herrschergelüst.” Even though his main argument
is about a spiritual concept, one can say that there is this sort of longing for dominance, that
Wagner already talked about, and that it is in a certain way still present in German culture today.
8
Especially German films about Nazi dictatorship caught international attention, whereas
German comedy has in general only been popular within Germany, because the latter is more
dependent on language and culture (Brockmann 420-421).
22
As far as music is concerned, there are a few folksongs about specific parts of Germany
but not many examples dedicated to Germany as a whole. One example is the song
“Deutschland” by the Eastern German music group Die Prinzen. However, it is not a serious
song glorifying German culture, but rather one that addresses this topic in an ironical and
satirical way. It begins with the word “deutsch” repeated over and over again so that it creates
the allusion of a military march at Nazi times. The lyrics are full of exaggerations, such as “Die
Allerbesten in jedem Sport” or “Wir sind das freundlichste Volk auf dieser Welt.” By doing this,
the band wants to criticize exaggerated patriotism and distance itself from it. Consequently, it
would be seen as “typically” German to not express one’s national identity excessively.
Besides, it is not easy to determine Germanness, because “the only thing fixed about
Germany seems to have been the continual dispute about what being German might mean”
(Jarausch 6). These difficulties might be the result of Germany’s image problem due to its antiSemitism in the past and its xenophobia nowadays (Lee 24). According to Schneider (174-175),
people had difficulties during interviews answering the question whether or not they are typically
German. Many of the interviewed people said that they do not know what is meant by “typically
German.” However, they had no problem saying that they are German ‘Deutsche(r)’ even though
they could not really justify it, with the exception of the language. The German language is the
only element of cultural classification that is undoubtedly determined. With all the other
elements, the interviewed people were rather precautious. Most of these people agreed that
language is part of cultural classification, but not sufficient as the only criterion, especially
because there are many foreigners or people with migratory background, such as second-/thirdgeneration immigrants, who can speak perfect German. Another reason why there have to be
other elements to define someone as German is that there is a difference between German and
23
German-speaking, since Austria and Switzerland are two other examples for German-speaking
countries whose citizens would probably not generally classify themselves as German. Besides,
it is remarkable that the term “typically German” was in this interview in general perceived as
something negative. This might be due to WWII and Nazi Germany. Despite the fact that it
happened already decades ago, Germans still feel some sort of collective guilt, even after
generations. At least, this would go hand in hand with what Jarausch (2) expressed, namely that
the Third Reich and the excessive amount of nationalism during that time were the reasons why,
later, Germany was culturally oriented towards the United States or politically towards the Soviet
Union; and that “[d]ue to the burden of guilt, many intellectuals had redefined Germanness as
denying being German at all, even if this revulsion implied an inverted identity of shame
(Jarausch 2). Thus, only in recent years there is more literature by Germans without migratory
background to be found which addresses the question of what is German. One example is the
historico-cultural anthology “Die deutsche Seele” by Thea Dorn and Richard Wagner9, which
was published in November 2011 and immediately became a bestseller. This shows that there
definitely is some kind of longing for discussing this topic of national identity (ZDF). In general,
there are still few “German” authors and literary examples dealing with this question of what it
means to be German.
3.2 The Situation of Turkish Germans
When in 1961 the recruitment agreement for workers from Turkey came into effect, there were
many Turks who decided to emigrate to Germany (Neubauer 165). Before, there were already
workers from Italy, Spain, and Greece recruited. At first, Germany was a little hesitant in hiring
9
Even though he shares the same name, he is not Richard Wagner the composer of the 19thcentury.
24
Turkish guest workers, because Turkey was at that time one of the countries that had to work on
the development of its own economy and needed its workers. Nevertheless, both countries came
to an agreement so that the recruitment was made possible (Göktürk et al. 50-51). In only a short
period of time, that is, from the signing of the recruitment agreement on October 30, 1961 until
the end of that same year, 7,000 Turkish workers immigrate to West Germany10 (Göktürk et al.
770). The number of immigrants has been steadily increasing since then. So, by the end of 2007,
there were more than 7 million foreigners all over Germany, not counting Germans with
migratory background. Almost one fourth of them originally came from Turkey. Including those
with migratory background, there were even 15 million people from foreign descent, which is 20
percent of the overall population in Germany (Lee 20), which means, it has become more and
more of an immigration country.
3.2.1 Germans with Migratory Background about Being German
3.2.1.1 Literature
The first wave of Turkish German literature, which emerged in the late 1960s and 70s, is
characterized as a literature of consternation. Thematically it displays the migrants’ sufferings in
their new environment and their struggles to start a life in Germany due to social difficulties
there. The next wave emerging since the 1990s, in contrast, has become an important and
inherent part of German contemporary literature. These authors address topics of all sort and do
not limit themselves to experiences of migrants. Quite a few of them gain recognition also
10
As East and West Germany were still separated, they also had separate recruitment agreements
with different countries (Göktürk et al. 770-776).
25
internationally. Among the most important are Feridun Zaimoğlu11, Emine Sevgi Özdamar, and
Zafer Şenocak (Neubauer 320). The latter two and examples of their work will be discussed
further in the following with regard to how they implemented the topic of Germanness.
Zafer Şenocak is a German writer from Turkish descent. He was born in Ankara, Turkey.
With his family, he emigrated to Munich in 1970, when he was nine years old. In Munich, he
later studied politics, philosophy, and German literature (Yeşilada 16-18). Today, he is famous
for his poetry, but also for his novels. Despite the fact that he predominantly writes in German, at
the beginning of the 21st- century, he did not achieve as much eminence as a writer in Germany
as he did in France and Turkey for his poems and novels, and in the United States for his essays
(Cheesman x). In his writings, Şenocak often addresses the topics of identity and culture. In one
of his novels, Gefährliche Verwandtschaft (1998), the protagonist’s identity is hybrid, since he
can be called a “Jüdisch-Deutsch-Türke oder Türkisch-Jüdisch-Deutscher” (Dayioğlu-Yücel 33).
What makes this novel so interesting is that its protagonist with his different identities is
confronted with the need to clearly identify himself when he returns to Germany after the
Reunification. According to Dayioğlu-Yücel, this is an allusion to the newly reinforced
nationalism, which could be noticed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and also to how people
handled the Nazi past. His hybrid character was thus seen as problematic, because it could not be
classified in strict categories (Dayioğlu-Yücel 33). Apart from this need for classification,
Şenocak presents collective guilt as an important standard of integrity for the German society
after WWII. The following poem12 is however an example for the importance of language.
11
Zaimoğlu became especially known for his texts in ‘Kanak-Sprak’ which are both artful and
rough at the same time, as well as rebellious in comparison to other Turkish German writers
(Neubauer 320).
12
This poem is part of a selection of unpublished poems, but appeared in a book devoted to his
work as a whole (Cheesman & Yeşilada). Therefore, no specific date can be given.
26
Vater
ich konnte nicht bei dir bleiben
deine Augen machten mir Angst
ich konnte nicht leben in deinem Haus in der mutterlosen Stille
du hast mich gehen lassen ohne Abschiedsworte
und irgendwann war die Schrift auf meiner Haut nicht mehr zu lesen
Vater
lösche mich aus deiner Schrift häute mich
daß kein Wort uns erinnern kann
dein Name in mir schließt wie eine alte Wunde
niemand ruft mich mit deinem Namen
deine Augen sind schwach geworden Vater
nimm deine Hände aus meiner Sprache
damit ich mein eigenes Haus bauen kann (Şenocak 5)
When we take a look at the kind of words he uses, such as “Vater” (l. 1; 7), “Haus” (l. 4; 14),
“Haut” (l. 5), or “Name” (10; 11), we see that Şenocak addresses the topic of heritage and
identity. In the first stanza, the un-gendered lyrical subject describes its father and why it feels a
distance towards him. In contrast to the second stanza, with the exception of line 12, the first
stanza is completely in past tense. It is the history that is important to understand the second half
of the poem, separated through the address “Vater” (l. 7), which is almost entirely in present
tense or in imperative. When writing and skin are combined in line 6, the allusion is created that
language is something that is passed on to the next generation just like skin color. The lyrical
subject does not want to further talk in the language of its father (l. 8; 13). It shows that it is
27
different from its father who appears to not talk at all, not even to say goodbye. Communication
on the part of the father is not made through language but through the eyes, which only frightens
the lyrical subject (l. 3). And also in the penultimate line, the impression is enforced that the
father expresses himself more through physical than emotional contact because he uses his hands
to influence his child’s language. The child wants to be independent and clearly distance itself
from its heritage, because it wants to get rid of everything affiliated with the father: home,
language, name. As the father’s eyes got weaker (l. 12), it can be assumed that the lyrical subject
has gained more power and is no longer frightened by its father, but can instead start its own life.
In general, this poem demonstrates the difficulties of second-generation immigrants who want to
build their own life in the country they live in, but still feel connected to their parents and their
culture, especially because of the language. Language and being in contact with two languages,
can make it difficult to fully integrate into a specific society and complicate one’s identity
formation. It makes allusion to the importance of the German language as a means of integrating
into German society. Other examples in which, among others, the power of language and its
relation to concepts of the 19th-century becomes apparent will be discussed hereafter.
Emine Sevgi Özdamar is another example of Turkish German authors whose literature
addresses German identity specifically. Her works count towards migration literature, because of
the topics she writes about in her works. Despite the claim that second-generation immigrants
write about their struggle with multiple and incompatible identities, Özdamar shows that the
problem these immigrants face has nothing to do with their search for identity but is rather
grounded in the recognition of one’s identity. The struggle that her characters are confronted
with is thus more about integrity than identity. Her novel Seltsame Sterne starren zur Erde is the
last part of a trilogy, which also includes Das Leben ist eine Karawanserei, and Die Brücke vom
28
Goldenen Horn (Dayioğlu-Yücel 32-33). In these novels, the female protagonist, who shows
some autobiographical similarities with Özdamar, is of Turkish descent, but lives in West Berlin
before the time of Reunification. She tries to become part of a collective body, but not of a
national or ethnical nature. It is a group of people who work at a theater that she wants to belong
to. These people become her new family, which is more important to her than her real, genetic
family (Dayioğlu-Yücel 33). “So handelt sie gegen den in ihrer Familie geltenden
Integritätsstandard der Jungfräulichkeit und entledigt sich ihres ‚Diamanten’, weil sie gelernt hat,
dass sie mit diesem keine gute Schauspielerin sein könne” (Dayioğlu-Yücel 33-34). The
protagonist obviously shows her integration into German society by this freedom of choice
concerning her private life and also the enthusiastic pursuit of her professional career at a theater.
In the following, we will take a closer look at Seltsame Sterne starren zur Erde as an
example for Özdamar’s work and how Germanness is represented in it. First, I want to draw
attention to the fact that the novel represents the separation of East and West Germany before
Reunification and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Concerning the formal aspects, the novel is divided
into two parts just as Germany and Berlin were divided into East and West. Before explaining
why this is important as far as national identity is concerned, I will clarify the context of this
separation in this specific novel. The first part is about the protagonist’s life as she gets used to
living in West Berlin and has to commute to East Berlin for her job at a theater. The second part
differs from the first one in terms of narrative style. While the first part consists of a
chronological narration of her life with the exception of some flashbacks in form of memories of
her life in Turkey, the second one is composed by diary entries and drawings or sketches of her
work at the theater. This is also reflected in the style. “Die Theaterarbeit der Erzählerin zeichnet
sich auch in der Erzählweise ab, die geprägt ist durch szenisches Erzählen” (Dayioğlu-Yücel 34).
29
So, it becomes clear that her work defines her whole life and that she basically lives for the
theater. What the second part also shows is the shift of the center of her life to East Berlin, since
she finally received her visa and does no longer have to commute between the West and the East
every day. What is interesting about this is the fact that she achieved her own personal freedom
by moving to the Eastern part of Berlin, which was for most of the people at that time the
epitome of unfreedom. Since she chooses to live there, she sees East Berlin from a perspective
that is completely different from what it is usually associated with. The utterances concerning
West Berlin are generally negative in this novel, such as the following conversation of the
protagonist’s roommates:
“Wir sind depressiv, weil Westberlin depressiv ist.” “In Westberlin ist der Kalte
Krieg.” “Die junge Generation, die nach Westberlin abgehauen ist, kann sich nicht
mit dem Kalten Krieg identifizieren.” “Wir sind nicht deswegen nach Berlin
gekommen” “Wir sind hier eingeschlossen.” “Westberlin ist eine
Jugendherberge.” “Die jungen Leute kommen wegen des Widerstands her.” (52)
These depressions or discontent with the situation of living in a separated country exists also
outside of the apartment, as the protagonist notices: “Auch die Mauer war zur Westseite hin
voller Sprüche, wie die Toilettenwände in den Studentenkneipen. . . . Überall standen diese
Sprüche, an den Gartenmauern, auf den stillgelegten Waggons, an den Hauswänden, in den
Parkanlagen . . . Ganz Berlin war im Wörterkrieg. Aus allen Löchern kamen Wörter heraus und
hatten keine Wirkung” (65). The East, on the contrary, is presented in a positive light because the
protagonist associates it predominantly with Brecht’s theater, but also with personalities such as
directors Benno Besson and Matthias Langhoff. As some scenes in East Berlin remind her of her
life in Turkey, the reader gets the impression that she feels like it is her second home. “Die
30
Morgenstimmung und der Geruch in den Straßen von Ostberlin erinnerten mich daran, wie
meine Großmutter jeden Morgen den Ofen heizte. . . . Ich atmete die Luft tief ein, ein Geruch
von Kohle und Autoabgasen wie in Istanbul” (81). That her perception of the East is clearly
biased and that she closes her eyes to reality shows for example the scene with border control
where she compares the lights to a ballroom (17-18). Thus, she perceives East and West Berlin
as two entirely different worlds. This is the reason why she is even surprised about similar
weather conditions: “Als ich in Westberlin aus der S-Bahn stieg, staunte ich. ‘Hier regnet es ja
wie im Osten.’” (40). So, what is important to note at this point is that the division of Germany
affected German identity. Since the differences between the West and the East were so immense,
she could not even imagine them as one city: “Jedesmal, wenn ich hierherkam, vergaß ich den
anderen Teil der Stadt, als ob tatsächlich ein großes Meer diese beiden Teile voneinander trennen
würde. Ich konnte die beiden Teile nie zusammendenken . . . ” (18). Therefore, it is no surprise
that this division affected German identity even after Reunification (Jarausch 8-10), especially
because the hope of an eternal existence of the German peoples that Fichte (381-382) was talking
about in his speech was in danger. The separation could potentially have led to the establishment
of two different and completely separated nations. The fact that for some people the wall still
existed in their heads after the fall of the Berlin Wall demonstrates that the German partition
must not be neglected, as it plays a role in the concept of national identity.
At multiple times throughout the novel, the power of language becomes apparent. By
means of three different examples, I will show that the value of language ascribed by Wagner
and Fichte is also to be seen in this novel. First, even if the protagonist is not directly affected,
she describes the new, alternative way of life of the people who used to live in the apartment
before her. They thought that “die Sprache sollte abgeschafft werden, weil die Sprache
31
Klassenunterschiede aufbaute. Die Sprache war ein Machtinstrument, deswegen zurück zum
Urschrei” (10). Second, her roommate Peter dealt with the topic of language. He took part in a
psychological movement in which participants were not allowed to talk for three days and nights
because “‘… Sprache ist Macht, Sprache ist Wissen, Sprache ist Dominanz.’ Das sollte in diesen
Veranstaltungen aufgehoben werden, wer sprach, wurde geschlagen” (62-63). Here, these
characters are aware of the power associated with language. It can be used to distance oneself
from others as illustrated by Wagner and Fichte. Third, also the protagonist herself experiences
its importance concerning one’s own identity:
“Warum weinst du?” “Ich bin unglücklich in meiner Sprache. Wir sagen seit
Jahren nur solche Sätze wie: Sie werden sie aufhängen. Wo waren die Köpfe?
Man weiß nicht, wo ihr Grab ist. Die Polizei hat die Leiche nicht freigegeben! Die
Wörter sind krank. . . . Wie lange braucht ein Wort, um wieder gesund zu werden?
Man sagt, in fremden Ländern verliert man die Muttersprache. Kann man nicht
auch in seinem eigenen Land die Muttersprache verlieren?” (23)
Here, she implies that language determines to a certain extent what people feel and think. Having
only used negative sentences influences her thoughts and she not only feels depressed but also
fears to lose her native language and no longer being able to express herself. This is what Fichte
meant by ascribing the power of being the basis of feelings and thoughts to the language.
Furthermore, improving her proficiency in German makes her more comfortable around her
colleagues at the theater because she understands more and more (102) and is able to correct her
own mistakes she made while taking notes during rehearsals (151). That means, for her,
language becomes a medium making her integration into her theater “family” possible, as
32
Dayioğlu-Yücel notices: “Neben dem Theater dienen Sprache und Geschichte als weitere Felder
der Integritätsgewährleistung auf der gestalterischen Ebene” (34).
At two different points in the novel, the narrator addresses outer appearance in the
context of national affiliation. As we have seen with Wagner, not only language but also outer
appearance is for him a criterion defining one’s membership of the German nation. In the novel
the protagonist first describes a man whom she encounters at a bar and stresses his long, blond
hair and his blue eyes. She compares him to Albrecht Dürer and his self-portrait as a young man
(35). Since she highlights his blond hair and his blue eyes in this way, she seems to at least
perceive it as being different from her own appearance. In the second scene, her own – obviously
“exotic” – appearance is the topic of a conversation. When she is at a lake in East Berlin, a man
addresses her and wants to know where she is from. He does, however, not ask where she is
from, but what her nationality is. She and her friend answer with the corresponding counter
question: “‘Was bist du?’ fragten wir ihn. ‘Ich bin Deutscher, Preuße, mein Blut ist deutsch,
rein.’ Katrin fragte ihn: ‘Wie rein?’ ‘Total rein. Bis vor dreißig Jahren waren wir eine arische
Rasse, jetzt sind wir gemischt, kaputt’” (137). This young man thus still shows what Germans
had been indoctrinated with especially in the 20th-century, i. e. Nazi propaganda, which was race
ideology. He believes that people belong to a certain race and that they should only reproduce
among themselves in order to retain their purity. In this sense, it supports what Fichte (380)
already said in the 19th-century, even though he did not establish racial discrimination like the
Nazis did. Since this man is, nevertheless, apparently attracted to the protagonist, he goes back to
his original question to find out her nationality: “‘. . . Bist du Russin? Ich habe sofort erkannt,
daß du slawisch bist. Ich könnte dein Gesicht und deinen Kopf messen, zu Hause habe ich ein
Meßgerät. Damit kann ich jede Rasse bestimmen.’ Ich sagte: ‘Ich bin jüdisch, rede nicht mit mir,
33
sonst wird dein Blut beschmutzt’” (137). Her sarcastic answer demonstrates her point of view,
namely, that she does neither support nor want to take part in his conversation about races. When
she in the following asks him why he believes that the Germans are a race, he answers: “Die
Deutschen haben zum Beispiel den Kommunismus erfunden, Marx und Engels waren ja auch
Deutsche” (ibid.). That this is not a good argument shows the protagonist’s point that Marx was
also Jewish. The race that he believed to be pure could not have been pure if Marx was a German
as well as a Jew, according to race ideology. Consequently, Özdamar shows here that there were
still people in the 1970s in East Berlin who supported this ideology and seemed to be proud of
their German heritage, even though they had no logical arguments supporting their claims.
All in all, Özdamar draws her own picture of Berlin in this novel, in which the search for
identity is a perennial motive. However, the protagonist being a Turkish woman and therefore
having an outside perspective on Germans, does usually not explicitly address the topic itself –
Germans talk about national identities and distance themselves from her as a foreigner, such as
the scene at the lake where a German asks her about her nationality and race or the scene where
she is introduced to a group of Germans as “die einzige Türkin, die nicht nach Westberlin,
sondern nach Ostberlin geht” (41). Thus, her perspective is in many ways extraordinary. First,
she is in Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, where German unity did not yet exist.
Second, she knows both the life in East and West Berlin, since she commutes between these two
separate states. Third, she has an outside perspective on both of them and could more easily
categorize what is “German” – unlike “native” Germans who would predominantly see things as
respectively being not East or West German. This perspective revealed certain concepts that are
crucial for German national identity since the 19th-century, for example, the hope for an eternal
existence of the German nation, the power of language, and a specific outer appearance.
34
Besides, literary examples, such as this novel by Özdamar, play a part in Germany’s
educational system. German language and literature curriculum design adapted to the topic of
people with migratory background and expanded the canon to this effect. Especially the second
generation of immigrants could record numerous publications and reach a broader audience,
since this kind of literature was no longer limited to the so-called “Betroffenheitsliteratur” with
topics such as sociocultural marginalization or economic exploitation, common among the first
generation. This literature of second-generation writers featured various themes and
consequently became more and more popular with the German audience (Lee 21).
3.2.1.2 Movies and TV
The movie Gegen die Wand (2004), directed by Fatih Akın13, marks the beginning of a more
multicultural German movie making and therefore reflects a new element of German culture.
Although there had been Turkish-German collaborations before, the reaction of the audience is
what makes this one so exceptional. The reason being that it was considered a German film,
despite the Turkish collaboration. As a result, this film is fusing Turks and Germans into one
single nation and indicates as well that Turkish-Germans are integrated into mainstream culture
(Brockmann 479-480). It also differs from former Turkish-German movies in terms of its
contradicting stereotypes. That means, these protagonist are both misfits, but Akın does not show
them as victims of a German oppressor forming their own little isolated communities like it used
to be done before (Brockmann 480; Lee 20). “The success of Gegen die Wand showed that rigid
concepts of German cultural identity were loosening, and that Germany was beginning to see
itself as both a country of immigration and a site for intercultural hybridization” (Brockmann
13
He himself is the son of Turkish guest workers. He was born in Hamburg and raised in Altona,
a district of Hamburg that is known for its multiculturalism (Lee 21).
35
481). It also helped depicting Germany as a tolerant nation that supports multicultural
understanding (ibid.). For this reason, it is interesting to compare it with concepts of the 19thcentury and to analyze which of these concepts and ideas still apply today in such a multicultural
society as it is represented through this collaborative project.
The movie is about two Germans with migratory background, who find themselves in a
state of psychological crisis, which is why they both tried to commit suicide. Sibel, played by
Sibel Kekilli, is in her twenties and has a problematic relationship with her family, who hold on
to strict Turkish customs. This becomes apparent relatively at the beginning of the movie when
Sibel tells Cahit, played by Birol Ünel, that her brother broke her nose when he saw her holding
hands with a man. Here, we see, on the one hand, Turkish culture according to which it is
inappropriate for women to show this kind of behavior when they are not married, but, on the
other hand, this example also demonstrates German culture, because, from a German
perspective, Sibel did not do anything extraordinary or even offensive. The conflict originates in
Sibel acting as a German woman and her brother as a Turkish man. Both Sibel and Cahit “feel
relatively comfortable in contemporary Germany and . . . harbor no notions about the superiority
of traditional Turkish culture” (Brockmann 482). Having grown up in German surrounding, Sibel
wants to break free from these strict Turkish customs and rules, since she witnesses the freedom
women can have in German culture. Therefore, she asks Cahit to enter into a marriage of
convenience with her. That way she could move out of her parents’ home and gain the kind of
independence and freedom that other German women have. A remarkable scene in this movie is
when Sibel tries to persuade Cahit to marry her. On his question: “Wieso gerade ich? Ich bin ‘n
Penner!” (Gegen die Wand) Sibel answers “Weil meine Eltern dich akzeptieren würden – du bist
Türke, Mann!” (ibid.). At this point, the audience gets the impression that all the negative facts –
36
his outer appearance is not very appealing, he lives in a small, messy apartment, he does not have
a lot of money – do not matter to a Turkish conservative. Alone his Turkish descent makes him
an acceptable husband. Later, this drastic impression is relativized because when Cahit first visits
Sibel’s family and asks them for permission to marry her, he tries to conceal some of his flaws
that could be used as arguments against him. So, he gets, for instance, a haircut and claims to be
a manager. Consequently, social standing is not neglected, but his Turkish descent still seems to
be the main reason for Sibel’s family to finally agree to their marriage, since they are far more
interested in where exactly he comes from and how his Turkish sounds than what he does for a
living or in his leisure time. Having some difficulties talking in Turkish when he meets Sibel’s
family is, however, not appreciated, as her brother notes: “Dein Türkisch is’ ganz schön im
Arsch. Was hast’n mit deinem Türkisch gemacht?” (Gegen die Wand). Language plays
apparently an important role in this movie when it comes to national identity and underlines what
already has been said by Fichte or Wagner, which is, for example that language is a means by
which one is able to distinguish Germans from other nations. The only difference is the change
in perspective, since the German language is in this scene regarded as foreign and Turkish is the
language connoting allegiance to the Turkish community. This is the reason why Cahit is
criticized by Yilmaz, his future brother-in-law, for his incompetence to have a conversation in
what should be his native language, from Yilmaz point of view. While Sibel’s family holds on to
Turkish customs and predominantly talks in Turkish, Sibel and Cahit mostly talk in German with
one another and are thus more integrated into German customs and society than they are in
Turkish ones. Later in the movie, Cahit shows, for example, that he feels more German than
Turkish in a conversation with his brother-in-law, in which they talk about Sibel, who has
harmed her family’s honor:
37
C: Wo ist deine Schwester?
Y: Ich hab’ keine Schwester mehr.
C: Ihr habt doch die gleiche Mutter. Wie geht’s ‘n deiner Mutter damit?
Y: Wir mussten unsere Ehre retten. Verstehst du das?
C: Und? Habt ihr sie gerettet, eure Ehre?
Cahit questions and criticizes Turkish customs and shows that he distances himself from them
and cannot support behavior such as honor killing. Unlike Sibel, who is generally in close
connection with her Turkish heritage through her family, Cahit perfectly integrated into German
society.14 He identifies himself as a German rather that a Turk, because in one scene “he refers to
other Turks as ‘Kanaken’15 (Brockmann 482). For Sibel and her plan of a marriage of
convenience, he is therefore the perfect find. “Dass Cahit von Geburt Türke ist, würde die
Ansprüche ihrer Familie befriedigen, dass er sich nicht um gesellschaftliche Konventionen,
geschweige denn um türkische Traditionen schert und auch seine einstige Muttersprache fast
vergessen hat, befriedigt nun wiederum Sibels Sehnsucht nach totaler Freiheit und
unbeschränkter Selbstbestimmung” (Lee 21-22).
Besides, in contrast to his uncle who accompanies him in visiting Sibel’s family, Cahit
does not look like a stereotypical Turk since he has for example lighter hair. The only evidence
that he is from Turkish descent is his name and his remains of talking in Turkish. This is,
however, enough for Sibel’s family to give their consent to a marriage. What makes this so
paradox is that this circumstance reminds of the ideal of purity which for example Fichte talked
14
Cahit is an example of extreme integration because he even loses his native language and is
mainly seen as German in this movie. However, he is more like an exception to the rule. Lee
points out that Akın only shows few interactions between “Germans” and “Turks” and even
fewer in a positive light. According to her, this reinforces the impression of a parallel society of
migrants who distance themselves from the German majority.
15
„Kanaken“ is used by some Turks in reference to themselves, but it used to be an epithet that
only racist Germans utilize.
38
about and wanted to implement. Even though the family lives in Germany they want their
daughter to marry a Turkish man and keep their descent pure. Just as we have seen by Fichte,
who explained that the German people should only reproduce among themselves (Fichte 380),
with the difference that according to this movie, it is not the Germans who want to keep their
purity nowadays, but the Turkish people in Germany. Conversely, this means that the German
culture as it is shown in Gegen die Wand is more liberal than what Fichte wanted it to be.
What this movie depicts in addition to this is that German women have more rights than
Turkish women. After the wedding, Sibel has the freedom to transform into the woman she
always wanted to be and shows her newly gained independence: she gets a tattoo and piercing,
wears belly tops and very short skirts when she goes out at night, and – since her marriage is
only pretended – she has sex with different men. She resembles more and more her German boss,
which makes it almost seem like Sibel’s marriage transformed her from a Turk into a German.
The change of her outer appearance therefore mirrors her gain of power and self-determination.
The difference between Turkish and German culture and sometimes even their
incompatibility is not only a topic in movies such as Gegen die Wand. Also comedy shows
broach the issue of (Turkish) German identity. Since there is oftentimes a television broadcast of
these shows, which makes them available to an even larger audience, I included one of them
under this category of Movies and TV. One of these comedians is Kaya Yanar. At this point, I
will briefly describe his comedy in general, to convey an impression of what he usually does.
After that, I will include examples on subjects, such as, multiculturalism and language and
compare them to Wagner’s and Fichte’s ideas. So, to begin with, Yanar’s comedy focuses, as
already mentioned, on the differences between the German and the Turkish culture, although he
has specific characters that he impersonates regularly. These characters are stereotypical
39
representations of different nationalities (Specht 12), such as Hakan as Turk or Ranjid as Indian.
It is important to note that Yanar does not want to enhance but tries to deconstruct these
stereotypes with the use of exaggerations, which is what comedy normally does.
Hier werden keine Gegenbilder zu gängigen Stereotypen entworfen, sondern es
werden die Stereotype selbst explizit gemacht und durch ihre komische
Darstellung verfremdet. Zudem werden sie durch Sprachwahl, Duktus und
Körpersprache so übertrieben, dass man nicht über die dargestellte Figur –
beispielsweise den Türken – lacht, sondern über die Witzfigur des Türken.
(Specht 12).
How multicultural his shows are can be seen by the introduction to his program called Made in
Germany. He himself speaks the voice over in an Indian accent, which is in the same way he
talks when impersonating Ranjid: „Jetzt kommt der Mann, der Türke ist, aber kein Türkisch
mehr kann und deswegen sein Programm auf Deutsch macht. Und, um alle zu verwirren, macht
er seinen Titel auch noch auf Englisch“ (Yanar 2008). Not only shows this the focus of his show,
but it is also a hint at today’s multicultural society in general, in which the Turkish and the
German cultural boarders blur and English is very present in everyday life. Consequently, both
Fichte’s and also Wagner’s concept of Reinheit, ‘purity,’ is obsolete from today’s perspective.
Postwar Germany opened the doors to millions of guest workers with, among others, Turkish,
Italian, and Greek ethnical background. Today, these people have become a part of German
culture. In the case of Kaya Yanar and his show, the contrast of his Turkish heritage and having
grown up in a German surrounding make cultural differences apparent. Seeing these two cultures
next to each other, makes it easier to find some German particularities and to define what is
“typically” German, for example, when he says:
40
Ihr lebt in einer freien, liberalen Gesellschaft. Wenn ihr Bock habt auf ne Frau,
dann labert ihr die an. Und euch hindert keiner dran, außer vielleicht die Frau
selber. In der Türkei ist das nicht so. In der Türkei gibt’s da nicht so ne offene
Gesellschaft mit de[sic!] Frauen. Da musste bissi aufpassen. Da gibt’s nur zwei
Arten von Frauen – Jungfrauen und Ehefrauen. Und dazwischen gibt es nichts.
(Yanar 2008)
This supports what we have seen in the movie Gegen die Wand. The public display of one’s
extramarital affair is usually unthinkable according to Turkish customs, which is why Yilmaz
broke his sister’s nose when he saw her holding hands with a man in public. He had to punish her
for her “immoral” behavior. Conversely, these examples show that being German means having
more freedom concerning personal relationships. This demonstrates that German and Turkish
customs are confronted with one another, making it more and more difficult to uphold Wagner’s
definition of German peoples as those who preserve their customs in their country: “‘Deutsche’
Völker heißen diejenigen germanischen Stämme, welche auf heimischem Boden ihre Sprache
und Sitte sich bewahrten” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5).
Moreover, Yanar also talks about the German language and that he understands how
difficult it is for foreigners to learn it, although he did not have to, since it is his mother tongue:
Ich mag die deutsche Sprache. Ich mag sie wirklich. Es is’ ja meine
Muttersprache, okay. Ich finde, mit der deutschen Sprache kann man gut
beschreiben. Mit der kann man gut definieren, ja. Wir haben viele Wörter. Wir
haben zu viele Wörter. . . . Ausländer macht das wahnsinnig, wenn sie Deutsch
lernen müssen. . . . Es gibt sehr viele, die bemühen sich, ja, Deutsch zu sprechen,
41
aber . . . [w]enn du mit der deutschen Sprache nicht aufgewachsen bist, du kannst
[es] eigentlich fast vergessen, weil es ist sehr schwierig. (Yanar 2008)
That it is not easy to learn German and to fully master it is not a new insight. As we have already
seen with Fichte or Wagner, it is nearly impossible to become fluent in German, if it is not one’s
native language. Both of them mention that it has certain particularities that are not present in
other languages making it incredibly difficult to master it one day. Despite the technical aids
nowadays, such as computer software, online dictionaries, videos on the Internet etc., which can
facilitate language learning, it still seems to be the case that German is particularly hard for
learners to acquire compared to other languages. This apparently has not changed since the 19thcentury, when Wagner and Fichte first expressed this problem. As a reason for its difficulty,
Yanar (2008) mentions the three definite articles in German and the problem of learners to
predict the grammatical gender of nouns in German. He contrasts it to the English language and
indicates that its status as a world language comes from the fact that it is easier than German
because it only has one definite article. Of course, this statement is an exaggeration, but it
nonetheless points out that the complexness of the German language in comparison to other
languages, that had already been attested centuries ago, still exists today.
Finally, he also talks about cultural differences in terms of parenting. “Türkische Väter
sind ein bisschen strenger als die deutschen Väter. Ja, das weiß ich so aus meiner Erfahrung. Das
weiß ich aus der Beobachtung” (Yanar 2008). He tells a story of his childhood that he calls a
“Schlüsselmoment” (ibid.) because he there recognized the differences between Turkish and
German parents side by side. The scene took place at a playground in Frankfurt, where he was
playing with other children from different nationalities – Italian, Arab, German. When the
42
children did not go home to have dinner after their mothers had called, their fathers came to
bring them home.
Alle Väter kamen: türkischer Papa, arabischer Papa, italienischer Papa, der
deutsche Vater. . . . Es war ein riesiges Tohuwabohu. Nur der deutsche Vater hat
sich nicht bewegt. Riesiger Unterschied zu den anderen Vätern. . . . Stand da
einfach nur und hat nur ‘nen Satz gesagt. . . . Dieser Satz ist deutsch, made in
Germany. Der ist deutsch. Wenn . . . mich Journalisten heute fragen: “Was ist für
Sie typisch deutsch?” Dieser Satz . . . : “Kai-Uwe, wir müssen miteinander
reden.” (Yanar 2008)
According to Yanar, Germans are more rational and less impulsive or temperamental than people
from other nationalities. The German father wants to discuss the problem in order to get to its
origin and prevent it from happening again in the future. Even though this is a rather trivial
example, it reminds of what Wagner said about Germans in his article “Was ist deutsch?”
because, as we have seen, Wagner qualifies the consideration with the inner life and the neglect
of everything that only touches the surface as something that is typically German. This is exactly
what Yanar described in his show: the other fathers running after their children only solve the
problem on the surface, whereas the German father wants to engage with his son on a deeper
level16. The overall conclusion is, on the one hand, that Germans still show certain characteristics
that Wagner and Fichte qualified as “typical” for being German, such as, engaging with the inner
life or particularities of the German language that are difficult to translate. On the other hand,
this also demonstrates that Germans with migratory background, who are also a part of German
society today, alter the strict image of Germanness and make it more multicultural.
16
I would not presume to evaluate how effective the interaction with his young son actually is,
which is where the humor is to be found, but at least for this work, its effectiveness is of little
significance.
43
3.2.1.3 Music
In the following, there will be a comparison of the depiction of German identity represented in
Turkish-German17 rap music. Already Wagner stated that music used to be a mirror of society at
a certain time: “selbst in der Musik eine Kunstform vorfindend, welche äußerlich das ganze
Abbild seiner [– Johann Sebastian Bachs –] Zeit war, trocken, steif, pedantisch, wie Perücke und
Zopf in Noten dargestellt” (“Was ist deutsch” 7). Nowadays, it is still true that music reveals a
lot about society, which will be demonstrated hereafter.
Fler feat. Bushido: Das alles ist Deutschland: In this song, the German rappers Fler and
Bushido explicitly describe their love for Germany. They both refer to products, such as cars, but
they also include laws and their personal stories of how they grew up in Germany. Fler addresses
Germany in this song as if it were a person and also states for example “Von dir hab ich die
Farbe, die Farbe meiner Augen.” This sentence can be interpreted in different ways. He could
either address Germany as a whole or his German mother.18 Either way, this reinforces the
assumption that he sees his blue eyes as a quality that is typically German, which goes back to
the ideal of Germans as Aryans, an ideology especially enforced under the National Socialist
dictatorship. At this point, he would, on the one hand, agree with Fichte’s and Wagner’s
principle of purity19, because he associates blue eyes with Germanness, and, on the other hand,
he would not, because he considers himself German, although he only stresses that his mother is.
Therefore, it can be assumed that his father is not German. Nevertheless, Bushido points to
17
It is not about a Turkish-German mixture of cultures, but rather about second- or thirdgeneration Turkish immigrants who were born and raised in Germany.
18
In his song “Neue deutsche Welle,” which will be discussed further at a later point, he
mentions that his mother is German: “Man sieht’s mir nicht an, doch, glaub’ mir, meine Mum ist
deutsch.”
19
For Fichte, that means – as already mentioned – that Germans should only reproduce among
themselves (380) and for Wagner, it is the principle of the „Reinmenschliche.“ (“Was ist
deutsch?” 3)
44
another aspect in the course of the song, namely, multiculturalism: “Du bist multikulturell:
schwarz, weiß, braun.” These colors refer to skin colors. Consequently, they completely
deconstruct the aforementioned ideology and the image of Germans as Aryans with white skin,
blonde hair, and blue eyes, is depicted as obsolete. Bushido himself has a Tunisian father and a
German mother and does not fit in the category of blonde hair and blue eyes. In the hook, the
arguments of both artists are underlined, which is that all of this is German nowadays: “Das alles
ist Deutschland, das alles sind wir.” That is to say, they both consider themselves German,
because they grew up in Germany, talk the language, know the laws, and use German products.
Nevertheless, on a deeper level, they neither fit Wagner’s concept of Germans, nor that of Fichte.
When it comes to the former, they do not comply with his idea of purity, which does not
necessarily have to do with race, but rather with an ideology. What is even more important is the
idea of deep loyalty to Germany, which is true for both Wagner and Fichte and which Bushido
rejects: “Ich würde alles für dich tun, außer sterben.” As pointed out earlier, Fichte is in this
respect very explicit in his speech and explains that it is crucial to guarantee continuation of the
German nation and that the individual life is worthless if it is not put at risk for the nation: “Das
Leben . . . hat für ihn ja ohnedies nie Werth gehabt, er hat es nur gewollt als Quelle des
Dauernden; aber diese Dauer verspricht ihm allein die selbstständige Fortdauer seiner Nation;
um diese zu retten, muss er sogar sterben wollen, damit diese lebe, und er in ihr lebe das einzige
Leben, das er von je gemocht hat” (Fichte 382). With Bushido’s comment, it seems at first as if
he really is loyal, but the addendum “außer sterben” makes it clear that his own life is more
important to him than the German nation and that Fichte would not see him as a “true” German.
It also shows how national affiliation and loyalty have changed historically and are not as strict
as they used to be.
45
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that this song is a cover version of the song
“Deutschland” by Die Prinzen. While their song was mainly ironical, Fler’s and Bushido’s
version is more serious in defining German identity. By covering this song, these German
rappers deviate from another point of Wagner’s definition of Germanness: originality. For
Wagner, Germans always searched for creating something original and pure, but here, Fler and
Bushido simply recycled the song that had already been written by Die Prinzen and even simply
copied the hook without even singing it themselves. They used the original hook performed by
Die Prinzen and only added a new beat to it.
Apart from the lyrics, the music video is interesting as well, because the concept of
multiculturalism is very apparent: the whole video is in black and white, except for the colors red
and gold, which are highlighted. That means that the video is entirely in black, red, and gold –
the colors of the German national flag. Besides, typical German objects, such as an eagle or a
German car, are combined with what National Socialists would define as “untypical” German
ideas. That means, there are no Aryan Germans in this video, but a woman with brown hair, an
Asian, and a black woman. They all represent Germany and show their affiliation to it with the
colors of the German flag, either on their cheeks, on their finger nails, or even with a whole flag
wrapped around their body as a dress while pledging allegiance to Germany by placing their
hand upon their heart. All in all, the depiction of multiculturalism in this video is supposed to
reflect Germany how it is today. Although there are still Germans of an Aryan type of outer
appearance, i.e. with light skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair, this video focuses on the contrasts to
German ideals and concepts as they were established in the 19th-century with Fichte or Wagner.
In other words, the video plays with combining concepts that constitute Germans and Germany
today, but would not go with those of the 19th-century.
46
Fler: Neue deutsche Welle 2005: Fler stresses, here again, the colors of the German
national flag and states that he is proud to be German “Das ist schwarz, rot, gold – hart und
stolz.” Shortly after that he praises multiculturalism: “Das ist normal, das hier ist multi-kulti.
Meine Homies kommen von überall.” And he goes on “Schwarz, weiß – egal, jeder hier ist aggro
in Berlin.” That means that, according to Fler, outer appearance, such as skin color, is not crucial
for determining one’s national identity. In the following part, he addresses the German language
and says that he is the one to start a new era of German rap music, while the others only rapped
in English. At first glance, this appears to go with Wagner’s and Fichte’s idea, who also
considered the language as an important aspect of German national identity. Nonetheless, Fler
ironically throws in English words every now and then, such as “cool,” “shit,” “business” or
“party bitches.” He, therefore, does not correspond to what people in the 19th-century had in
mind, when they defined the German language as essential, because Fler’s use of German is not
pure, but instead it is infiltrated by English terms, which adulterate the German language.
Besides, when it comes to originality, this song uses the melody of “Rock me Amadeus” of the
Austrian musician Falco, and is consequently not original either, which would be criticized by
Wagner. As far as the music video is concerned, a Mercedes Benz as a symbol for German
Wertarbeit, that is, first-class workmanship, or in other words a representation of a German
product of a high quality standard like the Mercedes Benz in the music video of “Das alles ist
Deutschland,” is reoccurring. Another motive that is presented again is the German eagle, which
“was not just a symbol for Nazism; [but] ... has been a symbol for Germany for centuries”
(Putnam & Littlejohn 461). In their article, Putnam and Littlejohn show that Fler was said to be a
Nazi for this expressive depiction of German symbols, because “[a]n eagle is prominent on both
the front and back covers of his Neue Deutsche Welle CD, and the video for “NDW 2005” begins
47
and ends on shots of Fler holding an eagle” (Putnam & Littlejohn 461). Despite the fact that this
eagle on the cover looked similar to the Federal Eagle and had only very few resemblance with
the one on the Third Reich’s crest, Fler had to tackle the problem of being called a Nazi (Putnam
& Littlejohn 461). This shows how sensitive Germans are today when it comes to nationalism,
which is due to the past and especially WWII. So, in this respect, Wagner’s claim that the past
has its effect on the future (“Was ist deutsch?” 7) would still be right today.
Eko Fresh: Der Türkenslang: Eko Fresh addresses the problem of integration and identity
in this song. He is German but he has parents with a migratory background, which is something
he even explicitly mentions in this song: “Unsere Eltern waren Gastarbeiter. Jetzt machen wir
den Job hier als Hustler weiter.” That means that his parents must have come to Germany after
the end of the Second World War, when it opened its doors to millions of guest workers with,
among others, especially Turkish ethnical background. Today, it can be seen that these people
have become a part of German culture. But Eko demonstrates in this song that Turkish
immigrants did not simply adapt to the German culture and completely abandoned their own.
They preserved much of their own traditions, among other things, their language and food, and
implanted them into a new environment when they came to Germany. For that reason, there is an
identity crisis of the next generation of these Turkish immigrants. Their children are born and
raised in Germany, but, at the same time, they are confronted with their Turkish heritage and do
not feel entirely German. This is what Eko means when he raps: “Für Deutsche sind wir Türken.
Für Türken sind wir Deutsche.” These “next-generation immigrants” do not have a concrete
feeling of belonging to either of these nations. As Eko sees himself in between these two, he tries
to function as a mediator in order to blur the borders and to enable communication on both the
Turkish and the German side, which is why he says: “Deshalb sag’ ich euch, was die Wörter so
48
bedeuten.” And even in this song he translates several expressions and phrases from Turkish into
German. Also, he mentions that there is a new proper language which developed out of the
Turkish learned from their parents in combination with a German surrounding: “... haben unsere
eigene Sprache entwickelt. Nenn’ es Straßendeutsch oder Türkenslang. Ich mach’ mehr für die
Völkerverständigung als ihr.” That means, this alteration of vocabulary reflects new aspects of
German culture as it is today and is also a representation of what Fichte said in one of his
speeches about the German language:
So verhält es sich, sage ich, mit einer Sprache, die von dem ersten Laute an, der in
derselben ausbrach, ununterbrochen aus dem wirklichen gemeinsamen Leben
eines Volkes sich entwickelt hat, und in die niemals ein Bestandtheil gekommen,
der nicht eine wirklich erlebte Anschauung dieses Volkes, und eine mit allen
übrigen Anschauungen desselben Volkes im allseitig eingreifenden
Zusammenhange stehende Anschauung ausdrückte. (“Vierte Rede” 318)
That is to say, there are Turkish words borrowed and integrated into German because they reflect
the worldview of these people nowadays. This shows that the German language is just as flexible
as its culture – which has been influenced by immigrants – and that it is important to see
Germans with a migratory background, such as Eko Fresh as a part of what being German
actually means today, even if not every German speaks “Straßendeutsch oder Türkenslang.” If
we take Fichte’s concept of the persistence of the German language by continuously speaking it
and expand it to the Turkish German instead of the Germanic context, it seems that the important
thing would be to not give up the original German language to guarantee its existence and
originality. The newly added Turkish words would then be the result of grafting and not a threat
to the decay of the original German language.
49
Besides, what is remarkable is the association of Turks with criminality. Eko implies that
there are some of them who do not have a job, but get support from the German state: “Wir
haben nichts zu tun, nur mit den Jungs im Viertel hängen. Kochen unser eigenes Süppchen –
reden Türkenslang.” And he goes on a little bit further: “Den ganzen Tag am Zocken und die
Hilfe gibt’s vom Amt.” Out of this hopelessness, which means no concrete plans for the future,
might develop a criminal way of making money: “Ich verfolge weiter munter die Türkenschiene,
unter die Gürtellinie; feinste Ware, womit ich der Kundschaft im Viertel diene. Was los? Jeder
von den Ottos will Crack.” According to this passage, a way of making money for people like
him is selling drugs. Another depiction of criminality, which is to be seen in the lyrics as well as
in the music video, is physical violence: “Red’ den Türken an, bleib aber auf Distanz, sonst
gibt’s Mortal Kombat-Vollkontakt.” In the video, Eko is surrounded by his “buddies,” who also
defend him with physical violence, if he is attacked in any way, even if it is only with words.
They also do not leave his side and walk with him as if they were his bodyguards. Moreover, the
only concrete signs that the video was filmed in Germany are the number plates on the cars and
the architecture. Other than that, it looks like a Turkish district, because all the shops have
Turkish names. So, with reference to what has already been discussed earlier, these new
Germans who brought their own Turkish culture to Germany, are the opposite of what Wagner
had in mind when he described Germanness, because for him German peoples are “diejenigen
germanischen Stämme, welche auf heimischem Boden ihre Sprache und Sitte sich bewahrten”
(Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5). However, these peoples preserved their own language and
customs, but implemented them on German ground and affect, from Wagner’s point of view, the
German purity.
50
Eko Fresh: Quotentürke and German Dream: Even though he is not as explicit in
showing what German identity is today, Eko Fresh approaches an important aspect here. In this
song, Eko Fresh expresses the persisting differences between Germans and Germans with
migratory background, especially second-generation Turkish immigrants. At the beginning, he
mentions that he discovered his talent for songwriting already at an early age, because has been
making rap songs since he was fourteen years old, but people do not see his talent – they see him
mainly as a Turkish foreigner: “Zum Beispiel mach’ ich schon seit ich vierzehn bin Rap-Lieder /
Doch die Leute denken: Was will dieser Türke jetzt schon wieder? / Denn egal, wie viel Talent
auch in mir ruht / Ich werd’ hauptsächlich gebucht, wenn man einen Ausländer sucht.” In this
way he draws our attention to problems of integration and recognition of people with migratory
background.
His latest album is called Deutscher Traum and one of the songs on it is German Dream,
in which he plays with German identity from his perspective as a rapper. To begin with, it does
not seem logical that the song’s title is simply an English translation of the album. From my
point of view, the reason behind this is to stress both the influence of the English language
nowadays, especially when it comes to music, and the US as hip-hop’s country of origin, as
explained by von Dirke in her article “Hip-Hop Made in Germany: From Old School to the
Kanaksta Movement.” The name of his song is also reminiscent of the American dream, which is
to go from rags to riches. In the lyrics and the music video, this connotation is made. It reminds
the viewer of songs and videos of American rappers. Eko Fresh calls our attention in this song to
the similarities between Germany and the United States and portrays Germany as a multiethnical country where foreigners emigrate hoping to start a better life just as they did in the U.S.
This can be seen in the first part of the hook: “Der deutsche Traum / Aufgewachsen in ‘nem
51
anderen Land (German dream) / Der deutsche Traum / Und dann wurd’ ich langsam bekannt,
yeah.” Furthermore, the music video plays with German identity and stereotypes because in a
scene towards the end, the song pauses and you can see four men eating and discussing the
German dream. When one of them asks “Hans, was sagst du eigentlich dazu?” the next shot
shows Hans, who is a young black man. Tension is created by the man’s skin color in
combination with the name Hans as a typical old German name that is not really used anymore.
This highlights the fact that Germans no longer fit Wagner’s idea that they can be defined
according to a specific outer appearance or the image of light-skinned, blue-eyed Aryans as it
was propagated during the Third Reich. Just as Eko Fresh did in this song, von Dirke sees
several similarities between the culture in the U.S. and in Germany and how they are reflected in
music.
While popular music and youth culture in Germany might respond to the impetus
of U.S. popular music models, this transatlantic transfer cannot adequately be
described as a form of cultural imperialism but rather as a reworking of U.S.
models in response to domestic constellations. At the same time, the adaption of
hip-hop in Germany shows that the United States still functions as the foil and/or
projection screen for conceptualizing a multiethnic/multiracial, multilingual, and
transnational hip-hop community for both the Old School and the Kanakstas. (von
Dirke 108)
That is to say that there is a common ground of multi-ethnicity nowadays and that Germany has
become closer and closer to being an immigration country comparable to the United States.
Therefore, it appears appropriate to apply the metaphor of a salad bowl to the German context as
well, especially because we just have seen that complete integration is sometimes impossible and
52
people with migratory background remain among themselves because they are perceived as
foreigners. This is also the reason why the metaphor of a melting pot, where people fully
integrate and neglect their heritage, does not fit. This situation suggests that concepts of the 19thcentury are actually still much more true than one might think at first. The fact that Germany has
become a multicultural immigration country makes it seem as if most of the ideas of people, such
as Fichte or Wagner cannot be upheld because of entirely different circumstances. Nevertheless,
there is still truth in what they said, which might explain recent political movements, that will be
discussed hereafter.
3.2.2 Recent Political Questions and Movements
Towards the end of last year, demonstrations against Islamization increased in numbers in
Germany. Founded by its spokesperson Lutz Bachmann20, demonstrations according to the motto
“Pegida,” which is the acronym for “Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des
Abendlandes,” ‘patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident,’ have been getting
more and more frequent. These kinds of peaceful demonstrations, which started in Dresden, now
have spin-offs basically all over Germany. The reasons behind these demonstrations were street
battles in Hamburg and Celle between Kurds and Salafists who fought for the Syrian city
Kobanê early in October. After the first manifestation with an audience of approximately 100
people, there was another event just six days later where 5,000 hooligans rioted against Salafists
in Cologne, leading to a significant increase of members at the next Pegida demonstration and a
steady growth in the following weeks. The exact topic they demonstrate against seems to be
20
Since he demands zero tolerance for criminal immigrants, but has a criminal record himself
and has come into conflict with the law multiple times, Lutz Bachmann can be called a
hypocrite. But this fact seems not to be important to the supporters of Pegida, as well as the point
that only 2.2 percent of the inhabitants in Saxony, where the whole movement started, are in fact
foreigners.
53
different for every participant, whereas most of them agree about the rejection of Islamists,
which is for quite a few of them Islam as a whole and the latter does not belong to German
culture, in their opinion. Another point, addressed by members of Pegida is the increasing
number of asylum applicants. In surveys, more than 40 percent of the German populace indicate
that they are concerned about the Islam becoming too prominent in Germany, regardless of the
fact that the majority of immigrants are not Muslims (Locke). This might be due to the tendency
of one-sided, negative depictions in the media, where news about migrants has often been
associated with criminality since the 1970s (Neubauer 165). Pegida functions as a sort of forum
to express these kinds of fears (Locke). This form of exclusionary idea of national identity is
very well received by people from “NPD, rechtsextremen Kameradschaften und der
Hooliganszene . . . , die sich obendrein mit den Worten ‘deutsch’ und ‘Boden’ auf den
Transparenten bestens identifizieren können” (Locke). Thus, these people still hold on to the
ideology of blood and soil, which was being propagated by the Nazis in the Third Reich and
which is basically a perversion of Fichte’s original concept of a spiritual nature (C. P. Weber
448). His ideas have nothing to do with “establishing anti-Semitism as a national doctrine”
(ibid.), but this is how National Socialists were appropriating them. Their ideology is in essence
also a further development of Wagner’s ideas, for example, when he said: “‘Deutsche’ Völker
heißen diejenigen germanischen Stämme, welche auf heimischem Boden ihre Sprache und Sitte
sich bewahrten” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5).
These events raise questions and show that the actual question of how Germany defines
its national identity still remains unanswered today. According to Raed Saleh21, chairman of the
SPD Parlamentary Group and author of the article “Als ich die deutsche Fahne hisste,” which
appeared in a German newspaper in February of this year, this uncertainty is the reason for these
21
Raed Saleh mentions in this article that he himself has a migratory background.
54
recent accumulations of right-wing populist movements. Right-wing populists are aiming for
creating their own identity by exclusions of everything and everyone that is not German in their
eyes (Saleh). We have seen that this is not only a recent pattern; since national identity is based
on inclusion and exclusion (James 39; Silberman 298), it is natural to contrast one’s own nation
to others, just as for example Fichte and Wagner did. Saleh justifies the recent emergence of antiIslamist demonstrations politically and thinks that the new openness of the red-green coalition
under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005 contributed to the situation we face
nowadays. “Die Kanzlerschaft von Gerhard Schröder, die Einführung der doppelten
Staatsbürgerschaft und die rot-grüne Offenheit waren ein erster Schritt in die Wirklichkeit. Auf
die Ignoranz der Kohl-Zeit folgte aber auch ein Multi-Kulti-Optimismus, der die Schattenseiten
der Einwanderungsgesellschaft aktiv ausblendete” (Saleh). German politics concerning
multiculturalism seem to have shifted from one extreme to the other – from ignorance to multicultural openness. Today, the political left avoids addressing the topic of national identity, and
for a certain amount of time, Germans even used to refer to themselves as Europeans, neglecting
German culture and spirit entirely. But Saleh pleads for more self-confidence: “Ein
selbstbewusstes Deutschland braucht keine Angst zu haben. Es braucht niemanden zu
dämonisieren. Es braucht sich nur auf sich selbst zu besinnen” (ibid.). This statement reminds of
what Wagner said about the German spirit, which was almost destroyed after the Thirty Years
War, but could be resurrected by devoting oneself to “diese innerlichst heimische Welt”
(Wagner, “Was ist deuscht?” 2). That means, even though these two utterances were made in
completely different contexts and 150 years apart from each other, both suggest to focus on an
inner sphere when it comes to forging a national identity. Saleh then goes on to say that our
identity has to be redefined, but in a different way than has been done in the past: “nicht durch
55
Ausgrenzung, sondern positiv. Wir sind das Land, das für Fleiß und harte Arbeit steht. Für
Soziale Marktwirtschaft und gesellschaftlichen Ausgleich. Für preußische Toleranz und für
Vielfalt. Wir sind das Land, das sich den Abgründen seiner Geschichte stellt” (ibid.).
Tolerance, for instance, is an important quality that should already be learned as soon as
possible. Lee points out that intercultural competence, which refers to the idea that people from
different cultures should be accepted as equally valuable and therefore is a sort of tolerance, has
to be part of the school curriculum in Germany:
Das Lernen fremder Kulturen bei gleichzeitiger Auseinandersetzung mit der
eigenen Kultur ermöglicht . . . eine Erweiterung der eigenen
Wahrnehmungsfähigkeit, Menschen mit anderen Orientierungssystemen und
Identitätsentwürfen anzuerkennen und sie auch als “anders” aber
“gleichberechtigt/-wertig” zu akzeptieren. Solch eine interkulturelle Kompetenz
scheint im Kontext der heutigen Globalisierung unverzichtbar. (Lee 21)
This goal has obviously not been achieved yet, considering the Pegida demonstrations, which
show that Germans are still far from completely accepting multiculturalism as inherent part of
their national identity.
56
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
All in all, we have seen that in the 19th-century, definitions of Germanness and German identity
were more concrete than they are nowadays. Fichte, for example, pointed out that one essential
part of what it means to be German is – apart from the language – the ground as inherited land
and “Vaterlandsliebe” (383), ‘love for one’s country,’ as the highest asset. Therefore, he believes
that the German nation should be more important to Germans than the welfare of individuals. For
Wagner, cultural values such as the Christian religion are what constitute the German nature.
Both personalities are convinced that it is important to uphold a certain purity – on a spiritual
level with the concentration on the “reinmenschlichen Motive” (Wagner, “Was ist deutsch?” 5)
and also on a physical level with regard to reproduction (Fichte 380). In contrast to the latter is
Max Weber’s claim that common blood does not necessarily have to be the basis for national
affiliation. Members of Pegida demonstrations would, however, contradict Max Weber and
support someone like Richard Wagner instead, who also mentioned that the past plays an
important role for the constitution of a nation (“Was ist deutsch?” 7). In this point at least, it is
questionable if it is possible for immigrants to become an inherent part of German society or if
they should stay in their own communities. Turkish German author Zafer Şenocak pointed out in
an interview: “Geschichte spielt aber auch eine Schlüsselrolle bei der Frage, ob ein Land offen
für Einwanderer ist. Können Einwanderer die deutsche Zukunft mitgestalten, ohne über eine
gemeinsame Geschichte mit den Einheimischen zu verfügen?” (Göktürk et al. 449-450). As we
have seen in literary examples, or in the movie Gegen die Wand, second- and third-generation
immigrants definitely feel comfortable in Germany and want to integrate. What most findings
that we have seen have in common is the importance of language as the medium that either
57
makes integration possible or that makes differences apparent. When it comes to rap music, the
topic of integration is depicted as rather problematic. Rappers such as Eko Fresh are clearly
demonstrating that the concept of purity is obsolete and can be seen most obviously with the
German language. That means, he deconstructs the idea of Germanness as something pure. So, in
general, a more multicultural image of Germany as an immigration country is depicted.
Nonetheless, this sort of multiculturalism is unfortunately oftentimes not regarded as an
enrichment, but as a threat to the German culture. Part of the reason might be news reports that
are mainly one-sided and associate immigrants with criminality, although there is no significant
difference in the number, frequency, or seriousness of crimes perpetrated by Germans with
migratory background as compared to non-immigrant citizens (Neubauer 165). On the one side,
Pegida demonstrations, which have found more and more members all over Germany in the last
few months, are the expressions of a fear that might at first be described as “irrational” if one
considers the depiction of immigrants and their association with criminality in media. On the
other side, this fear is in fact not irrational but proof of the continuance of 19th-century national
ideas. This shows that the topic of immigration and integration is both an ancient and a very
current one that has not yet come to an end. Nevertheless, it has to be recognized that the guest
workers that immigrated into Germany through a recruitment agreement and their descendants
are not simply guests but German citizens, even though they have a migratory background. In
times of globalization, concepts of purity can no longer be maintained. Instead, it should be
regarded as indispensable to have an intercultural competence with which one can accept people
with different orientation systems or identities as equal (Lee 21) and multiculturalism as
enrichment for the German culture.
58
WORKS CITED
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006. Print.
Brockmann, Stephen. A Critical History of German Film. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2010.
Print.
Cheesman, Tom, & Yeşilada, Karin, E. “Preface.” Zafer Şenocak. Eds. Tom Cheesman and
Karin E. Yeşilada. Cardiff: U of Wales, 2003. ix-x. Print.
Dayioğlu-Yücel, Yasemin. “Identität und Integrität in der türkisch-deutschen
Migrationsliteratur.” Migrationsliteratur. Eine neue deutsche Literatur? (2009): 31-35.
Web. 26 Feb 2015.
Die Prinzen. Deutschland. MyVideo, 2007. Video. 11 Apr 2014.
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966.
Eko Fresh. Der Türkenslang. Youtube, 2011. Video. 11 Apr 2014.
Eko Fresh. Quotentürke. Youtube, 2013. Video. 11 Apr 2014.
Eko Fresh. German Dream. Youtube 2014. Video. 11 Feb 2015.
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Johann Gottlieb Fichtes sämmtliche Werke. Vol. 7. Berlin: n.p.,
1845/1846. – Zeno.org. Web. 31 Jan 2015.
Fler. NDW 2005 / Neue deutsche Welle. Youtube, 2010. Video. 12 Apr 2014.
Fler & Bushido. Das alles ist Deutschland. Youtube, 2010. Video. 11 Apr 2014.
Gegen die Wand. Dir. Fatih Akın. Perf. Birol Ünel and Sibel Kekilli. Wüste, 2004. DVD.
Göktürk, Deniz et al. Transit Deutschland. Debatten zu Nation und Migration. München:
Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2011. Print.
James, Harold. A German Identity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, 1989. Print.
Jarausch, Konrad H. “Reshaping German Identities: Reflections on the Post-Unification Debate.”
After Unity. Reconfiguring German Identities. Ed. Konrad H. Jarausch. Oxford: Berghahn
Books, 1997. 1-23. Print.
Locke, Stefan. “’Pegida’-Demonstrationen. Die neue Wut aus dem Osten.” F.A.Z. Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH, 7 Dec. 2014. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.
59
Lee, Tessa C. “Interkulturelles Lernen mit Fatih Akıns Gegen die Wand (2004).” Die
Unterrichtspraxis. Teaching German 44.1 (2011): 20-29. Web. 7 Feb 2015.
Neubauer, Jochen. Türkische Deutsche, Kanakster und Deutschländer. Identität und
Fremdwahrnehmung in Film und Literatur: Fatih Akın, Thomas Arslan, Emine Sevgi
Özdamar, Zafer Şenocak und Feridun Zaimoğlu. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann
GmbH, 2011. Print.
Putnam, Michael T. & Littlejohn, John T. “National Socialism with Fler? German Hip Hop from
the Right.” Popular Music and Society 30.4 (2007): 453-468. Web. 7 Apr 2014.
Reimann, Anna. “Kongress von Einwanderer-Nachkommen: Wann ist man deutsch?” Spiegel
Online. SPIEGELnet GmbH, 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Saleh, Raed. “Debatte um nationale Identität. Als ich die deutsche Fahne hisste.” F.A.Z.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH, 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.
Salmi, Hannu. Imagined Germany. Richard Wagner’s National Utopia. New York: Peter Lang,
1999. Print.
Schneider, Jens. Deutsch sein: Das Eigene, das Fremde und die Vergangenheit im Selbstbild
des vereinten Deutschland. Frankfurt/Main: Campus, 2001. Print.
Şenocak, Zafer. “Gedichte.” Zafer Şenocak. Eds. Tom Cheesman and Karin E. Yeşilada.
Cardiff: U of Wales, 2003. 1-15. Print.
Silberman, Marc. “What is German in the German Cinema?” Film History 8.3 (1996): 297-315.
ProQuest. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.
Smith, Anthony D. “Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the reconstruction of
nations.” Nations and Nationalism 1.1 (1995): 3-23. Web. 30 Jan 2015.
Specht, Theresa. “Was ist deutsch? Humorvolle Inszenierungen kultureller Identität in der
türkisch-deutschen Literatur der Postmigration.” Studien zur deutschen Sprache und
Literatur 2.26 (2011): 5-20. Web. 21 Jan 2015.
von Dirke, Sabine. “Hip-Hop Made in Germany: From Old School to the Kanaksta Movement.”
German Pop Culture. How “American” is it? Ed. Agnes C. Mueller. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan, 2004. 96-112. Print.
Wagner, Richard. “Das Judenthum in der Musik.” Leipzig: J.J. Weber, 1869. Web. 26 Apr 2014.
---. “Was ist deutsch?”. Deutsche Geschichte in Dokumenten und Bildern. Band 4.
Reichsgründung: Bismarcks Deutschland 1866-1890. Ed. James Retallack. 1-10. Web.
10 Oct 2014.
60
Weber, Christian P. “Particular Universals – Universal Particulars: Biopolitical Metaphors and
the Emergence of Nationalism in Europe (1650-1815).” History of European Ideas 39.3
(2013): 426-448. Web. 14 Mar 2015.
Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology. Eds. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1946. Web. 26 Jan 2015.
Yanar, Kaya: Made in Germany. MyVideo, 2008. Video. 25 Feb 2015.
Yeşilada, Karin E. “Zafer Şenocak: Outline Biography.” Zafer Şenocak. Eds. Tom Cheesman
and Karin E. Yeşilada. Cardiff: U of Wales, 2003. 16-18. Print.
ZDF. “Die deutsche Seele. Von ‘Abendbrot’ bis ‘Zerrissenheit.’” ZDF Nachtstudio am 17. Juni
2012. Web. 28 Feb 2015.
61
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Sandra Digruber
Academic History
Graduate MA in German Studies at Florida State University:
Accepted into the Florida State University master’s program in German studies with teaching
assistantship and through the Verband der Deutsch-Amerikanischen Clubs, 2013.
Taught German 1, 2, and 3 at Florida State University as a teaching assistant, 2013-present.
Undergraduate BA in English and French at Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen
Nuremberg, Germany:
Studied French Teacher Training at University Rennes 2, France during a one semester studyabroad program, 2012-2013.
Studied English and French Teacher Training, 2008-2013.
High School Dipoloma (equivalent) from Gymnasium Stein, Germany in 2008
Work Experience
Taught German 3 (1 section) as teaching assistant in Spring 2015.
Taught German 2 (1 section) as teaching assistant in Fall 2014.
Taught German 1 (1 section) as teaching assistant in Fall 2014.
Taught German 1 (2 sections) as teaching assistant in Spring 2014.
Taught German 1 (1 section) as teaching assistant in Fall 2013.
62