Pubished at Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New York
Twelve years after the German reunification, the “Day of German Unity” has become a national holiday. The national unity of recent Germany is still under quite some scrutiny though. Maybe not so much the political constellation, but the social, economical and cultural discrepancies between East and West-Germany. When it comes to many social indicators – like the unemployment rate, the standard of living or the attitude towards politics – the respective side of the former German-German border is still a factor that speaks volumes. Still, these structural differences in daily life are not always very visible or noticeable. The differences between most (inner)cities and villages in the eastern part of Germany are only recognized as different than their western counterparts by a very trained eye. Such can be seen as a astonishing development in a region that, twelve years ago and as a independent DDR-state, was seen as a schoolbook example for the realistic existence of socialism and in that role was the natural counterpart of the liberal market economy.
When considering the failures and successes of the reunification process, the final verdict almost seems to depend on personal attitude, political orientation and, again, the ethno-regional origin. “Ossies” and “Wessies” judge the successes of the unification very differently in many respects. One of the central questions that comes forward from the integration processes in many areas is whether, under the East-German population, there is (in spite) starting to exist a stabile loyalty towards the unified republic. An important indicator for this is the collective identity development that specifically aims at spacious dimension. These are the questions that formed the reason for writing this book.
Because of the “joining” of the DDR it was practically unavoidable that many institutions and structures would be combined or at least equated. Such a massive fusion process was already described by Michael Hechter; in this case the Celtic surroundings of England (Scotland, Wales and Ireland). Hechter presented two extreme models concerning form and progress of the integration process. First, he describes a fusion-model whereby a national development takes place. The constant interaction between the core and the periphery of a state leads to an (automatic) fading of the (economical) differences between the regions. This points to a form of assimilation. In his alternative model known as the internal colonialism the meddling of the core in the periphery in stead leads to an ongoing dependency relationship. Apart from economical dependence this can thereafter lead to a situation in which the meaning of ethno-regional identity – especially inside the periphery – is emphasized; eventually leading to minority formation.
In chapter 3 this leads to the following operationalized definition of a problem:
1) How did the social position of East Germans develop? Did the social transformation of East-Germany lead to an effective integration of East-German institutions and persons, or is there, even twelve years after the “Wende”, still a structurally disadvantaged position of this ethno-regional group? Is there, by this analysis of the incorporation, a recognizable difference between local contexts?
2) To what degree does the institutional plurality offer opportunities / chances for the formation of an ethno-regional or regional identity? Whereto did this lead and in what degree do the results differ considering the local context?
3) What consequences do the above named processes have on the collective loyalty towards the German state, and respectively her territorial divisions? Is the (ethno)regional identification linked to the development of a ‘nested identity'? And what are the chances for a realisation of loyalty that turns itself against the federal republic and leads to a formation of an east German minority?
By the search for answers on the named questions concerning integration, identification and loyalty this book clearly distinguishes between East-Berlin and Chemnitz (in the state of Saksen). This explicit difference is important because the local circumstances are very different and thereby possibly influential on the development of identity and loyalty. Berlin – the capital of “Unified Germany” - on one hand forms a melting pot of “East” and “West” and therefore is also known as the laboratory of German uniyt. Chemnitz on the other hand represents, in quantity and in quality, a much smaller influence from the old unified republic. One could say it developed itself more in the shadows of the transformation process.
The concrete analysis of the integration and identification process was mainly concentrated around three sociological areas: politics, employment and education. These areas represent essential instruments for the development of a national or regional identity on one side, while on the other side they are indicative for the success of such a social-cultural group formation. Thus do national, regional and local policy on the named areas create the possibilities and limitations to change or maintain regional identification marks. Identification marks that, in the East-German context, possibly (also) find their origin in the DDR-past. The question then is what importance must be given to the collective identification of the former DDR and following that, whether “feeling different” and to be perceived by others as “different” – bound by an objectively analysable disadvantaged social position – can be consolidated over several generations. In this last case one could honestly describe East-Germans as an (ethno-regional) minority.
The research material that finally lead to this analysis was collected in several ways. Two fieldwork periods of six months in both Berlin as well as Chemnitz where essential. There were many conversations and interviews that created a picture of the lives and workings of many individuals and organisations. By use of participating observations a view of all kind of facets of (public) life was secured. Other research came from secondary sources like statistics, databases, documentation, scientific literature and newspaper and magazine articles.
Chapter four describes the metamorphosis that took place after the Wende in East-Germany. At the time the SED – the socialist unity party of the DDR – was like a spider in its web and, in that capacity, had a literal and decisive influence on nearly all aspects of social life (even the other political parties in parliament had to justify themselves to the SED), but in the recent political climate the dialog between interest groups, media and voters counts most. The political dialog between these different agencies and individuals also has a certain ethno-regional dimension. Origin from “East” or “West” is often a factor that plays a part in the imaging.
Already while the turnover process was taking place, so even before the political unification, it was mainly the parties and politicians from the old federal republic who determined the political climate in the still-then-DDR. The oppositional civilian movements of the DDR and the short-lived attempts to walk a third road between capitalism and state socialism, got the worst of it as a result of the euphoric mood that the falling of the wall brought about. The majority of the population considered the socialistic experiment as failed, and, to the specific East-German situation, the old federal republic offered institutions, orders, legislation and willingness to import her reasonably successful ‘ready-made-state' into the east. Judging the election results of march 1990 a majority of East-Germans agreed and a quick unification of both Germanies would create the best conditions for a radical new beginning and, moreover, a fast economical development.
Ultimately the ‘Wende' lead, amongst other things, to the combining of several East-German political parties and (interest) groups with West-German sister parties. This amalgamation of political movements usually resulted – in spite of quota regulations that should guarantee a certain equal level of representation - in an unequal representation of established executives from the old federal republic. Also, the construction of regional representations from “together German” agencies and organisations in East-Germany made that a one-sided import of more or less experienced specialists from the old BRD took up leading positions. This usually happened on the basis of their superior knowledge concerning the functioning of the western society and market economy.
The only party that survived after the unifications of both Germanies as a typically East-German phenomenon was the PSD; the party that arose from the SED in 1989. During the nineties this party was, mostly because of these historic roots, not considered as a serious interlocutor for political coalitions on federal level. On the level of the new states though, the party over and over again gained relatively good election results and therefore she could (sometimes even as the second party of the concerning state) play a significant role. In several states the PSD could even take on governmental responsibility.
Characteristic for politics in the “new federal countries” during the first decennium after the Wende is not only the growing importance of the PDS; also the other parties on state, city and neighbourhood level where increasingly defined by East-German politicians. In spite of this, the positions of ministers are, even twelve years after the fall of the wall, mostly occupied by politicians of West-German origin.
However, there is a distinction in the appreciation of these politicians in Berlin-East and Chemnitz respectively. Politics in Berlin is dominated by a big coalition of the CDU and SPD – a coalition that explicitly distanced itself from the PDS – while in Saksen the CDU governs with a stabile majority administration. In both departments West-German politicians take up the key positions. A situation that, given the ethno-regional construction of the electorate in Berlin, is easier to understand there than in Saksen. An interesting result is that the Berlin Senate and the House of Representatives represent both East and West-Berliners, while the Saksen government represents an almost exclusively East-German population.
Because of this, the Saksen government can easily aim at specific properties of the Saksen population and can thereby be more or less autonomous in relation to the federal republic as a whole. In Berlin on the other hand, the ethno-regional dimension (originated in east or west) almost always plays an implicit role in the political landscape, even if it's only with the eye on the next election results that have to be attained in both East- and West-Berlin. How is this ethno-regional origin factor expressed in politics when it comes to concrete areas like employment and schooling?
Chapter five centres on one of the themes that became a core point in politics after the Wende – especially with regards to the new counties – namely the employment market. After being a part of the “Counsel for Mutual Economical Help” (RGW, better known in the western world as the COMECON) for several decennia, the joining of the DDR to the BRD meant joining the social market economy. Despite the massive subsidizing that came along with this process, a lot of companies could not be protected from bankruptcies. The large-scale privatisation did not only mean that some branches of industry totally disappeared, it especially made production be rationalized, resulting in a fast growing unemployment rate.
The transformation of the economy did not only take care of private, financial investments from the old federal republic, the west also greatly influenced the changes on a personal level. First, 85 percent of the privatised production capacity in the new counties fell into West-German hands (10 percent in foreign hands), after which also the management of these (mostly production orientated) companies was taken over by experienced workers from the West. Interest groups that specifically focused on economical development and the employment market, like Chambers of Commerce and trade unions, were also re-shaped into a West-German model, supervised by branch organisations from the old federal republic. All in all the economical transformation of East-Germany can be viewed as a schoolbook example of horizontal incorporation, whereby relatively few difference exists between this process in Berlin and, respectively, Chemnitz.
Like in the whole of East-Germany, Berlin and Chemnitz have an above average unemployment rate. Still, there are significant differences between the cities. In Berlin the fall of the wall amounted to a unification of the employment market with, as a consequence, sizable work and living-traffic between both halves of the city. The interweaving of the Berlin employment market gave rise to a certain levelling out of working conditions. Besides the fact that the average income of East-Berliners has adjusted more to those in the old counties – especially that in West-Berlin - the unemployment rate is also comparable (thus shows that the unemployment rate in West-Berlin is also above average). Even though there is still a difference in some branches when it comes to the primary, but mainly also the secondary employment conditions in East and West-Berlin, the general accessibility of the entire employment market in Berlin makes sure the average social-economical situation of East-Berliners is settled between that in West-Berlin and that in the rest of the new counties.
In Chemnitz, where the average wages and working conditions are worse than in Berlin, there is a larger homogeny concerning these conditions. In spite of more flexible administered collective agreements that where cause for a larger diversity of working conditions, the differences in income here are not simply linked to the location of the workplace. There are no special regulations or agreements that differentiate in relation to the geographical location of the workplace. Even though there is, more than in Berlin, a question of a clear ethno-regional partition – wherein the “Wessies” take up the top-positions almost without exception – there still is, also because of this fact, less cause to make a distinction between “Ossies” and “Wessies”. Only with executive personnel and working migrants that are actively looking for work in one of the old counties does the competition between East and West play a role. But because there is no direct competition between “Ossies” and “Wessies”, in the majority of the local employment places, the mobilisation power of this factor is limited.
Especially on the local employment market in Berlin there are relatively many direct contacts between East and West. In spite of the structurally diminishing inequality on the Berlin employment market – which is mostly a sign of the progressing structural integration of East-Berliners – this in general does not go together with an increased contentment over this ruling situation on the employment market. The ongoing relative deprivation that East-Berliners experience on the local employment market – in spite of the structural levelling off – thereby remains a mobilising factor. For the personal judgement of the individual employment market situation economical circumstances in the direct surroundings are apparently of more consequence than they are on a county or state level. The practically non-existent “ethno-regional competition” on the employment market in Chemnitz, makes that the leading positions of many West-German investors of politicians are more often perceived as a welcome donation to the economical development of the region.
Chapter six deals with the transition to two new education systems in both the examined areas. Assuming the very comparable starting situations in which the entire DDR administered the same schooling structure and where almost al students frequented the so-called Polytechnical Upperschools, this unity splintered in 1990. Because the responsibilities for education always lay primary with the counties, this process could lead to very different processes in respectively Berlin and Saksen (Chemnitz). In that way the new counties and the old ones all created their own schooling system, each one of them with their own accents.
The reformation of education in Berlin-East can thereby best be described as a one-sided and radical adjustment to the structures and contents as they developed in the preceding decennia in West-Berlin. To implement this reformation as soon and as thoroughly as possible, this process was accompanied by an intensive exchange program wherein, among others, teachers from West-Berlin where placed on East-Berlin schools. With the reformation of education in Saksen, on the other hand, existing West-German educational structures and specialists where used – especially from Baden-Württemberg – but in particularly in the schools themselves the influence of “West teachers” was relatively limited.
During the modernisation process of education in Chemnitz it was possible to hang on to certain ‘characteristic properties' that would be considered typically East-German in Berlin. On one side this concerns educational contents, like the emphasis on specific Saksen identity and history – in this the DDR forms a relatively small part of an illustrious past. On the other side it also concerns the used pedagogic concepts. An example is that teachers from Chemnitz weave elements of the DDR-past into their education, almost without even thinking about it. Also there is the wide support for the reintroduction of ‘head notes' for conduct, order, cooperation and diligence.
While these phenomena would most probably have lead to fierce discussions in Berlin schools; in Chemnitz they where perceived as everyday and normal. Despite the fact that schools in Chemnitz (often decisively prescribed by the county) would have to reform their educational system, mostly here it didn't go hand in hand with big discussions between East and West-teachers. The ethno-regional origin as a conflict mobilising factor within the teachers core in Chemnitz is essentially smaller. On the other hand Saksen is of relatively homogenous ethno-regional construction of population – only a very small minority does not have its roots in the DDR.
Despite the best intentions when it comes to the development of an as well as possible functioning educational system wherein as by nature the loyalty to the county and state would be strengthened, this particularly puts Berlin into trouble. The unambiguously horizontal incorporation, both structurally as personally, complicates an identification with the “own region”.
After the analysis of some important social changes concerning politics, employment and education and comparing these structural and social processes in Berlin-East and Chemnitz leads to the conclusion that even though there is a question of many analogies in the reunification process, there are also several factors that make the outcome of this process very divers. Concerning the quantitative integration – the equal input from East-Germans into society – the situation is very much more developed in Berlin than in Chemnitz. The formal combining or expanding of existing (west)institutions mostly directed towards a personnel file in which both East and West-Germans where represented. For several reasons though, also in 2002, there is still a matter of relatively minor obliqueness when it comes to social positions. In Chemnitz this obliqueness is far more apparent. Here, West-Germans are almost exclusively at work in the top functions of government and business.
Viewed from the qualitative side though, the introduction of ‘West German' structures had a bigger influence in Berlin than in Chemnitz. The almost inevitable regularity of social contacts between ‘Ossies' and ‘Wessies' in Berlin made the transformation process more radical. On practical levels of social life agreements had to be sought wherein both East and West-Berliners could recognise themselves. Through the numeral and powerful influence from West-Berlin, one had to adjust to these western norms far more in East-Berlin than in Chemnitz. The social transformations in Chemnitz could take place on a far more regional consensus concerning central cultural goals.
Also as a consequence of this, the ‘nested identity' in Chemnitz – whereby regional identification with ones own city or region is put on a par with growing national identification – could be formed in an all-embracing way that was not possible in Berlin. Despite the small ‘absolute deprivation' of East-Berliners, their ‘relative deprivation' is perceived stronger compared to West-Berliners. For that reason a (political) east/west-dichotomy could be perpetuated in Berlin that lasts into the present day, and that in Chemnitz this could be replaced more and more by a multiple territorial identification – whereby the land Saksen takes up a central place.
The mobilising effect of a ‘contested identity' that (on the level of the five new counties combined) opposes ‘the west' hereby diminishes, and thus diminish the possibilities for the formation of a durable East-German (ethno-regional) minority. In stead of that, the identification of the ‘new federal citizens' is increasingly determined by the different counties and thereby adapts to the existing German plurality.
Hertog, F. den (2004), Minderheit im eigenen Land? Zur gesellschaftlichen Position der Ostdeutschen in der gesamtdeustschen Realität. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag