Issue 2, 2007   

Civil Society in Brussels. More than a fig leaf excuse?

Warnfried Dettling: Corrosion Damages? Remarks on the Future of Democracy, FJ NSB 3/ 2008, pp. 10-15.

Warnfried Dettling questions the thesis of ‚Postdemocracy‘, which claims that democracy is being disintegrated and that there will be no real democratic politics in the future. In that context he describes the track record of German democratization and contrasts it with the contemporary deficits. In the past, especially after the foundation of the ‚Bundesrepublik‘, people were convinced of the ideas, institutions and the political personnel. But today there is a lack of trust in the capacity of politicians to solve problems. The reason for that are not only globalization and a vast number of veto players but also a self-made de-politicization of politics. Trust is replaced by fear. Politicians are afraid of voters and the other way round. One has to overcome this vicious circle and create more trust. In order to achieve that once successful ideas have to be reformulated and revitalized. Since that is still possible no one should proclaim the end of democracy.

Günther R. Mittler/Edgar Wolfrum: 1968. A Political Moment Becomes Historical, FJ NSB 3/ 2008, pp. 16-24.

Does the state render homage to its former enemies? One could get that impression seeing all the publications and exhibitions referring to the 40th anniversary of the student protests. But Mittler and Wolfrum claim that right-wing and left-wing intellectuals try to exploit the events of1968 for their purpose. For conservatives 1968 is the renunciation of order and stability, brought by the Adenauer administration. For them it was a mistake that the left came into power, 1969 as well as 1998, a mistake which has to be corrected. For the left 1968 is a symbol of emancipation, freedom and progress, which had it climax in the chancellorship of Willy Brandt. He symbolized the ,other‘ and the ,better‘ Germany. In the authors’ view, the Brandt administration was thus exaggerated and interpreted as a historical break. From a left perspective this was the cradle of a democratic civil society in Germany. This has to be mitigated. The 68-movement was neither the first nor the largest protest-movement in post-war Germany. The ‚Große Koalition‘ led by Angela Merkel broke new ground. On the one hand she made clear that no one wants to fall behind the achievements of 1968. But at the same time one has to rule off and to pin one’s hope in the next generation, which has not much in common with the generation of 1968. Mittler and Wolfrum propose to finish a ‚Kulturkampf‘ from the right as well as narcistic autobiographical views from the left. Instead, one should focus on an unemotional analysis of the events.

Albrecht von Lucke: Interpretations of ‚68‘ in the light of its anniversaries, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 25-34.

Albrecht von Lucke analyzes the ‚Wirkungsgeschichte‘ (history of impact) of 1968 by dealing with its anniversaries. Ten years after 1968 the moral rebellion of the post-war children against their Nazi-parents was the focal point. This led to a positive self-definition of the 1968-generation. This perception was continued in 1988, when 1968 symbolized emancipation and democratization. Citizens demanded more participation and engaged in several social movements. But 1993 a different interpretation dominated: Since the collapse of the German Democratic Republic any left experiment had to be seen as failed. The new social movements, which had been so proud before, faced a breakup. 1998, then, seemed to be a victory of the 68-generation, since they came into power. But despite their roots in 1968 the administration, especially Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, did not want to know anything about this history. The topics of that generation, environment and democratization, did not have much value for him. In 2008 the assumed victory is completely lost. Angela Merkel as the chancellor of a ,Große Koalition‘ reinterprets German history as a track record of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in which 1968 was just a meander. Opposing a virtual turn to the left they proclaim a ‚Neue Bürgerlichkeit‘.

Karl-Werner Brand: Active Citizenship. Student Movement, New Social Movements – What’s Left?, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 35-44.

As a consequence of 1968 and the new social movements participation and disagreement are today widely seen as a legitimate form of expression within civil society. While in the 1950s people were focussed mainly on unpolitical values such as wealth and security there evolved a new way of life in the 1960s. The affluent society was perceived skeptically and the public sphere became more politicized. There are three main threads in this process: (1) protest opposing main culture (2) nonparliamentary opposition and campaigns for disarmament, (3) student movement. They demix after the abatement of the Prague Spring and the failure of the campaign against the state of emergency: While some aspects are picked up by the social-liberal government, the non-parliamentary opposition breaks up. But forms of radical democracy have gained influence and gave way for new social movements. While counter-cultural and emancipative impulses still have their impact, movements define themselves in opposition to issues and forms of old politics and cadre-politics of the new left. During the oil crisis ‚soft‘ alternatives to the industrial society appeared and rather decentralized organizational structures were established. In the mid-1980s, mobilization had already reached its climax, but it had become more professional. Conventional and non-conventional forms now existed complimentary to each other and can be seen as the midwives of a reflexive modernity.

Jens Kastner: 1968. Dealing with National Socialism, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 45-56.

Dealing with National Socialism was a core issue of the 68-movement. Jens Kastner shows this in the personal and literary descriptions of the involved as well as chosen political targets. These can be understood only when interpreted against the background of National Socialism. In the current discourse National Socialism and the 68-movement are often described as interdependent phenomena in German history. But Kastner shows that dealing with National Socialism is not a generation- specific problem but a result of social struggles. Due to that insight research on social movements should be included in order to understand the debates properly. Dealing with National Socialism was used as an opportunity to radicalize ongoing debates. In that context the discussion faced an institutional openness, but also won political allies. The generation saw itself as descendants of a ,Täterkollektiv‘ (collective of culprits), which brought the movement closer together. The distinction from National Socialism mobilized the movement and helped establish the generation, not the other way round.

Barbara Schaeffer-Hegel: 1968: Impulses on Gender Politics, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 67-78 .

The article of Barbara Schaeffer-Hegel is a mixture of scientific analysis and autobiographic report. She shows in how far there were prejudices against women in the male world of the university, from which women should be kept away. Next to the start of gender studies she describes the conflict on the female body and the resistance of the women to biological attributions of femaleness. She depicts the development of alternative, grassroots-democratic organizations and early internal struggles in the women’s movement. On the other hand, Schaeffer-Hegel argues, diversity has always been a strength of the movement. Though there are still challenges in politics and society concerning gender-equality, the issue has been on the political agenda since 1968.

Gottfried Oy: Self-Organization. A Promise of Emancipation not kept?, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 79- 86.

The structural perspective, claiming that the changes of 1968 would have come anyway due to long-time developments, can be distinguished from an event-driven perspective which can be divided into a negative model, a liberal-positive model and a left-positive model. Himself taking an event-driven perspective, the author focuses on the promise of emancipation which was not fulfilled when referring to the concept of self-organization. The key-word in France was ‚autogestion‘, in Great Britain the agenda was predominated by ,democratic self-activity‘ through ,direct action‘ and ,civil disobedience‘. In the US ,community projects‘ and ,community organizations‘ were hoped to revitalize participatory democracy, while in Germany ‚Gegenöffentlichkeit‘ (alternative public sphere) and ‚democratization of the public sphere‘ were the focal points. But the concept of self-organization was criticized early for being subjectivistic and action-driven. Overcoming the simplified connection of self-organization and guerilla-campaigning, a critical assessment of the concept of self-organization seems to be necessary still today.

Eckhard Jesse: 1968 and the Citizens’ Movement in the GDR, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 87-95.

Discussing 1968 as a year in which there was a rebellion of the youth, research lacks analysis of the situation in the German Democratic Republic. Eckhard Jesse asks if there was a 68-movement respectively a 68-generation in the GDR. He confirms that both existed, but concedes they lacked clear-cut outlines. Any hope of a third way was disappointed by the violent take-back of reforms. That experience formed a generation of dissidents in the GDR which pinned their hope on the same utopia in 1989. Due to that they were attracted by the green-alternatives of the ,Bundesrepublik‘. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall they were disappointed once again. The movement split into those opposing the reunification and those approaching the governing parties in the West.

Helmut Fehr: From 1968 to 1989: Student Protests as a Point of Crystallization for a New Political Generation in Central-East Europe, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 96-105.

Helmut Fehr focuses on the 68-movement in Poland and Czechoslovakia. First he describes the circumstances under which the March-protests in Polish universities and the ambition for democratization in Prague took place. In a second step Fehr shows that 1968 stands for a political alternation of generations, leading to new orientations. Self-Organization, pluralism, dialogue and civic rights were the core concepts of the dissidents. In Poland especially the Solidarnosc-movement continued the ideas of 1968. In Czechoslovakia it took a long time before in the mid-1970s the Charta 77 emerged as a semi-public forum for civic movements. In the fall of 1989 the Civic Forum was established as the agent of democratization. The spontaneous mass protests were supported by a new consciousness of belonging to a generation in which pragmatism and distance to ideological self-images dominated. Comparing 1968 and 1989, the role of the idea of civil society is obvious. Fehr concludes: 1968 has been a collective event of protest, shaping the consciousness of a new generation. The Prague Spring was a movement from below which, same as in Poland, led to the development of social movements. Students used peaceful, symbolic and generation-specific forms of protest, similar to the students in the west. But they did not oppose, especially in Poland, the United States and the war in Vietnam. Freedom was more the focal point than anti-americanism.

Kathrin Fahlenbrach/Martin Klimke/Joachim Scharloth: Anti-Ritual, Media Staging and Transnationality: ‚68‘ – Aspects of Cultural Studies, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 106-117.

The historical impact of 1968 cannot be understood without taking cultural forms and practices into account. Three case studies demonstrate the capacity of a cultural studies approach. Firstly, ‚68‘ can be interpreted as a ritual-critical movement. Protest operated with ‚anti-rituals‘ and gave way to a cultural change. An important requirement was – secondly – staging media. Since television advanced to be the main medium visuality became more important in communication and gave a sounding board for the opposition. The connection of instrumental and expressive communication of protest refers to – thirdly – a transnational dimension. In a context of transnational patterns of exchange a ‚global circulation of revolutionary life-style‘ developed. The peace movement as well as the civicrights- movement in the United States, but also liberation movements in the third world were its symbolic reservoir. This international identity of protest is characteristic of the 68-movement. A long-time impact is the broadened socio-cultural spectrum within Germany.

Sven Reichardt: Authenticity and community ties. Politics and lifestyle in the left-alternative milieu from the 1960s to the 1980s, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 118-130.

A problem with the public discourse on the impacts of 1968 is its restriction to the Red Army Fraction and K-groups. This is why next to left social-democratic und trade union groups the article focuses on the anti-authoritarian and alternative-left milieu. Contemporary polls show that this was a very attractive and extensive culture of its own kind. To be left and alternative was more than supporting a political program. In order to understand the phenomenon of the ‚politics of the first person‘ as well as the change in everyday life and the distinction from the established culture, this way of life has to be assessed as well. A left-alternative habitus is characterized by motives such as warmth, provocation and humour, spontaneity, identity and naturality, non-conventionality and creativity. Especially authenticity is important. Drawing back on Foucault’s concept of governmentality this culture of authenticity can be decoded as a self-leading-technique of subjects. Its spread was an answer to a lack of meaning and uncertainties within a modern society. Its patterns of consume, media etc. were ridiculed by left alternatives in order to gain space for alternative political perspectives. On the other hand this culture of consume intensified the wish for authenticity.

Andreas Buro: The peace-movement’s long struggle for civil conflict management after 1945, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 133-145 .

Andreas Buro characterizes civil ways of dealing with conflicts, which are distinct from civilmilitary ways of conflict management. He identifies eight periods of the German peace-movement, which has always been oriented towards civility. The strongest break for the movement was the end of the cold war, but contrary to expectations there has been no peace dividend. Instead politics have been dominated by military interventions and the military ,war on terror‘. The author then presents several initiatives supporting civil ways of conflict solution. He also shows the factors which influence the success of these initiatives. They do not only have to overcome the lack of media coverage, but also have to make clear that conflicts have to be solved in a civil way, and that military operations only destroy resources. From that perspective the peace movement still has a long way to go.

Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul: Participation and Globalisization. NGOs’ Engagement as a Necessary Driving Force for a Just Globalisization, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 146-154.

Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul underlines the necessity of a just globalization, which should be the focal point of development policies. NGOs do a good job by campaigning, consulting and financing and executing projects. This engagement is also a sign of a democratic, pluralistic and modern society. A main success of the NGOs is the grown sensibility of people for the needs of development policies. Although Wieczorek-Zeul sees an advantage for NGOs since they can advocate ideals much better than the state, the two should not be seen as antagonists. Rather, one should focus on the efficient solution of problems by the respectively appropriate actor. As governments realized the importance of NGOs, the ideal of cooperation between governments, parliaments, civil society and business actors, came closer to fulfilment. But NGOs also face changes, which are resulting in new problems. Increased competition forces NGOs to more coordination and professionalization. Thus, NGOs have to deal with the dangerous instrumentalization by state actors. But since NGOs are characterized by their ability to learn, these new problems can be solved.

Wolfgang Thierse: Changes in the Political Culture in Germany, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 155-164.

From Wolfgang Thierse’s point of view political culture in Germany is currently characterized by fear and scepticism towards reforms. Citizens do not believe that politicians can solve the urgent problems. This disenchantment with politics is maintained although economic improvement and growth is indicated. Not only the slower decision-making process in politics – when compared to business – are given as a reason, but also the declining quality of the media. Furthermore the behaviour of business elites offends many people’s sense of justice. The poor economic and social situation falls back on politics. But it has to be distinguished between democratic politics and economics, which function with different logics. Furthermore, democratic politics provide the frame in which economic processes are enabled. Wolfgang Thierse claims that the current disenchantment is a threat to democracy. This has to be countered by political and cultural action and education. In this, political parties play a major role, since no alternative actorshave yet come up which could fulfil their function. The rebuilding of trust is a task for all citizens.

Thomas Leif: Freedom of Press under Pressure. Investigative Journalism as a Guarantee of Quality, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 165-178.

Thomas Leif criticizes the decline of quality within contemporary media. Research and investigation – the main tasks for journalists – are neglected. Although there are scandals from time to time, these are not found by journalists, but set by well-prepared whistle-blowers. The media are often content with the resignation of a politician without doing more research on the circumstances of the scandal. This is mirrored by the lack of sensitivity toward the meaning of informants. At the same time, it is not only business corporations but also the administration and authorities who try to withhold information from journalists; leading politicians try to oppress certain arguments within the political debate. Furthermore Thomas Leif states maladjustment between serious and entertaining media coverage. In this, consumers play an important role. But it is not only the consumers who must be more sensitive for the role of the media, but especially scholars. Though media play a more and more important role in society, the impacts of this development are rarely analyzed. This can also be found in the journalistic education. There are many seminars on public relations but only few on research. The important aim, however, should be not only to talk about investigation and research but to care for its realization, to promote and to sponsor it.

Jörg Rohwedder/Felix Kolb: The ‚Bewegungsstiftung‘ – Startups for Social Movements, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 179-187.

Jörg Rohwedder and Felix Kolb present the ‚Bewegungsstiftung‘ (movement foundation), which was founded by critical young heirs. The foundation supports social movements by funding campaigns and their basic work. Furthermore it supports individuals, so called ‚Bewegungsarbeiter‘ (movement workers). A special feature of the foundation is its strong emphasis on participation of the funded projects, which with the given support attain the same status as the founders. This enables exchange of experiences and assures flexibility, which is usually a problem for foundations. In that sense the ‚Bewegungsstiftung‘ sees itself as part of a progressive philanthropy, which exceeds pure charity but empowers people to solve their problems on their own. They follow certain aims, but these are discussed with the stakeholders.

Ansgar Klein: Civil Society and democracy. Political Philosophical, Democratic Theoretical and Political Sociological Approaches, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 189-238.

Ansgar Kleins article sums up the different aspects of civil society and democracy. He sketches the historical and contemporary discourses on the term civil society. He focuses not only on the liberal and republican tradition, but also on the political dimensions, mainly the transformation of socialist countries and the democratization of liberal democracies and globalization. Afterwards Klein shows that the term also mirrors the political discourse of reform. In this context civil society has not only political and cultural functions, but is also a co-producer. Several leading images of civil society have been developed, which are presented by the author. He focuses mainly on the results of the committee of inquiry on ‚Zukunft des Bürgerschaftlichen Engagements‘ (future of civil society) of the German Bundestag. As a consequence the ‚Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement‘ (civil society network) has been founded, which works on an improvement of the civil society infrastructure. Finally Ansgar Klein presents the approach of political sociology, which allows researchers to analyze civil society organizations also in a normative way.

Ansgar Klein: 20 Years of Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen. A Provisional Appraisal, FJ NSB 3/2008, pp. 239-255.

Ansgar Klein sums up the history of the Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen. He starts with the foundation period, when the journal was published by the editors themselves. But he does not only sketch the different publishing houses, but also all the other partners which have helped to make the journal successful. He also explains the concept of ,discursive interventionism‘, which is the political claim of the journal. Discourses of the public sphere have to be brought together with those of scholarship in order to shape policies. In the end he shows the broad spectrum of issues dealt with which go far beyond research on social movements.