German Joys

Radio Feature on Cultureless, 'Square-Headed' Americans

Last night, WDR5's 'Doc5' series broadcase an interesting and thoroughly-researched feature (g) on anti-Americanism in Germany by Klaus Jürgen Haller. Haller focused, in particular, on the deep historical roots of the idea that Americans are a 'cultureless' or 'rootless' people. Plenty of amusing quotations from Heine, Brecht, Lehnau, Hitler, and many others. The manuscript can be read here (g - .pdf), and I'm hoping they'll post a link to the audio version soon. I'll post a few translations of the more interesting quotes, and my observations on the special, as time permits.

Commencement: Bats & Dementia

Heidelbergerin has some observations on German commencement ceremonies:  

Graduates sat in the front few rows, and each got to invite three people to come see them go up for their diploma. There wasn't any checking of tickets or anything, though. The graduates just dressed nicely - no funny robes or hats. There was one Scottish guy in a kilt. The program opened with some Beethoven on a piano. Nobody processed in, everybody was already just sitting there. Next, a guy with a cool bow tie and hat - the only guy who had any remotely academic costume going on - welcomed everybody, presented something to a couple of the graduates (frankly, I didn't find this part important enough to bother trying to translate it in my head), and introduced the main speaker.

We thought the speaker would say something relevant to the occasion of graduating, receiving a higher degree, education these days, the philosophy of the practice of and research in medicine, or something. But, the talk was actually about dementia. Not that dementia is not an interesting topic, but I totally failed to see how it fit with graduation. The speaker was totally full of himself, but it was at least amusing to watch him up there making animated academic-looking gestures, the likes of which you normally only see in comedy, quoting Latin and English, and being generally dramatic.

Halfway through his incredibly long speech, unfortunately a woman in the audience actually had a seizure and her friend called for a doctor. I think 3/4 of the room stood up. We were also entertained by some cute little bat that found its way into the auditorium and then just couldn't get out again.

After the speech, there was another piano piece, followed by an opera selection from The Marriage of Figaro. Again: huh? The singer and pianist were great, but the relevance of all this was still failing me. Then the graduates received their degrees. First the summa cum laude graduates were called up individually and received diplomas placed inside black folders. Then the rest of the graduates were called up four at a time and received their diplomas stuck inside a plastic sleeve with binder holes. Even though they were called up alphabetically, no advance effort had been made to seat the graduates in any sort of order, so they had to clamber over each other to get up to the front when called. There had also been no effort made to ask the graduates how their names were pronounced, so the MC had to stumble through them on his own, and it wasn't pretty. After this, yet another irrelevant opera selection, then we got to have some champagne and pretzels in the lobby (best part!!!). In all it took two hours.

I love the bat. A delightful detail. The "commencement speaker" was almost certainly a recently-appointed professor giving his Antrittsvorlesung, or inaugural lecture. These generally don't have anything to do with graduation; they relate to whatever the professor's research interests are. (Full disclosure: I'll be giving one of these (g) in about two weeks myself). To an American used to American-style graduation ceremonies, it will probably seem a bit off-putting to have to sit through a lecture on some topic that may be of very limited interest. Certainly nothing like the touchy-feely, brimful-with-hope commencement addresses typical in the U.S.

Signs of my creeping Europeanization appear in my reaction to the commencement address. Sure, the shriveled remnants of the American in me say "Goshdangit! Isn't it all supposed to be about the students? Isn't it their Special Day? Shouldn't they receive congratulations and perhaps some good advice for the road?" The American thinks there's something chillingly impersonal -- and perhaps even sinister -- about hundreds of people being forced to listen to a speech on a topic that is likely only to interest a few.

Then the European retorts: "Ach! You narcissistic Americans! First you shamelessly coddle your college students, inflating their already-healthy sense of self-regard and solipsism. Then, when they finally have to leave college, you shower them with yet more praise, giving them a big pat on the back for having finished college and, at least at the better colleges, warning them about all the Responsibility they will have to shoulder in their important new careers.

But in Europe, young people go to college not to feel better about themselves, but to learn things. The Antrittsvorlesung reminds everyone in the audience of what the primary purpose of the university is: to generate and convey knowledge. And so what if the Antrittsvorlesung might be a little complex? You American always want everything to be fun, perky, bite-sized, shrinkwrapped into easily-digestible edutainment. One of life's more important skills is sitting still and paying attention. Especially to something that may be a bit challenging to understand, or that you might disagree with. And believe me, that's what most of these graduates are going to be doing a lot of once they enter the hard, cold world of real work. The sooner they start practicing, the better.

Let us now draw a veil before the increasingly heated debate between the American and European. We can all agree that not practicing the graduates' names or seating them in a logical order was incompetent and rude. I've never seen a German commencement ceremony where this was done right. Part of the problem is, of course, the authoritarian design of most German university classrooms, which force everyone to cram in beside one another in cramped, narrow, wooden seats. But another reason is the general lack of professionalism in the way German universities are managed. The task of organizing the commencement ceremony was probably just given to some hapless employee of the Dean's Office or to a team of bored graduate students. Nobody has any incentive to put more than the minimum amount of effort into organizing the event. 'The commencement ceremony has always been chaotic and amateurish,' they think, 'and that hasn't ended anyone's career, so why should I kill myself to make this one much better?'

On the other hand, the situation's even worse in France, where, I have it on good authority, the 'commencement ceremony' generally takes the form of a contemptuous, chain-smoking bureaucrat shoving your diploma at you through a slit in a greasy plexiglas window.

Tragically, Teutonically Tedious

On question I occasionally ask myself is: 'Why are so many German professors so unnecessarily boring?' Of course, there are exceptions, many of whom I know personally, yadda-yadda. But the observation still holds.

I use the word "unnecessarily" advisedly. Of course, all professors have to be sort of 'boring'; they're experts after all, and tend not to express themselves in the black-and-white certainties beloved of the tabloids and the pub debate. But in Germany, there's a further joy-killer at work: the expected 'habitus' (roughly, code of conduct) of German professors. Take it away, Greg Nees:

In a Diskussion one is expected to be as impersonal, serious, and objective as possible. This, of course precludes any banter or attempts at humor, which are considered inappropriate. In the German education system similar behavior and attitudes are expected in class, resulting in a more intellectual atmosphere. A German friend, while training as a graduate teaching assistant at a major American university, told me how shocked he was upon being instructed to intentionally use jokes in order to loosen up the classroom atmosphere. Such behavior went against all he had learned as appropriate classroom protocol. (p. 78)

This is not unique to profs: it ties into notions of discretion and dignity deeply coded into German social life. Pick up any book for how to get along with Germans, and it will tell you to speak in as deep a voice as possible and not to smile or make jokes, lest you be considered "unserious" by your hosts / colleagues. That's right -- even one joke can brand you forever as a lightweight.

Note that this blot often cannot be dispelled by actual talent. Again and again, I've seen Germans give the job / position to a candidate of average abilities who has demonstrated mastery of unwritten behavior and dress expectations: who 'conducts himself properly,' uses the expected formal phrases, and 'fits in.' Candidates who display much more talent -- but who appear unconventional in dress, speech, or manner -- are quickly processed out of the system. Their intelligence may be grudgingly acknowledged, but a consensus quickly forms that they might 'rock the boat,' or otherwise prove themselves 'uncomfortable' (unangenehm). As soon as they're declared unangenehm, they're toast.

I'm not saying that Germans won't tolerate eccentricities in extremely gifted people -- they certainly will -- but once you exclude candidates at either extreme of the talent spectrum, Germans will definitely sacrifice some additional talent to obtain a higher level of conformity. Thus, many German professional and academic settings end up as the worst of all possible worlds: they're stuffed with mediocrities who aren't even funny.

Sure, once you get a few drinks into some of these people, they 'lighten up'. But it's important to understand exactly what that can mean. Many Germans have simply never developed a talent for inventing their own witty observations or discerning genuine wit in other people. These are skills they have never been called upon to develop, and which can be positively dangerous in many German professional settings. Once these people lower their inhibitions (invariably through massive alcohol consumption), their version of humor often turns out to be reciting boorish pre-fabricated jokes, often targeting women and minorities. And yes, I have encountered this among German professors as well. Oh boy, have I ever.

If you're getting the idea that I try to avoid socializing with Germans in stiff formal / professional settings, you're right on-target!

Now let us turn to the United States.

To keep myself apprised of the financial meltdown, I sometimes surf over to the blog written by Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman, where he offers analysis of the latest numbers and thoughts on Obama's new economic team. But right in the middle of all this high-flown analysis -- complete with charts and graphs -- I find that Krugman has linked to the following photo:

This is, of course, a Fedcat, which is a parody of a Lolcat, the captioned pictures of cats that are perhaps the Internet's most welcome innovation (Krugman himself captioned this photo "cats are cuter"). After reading Krugman for a while, I turn to Brad DeLong, tenured professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Among the graph-heavy, extremely high-level discussion of the financial crisis that I certainly don't understand, I find that he's linked to this Monty Python video:

Don't these professors realize that they are undermining their sacred honor and the dignity of their entire profession by linking to frivolous, superficial 'humorous' commentaries? Don't they see that they are pandering to the basest impulses of the complacent bourgeoisie, who crave the political pacifier of light entertainment? Don't they realize, as Adorno has over and over patiently explained to us, that laughter and jokes have immanent fascistic implications? And DeLong has compounded his sin by even linking to a 'humorous' video that openly mocks the very fundaments of the monotheistic tradition, which even the unchurched must take terribly seriously!

And yet, somehow, their occasional jokes or ironic comments haven't destroyed their reputations. Indeed, Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics. There appears to be at least one country on the face of the earth in which you can be respected for your intellect without bolting yourself into an exoskeleton of stuffiness. Kind of makes me homesick, to tell you the truth...

Germany's Bloggy Backwardness

The Spiegel has a piece (g) called the "The Beta Bloggers" [h/t FJM] on why Germany doesn't have as many good blogs as it should. Few Germans read blogs on a daily basis, and of Germany's roughly 500,000 blogs, only about 200,000 are active.

And many of the ones that are are crap. The Spiegel writers, drawing on both German and American sources, point out a number of problems in the German blogosphere. First, there are relatively few political blogs. Second, the ones that do exist don't do any original reporting or convey new insights; they're generally just platforms for disgruntled Social Democrats/Christians/environmentalists to bitch about some policy or politician they dislike. Third, the German-language blogosphere is filled with thin-skinned malcontents who think that an audience of millions dozens is interested in their childish, invective-fueled online feuds. Fourth, there are relatively few "expert" bloggers -- that is, people who in real life actually have some advantage in knowledge over their readers. There are exceptions of course (you'll find some of them on my sidebar). Overall, though, most of the German blogosphere can  be safely ignored.

Compare that to the USA, the Spiegel authors suggest. Of course, there's all sorts of invective and ignorance in the American blogosphere, but it's also given rise to blogs whose original reporting, thoughtful analysis, or expert insight genuinely contribute to debates over important issues. There are also blogs that serve as potent online rallying-points and fund-raising conduits. Because these blogs are consistently worth reading, they eventually increase in influence to the point where they rival more "official" news sources.  Germany is still light-years behind the USA in this respect, and, the Spiegel suggests, may never catch up.

Do I have theories about Germany's bloggy weaknesses? Did you have to ask?

I Don't Heart Adorno

The New York Sun reviews a new biography of Adorno.  The biography seems to be largely admiring.  The reviewer?  Not so much:

Adorno, who wrote that “even the blossoming tree lies the moment its bloom is seen without the shadow of terror,” would certainly not want to be “hearted.” At best, he would take a grim pleasure in seeing this confirmation of the power of what he named the Culture Industry, which neuters even the most powerful challenges to its domination. And perhaps, it is only fair to add, his vanity would be pleased. For as the wife of Max Horkheimer, his Frankfurt School colleague, once observed, “Teddie is the most monstrous narcissist to be found in either the Old World or the New.”

***

Yet for all the intellectual dexterity Adorno expended in this effort, and all the undoubted insights he gained into history and culture, it is precisely the totalizing nature of his thought that renders it so questionable. With the subtlety of a schoolman, Adorno tried to show how every aspect of 20th-century life was implicated in the same process of alienation, exploitation, and suffering. “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly,” he decreed, and it followed that anyone who believed he was living rightly, or enjoying the “false pleasures” of bourgeois culture, was miserably deluded. Adorno effectively denies the possibility of spontaneity and pluralism, of freedom and new beginnings — in other words, all the human capacities that make genuine humanism possible.

She Blinded Me with Anti-Science

Speaking of brain research, over at Obscene Desserts, The Wife takes issue with a piece by German writer Tanja Dueckers in which Dueckers fulminates against genetic determinism.  Her target is a recent twin study showing that your basic disposition (optimistic, pessimistic) seems to have a significant genetic component.  The mounting scientific evidence in favor of genetic influences on "higher" aspects of being human -- like disposition and personality -- make some people nervous.  The studies are popular targets for commentary by artists and writers, since it (1) allows them to defend "humanity" or "humanism"; (2) while citing all sorts of cool apocalyptic science-fiction (if they get ambitious); and (3) attacking the "engineered futures" being secretly concocted in the dank underground laboratories of the "genetico-capitalist" establishment.  Or, you know, words to that effect.  If you've ever read one of these pieces, you get my drift.  You don't even have to be leftish to endorse these themes; this bandwagon's open to the ultramontane as well.

The Wife points out, though, that Duecker's piece scores 0 points.  I agree, and will now pile on.  First, Dueckers compares contemporary genetic research to 19th-century fads such as phrenology and the study of 'hysteria', and boldly predicts that in 30 or 50 years, "with probability bordering on certainty," we'll have the same attitude toward contemporary brain science.  (I'm not sure how "probability/certainty," a moldy piece of German legalese, crept into Dueckers' column, but will assume charitably that it's been inserted for ironic effect.)  Strange -- 21st century trains, automobiles and computers seem to be more advanced and reliable than their 19th-century counterparts, so I'd cautiously assume the same might just be true of medical research.  Yet Dueckers' only argument for comparing current research to 19th-century quackery is that in each case, the results offend her sensibilities.  Oh wait, that's not an argument!

English Version of Mann's 'Germany and the Germans'?

First, thanks to everybody for the quick answer to the Polish question. Them Kaczynski boys are at it again! Following the wishes of 75% of the Polish electorate, that is.

That aside, I have another bleg for my brilliant, good-looking readers. I'd like to quote portions of Thomas Mann's 1945 address Deutschland und die Deutschen (Germany and the Germans), held in English in the Library of Congress. However, I can only find German versions of this speech, not the English version Mann actually held. The English version is available as a pamphlet from the Library of Congress, but I don't think I'm going to be able to find that in Germany.

Can anyone help me?

Habermas on the Press and the Market

In the Sueddeutsche Zeitung today, Juergen Habermas sounds the alarm (G) about excessive market influence on Germany's quality daily newspapers. In the United States -- once the home of aggressive investigative reporting -- troubling signs have emerged at some of the nation's top newspapers. The Los Angeles Times has been ruthlessly re-organized, and the Boston Globe has closed all of its overseas bureaus. At a time when the U.S. is fighting two wars.

Habermas, whose 1962 Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is considered a classic of modern sociology, warns of a similar process on the horizon in Germany. News and information, he warns, cannot be treated as consumer products.

I note that Habermas does not mention blogs or other online information sources even once during the entire piece. Yes, blogs are still in their infancy and, and their influence is often exaggerated by fans. Still, Habermas' lack of curiosity about this looming transformation is disappointing. That caveat aside, Habermas, as usual, makes interesintg points. Excerpts, translated by yours truly:

TV as “Toaster”

This argument about the special character of the product “education” and “information” reminds one of the slogan that was heard in the USA when television was introduced: This new medium, it was said, was nothing more than a "toaster with pictures." This implied that there was nothing wrong with leaving the production and consumption of television programs exclusively to the marketplace. Since then in the USA, media enterprises create television programs for viewers and sell the attention of their audiences to advertising buyers.

Wherever it has been generally introduced, however, this organizing principle has inflicted political and cultural devastation. Our [German] “dual” television system is an attempt at damage control. The media laws of the various German states, the relevant decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, and the programming guidelines of the public broadcasting agencies reflect the idea that the electronic mass media should not merely satisfy the consumer’s easily-commercialized need for entertainment and distraction.

Listeners and viewers are not only consumers -- not only market participants – but also citizens with a right to participate in cultural life, observe political events, and contribute to the process of opinion formation. On the basis of this legal framework, programs which secure the population a relevant “basic package” of information cannot be made dependent on advertiser-friendliness and their ability to attract sponsored support.

...

Gustav Seibt on German Iraq Hawks

Gustav Seibt (G) wrote yesterday in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung about people who get very little attention outside of Europe: West Europeans who supported the invastion of Iraq in 2003. In The Disaster of the Hawks (G), Seibt names names, and draws some spot-on conclusions:

The majority of the war's supporters -- with Herfried Muenkler as a prominent exception -- never occupied themselves with Iraq, international law, or the opportunities or risks of a war in the Middle Eastern context at all. The vast majority of the arguments for the war were based on European experiences of the last two or three generations. Thus, people wrote about second-order subjects such as pacifism and anti-Americanism, about appeasement and anti-Semitism, instead of talking about the real topic itself.

They primarily occupied themselves with broad historical analogies: the desirable overthrow of Saddam was compared unthinkingly to the struggle against Hitler, the democratization of Iraq with the democratization of West Germany or Japan after the Second World War. They compared the chance of a democratizing effect on the entire Middle East to the end of the Eastern Bloc and the quick establishment of civilian democracies there afterward. They had plenty to say about many things, with one exception -- the inner situation of present-day Iraq.

***

...The rubble of the Iraq War needs to be cleared away before we can continue an even halfway-credible debate. Nobody should be glad that writers such as Wolf Biermann, Gyoergy Konrad, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Hans-Ulrich Gumbrecht, and Karl-Otto Hondrich, "liberal hawks" like Paul Berman and Michael Ignatieff, and even reasonable observers such as Ralph [sic] Dahrendorf and Herfried Muenkel erred in so many points. One should also credit some authors, such as Konrad and Gumbrecht, for the fact that they have generously conceded their errors in the meantime.