mahr'svierteljahrsschriftfürästhetik
7 (2004), Nr.3/September
Aesthetica
Bashing the Geisteswissenschaften and what the Feuilleton should
observe when doing it. Open Letter to the publishers, to the chief
editor and to two editors of „Die Zeit“. 51243 Characters.
Mr. Schmidt!
Mr. Joffe!
Mr. Naumann!
Mr. di Lorenzo!
Mr. Greiner!
Mr. Jessen!
With reading the headlines on page 1 of “Die Zeit”,
issue Nr. 18 of past April 22: „Kultur, ihr Trottel! Die Geisteswissenschaften in der Krise: Sie müssen
sich ändern - oder sie werden untergehen“ („Culture, you idiots! Humanities in
crisis: They must change - or they will perish“) I received a shock indeed.
Scholar of the humanities that I am I immediately turned to the announced
„Feuilleton Spezial“ on
pages 45 to 48. The effect of the shock stayed with me after having read not
only these pages but what was to follow in the next months. Now after some time
has elapsed, I will try to see what made me and others suffer that bash so
badly and at the same time draw your attention to a more perceptible shape of
what that bash consisted of. For these reasons I will refer as precisely as
possible to all the texts that contributed to the debate from April 22 to May
13 including your, Mr. Naumann’s, first take off on
December 4, 2003, and the articles „Die Zeit“ published on September 9 and 23 returning to the repressed
as a follow up now concerning one particular Geisteswissenschaft
in a more detailed perspective.
Now I look again at page 1 incriminated. Was it George W. Bush and his
brilliant suit wearing secretary team that stared and seemed to shout out (by
gaze) from that eye catching Annie Leibovitz/Contact/Agentur
Focus photograph you layed out to the left of the
sentence? No. Since it was presented as quotation, was it a shout out by
another invisible team member right besides secretary of defense
Donald Rumsfeld? Maybe. In
fact with this headline put together from the articles of you, Mr. Greiner, and
Mr. Spiewak the „Feuilleton Spezial“ was equipped with a formula provocative enough.
I enter my reflections with referring to Mr. Spiewak’s
article first. The crisis of the humanities is permanent, but philologists of
the Greek or Roman period (so called „Altsprachler“)
- for man of more rude business Martin Spiewak
somehow a scapegoat species destined to be soon extinct - „still live and do so
quite well“. Mr. Spiewak says it as if police has
neglected to remove them from the public.
This is the basic tone of Mr. Spiewak’s and of
your, Mr. Greiner’s, opening articles. Spiewak says
that there are 20.000 faculty members and 2.500 theses (no percentage given)
and 250 Privatdozenten applying for a vacant post. He
does not say what all this means and does not provide figures for areas beyond
the humanities. Mr. Frei deserves credit for
articulating Mr. Spiewak’s use of populist
stereotypes and remembering that measures like the cancellation of christmas money at his University
at
Here I need to mention the case attempted to make by Mr. Lau in his
article. Although his role in closing the „Feuilleton Spezial“
was obviously destined to calm down the unpleasant feelings possibly caused by
Mr. Spiewak and you, Mr. Greiner, he too bashes
scholars of the humanities. As Mr. Lau reports Berlin’s secretary of the
finances intends to shut down whole departments at the Freie
Universität (FU), that is departments that are not „standortrelevant“, not „important for the location“. To be
struck are the departments of German, Roman and comparative literature, of theater, Byzantine and Greek studies the latter department
located in one of those more or less run down villas of which the FU is also
liked by many. To remind Mr. Lau in case he doesn’t know: When the university
was founded after World War II with little money the villas were a guarantee
for inspiring family-like campus atmosphere when nobody would have thought of chronical underfinancing or money
for renovation. Today the shabby houses are impertinently used by Mr. Lau’s
context as a symbol for an alleged overall decay of university faculty itself.
Considering the situation with more distance and less prejudice Mr. Frei informs us that everyday splendour and misery may
consist of university buildings (at Bochum) that are
like Kabul’s run down center although unlike Kabul,
as he says, to enjoy renovation and be it for a time span of 10 years. The step
not far away from Mr. Lau’s way of proceeding would be calling forth a figure
like Terminator, now governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger saying „I
will clean up house“.
Back to Mr. Spiewak. He claims that
there is no canon anymore what Mr. Frei is even willing
to confirm but to my surprise Mr. Thomas E. Schmidt in the „Die Zeit“ doesn’t who regrets that there still is a lack of
literary tradition with respect to German classicism, to which - with the
normative power of the factitious - the discipline Germanistik
has become careful. On the other hand Germanistik has
become confident with the success of acquiring a high number of students or research
grants and with the achievements of good editory
work, working through the Nazi past and the methodology of „Verstehen“.
This „Die Zeit“ itself
testifies to with the contribution of Mr. Martin Seel
on the latter topic.
All this explains in the meantime that Mr. Spiewak
does not give empirical evidence. Besides Mr. Spiewak
should remember the long debate about canons and „the“ canon
of German literature conducted in „Die Zeit“ during the
late 1990es. However after some time elapsed and as if nothing had happened
„Die Zeit“ surprisingly proposed a canon and it did
so again with a canon designed for students below or on high school level. Today
when media in general and with all sorts of digital archives show an encreasing demand for bestseller lists „Die Zeit” like other newspapers is more than eager to
correspond – in times when advertising collected works of Hölderlin
or Schiller have gone for good also in „Die Zeit“.
The second claim unproven by Mr. Spiewak is
that with Pierre Bourdieu distinction values with
studying Geisteswissenschaften have faded away. Moreover
with reference to another sociologist (more of science than of the humanities)
Peter Weingart and again without further explanation Spiewak says that the so called „social treaty for the sciences
(Wissenschaften)“ is in
question today. This treaty is probably considered by Mr. Spiewak
to be something like a „treaty of generations“ that is nowhere to be found and
expresses but an exaggeration of distrust toward the sciences. Similarly Mr. Beckermann doubts that construction. Furthermore a so
called Dohnany-Kommission - explained by Mr. Spiewak only later on August 19 - , a Berlin Finanzsenator and „consequentely“
- how come? - still autonomous universities cut
expenses. „If they did not they would have missed their job.“
(„Würden sie es nicht tun, hätten sie
ihren Job verfehlt.“) That is an outrageous claim again done without any
evidence. There may be no doubt about increasing competition among university diciplines as is the case among ever smaller social parts everywhere
else. But it is to be doubted that the famously debated profit of academic disciplines
is more than a superficial, ideological value.
Without proof Mr. Spiewak claims that
humanities’ „efficacy outwards is low“ („Ihre Wirkung nach
außen ist gering.“). In face of the studies’ duration, aims and applications
a „Qualitätskontrolle“ – sound
like beef control - seems to be necessary. Mr. Spiewak
thinks to recognize that the predominant aims of humanities are to teach or to become
an academic. That restricts humanities to be providers for knowledge, orientation
or for compensation of modern civilization damages. In his article of August
19, Mr. Spiewak delivers subsequentely
and even more severely that labour market compatibility or marketable knowledge
were the only chance. I would like to tell Mr. Spiewak that a claim repeated and not argued does not
become more true! I wonder what he thinks of Mr. Falk
who replied on May 6 that despite financial shortcomings and the lack of jobs
in and beyond universities students are enthusiastic about their fields, or what
he thinks of Mr. Eberhard on May 6 who reports to
have studied philosophy, works as packer now and still feels faith to
philosophy that discloses the world to him. Mr. Spiewak’s
answer to this unshakable trust in the humanities would perhaps be that the
last thing to be justified is to let people study just for fun or interest
(since leisure has become a pervasive industry). 20 years ago
the state and even more so the media didn’t care about. Today we have to
fight for the right of free access to knowledge, and this encloses the
institutional instrument of the university including the Geisteswissenschaften
– keeping in mind that fun with knowledge is different from the pleasure caused
by a cake. Accordingly
Although it is primarily of concern for high schools Mr. Spiewak in his first article brings up the
No evidence is further given for the claim that humanity scholars are
only engaged with preserving their prebends. What an imputation!
Obnoxious the remark that humanities are not awarded - meant to be: do not
deserve - the Nobel prize or patents, a statement
particularly unfair since the Nobel prizes have not been designed for the Geisteswissenschaften as Spiewak
knows very well. (Gentlemen, advise Chancellor Schröder
to install a Nobel prize for the humanities!) The
conditions for the literature Nobel prize awarded to
philosophers two times were by the way quite different. It was Henri Bergson who enjoyed the short period open concept of
literature of the Nobel committee. And Jean Paul Sartre was selected as
acclaimed dramatist, novelist and essayist and less so for his achievements in
philosophy and the humanities proper. Quite to the contrary of Mr. Spiewak’s claim that humanities lack evaluation he equally is
supposed to know that the peer review system is not only used for sciences but
also for humanities as with important journals and research funding
institutions like the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG).
Mr. Greiner! On a higher level you point out the fact that unlike the
church or the national state the liberalized administration state withdraws as the
protection power („Schutzmacht“) for universities. I
am afraid of that it is this kind of protection that private businesses are not
willing to take. Particular business interest is opposite to the universal character
of knowledge. However this alarming change is unfortunately no reason for you
to take sides or develop an attitude.
Also be aware of an important linguistic feature, that of „Nutzen“. It may be rendered either as „use“ or as „profit“
which not necessarily means financial profit as the words „Profit“ or „profitieren“ primarily mean in German. In turn when „use“ is asked from the Geisteswissenschaften
very often „Profit“ is wanted. As you say correctly social (non-private?)
use-and-profit, Nutzen, is only seen with the
sciences („Naturwissenschaften“), hence the
appreciation in the public they enjoy. What is your attitude here? It shows that
you are not free from ressentiment when you
ambiguously say - with joy at the humanities’ misfortune? - that
humanities are sciences for the past, „Vergangenheitswissenschaften“.
I take it, this coinage is not intended for methodology which the debate lacks
to a high extent (don’t excuse it with your audience!). Here Mr. Beckermann is of use. He insists on the fact that the use
of Geisteswissenschaften needs to be recognized with
distinguishing it from their quality. Use of humanities, he says, is
characterized by the achieving of enlightening aims, by passing on tradition,
by confronting with art. Quality is debatable, and your debate is necessary in
this respect! But by sticking with these aims and abstaining from the
fallacious conclusion from low quality to the various uses the argument becomes
pale and looses justification. That is right, to be precise: Down at the bottom
all contributors, maybe with the exception of Mr. Spiewak,
show belief in uses of the humanities more or less – uses, plural, phantastic! A sole prime value „use/profit“ – which is a chimera - means endangering culture with
impoverishment, as Becker says. What about quality? The painful procedure is required
to single it out, case by case. Do we have studies, reports on the Geisteswissenschaften in this respect? It doesn’t seem so.
Whereas other print media, leave the internet, provide their readers with
additional information on literature or internet sources, „Die Zeit“ is as pure of information as
Kant’s critique never hasn’t been. Also you say, who enters competition with
science has already lost as can be seen with programs of Kulturwissenschaften
that are focused on economic applications. Your recipe against that failure is
surprisingly simple. Instead of the analysis of idioms, media consumption or
gender discourse - topics attracting money from the DFG (suspicious per se, Mr.
Greiner?) - departments of literature, you suggest,
should deal with literature itself.
Literature itself? Here we go. Consider as an
example for a return of tasks unachieved the continuation of the debate on the
field of one of the humanities: Germanistik. Let me
devote the following three paragraphs to the debate that took place on September
9 and 23 with the contributions by Mr. Thomas E. Schmidt, Mr. Jens Jessen, Mr. Peter Bürger and Ms.
Birgit Dahlke.
Ms. Dahlke is right with complaining that the
history of German Democratic Republic has not been included into the picture by
Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jessen. She does so with
particular reference to Mr. Thomas E. Schmidt in his attack on „Die erschöpften Germanisten“ („Exhausted Germanisten“). Yes,
Mr. Schmidt does not take notice of the seminars of former communist republic
that dealt exactly with the controversial aesthetic he longs for at the end of
his article alluding to old authority Wilhelm Dilthey.
Published in our days by the way by pocket book series publisher Reclam housed not in Stuttgart but in Leipzig, it was Dilthey, this forerunner of Martin Heidegger and Hans Georg Gadamer who demanded that
philosophical aesthetics takes possession of the minds of critics in order (!)
to establish a fictitious ego of society. What Mr. Schmidt marks as a loss - a
theory of the aesthetic that stimulates literature studies - enjoyed a
respectable research tradition beyond 1970es Germanistik
in
Against this background Mr. Thomas E. Schmidt’s stance looks
woolly. Although he mentions to have
observed with Germanistik a lack of new hypotheses
about Goethe due to an obedience to idea fashions the
target of his attack are the 1970es. At that time the New Left, he claims,
contaminated the tradition with socio-political relativism and in consequence
established - against literature itself (!) - a so called „Versozialwissenschaftlichung“
(a „conversion of humanities and practice with the methodology of social
sciences“) followed by postmodernist theories and methods - or - as you, Mr. Jessen, have it - a marxist
orthodoxy only to be disillusioned by the 1980es. Since a few years and with
the abandonment of publicity Mr. Schmidt recognizes a turn with German literature
studies: the emergence of new philological and theoretical rigour and of a
history of ideas without „Weltanschauung“ (ideology). Because of the 1970es attitude against „werkimmanent“ interpretations („immanent to the singular
work“) Mr. Schmidt argues that with this recent turn in literature studies a
transitory as well as political/historical aesthetic should be taken into consideration
again.
It is regular „Zeit“ contributor Peter Bürger - whose „Theory of the Avantgarde“
published 25 years ago Mr. Schmidt did not refer to - was so cool to respond. As
there are much more serious dangers, he says – the shut down of university
departments and books stores, the shortage of library budgets, the publisher
crisis - , for which purpose do the 1970es serve as enemy, he wants to know. For
scholars since then established quite a variety of methods, schools and wrote
important books. Alright, think of Friedrich Kittler, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Heinz Schlaffer, Gert Mattenklott or Christa Bürger, she herself giving a report about that time in her
scientific memoir published only a year ago. Mr. Bürger
is impressively lists the controversial character of 1970es’ marxism, the qualitative progress brought by theory, the
influence of Luhmann, finally the programmatic
„socio-historical dissolution of literary contradiction“ with Heinz Schlaffer - only to claim that this ongoing debate was happily
focused in paradigmatic Frankfurt school critical theory that, for Mr. Bürger, entails an aesthetic of form as introduced by early
20th century’s style studies of Leo Spitzer and Erich Auerbach,
by Russian formalism and early Georg Lukács’s category of the social as form.
I only summarize this little debate about Germanistik
to show that there is little respect concerning the actual discipline on behalf
of „Die Zeit”. A quick visit to the website of annual
Germanistentag held only a few days after the
communication of your, Mr. Jessen’s, and Mr. Schmidt’s
contributions would have revealed that the concept of German literature nowadays
is stretched to the utmost. That umbrella term „German literature” has arrived
at the status of a linguistic entity that demonstrates the turn to a general „science”
of German communication that will be experienced by some as dangerous, for
instance by Mr. Jessen or, you, Mr. Greiner who seems
to stick with a traditional German aesthetic embodied in high literature. Let
me put it in terms of your newspaper structure. What appears to be a secret
competition between the sections „Feuilleton“/„Literatur“
might have a parallel in the tension of geisteswissenschaftliche
Germanistik and kulturwissenschaftliche
German literature studies whose real place in „Die Zeit”
should be extend at least to the section „Leben”. This new constellation of literature and
culture is not even excluded by the hermeneutics of Mr. Seel
who declares that by their textual nature the Geisteswissenschaften
are sciences of action - sociology and psychology included - that connect us to
the world which again leads us to include the sciences of nature. Scientists in
reasoning and thereby working on man’s self comprehension themselves require
forms of understanding. Mr. Seel does not say it, but
at this point we may recognize that the whole debate of „Die Zeit” goes wrong as long as it does not take into account
the fundamental interdisciplinarity that
characterizes all sciences today. We probably would have profited more from a
debate about the whole spectrum of university with extending it to the pages of
the section „Wissenschaft“. The Naturwissenschaften,
sciences proper, had a similar debate years ago, the
affaire Sokal. And that for instance zoology not
directed to genetic applications has to battle for money in the university
cosmos shows that the problem of the humanities are
not restricted to themselves.
Of respect, Mr. Greiner, you detect less and less today for Geist and the arts. The way you put it sounds peculiar. Are
you going to say that literature departments are to account for that loss? Is
it respectful to state „that someone is allowed to do research on Karl Gutzkow with public money“ („dass einer auf Staatskosten über Karl Gutzkow forschen darf“), a reproach done by you on the basis of the simple
fact of a student’s writing a thesis at the university - where otherwise? - not even knowing whether he or she uses public funds for the
project as such. Your expression is as demagogical and loaded with ressentiment that it would have been criticized as example
of antiintellectualism by the author to whom „Die Zeit“ devoted much space last year
on the occassion of his anniversary, Theodor W. Adorno.
All this said doesn’t mean that I do not agree with you. Many university
departments - but not only department devoted to the humanities - have become
„learning factories“. Also granted that latin
as lingua franca vanished. But you should also mention that anglomania
not only affects Geisteswissenschaften cut off from
tradition, affects the ineffable and - what do you mean exactly? – the origin („Ursprüngliches“). I’d
rather say, it affects German speaking society as a
whole.
How come your morality? „Mangel an Stolz ist wohl
das größte Problem“ („a lack of pride is the biggest problem“) you say. Should
the humanities bring a gain of „decency and dignity“ as
you put it supposing thereby that the humanities have failed and become
indecent? Should it not be instead Schiller’s grace and dignity (Anmut und Würde) as opposed to
Win(c!)kelmann’s
simplicity and greatness (Einfalt und Größe) who characterized them by way of the ancient Greeks.
An increase of „Anstand und Würde“ here would require exactly the acknowledgement that media
like „Die Zeit“ are too avaricious to spend.
I do not agree with you in saying cynically that because of a necessary
disillusioning of humanities enthusiasm about the future should be reserved to
fantasies of breeding, to new economies and new world orders. I do agree with
you to some degree when in taking pattern from Freud‘s return of the repressed
you ascribe to the humanities a task that seems to me a bit too defensive and,
with focus on religious tradition, too conservative. The task, you suggest anyway,
is to keep ready what is threatened to be forgot and what may resurface for
instance as (some of!) the muslims’ resistance
against modernization and democracy. This is true as was Ernst Bloch’s famous
objection to Lukács in the early 1930es reminding him
and the Communist Party of the seemingly „backward“ mentality of disappointed laborers and peasants that in face of Nazi ideology should
have been represented in party programs. Be there political awareness as much
as possible with the humanities as is required you concede - with some relief
to me and the humanities, alas! - it is primarily politics
and not the humanities that should be concerned with that keeping ready of remembering
the past when usually „Politics fails at the underrated power of cultural
imprints and traditions.“ („Politik
scheitert an der unterschätzten Macht kultureller Prägungen und Traditionen.“)
As was noticed only by von Müller it was you,
Mr. Naumann, and not Mr. Spiewak
who really introduced the debate already in December 2003. Your contribution
back then was, as you surely will have felt, unfortunately not taken as
seriously as it would have derserved. Although not
entirely free from demagogy like Spiewak’s articles your
reflections proceeding from the „Strukturreform der Hamburger Hochschulen“ („reform of universities in Hamburg“) and its 50 % cut of
humanity departments as a whole in favor of the
sciences are valuable inasmuch as they take serious what is threatened to be
forgot as a phenomenon and a regional concept by globalized
education industry: Bildung. By the way, that the
word „reform“ is used only one more time in all the contributions here shows
that we already have entered a new stage where everybody is fed up with reform
(because of its permanancy?) instead of starting with
a real one. True, administrative measures don’t breath
the spirit of a general debate on the Geisteswissenschaften
as is also the case with (EU-anticipatory obedience to?) modularized bachelor
and master programs and the junior professorship that Mr. Frei
readily takes as proofs for the humanities’ will to reform.
Nevertheless, as you Mr. Naumann observe,
humanities from 1900 until today - in Germany of course - keep to the concept
of Bildung. This notion, you tell, contains the
strong medieval connotation of god likeness („Gottesebenbildlichkeit“)
and enlightenment’s improvement of human sociability. This historical condition
elucidates the complexity we attribute to „Bildung“. We
know that the magical word means education, personal formation, individual
development all in one, not to forget the possession of knowledge beyond the
humanities and the arts. Yes, you are right, with this stock of knowledge is
implied a need for liberation, a burden now, you say, too heavy for
universities and too weak as a motor for individual Bildung.
As a matter of fact, you say, it let the Germans go their own way to modernity.
This split of modernity into „Kultur“ („Bildung“) and civilisation, as you show, is particularly
difficult to handle when at the same time political sterilization takes place
in favour of effective education. You think that instead of the pursuit of
happiness important for politics – as in the
Now, which arguments have the defenders of the humanities to bring
forward? It devolves upon Achatz von Müller and Armin Nassehi - since Mr. Lau appeases by sympathetically
featuring career profiles of a few winning or losing prominent scholars of one
university - to lift the debate up to a higher level. One reason to defend the
debate of „Die Zeit“ is Mr. von
Müller.
After dutifully spending his share of poison with referring to Bourdieu - who in his „Homo academicus“ seeked to dismantle the
humanities as a kind of the society’s narcissist self representation by the symbolic
capital of the scientific community – Mr. von Müller
does what historians do best. He gives a historical account. Already the „universitas“ of the 12th century -
notice: that kind of guild that in comparison with parochial or cloister
schools was granted to be an autonomous institution, a guild of knowledge for
superior education - had two cultures. This is an interesting distinction
unfortunately addressed here and elsewhere without reference to the famous C.
P. Snow querelle between the Natur-
and Geisteswissenschaften in the 1950es and 1960es and
former „Zeit“-author Wolf Lepenies’s
fine statement on „Drei Kulturen“
(1985). At stake are with von Müller the medieval trivium with preparatory grammatics,
rhetorics and dialectics and the „scientific“ quadrivium with arithmetics, geometry, astronomy and music. Besides
mentioning the instruction of peaceful disputation by the trivium
v. Müller emphasizes the general profit to be drawn
from the trivium for the „Gemeinwohl“ („common benefit“). Yet these proto-humanities only could have
achieved to prepare by means of general education with the pretense
of curating a mind related to the eternal whereas bodily
nature was the object of the sciences for the purpose to protect from and help
against the failures of our transitory existence. With this divide between mind
(Geist) and bodily nature philosophy, philology and
history became increasingly coded as disciplines of the good and beautiful. That
should in enlightenment proliferate with a „method and critique of all sciences“ (Shaftesbury). Von Müllers deserves particular acknowledgement for pointing at
British moral philosophy that insisted on the social character of the science including
humanities. To them were ascribed the task of improving all social segments (Hume)
and the task of the interaction of self referential, competitive individuals
paradoxically realizing their self-interest with creating common welfare (Smith).
Von Müller makes plausible that from the
enlightenment’s deep trust in humanity only remained two types in 19th century:
the gentleman and the Bildungsnarr, a figure that was
infatuated with knowledge and the high arts. This put university disciplines
increasingly under the pressure of legitimation. Of
course von Müller presupposes a
knowledge of historicism’s strong positivist impact when mentioning
Nietzsche’s critique of the university and Dilthey’s
insistence on the social task of the university in face of recurrent crises. One
might wish to assist von Müller with saying in
retrospect that it didn’t help. The crisis - and von Müller
sounds as if the crisis was dissolved into a mere scholarly phenomenon - is
rather contained in the humanities themselves, he maintains, in specialization,
in a loss of complexity, of orientation knowledge, of problem solving capacity,
and along with you, Mr. Greiner, and others in a neurotic lack of confidence.
With the seven medieval arts the basis of the humanities, it seems to
me, is correctly identified by von Müller. The
narrative he gives is consistent either. It can be extended though. Perhaps it
could take profit from Mr. Nassehi’s reflections when
Mr. Nassehi would say more about his notion of a
„technology of culture“. Mr. Nassehi maintains that
research in the humanities needs to be remote from the „interface“ with economy. He puts himself into the row of complaints
about the minority complex of the humanities as expressed by defensive autodescription on the one hand and conformist emphasis on
criticizing modernization/globalisation and on preserving of a collective
memory, ethics and education (Bildung) on the other. This
attitude makes the humanities leer at the products administration people
demand. Mr. Nassehi includes the social sciences when
he, not unlike Martin Seel, states that the main goal
of the humanities is to „produce ... ciphers of thought and experience“.
There is even more reason to pursue Mr. Nassehi’s
point. He holds that culture is a linguistic „technologicum“ that is able to construct or destruct. Hence the autonomy
of sciences and humanities since the latter, so he says, resemble science by
way of their look as technology center as do, to
illustrate his point, for instance high tech book shelves. Of course this fact contradicts
with the conservative and boring way of illustrating the whole debate by David Ausserhofer/Agentur Joker from April 22 to May 13. (What we
see are, what readers of the „Bild-Zeitung“ maybe
imagine when thinking of parasitic humanities and students fed by fat stipends:
singular, beautifully dressed young students in halls sitting or standing in
front of a statue, a wooden card-index catalogue or wooden shelves with books of
course older than 100 years.) Mr. Nassehi is all the
more right in demanding a sharpened technological confidence. But what does he
mean exactly? The shaping of whole cultures? The creative
industries initiated by the Blair administration? An assessment of the „cultural
technologies’ effects“ by the humanities („Technikfolgenabschätzung der Kultur“)? Here Nassehi wishes to
have a vis-à-vis to speak with, a lack that he explicitly regrets. The „Zeit“ debate that followed had
nobody to offer either.
I take Mr. Nassehi’s hint at technology as vaslable at least in one respect. Be it in overlap with Lepenies’s account or not, I suggest to
think of three kinds of cultures. Mr. Nassehi
apparently thinks about cultures you can shape: mushrooms, creative industries
you support with necessary conditions, for instance well designed cellars or
special urban design activities. Let’s say this is the sociological notion of
culture. We secondly have identitary culture
experienced from individuals within a community and open to being mixed with
other communities. The objects of research here are scrutinized by cultural
studies or Kulturwissenschaften. And thirdly there is
an aesthetic culture aimed at works of high and then also popular arts. With
suggesting to invoke art as a „roof“ notion for the high and popular arts I
would like to remind you of the fact that the „Geist“
of the Geisteswissenschaften in modern times of
course is the „Geist“ communicated and educated by
means of the arts, not by religion. As the humanities only could have been
formed along the spectrum of the beautiful arts and letters in early modern
times therby enabling a collective singular „Kunst“ (art) - this did not at all pop up in the debate – the
evolution of art only could have happened by emancipation from religion. There
is the problem. With falling back in the arms of autonomous powers like
economy, media or religion arts are restricted to express and embody messages serving
cultural identities and to merely being a medium of communication and of
languages as artful as they may be. With this we can now understand the set back of humanities
and criticism. Both of them are inextricably linked with the temporal,
developmental, historical entity called art.
Let me introduce the one of the two fictitious contributors to the
debate, Klaus Theweleit. What Theweleit,
now professor for aesthetic theory at Kunstakademie
Düsseldorf, says about „historisches Bewußtsein“ explains well why the
humanities will even more be caught by crises with the years to come. Theweleit is one of the many - surprisingly nobody of them
involved in the debate of „Die Zeit“ - who are aware
of the challenge that digital technology means to the Geisteswissenschaften.
Because of digital code and a thinking by images and
formulas, he observes, young people today do not develop an understanding for
longer time periods or hierarchical space alphabetically structured as was used
to for instance Johan Cruyff’s soccer team back in
the 1970s. If this is true, says Theweleit, various phenomena
find an explanation: the aversion against reading in general, the difficulty of
developing an idea of linear historicity, the simultaneousness of times with
story arrangements like „Harry Potter“ or „Lord of the Rings“. We may conclude
that the increasing distrust with humanities is linked to the kind of students
he describes. Are teachers of the humanities able to cope with this generation
of students? Do they involuntarily transmit their uneasiness to university faculty
and administration and even to ministries of education? Nothing said about that
in the debate.
A few words about criticism are a must. Criticism?
Gentlemen, that’s your business! Be aware however of moral weeklies like
Addison/Steele’s unmistakable „Spectator“ of published
in
This is the occasion to return to Mr. Spiewak’s
complaint that Germans are not capable enough of writing, a complaint generalized
from schools and universities to a whole country. Is this so? But if so, why is
it so? I cannot but remind you - representants of
„Die Zeit“ - of the
responsibility to do something about it. Why are there so few articles of the
sort of heavy impact „Zeit“ essay
by Geisteswissenschaftler Peter Sloterdijk
in 1999? Also, what do you do fostering young intellectuals in particular in
the field of the humanities. I can tell you, I read
„Die Zeit“ as long as to know
well enogh what I am talking about. According to the
general trend of a closing off by print media - special editors allowing
themselves to write about their hobby horses, ramifying roped editor parties by
exchange between editors for different places - it has obviously become increasingly
difficult to enter the circle of relatively few authors from the outside. It
seems as if editors have become jealous of strong impact (theory) authors. Where
in Germany – not to speak of specialized Feuilleton periodicals - if not in
„Die Zeit“ or a handful of other newspapers should
scholars of humanities write or even learn to write? And what should scholars
write in these newspapers if not articles with a more general scope than to write
short and less ambitious reviews that would have been done by journalist
authors with more wit and accuracy.
Bourdieu would not have ascended to be
a sociologist of his size had he not had the chance to get a chance in the
Paris Feuilleton that is comparatively rich even in times of a decline of print
media. I can explain mentioned closure of mind only with a loss of pride that
you should not ascribe to the humanities alone but to yourself too. Where has
„Die Zeit“ gone that itself
was a premium Geisteswissenschaft (it still is to a
certain extent)? I do not only think of authors that may have decided to be
part of humanities. I think of what serves as an empirical basis coming from
the feuilleton sections that is not only valuable for the humanities they can
start from. I think of what finally is delivered to the „Zeit“-Redaktion
as fruits with inspirations – well, of course to be reviewed too! – , of what the humanities have done in the meantime with
the first impulses offered by „Die Zeit“. I do not mean
books only, perhaps also reports before worked out and packed into books. Yes,
the step from the criticism of the arts and everyday life - here again I see
the a share of the section „Leben“ - to the sciences
and humanities that have to deliver new theory in its turn serves as condition
for the making new observations by journalists. You may already have recognized
a particular hermeneutic circle of weeklies and Geisteswissenschaften.
In other words, humanities incite sensibility with their readers by theory,
weeklies provide information and inspiration by a review for instance about
Heinz Schlaffer’s new history of literature or about
a production of contemporary music theatre by Claus Spahn
thereby in its turn causing a new theoretical dynamic. Of course this circle
may be supported by persons contributing on a more regular basis - let’s say
comparative literature professor Peter Bürger,
historian Achatz von Müller,
art historian Martin Warnke, film
studies author Georg Seeßlen
- or persons periodically collaborating as do critic Franz Schuh
and Claudia Herstatt.
Having shed light on this structure it should have become clear by now what
the products of the humanities are. Mr. Assheuer, you
are right, you control what taxes are spent for, why students don’t graduate
and which fruits can be expected. Which objects do you mean? Books?
Knowledge? Intermediate social effects?
Remedies? You claim that Geisteswissenschaften
are not capable of healing by means of high-grade orientation offerings (Sinnangeboten). Now, Mr. von Müller
reminded us of renaissance idea of healing linked with the comforting idea of
the eternal which we don’t have today. Are the humanities therefore the
sauerkraut in the cellar as you cynically put it with Niklas
Luhmann.
But you give no reason for this bonmot and even slide
without any reason and taking sides into the track of profit ideology demanded
today.
Again, what is utilizable, „nützliches“ knowledge at all? What is the function of an economy of Bildung that reveals to be of decisive importance for theaters, orchestras, libraries and cultural broadcasting
companies today? Right, we should ask whether the Geisteswissenschaften
need or are able to submit themselves to what you call
the supercode of society? Yes, the intellectual field
of force changed over the last 200 years. Political institutions have become
less important. The university is now more closely tied to the market than
ever, to private foundations and mercantile interests. Whereas Humboldt managed
to protect the Geisteswissenschaften from late feudal
demands, as you remember, it is today’s scholars that can hardly oppose to
science as commercial business ascribing to the humanities the task of service
providers as are for instance Bertelsmann’s profit centers
that urge to perform in bestseller markets and rankings. As Paul Weingart put it, economically structured knowledge society
returns to university (like devouring grasshoppers?). All this doesn’t promise
any good.
Yet finally - thank god! - you caution against
the danger of a loss of thinking and reflection as a whole. With stocks or
profitable discoveries in mind you warn we could loose our sensitivity to
prospective research potential („Zukunftsfähigkeit“)
that cannot be assessed, especially not at the beginning of a research project.
Here it is interesting to see you turn to classical Adam Smith in a way only
slightly different from von Müller’s. Economy cannot
produce its cultural conditions, you say with Smith. Moreover a tension between
cultural and (Horkheimer’s?) instrumental or
economical (?) knowledge needs to be maintained. However as the humanities’
„cultural autonomy consists in passing on and interpreting tradition“ („ihre kulturelle
Autonomie besteht in der Weitergabe und Interpretation
von Überlieferung“) and is entertained only with
questions developed from research, humanities are not restricted, you think
toward Mr. Seel, to a hermeneutics of historical
texts but expected to address actual problems of society. You name just
democracy with unemployment as basic, global violence, the structural arrogance
of liberal societies - Mr. Spiewak was calling for the
topics cultural and social decay (?), migration and globalisation as well as
genetic or brain research - , all of them being features easily to detect with
contemporary politics. Needless to say that these demands are wrapped around an
ethical kernel, the question concerning good life, as you do. From a more
hermeneutic point of view this has already been said by Mr. Seel
in his contribution who holds that practicing and
explaining by understanding belong together in the Geisteswissenschaften
which are sciences of action by the very nature of their texts.
Let me insert the other fictitious contributor. A
current saying is that there are 4 columns of democratic society: legislative
power, executive power, the judicial system and the press. I would like to add
a fifth column: the university. Since it reaches beond
my abilities and aims to discuss the whole matter sufficiently I refer to a
speech delivered a few years ago. One of the things to learn from certainly is a
view toward the internal institutitonal structure of
what is questioned today. In his Presidential Lecture of Stanford University Jacques
Derrida reminds us of the professor’s fundamental „right to declare in the
public whatever there is to say in the interest of an inquiry, a knowledge and
a questioning that are directed to truth“ (retranslation
is mine). Derrida belongs to the very few who - dare to - think about the
future of humanities, and a future of new humanities. As he points out the humanities
– he probably would prefer to talk about instead of the sciences humaines even in French – are in crisis everywhere. So are professors
as such. Nevertheless he wants to found the university on the professor. For it
is obvious that truth and with it the idea of a university of professors is
basically linked with the question concerning man and - on the basis of world
wide human rights - with humanism and the humanities. When Derrida scrutinizes the
„Standort“ for new humanities, he has in mind a place
for a discussion without condition, a place that not only allows to resist but
qualifies to resist against appropriation from the outside. An example for this
may be that consultant agency „Roland Berger takes over the next Goethe edition“,
as Mr. Silvin’s fictitious idea has it ironically. As
Derrida says this specific space has secure the possibility to defend the right
of critiquing powers, the powers of state, economy, of the media, ideologies, of
religion and even culture, all of them powers that could obstruct democracy. Critique
then is a confession, a profession in its own right,
for it belongs to the context of a reconception of
the humanities together with a reconception of their
preserved canons. The right for theory and transgression reveals the profession
of the professors to be a profession with a belief representing the principle
of freedom - by way of constative speech acts - and
presenting this very principle by exercising, practising and executing it - by
way of performative speech acts. In any case, says
Derrida, the new humanities are required to deal with the history and idea of
man.
You have any idea about the new humanities. Derrida doesn’t and I don’t
- right now. But may I say that we should not forget to think of searching them
– be it the only message Derrida delivers?
By approaching slowly but steadily the conclusion of this letter let me
address what is the performative at stake here by way
of a particular example of linguistic performance. You, all of you who remember
the debate, will have missed in my account what Mr. Lau had to say about it. Here
it is.
Well, Mr. Lau‘s overall message is to judge university professors with
respect to the amount of additional research subsidies they acquire from the
DFG as Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB, a network of
scholars funded by the DFG over a period of time) or as prizes like the Leibniz
prize recently won by FU’s dance studies star Gabriele Brandstetter
(Euro 1,55 Mio.). Appropriately he does not discuss the contents of the
achievements upon which are based the proposals for the project but rather to
portray winners or losers. Theatre specialist Erika Fischer-Lichte
is not interviewed by Mr. Lau because he wants to learn what she and her SFB
participants found out and further seek to find. And of Gabriele Brandstetter Mr. Lau has only to tell that she plans to
install a dance lab with recording facilities capable of analyzing data. It is
nearly suggested that universities sustain themselves by extra money with regards
to budget figures Mr. Lau does not tell. This taken as granted the next step
would be to offensively take sponsors thereby enhancing the need and succes of financial performance. It comes worse, as for Mr.
Lau the SFB „Kulturen des Performativen“
directed by Erika Fischer-Lichte at FU - here the
scapegoat is again - is only worth mentioning because of the title’s
„beautifully technical“ („schön technisch“)
sound that is succesful with the DFG as he cynically
puts it. How would he have taxed the succes of technically
sounding „Ästhetik, Pragmatik
und Geschichte der Bildschirmmedien“,
a SFB over the span of 13 years completed in 2000 that was the hotbed of a good
part of today’s German media studies that rank among the leading countries in
the field today - see all the sorts of media related teaching vacancies as
advertised in the section „Chancen“ of „Die Zeit“ whose own information on new media has become
ridiculously little over the last few years. Well, does English humanities
reviewing Mr. Lau not know that German language has no equivalent for the „performative“ (for more than one
reason there is no „Aufgeführtes“, „Aufführerisches“)? Is he not acquainted with seminal John
Austin’s speech act theory that constitutes a good part of today’s discourses
in the humanities?
The pretext is as follows. Singer star Dino with his cabriolet
accidentally passes a little village in the mid west of the
Billy Wilder’s movie challenges moral
reflection, at least it did in 1964. How can Zelda and Orville so easily
forgive each other when they have to live from now on for more than a week with
a relationship burden like this? Yet if they love each other as the movie
suggests they have the basis on which to re/build, even deepen their marriage
and start anew with kissing. With respect to that optimist point of view the
abrupt happy end may be seen either as a product of superficial
Let’s therefore proceed to the fact that former president of the USA
Bill Clinton was advised to pose, for his first campaign for the US presidency,
for photography sitting at his office desk with a sign above him saying „It’s
the economy, stupid!“.
I return to your explanations, Mr. Greiner. You ascribe to politics the
task of keeping ready what is threatened to be forgot and what may resurface in
a dangerous way thereby implicitly suggesting that the humanities could be of
help, that is to understand the „underrated power of cultural imprints and
traditions“? With a reading in this direction I am ready to follow you when you
reject the
Why are we Trottel? You give no answer.
Instead you comfort us mythologically by a noble
task. You invite the Geisteswissenschaften to trace
beings of enigmas. They are involuntarily assisted by the high speed progress
of our times, you say, that produces such a lot of past - well, past, but not
history. It is more likely to be debris against which the angel unfolds his
wings and is carried away by the storm coming arising from the debris. It
doesn’t help. The last passage of your article doesn’t turn the shock away. If
there were more pride, you say, treasures could be discovered in case doubt
does not prevail over the dignity of the disciplines.
It doesn’t help. Not anymore. „Dummerchen“ - „Dummkopf“ - „Idiot“ - „Trottel“? Do more or less soft bashes signify the new
humanities? Are they the new Geist we have to face? -
Are you sensible to linguistic particularities? Yes? Then it is frightening to see
and hear „stupid“ translated with „Trottel“.
Period. The performative
„It’s the economy, stupid!“ that weaves conjuration,
insult and tenderness has evaporated. Twelve years after Clinton’s succes the mutation of the formula to „Es ist die Kultur, ihr Trottel!“ proves that times
have changed with an unmistakable increase of everyday violence, of linguistic
violence as well that does apparently not halt from anything.
What
All three performatives serve in the form of
quotations. In written form they are instructions to be performed and to
perform the performed. No wonder that all these performances, as cultural
signs, superimpose and reinforce themselves. Success! At historical distance we
know that with picturing the proper situation two of them were succesful, although at the expense of morals. Of the third performative we only know (so far) that it lacks a
convincing picture, that it probably will never have one but instead a text and
that there may be reason for the hope that the addressee will be detected by
the context proper to that performative. It is hoped
that the aggression will be sublated, even sublimated
into an object that suits to the endeavour it deserves and that is called the
humanities, moral components included.
You, Mr. Helmut Schmidt, said in the interview you gave for the issue of
„Die Zeit“ that launched the
debate: „For the moment Germans are in the same mood as I am: a bit ill and
subsequently out of humour.“ Let me take this as a final occasion to refer to
the wit, Esprit and intelligence Geist today requires
so badly and the Geisteswissenschaften all the more
so. With this in mind I suggest, let us contribute with our best efforts to
improving instead of bashing them.
With best regards,
Peter Mahr
post scriptum.
This letter in print is
identical with its online version http://h2hobel.phl.univie.ac.at/mahr'svierteljahrs/043f4-2.html. If possible I will
inform contributors and people mentioned of the debate via e-mail. I refer to Thomas Assheuer, Der Wissensunternehmer. Beim
Streit um die Geisteswissenschaften geht es nicht nur um notwendige Reformen.
Es geht darum, die Universitäten an die Interessen der Wirtschaft anzukoppeln,
in: Die Zeit, 13. Mai 2004, S. 60; Ansgar Beckermann,
in: Die Zeit, 6. Mai 2004, S. 18; Peter Bürger,
Wozu Feindbilder? Eine Replik auf Thomas E. Schmidts und Jens Jessens Polemik gegen die Literaturwissenschaft der
siebziger Jahre, in: Die Zeit, 23. September 2004, S. 52; Birgit Dahlke, in: Die Zeit, 23. September 2004,
S. 24; Jacques Derrida, Die
unbedingte Universität, übers. v. Stefan Lorenzer, =
es 2238, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; Markus Eberhard, in: Die Zeit, 6. Mai 2004, S. 18; Susanne Falk, in: Die Zeit, 6. Mai 2004, S. 18;
Norbert Frei, Populismus. Die Ideologie
der Nützlichkeit. Warum man aufhören sollte, die Geisteswissenschaften schlechtzureden, in: Die Zeit, 29. April 2004, S. 42;
Ulrich Greiner, Es ist die Kultur,
ihr Trottel! Um den Menschen zu verstehen, reichen die Naturwissenschaften
längst nicht aus, in: Die Zeit, 22. April 2004, S. 46; Jens Jessen, Auf den Klassenstandpunkt kames an. Ein germanistisches Vorlesungsverzeichnis aus den
siebziger Jahren, als die Dichter auf ihre politische Haltung reduziert wurden,
in: Die Zeit, 9. September 2004, S. 50; Jörg Lau, Gold unterm Rost. Die FU war marode. Jetzt wird sie
reformiert. Ein Rettungsbericht, in: Die Zeit, 22. April 2004, S. 48; Achatz von Müller,
Selige Apathie. Welchen Nutzen haben Germanistik, Philosophie oder
Kunstgeschichte? Die Geschichte einer falsch gestellten Frage, in: Die Zeit,
22. April 2004, S. 47; Armin Nassehi, Wasser auf dem Mars, Leben auf der Erde. Warum die
Sozialwissenschaften nützlicher sind, als ihre Kritiker ahnen, in: Die Zeit, 6.
Mai 2004, S. 38; Michael Naumann,
Bildung - ein deutsche Utopie. Wie ein Begriff der mittelalterlichen Mystik zum
Generalthema der Pädagogik wurde und warumwir uns
davon noch nicht erholt haben, in: Die Zeit, 4. Dezember 2003, S. 45; Thomas E.
Schmidt, Die erschöpften
Germanisten. Erst warfen sie sich dem Zeitgeist an den Hals, jetzt verkriechen
sie sich. Die Literaturwissenschaftler haben die Ideologie abgeschüttelt, aber
auch die Literatur aus den Augen verloren. Ein Krisenbericht vor dem Münchner
Germanistentag am 12. September, in: Die Zeit, 9. September 2004, S. 18f.;
Martin Seel,
Weltverstrickt. Das Verstehen. Über den Sinn der Geisteswissenschaften, in: Die
Zeit, 22. April 2004, S. 48; Thomas Silvin, in: Die Zeit, 27. Mai 2004, S. 20; Helmut Schmidt, Leben in Deutschland
(Interview von Moritz Müller-Wirth, Theo Sommer und Martin Spiewak),
in: Die Zeit, 22. April 2004, S. 66; Martin Spiewak, Rettet euch selbst,
sonst tut es keiner. Die Geisteswissenschaften sind für die Zukunft schlecht
gerüstet. Sie müssen sich ändern. Oder untergehen, in: Die Zeit, 22. April
2004, S. 45f.; Martin Spiewak, Hamburger Radikalkur.
Geisteswissenschaftler werden künftig nicht mehr gebraucht, in: Die Zeit, 19.
August 2004, S. 27; Klaus Theweleit, Tor zur Welt. Fußball als Realitätsmodell,
= KiWi 830, Köln: Kiepenheuer
& Witsch 2004.
Peter Mahr © 2004
back to top of page: Rhizography
back to: Letter