The following blog post originally appeared at Blog politische Ökonomie. Peter Brandt is commenting on the controversy surrounding an essay by Wolfgang Thierse, translated here. See the related position paper here and a separate article by Brandt here. Translated by Russell A. Berman, with comments here.
To read more in depth from Telos, subscribe to the journal here.
During the past few weeks the debate over identity politics and viewpoint diversity in Germany has been unfolding. The starting point was an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine by Wolfgang Thierse, not known for eccentric positions, concerning the conduct of the debate around the themes of racism, postcolonialism, and gender.
In his opinion piece, Thierse criticizes the claim by sexual and other minorities to define their own collective identity (hence “identity politics”), and what is right and tolerable or intolerable for them, rather than engaging in an open and controversial debate. The accusation that something is hurtful therefore, Thierse argues, often displaces an argumentative response.
Thierse’s Concern
Thierse is worried about the integrity of the democratic polity, the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly in light of the decreasingly defined ethnic-national character or national-cultural character of society. One has the impression that he did not stake out his own specific position but presents instead a proposed minimal consensus for Social Democracy. In any case, Thierse’s line of thinking leaves space for various emphases, and it is tied more closely to the programmatic tradition of the SPD and its predecessors since the nineteenth century than are the statements coming from the supposedly progressive interest groups as well as from the upper party hierarchy.
Social coherence is a core value of the SPD, and it is characteristic of the self-understanding of this party that real social problems and contradictions are not papered over but instead worked through politically. How this is done has been discussed within the party for more than one hundred years—discussed and in some circumstances fought over: this too is part of party history. Speech is part of the material core of the cohesion. In its Görlitzer Program of 1921, the SPD called itself the “Party of the working people in the cities and in the country.” This remains its only future, not a pure coalition of marginal groups.
Thierse is concerned about the mental and cultural, i.e., everyday cultural dimension of social cohesion. Of course, every form of discrimination must be rejected and fought, but there has to be a realistic level of expectation. Without some presuppositions, humans cannot orient themselves; however one always has to be willing to put those assumptions to a test. Older generations remember well the reciprocal ressentiments between Protestants and Catholics, although the wars of religion ended three hundred years ago, and Bismarck’s cultural struggle [Kulturkampf] also belongs to the past.
There Are Traditions
Today we are living in a society in which many groups are looking for a home simultaneously, and while they do not see themselves as the center of society, they claim recognition and attention, including refugees and immigrants from distant cultural realms. They should understand—and this requires clear and convincing signals from the new home country—that they have not arrived in an empty space devoid of content, but rather in a specific country, our Germany, with history that is partially but not completely terrible (a history that is now theirs as well, if they choose to stay here permanently), with a rich and multifaceted culture, deserving of respect, as well as traditional customs.
That means for them as well as for us who have been living here longer that the national self-understanding has to be renegotiated and fought over again and again. This can only be done on the basis of respect toward other individuals as well as toward all minorities, and the fundamental principle of peaceful, free, and hopefully solidarity-filled coexistence.
More Economics and Less Identity Politics
The alternative to this strong argument of collective obligations, common culture, and common national identity as preconditions of successful coexistence is the identity-political self-reflection of fragmented social groups. If this identity-political self-reflection turns into the dominant political understanding of Social Democracy, it will stand in the way of the social democratic goal of being the party of the working classes interested in economic prosperity, secure jobs, and good living standards.
The focus on identity politics influences programming, public perception, and the self-understanding of Social Democrats with regard to their goals: a political economy of cohesion, in which every citizen can find a secure spot.
The moderation in matters of identity politics that Wolfgang Thierse calls for is therefore correct and necessary.
“The moderation in matters of identity politics that Wolfgang Thierse calls for is therefore correct and necessary.”
I can’t speak about identity politics dynamics in Germany but as for the U.S., I can’t shake the intuition that the absence of such moderation seems quite purposeful.