Weimar Culture

WEIMAR CULTURE: EXPERIMENTS IN MODERNISM
Author(s): WOLFGANG SAUER

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Social Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, GERMANY 1919-1932: THE WEIMAR CULTURE
(SUMMER 1972), pp. 254-284
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970095 .
Accessed: 19/11/2012 21:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.227 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:52:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WEIMAR CULTURE: EXPERIMENTS
IN MODERNISM*
BY WOLFGANG SAUER
X he idea thattheWeimarRepublicmayhaveproduceda "Cul-

ture"hasbeenuntilrecently rather alientohistoricalwriting.One
reasonforthisis undoubtedly itselfhistorical.In view of the
shattering experienceof NationalSocialism,politicaland intel-
lectualhistorians haveemphasized what,to use KurtSontheimer's
be called ' cur-
the "antidemocratic1
terminology,1 mightbroadly
rentsin Weimar.Their concernwas withthepreparation of or
thedevelopment towardNazi barbarism ratherthanwithculture.
EvenWeimar'sintellectual Left,as faras it receivedattention at
its
all, wascensuredfor radical, and supposedly criti-
destructive,
cismoftheRepublicratherthananalyzedand evaluatedin terms
of culturalachievements. Afterhavingbeen whipped,in the
1920s, as Kulturbolschewisten by the Right,Leftistswere later
blamedas thegrave-diggers oftheRepublicbytheliberals.
Another reasonis conceptual.Whetherwe understand culture
in a moreanthropological sense,emphasizing intellectual
unity
and coherence, or whetherwe define it in esthetical-philosophical
terms - implyingintellectualsignificance and quality- Weimar
conditions do not seemto fit. In the lattercase we would feel
compelled askhowNazi barbarism
to couldgrowoutofa culture.
In theformer case we mightwonderhow unityand coherence,
however couldbe foundin theintellectual
qualified, productions
of a timethatappeareddiversified to thepointof anarchy, and
• I am dedicating this article to Hans Rosenberg in celebration of his 65th birth-
day. I wish to thank my colleagues Gerald D. Feldman, Leo Lowenthal, and Nicholas
V. Riasanovsky for their helpful comments,and also to acknowledge gratefullyre-
search grants received from the American Council of Learned Societies and the
Social Science Research Council.
Denken in der WeimarerRepublik,
iKurt Sontheimer,Antidemokratisches
München, 1962.
EXPERIMENTS IN MODERNISM 255
antagonisticto the point of civil war. Does not the "hungerfor
wholeness"which Peter Gay recognizedas one of the prevailing
of Weimar intellectuallife,2indicatethatWeimar
characteristics
was lackingexactlywhattheconceptof "Weimarculture"logically
implies?
Significantlyenough,politicalhistoriansand politicalscientists
have struggledwithsimilarproblems.Franz L. Neumann defined
theactual constitution of the Republic- as opposed to thewritten
-
document as a clusterof compactsbetween the most powerful
social groups.3 He called this "pluralism,"but it may be more
accurateto call it "controlledanarchy." Otherscholarshave won-
deredwhetherthe Republic had any historicalindividualityof its
own. Many historianspreferredto interpretthe period merelyas
an interlude- a transitory stage balancing between an epilogue
to theempireand a prologueto the Third Reich.
In viewof thisattitude,it comesalmostas a surpriseto note that
recentlysignsof changingapproachesand perspectiveshave been
appearing. Scholarshave increasingly turnedto hithertoneglected
aspectsof Weimar intellectualhistory;the notion of a "Weimar
culture"has now been introduced,firstby Peter Gay's essay,then
bya conferenceon Weimarat the New School forSocial Research.
Some of the stimulifor this change are social and political: the
interestof West Germany'sNew Left in the democraticelements
of Germanhistory,and the impactof the presentsocial crisisin
Americawhich is directingsome Americansto look at Weimar
as a possiblemodel. Other reasonsare more professional. New
researchinto and acknowledgment of the workof émigréscholars
in America,4forexample,has remindedus of the large lacunae
thatexistin our knowledgeof the Weimar period,while among
the emigrantsthemselvestherehave alwaysbeen some who remi-
2 PeterGay,WeimarCulture:The Outsideras an Insider,NewYorkand Evanston,

1968.
»Franz Neumann,Behemoth:The Structureand Practiceof NationalSocialism,
1933-1944,NewYork,1944 (Newprinting1966).
* Cf. Donald Flemingand Bernard Bailyn, eds., The Intellectual
Migration:
Europeand America,1930-1960,
Cambridge,Mass.,1969.
256 SOCIAL RESEARCH
nisced nostalgicallyabout the "Golden Twenties." Finally, in
contrastto historians,specialistsin individualfieldsof intellectual
endeavorhave neverreallyceased to concernthemselves withindi-
vidual German contributionsto their own disciplines. Names
suchas Max Weber,Mann, HermannHesse, BertoldBrecht,Gott-
friedBenn, Arnold Schönberg,Walter Gropius,and othershave
continuouslyenjoyed a world-widereputation,and so have the
Bauhaus, German Expressionistpainting,and expressionistfilm.
On all thesemen and subjects,and more,we possessa considerable
amount of historical,biographical,and critical writing; their
workshave been edited,re-edited,and translated.6What was not
done before,however,and what seems to be happeningnow, is
viewingthesemen and movementsnot merelyas isolatedcontribu-
torsto theirrespectivedisciplinesand arts,but also as members
and partsof a societyand culture. Or, to stateit morecautiously,
such may be the aim and the problem of presentresearchin
Weimar intellectualhistory,forthe question of whetherWeimar
wasa "culture"has not been definitively answeredyet. Even Peter
Gay has used the term"Weimar culture" as a book title rather
thanas a concept.
The followingdiscussionwill be devotedto an attemptat con-
contributingto a solution. I emphasizethe word attempt,for
the problemis so novel and so complex that I cannot expect to
come close to definiteanswers,even were I not bound by the
space limitationsof this article. All I can offeris a number of
hopefullyuseful suggestionsfor the organizingand interpreting
of Weimar intellectualhistory. Accordingly,I will reversethe
usual procedure. Rather than start out with a definitionof
Weimar culture,I will firstemphasizesome neglectedaspectsof
Weimar intellectualhistoryand will then discuss a new way
of conceptualizingit.
One consequence of the presentlyprevailing approach to
Weimar intellectualhistoryis a certain imbalance of coverage.
Klemperer,Mohler, Mosse, Stern,Sontheimer,and othershave
5 For a good introductorybibliography,see Gay, op. cit.
dealt with right-wing ideologies and movements;Laqueur with
the youthmovement;Ringer has studiedthe universitiesand the
professors.6Literature,the arts, and music, however,usually
major subjectsof intellectualhistory,have been leftto the critics
and the specialistsin thesefields. Expressionismand Neue Sach-
lichkeit(neo-objectivity), the two main intellectualmovementsof
the period,are still largelyterraincognitato the intellectualhis-
torian,and so is thehistoryof theintellectualLeft. Sokel,Lethen,
and Deak have recentlystartedworkin thesefields7- but this is
onlya beginning.
The mentionof Expressionismraisesanotherproblem- thatof
periodization. Strictlyspeaking,the rise and perhaps even the
artisticheydayof Expressionismoccurred before the establish-
ment of the Republic. The same is true of quite a number of
otherintellectualmovementsand currents. All in all, a survey
of the intellectualscene priorto 1914 revealsa pictureof almost
boundlesscreativity. There were new startsin scholarshipand
academic studies- Husserl's phenomenology;Weber's, Simmers,
and Tönnies's works in sociology; the scientificdiscoveriesof
Planck, Einstein,and others;the maturingof Freud's psychoan-
alysis. In literatureand theartswe see emergingthepoetryof the
Expressionists(Benn, Trakl, Lasker-Schüler,etc.) and of Rilke
and StefanGeorge; the new prosewritingsof the brothersMann,
of Musil,Hesse,and Schnitzler;thedramaof GerhartHauptmann,
Wedekind,Sternheim,and Kaiser; the Expressionistpaintingof
• Klemensvon Klemperer, Germany's New Conservatism: Its Historyand Dilemma
in the TwentiethCentury, Princeton, 1957;ArnimMohler,Die konservative Revolu-
tion in Deutschland1918 bis 1932: GrundrissihrerWeltanschauungen, Stuttgart,
1950;GeorgeL. Mosse,The Crisisof GermanIdeology:IntellectualOriginsof the
ThirdReich,NewYork,1964;FritzStern,The Politicsof CulturalDespair:A Study
in theRise of the GermanicIdeology,Berkeley,1961;Sontjieimer, op. cit.; Walter
Laqueur,YoungGermany:A Historyof the GermanYouth Movement, New York,
1962; FritzRinger,The Decline of the Mandarins:The GermanAcademicCom-
munity, 1890-1933,NewYork,1969.
TWalterH. Sokel,The Writersin Extremis:Expressionism in Twentieth-Century
GermanLiterature, Stanford,1959; HelmutLethen,Neue Sachlichkeit, 1924-1932:
Studienzur Literaturdes "WeissenSozialismus," 1970;IstvanDeak, Wei-
Stuttgart,
mar Germany's Left-Wing Intellectuals:A PoliticalHistoryof the Weltbühneand
its Circle,Berkeley
and Los Angeles,1968.
258 SOCIAL RESEARCH
the Brücke and Blaue Reiter groups,as well as Kandinsky'sab-
stractionism; Barlach's Expressionistsculpture;the new architec-
ture of Gropius and others;Schönberg'satonal music. Of par-
ticularsocial significancewas the rise of satire (Karl Kraus) and
of thenew artformof theKabarett.In politicaland social thought
theLeftshoweditsvitalityin thegreatdebateon Marxismbetween
Bernstein,Rosa Luxemburg,and Hilferding;on the Rightwe had
the rise of the völkischideologyand of the youthmovement.We
also mustnotice in thiscontextthe revivalof Jewishthoughtby
MartinBuber and others.
On firstglance,then,thereseemsto be some point in arguing8
that the reallycreativesocietywas that of the Wilhelmianmon-
archy,and that the Weimar Republic lived intellectuallyon
the creditof its predecessorand politicalopponent. Nothingcan
be gained,however,by so mechanicala use of historicalchronol-
ogy. The intellectualmovementsof the early 1900s,not except-
ing that of the völkisch Right and the youth movement,rose
clearlyin revoltagainstWilhelmiansociety;theybelong undoubt-
edly among the processesthat establishedthe Republic. Indeed
it is onlybecausehistorianshave so farignoredthesedevelopments
that theycan argue that the Weimar Republic was improvised
in 1918. It certainlywas not- if we considerits intellectualori-
gins in the pre-1914years.
The point becomeseven more evidentif we look at the social
ô
historyof the "literaryrevolution." From the outset,one of the
basic aims of the Expressionistswas what theycalled a reconcilia-
tionofartand life,and whatwe mightterma reintegration of the
intellectualinto society. In the Berlin group of Expressionists
around Franz Pfemfertand Kurt Hiller this programtook a de-
cidedlypoliticaland "activist"turn. During the firstworld war,
the Expressionist movementspread,became politicizedas a whole,
-
and aftersome waveringand confusionat the beginningof the
war- turnedagainstthe war and the war policy of the imperial
8 As does HelmutKuhn in "Das geistigeGesichtder WeimarerZeit/'Zeitschrift
fürPolitik,8 (1961),pp. 1-10.
9 Paul Pförtner, 1910-1925(3 vols.),Neuwied,1960-1965.
ed., Literaturrevolution,
government.These developmentsculminatedin theparticipation
of manyintellectualsin the activitiesof the November1918 revo-
lution- especiallyin Berlin and Munich- and in the intellectual
dominationof Expressionismover much of German literature,
art,and music.
One reason why historianshave previouslydisregardedthese
eventsis thattheirroots and causes seemed so difficult to under-
stand. German history,and especiallyGerman intellectualhis-
tory,appeared to move since Bismarckand national unification
withsuch consistency - if not towardNazism,thenat least toward
conservative,authoritarian,and antimoderngoals and values-
that theresimplyseemed to be no room or reason for including
deviantbehavioras one of the elementsin the social explanation
forthis process. The truthis that historianshave oftenunified
the Germansmore thoroughly in theorythan theythemselvesdid
in practice. Unificationhad remained largelya surfaceprocess
beneathwhichtheold divisionspersistedin different form. What
had been regional particularismbefore 1871 became social par-
ticularismafterwards.The controlledanarchywhichFranz Neu-
mann detectedin theWeimarconstitution was but the traditional
condition of German society,now laid bare by the democratic
principle of public decision-making.Within this controlled
anarchy,deviating,unorthodox,or eveneccentric,positionsproved
muchmoreresistantthanthe authoritariansuperstructure of state
and societywould suggest. Thus, the democraticradicalismof
theYoung Germanyand theLeft-Hegeliansin the Vormärzperiod
had not been wiped out by the defeatof 1848 or the victoryof
Bismarck; it had merelybeen demoralized and driven under-
ground. After1871,it needed some timeforbreath-catching, but
thenit raiseditshead again- firstamongSocial Democraticwork-
ers; then, still meeklyand shamefacedly, also among bourgeois
intellectuals.10Naturally,if one forgetsthe Vormärzradicalism
in thefirstplace,as even so greata historianas FriedrichMeinecke
io The contextwas naturalism.The mostrecentstudyon thatis by UrsulaMun-
chow,DeutscherNaturalismus, Berlin,1968.
260 SOCIAL RESEARCH
did,11one has difficulty recognizingits offspringin the 1890s
and early1900s.
The mere continuationof ideas is not sufficient as an explana-
tion,however. The "renewalof democraticthought"in Germany
was decisivelyinfluencedand supportedby what mightbe called
the industrializationof German culture.12 This is what made
the position of German intellectualsin the twentiethcentury
fundamentallydifferentfrom that of the eighteenthand nine-
teenthcenturies. Prior to the industrialrevolution,which oc-
curredin Germanyin the 1850s and 1860s,the German middle
class was not wealthyenough to be able to affordthe luxuryof
supportingintellectualand cultural exploits. Consequently,the
Germanintellectuals - I am usingthe termherewithoutclaimsto
conceptual rigor,merelyas a loose generic term encompassing
the whole educated class (Gebildete)- eithervegetatedin a state
of noble poverty,or depended on support fromother sources,
suchas princelyor feudalpatronage,money-making secondcareers,
or employment as civil servantsby the state. Through itsrequire-
ment of a universityeducation for the highercivil service,the
state soon gained the dominant position. During most of the
nineteenthcenturytheGermaneducatedclasswas largelyidentical
with the academic establishment,and most of it was state em-
ployed: universityprofessors, high school teachers(Studienräte),
Protestantpastors; in a marginalpositiontherewere also adminis-
trativecivil servantsand professionaldoctorsand lawyers,with
onlythelasttwobeingindependent.By the end of thenineteenth
century,however,this academic establishmentfound itselfchal-
-
lenged by a new group of intellectuals the intelligentsia,com-
ii FriedrichMeinecke,Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat,1907; new edition,
Munich1966.
12Peter Gilg, Die Erneuerungdes demokratischen Denkens im Wühelmischen
Deutschland,Wiesbaden,1965 (who disregards,however,the culturalrebellion).
The followingsociologicalanalysisis mainlybased on the pertinentbiographical
deutscherLiteratur
WilfriedAdlinget al., eds.,Lexikonsozialistischer
dictionaries:
von den Anfängenbis 1945,Halle, 1963; GünterAlbrechtet al, eds., Deutsches
Weimar,1963;HermannKunisch,ed.,Handbuchder deutschen
Schriftstellerlexikon,
Gegenwartsliteratur,Munich, 1965; Neue Deutsche Biographie,Berlin, 1955 ff.;
FranzOsterroth, ed.,BiographischesLexikondes Sozialismus,Hannover,1960.
prisingliterati,men of letters,poets, playwrights;artistsof all
kinds; actors;conductorsand composers;and includingthe vast
armyof journalists.This group had been formingever since the
1830's,but onlynow did it emergein sociallysignificant numbers.
These men were still universityeducated but felt increasingly
alienated fromacademia; a growingnumber did not complete
theirstudies;some,like Franz Pfemfert and the famouseditorof
Die Weltbühne,Carl von Ossietzky,did not even completehigh
school. For the Wilhelmian period we have to distinguishstill
a thirdgroup: the socialistintellectuals. In theirnon- or anti-
academic outlook the socialistsresembledthe intelligentsiabut
must be mentionedseparatelybecause of the social and cultural
isolationin which theylived in Wilhelmian Germany.
This class conflictwithin the educated class, as we mightcall
it, was caused mainly by four factors,all directlyor indirectly
relatedto the rise of industrialismin Germany.First,in termsof
social background,the overwhelmingmajorityof German intel-
lectuals,not exceptingthe socialistones, still came frommiddle
class or bourgeoisfamilies. But therewas a significant variation
withinthe categoryof bourgeois origin.13Members of the aca-
demic establishment tended to come fromacademic backgrounds
or fromfamiliesof officiers and bureaucrats- the academic estab-
lishmentreproduceditself,so to speak. Membersof the intelli-
gentsia,by contrast,had predominantly non-academicand more
diverse origins- artists,writers,musicians (there was some self-
reproductionalso among the intelligentsia);doctorsand lawyers;
and increasingly thecommercialand industrialstrataof themiddle
classes. The membersof the early-twentieth-century intelligentsia
were,thus,oftenthe sons of the successfulparticipantsin the in-
dustrialrevolution.
A second factorwas economicstatuswithinthe educated class.
While the academicswere still state-employed and, hence, state-
dependent, the members of the had by thattimewon
intelligentsia
an independenteconomicbasis. The mostsuccessfulamong them
i«Dcak, op. cit.,p. 19, has alreadyobserveda similarvariationbetweenauthors
ofDie Weltbühne and Die Tat.
262 SOCIAL RESEARCH
could live completelyon the earningsfromtheirworks;the great
majority,however,receivedsupportthroughvarious kinds of af-
filiationor contractualarrangementwith the book and news-
paper publishingbusiness. In the wake of the industrialrevolu-
tion mass literacyand mass education had resulted in a vast
expansionof the readingpublic and the culturalaudiences. On
thissolid economicbasisrose,in the 1880sand 1890s,a numberof
powerfulpublishingempiressuch as the Scherl,Mosse, and Ull-
stein newspaper concerns,or the S. Fischer book publishing
house,14whichnow began to employor subsidizeintellectualson
a grandscale. In the arts,greatart dealers such as AlfredFlech-
theim,Karl Nierendorf,and Paul Cassirerplayed an equivalent
role. For the intelligentsia,then,feudal patronageor state em-
ploymenthad been replaced by capitalistpromotion. That this
occurredin Germanyas late as the twentiethcentury,while Eng-
lish intellectuals,for example, had reached a similar condition
as earlyas the eighteenthcentury,15 is a factwhich goes a long
way towardexplaining some of the pecularitiesof German in-
tellectualhistory.
A thirdfactorwas the rise of the Jewsin German intellectual
life.16There had been precedentsto this,as the names of Moses
Mendelsohn,Heinrich Heine, and Karl Marx, among others,in-
dicate. Jewishparticipationin intellectualproductionassumed
socially significantproportions,however,only after unification,
whichbroughtnationwidelegal emancipation,and afterthe rise
of publishingfirmsto economicpower,whichoffereda chance to
sidestepthe anti-semitic prejudicesactivein partsof the academic
establishment.As a consequence,Jewsappeared now in greater
numbersamong the intelligentsia.This infusionof Judaic spirit,
religious or secularized,into German intellectuallife was not
onlyan importantcreativestimulus,but helped also to emphasize
i* Cf. Peterde Mendelssohn, Berlin,Berlin,1959;and id., S. Fischer
Zeitungsstadt
und sein Verlas,Frankfurt/M.,1971.
View,New York,London,1965.
i» LewisA. Coser,Men of Letters:A Sociologist's
i« SiegmundKaznelson,ed., Judenim deutschenKulturberetch:Em Sammelwerk,
3d. ed.,Berlin,1962.
the differences in outlookbetweenthe intelligentsiaand the aca-
demics.
In contrastto these threemore or less regularand permanent
factors,the last one- youthand generationalconflictwas transi-
tory. It also was more limitedin range,forthe intelligentsiaas I
have definedit included of course all age groups. But its spear-
head in the Wilhelmianperiod,its mostvigorousand innovating
members,belonged to the young generationwho began their
careersin thedecade priorto thefirstworldwar and who werethe
protagonistsof the intellectualrevolt. The Expressionistsmade
the "revoltof the son" one of their central themes. Historians
have so far takennotice only of the organizedyouthmovement,
but the phenomenonof generationalconflictwas much broader,
deeper,and more powerfuland offersinstructiveparallels to the
generationalconflictof our own time.
Besides the traditionof Vormärzradicalism,the industrializa-
tion of culture,and the formationof a non-academic,state-inde-
pendentintelligentsia, therewerealso foreigninfluences.Not only
was the Germanintellectualmovementembedded in the general
European one- the parallelsbetweenGermanExpressionismand
FrenchCubism and Surrealism,forexample,are a stockin trade
of art historians:therewere also more directinfluences.The two
major influenceswere Scandinavianand Italian in origin. Edvard
Munch and August Strindbergrepresentedthe one; Italian fu-
turismthe other. In view of the strongemphasisWalter Muschg
has given to futuristinfluenceson Expressionism,17 it must be
noted that at a crucial point the Expressionistsdeviated from
futurism.In the futurist program,admirationand enthusiasmfor
war playeda major role: futurists supportedItaly'sentryinto the
war in 1915, and theywent straighton to support Mussolini's
fascists.The Expressionists'positiontowardwar was much more
complexfromtheoutset;theyturnedto pacifistoppositionduring
the firstworldwar; and the supportsome of themgave to Hitler
17WalterMuschg,Von Trakl zu Brecht:Dichterdes Expressionismus,
Munich,
1961,pp. 27 ff.
264 SOCIAL RESEARCH
was more a betrayalof the originalExpressionistprogramthan a
logical consequence of it.
Besides theseculturalinfluencesfromabroad therewas also an
indirectpoliticalone- Emile Zola's dramaticdefenseof Dreyfus.
Through the mediation of Heinrich Mann,18Zola became the
model formanyyoungGermanintellectuals.This was trueespe-
a factthat
ciallyof the"activist"groupamongtheExpressionists,19
is the more strikingas Heinrich Mann was estheticallyno Ex-
pressionist.
The coincidenceof all of these factorswith a growingaware-
nessof theambivalencesof industrialsocietyin generaland of the
unresolvedproblemsof German societyin particularproduced
the intellectualcrisisand rebellion of the early 1900s. Yet the
contradictory nature of Wilhelmian society - industriallyhighly
advanced and modern,socially and politicallyneo-feudalist,tra-
ditionalist,and authoritarian- made clear and unequivocal re-
sponsesalmostimpossible. Thus, while the intelligentsia, includ-
ing the socialistgroup,was virtuallyunanimousin its rejectionof
the Wilhelmian establishment,it was hopelesslyconfused and
divided on the subject of positivealternativesand policies. The
socialistscould not resolve the ideological conflictbetweenrevi-
sionism and revolutionaryneo-Marxismand their politics wav-
ered betweenimmobilityon principlesand tacitcompromiseon
particulars. The bourgeoisintelligentsia, as faras it did not re-
main entirelyapolitical,gravitatedtowarda splitbetweenan Ex-
pressionistand a völkischposition,but this did not clarifythe
issues either. The Expressionistsmightbe revolutionaryin re-
jecting the neo-feudalistsystembut were reformistwith regard
to industrialism. The völkischideologistsmightbe reactionary
in rejectingindustrialism,but theystill could appear progressive
in thattheycriticizedthe feudal fossilsof the imperialcourt and
is HeinrichMann,Essays,vols.1-3 (Berlin,1954-1962);see esp.: "Geistund Tat,"
1910.
i» There have been variousattemptsat definingthe two Expressionist -
"wings"
starting with Wolfgang Paulsen, and
Expressionismus Aktivismus: Eine typologische
Untersuchung, Bernand Leipzig,1935,and ending(so far)withMuschg,op. cit.,pp.
27, 35; and Sokel,op. cit.,passim.
government. There was simplyno position fromwhich oppo-
sition could be at once clear, coherent,and practical. Seen in
this perspective,the Wandervogelsolution of abandoning ra-
tional thoughtand withdrawinginto the woods seems a little
less puzzling.
German intellectualsneeded the war to get out of their im-
passe. The war and the imperialiststrategiesof the Wilhelmian
governmentprovideda clear-cutissue. Consequentlywe see an
increasedpolarizationwithinthe intellectualcommunity,and at
the same timesomeregrouping:older divisionswere bridgedand
new ones opened, or potentialones were actualized. The nation-
alist euphoria of August 1914 swept even Social Democratsand
Expressionistsofftheirfeet,although therewere notable excep-
tionsin both groups. By the end of 1914,however,a pacifistand
humanistoppositionwas forming,with the Bund Neues Vater-
land (League for a New Fatherland) acting as organizational
center.Anothergroupofmostlybourgeoisintellectualsemigrated
to Switzerland,where they gathered since 1915 around René
Schickele'scosmopolitanjournal Die Weissen Blätter and par-
ticipatedin the Club Voltaireand the creationof dadaism. In
Germany,the Expressionistmovementgained momentumduring
the yearsfollowing1914. The esthetical,unpoliticaland activist
wing of Expressionismfusedinto what Sokel calls "messianicEx-
'
pressionism/witha pacifist,humanist,and vaguelysocialistmes-
sage.20 The revolt-of-the-son theme assumed a clearly political
meaning, and was supplementedby a new theme,Wandlung,or
metamorphosis, which receivedits examplarystatementin Ernst
Toller's semi-autobiographicalplay. The Wandlung idea ex-
pressedtheshatteringexperienceof a younggenerationthatwent
into the war as nationalistsand militaristsand soon found itself
convertedto pacifistExpressionism.Toller, a Jew,and Fritzvon
Unruh,a PrussianJunkerand officer, were two prominentexam-
ples of this sort of conversion.
20Sokel does not emphasize this change, however,and I would
agree that the rela-
tionship between change and continuityin the development of Expressionismwas
highlydialectical.
266 SOCIAL RESEARCH
It is probablyfairto saythatthismovementdid not reachmuch
beyondthe bordersof the intelligentsia.That it was nevertheless
strongis indicatedby the factthatits two main modes of expres-
sion- theaterperformances and journals- generallyresistedcen-
sorship. Historicallyeven more significantis the fact that the
Expressionists'advance moved increasinglyparallel with that of
the left-wingsocialists. Georg Lukács firstnoticed this paral-
lelism.21 His apt, thoughunfriendly, definitionof wartimeEx-
pressionismas the literaryversionof the ideologyof the USPD
(IndependentSocialists)has been unduly disregardedby histor-
ians. True, the vaguenessof Expressionistsocialismand its em-
phasison pacifismand humanismcertainlyseemsremotefromthe
strictMarxismof theorganizedvarietiesof Germansocialism. Ac-
tually,however,the USPD was itselfa rathermotleygroup from
the point of view of Marxisttheory.Bernstein,the fatherof re-
visionism,Kautsky,the theoreticianof the "center," and Rosa
Luxemburg,intellectualleader of the radical Left,had all buried
theirvehementprewarfeudsand had united in the new partyin
oppositionagainstthe imperialistwar and againstwhat theycon-
sideredto be opportunismand Machiavellismon the part of the
officialSPD leadership. Consequently,their ideology showed
muchthesamecombinationof elements,includingvaguenesswith
regardto socialisttheory,as messianicwartimeExpressionismdid.
In Munich'spolitico-literary bohème,the ideologicalparallelshad
evenconvergedintoa kindofsymbiosis.In anycase therapproche-
ment between Expressionistsand independentsocialistsduring
the war indicated that the gap between the intelligentsiaand
socialistintellectualswas closing. In the Weimar Republic there
remained,eventually,only two sociologicallydistinctgroups of
the educated class- the academic establishmentand the intelli-
gentsia.However,by the end of the 1920sa new thirdgroup was
beginningto emerge,and this time it was clearlyof a different
social origin. In the culturalorbit of German communismand
21GeorgLukács,"'Grosse und Verfairdes Expressionismus," firstpublishedin
Literatur,1 (1934),pp. 153-173;variousreprints,
Internationale at last in: Georg
Lukács,Werke,vol. 4, Neuwied,Luchterhand.
of the politicallyunattachedradical Left,a group of writersand
artistswas formingwho came straightfroma proletarianfamily
background.22
It would be extremelyinteresting to comparein detail the Ex-
pressionistmovementwith the developmentson the Right,but I
must confinemyselfhere to only a few suggestiveillustrations.
This camp, too, grew politicallymore distinctthroughwartime
polarization. Anti-Semitism seems to have increased; the youth
movementbecame militarized - or rather,its militaristicminority
grewinto a majority - and under LudendorfFsveiled dictatorship
a firstattemptwas made to organizethe protofascist forcespoliti-
cally. The attemptwas an instantsuccess: the Vaterlandspartei,
establishedin September1917 undertheleadershipof Tirpitzand
Kapp, reached one and a quarter million memberswithin less
than a year (July1918). FritzFischerhas pointed out23 that this
was considerablymore than the one million membersthat the
SPD had reachedat itspeak in 1914. It is also worthnoting,how-
ever,that this impressivemass instantlyevaporatedinto thin air
again when,in October 1918, the officialGermanrequest foran
armisticeexploded the protectivecover againstrealitythat mili-
tarycensorshiphad spreadover the Germannation. The develop-
ment of the Vaterlandspartei demonstratedboth the protofascist
potentialin Germanyand itsdependenceon illusionism.Armistice
and revolutionoffered, in November 1918,a chance fora break-
throughto reality. It was also a chance forthe Expressionistin-
telligentsiato turnitselffroma minorityinto a majority.
The role of the intelligentsiain the revolutionwas twofold.
On the one hand, theyengageddirectlyin politicalaction- mod-
eratelyin Berlin, where a Rat geistigerArbeiter (Council of
IntellectualWorkers)was establishedon November7-8, and more
vigorouslyin Munich, where a group of intellectualsincluding
ErnstToller, Erich Mühsam,and Gustav Landauer took leader-
22See Albrecht,op. cit.; and Werner T. Angress,"Pegasus and Insurrection: Die
Linkskurveand its Heritage." Central European Historv. 1 fl968V dd. 35-55.
23Fritz Fischer, Griffnach der Weltmacht,3rd ed., Düsseldorf, 1964, p. 565 (Engl.
transi.New York, 1967).
268 SOCIAL RESEARCH
ship in the Bavarian Council's Republic (which preceded the
purelycommunistSoviet Republic). The cultural influenceof
however,was much the more effective.Expres-
the intelligentsia,
sionismswept the scene in literatureand the arts. The theater
replaced poetryas the leading literarygenre; Expressionismin
painting continued, and it expanded into architecture(Erich
Mendelsohn)and into film,the ascendingnew art. The greatest
single achievementwas the foundation,in March 1919, of the
Bauhaus, an impressiveattemptat realizingan integrationof all
the artsand crafts,and of artistsand society.
Initial successwas followedby failure,however. The break-
throughto realitydid not materialize,and Expressionismbecame
the expressionof the "dreamlandof the armisticeperiod," and,
later,of the inflationaryperiod. The revolutionhad failed,po-
liticallyand socially,and so did the politics of Expressionism.
Despite some successes,the intelligentsiaof the Left had, on the
whole, been unable to break throughto society,while that of
the Right,as Mosse has shown,could relyon some organizational
and institutionalstrongholdsto maintain a position in society.
Similarly,the academic establishment, althoughshaken and dis-
orientedby defeatand by the collapse of the monarchy,still re-
tainedsomehold on educationaland culturalpolicies. As a result,
the ExpressionistRausch vanishedand was succeededby a hang-
over- a period of disenchantmentand disillusionmentthat has
deeply influencedthe negativejudgmentof criticsand scholars.
Such judgmentshave oftenneglectedthe considerablecomplexi-
ties of the process,however.
The crucial point here is thatwhile the revolutionhad failed
to overcomethe traditionalsocial anarchyand particularism, the
counterrevolution had failed,too. Wilhelmiansocietyhad been
an anarchy,externallycontrolled by militarismand concealed
by the shiningcover of a nationalistemperorshipand imperialist
pseudosuccesses. The Weimar Republic, as it emerged from
the revolution,was a systemof balanced powers,an open anarchy
internallycontrolledby ad-hoc compromisesin the fashion of
diplomaticalliances. Not much seems to have changed, then,
except that the democraticconstitutionpreventedconcealment
and falsification of the situation. Herein lay the hope for the
future,however: the social evils were no longer repressed,and
the democraticconstitutionprovideda chance fora slow process
of recovery.This is particularlyevidentfroma comparisonwith
the French Third Republic, which started - as some historians
have repeatedlypointedout- fromsimilarconditionsand which
eventuallyrecovered,afterthe Dreyfuscrisis,a minimumof sta-
bility.
Such a historicalhypothesis is strengthened
by theevidencefrom
cultural developments. Whatever the Expressionisthangover,
culturaland intellectualcreativitydid not diminish. It is likely,
of course,thatthiscontinuedvitalitywas made possibleprecisely
by thepostrevolutionarybalance of powers. Previouscriticsof the
Republic haveoftentriedto establisha directrelationshipbetween
the failureof the revolutionand the failuresof Weimar intel-
lectuals. They have relied in this on westernmodels in which
the revolutionary destructionof traditionalauthoritywas closely
interrelated withintellectualliberationand emancipation. How-
ever,we now also have the Russian model in which the verysuc-
cess of the revolutionstifledwhat had been a briefbut unusually
rich flourishing of intellectualcreativity.The German example
of 1918-1919 seemsto have been located somewherein between
the Westernand Russian models. In failingto overcomethe tra-
ditionalanarchyand providea new social form,the GermanNo-
vemberrevolutionthrewthe intellectualsback onto themselves;
but by removingthe muzzle of censorshipand maintaininga
minimumof public order,it also gave themfreedomto work.
The responseof the intellectualswas remarkablyappropriate -
they responded with experimentation. The situation was not
new to German intellectuals. Both Hamburgerand Sokel have
pointed out24 that ever since the eighteenthcentury,the semi-
2*Michael Hamburger,From Prophecyto Exorcism:The Premisesof Modern
GermanLiterature,
London,1965,Introduction;
Sokel,op. cit.,eh. 1.
270 SOCIAL RESEARCH
anarchyof German societyhad repeatedlyforcedGerman intel-
lectuals into tryingto provide blue-printsfor reorganizationor
integrationof the whole. Inevitablytheseblue-printswere often
mutuallyexclusiveand increasedratherthan removed the con-
fusion. The "hunger forwholeness"remarkedby Peter Gay in
many of the Weimar intellectualproductionsseems to indicate
mererepetitionof thosepotentiallyauthoritarianattitudes. Sim-
ilar interpretations have been advanced in SiegfriedKracauer's
brilliantanalysisof German filmsand in Sokel's analysisof the
end of the Expressionistmovement.25Sokel comes to the con-
clusion that experimentationresulted either in intellectualde-
feat, as in the case of Toller and Unruh, or in abandonment
of the experimentalformas soon as one had a chance to sub-
mit to authoritariancommunities. The movementsplit up into
all directions- communist,fascist,establishedreligions,or ob-
scure mysticismand occultism. However, Peter Gay has also
pointed to the Bauhaus as an example provingthat not all of
Weimar'shungerforwholenesswas authoritarian;similarobserva-
tionscan be foundin Kracauer; and Sokel's account adds up too
neatlyto fitthecomplexpictureof historicalfacts.WalterMuschg
has demonstratedthat therewere quite a few Expressionists sur-
-
vivingon theirown Else Lasker-Schüler, Kafka,Döblin, Barlach
- and hislistis byno meansexhaustive.26
Finally,it is not enough to interpretWeimar intellectualhis-
toryin termsof Expressionismalone. Expressionism,afterall,
was succeededby Neue Sachlichkeitor Neo-Objectivity.Such a
statement, seeminglyimplyinga positiveevaluationor acceptance
of thismovement,will probablycause some eyebrowraising. For
although we know as yet even less about Neo-Objectivity,we
25Siegfried Kracauer,FromCaligarito Hitler:A Psychology of the GermanFilm,
Princeton, 1947,part II. I am quotingfromthe paperbackedn.,ibid.,1969. Also
see Sokel,op. cit.,pp. 227-232.
26Gay,op. cit.,pp. 96 ff.;Kracauer,op. cit.,pp. 59-60;Sokel,op. cit.,ibid. How-
ever,Sokeltakesa somewhatdifferent positionin his introduction.The "failure"of
Expressionism appears in colors
different if we rememberthat other modernist
movements also "failed." Cf. Muschg,op. cit.,passim;and ErnstBloch'scriticism
of Lucács,"Diskussionen über den Expressionismus," Gesamtausgabe, vol. 4, Frank-
furt/M.,1962,pp. 264-275.
nevertheless knowthatit was a "revengeof the father"(Peter
Gay),orin thewordsofKracauer,27 a reactionto theExpressionist
ecstasy in terms ofcynicism, moral indifference,and politicalneu-
trality.However,GustavHartlaub,whoas director of theMann-
ArtMuseumcoinedthetermNeue Sachlichkeit 1924,has al-in
readyobserved 28thatthereweretwowingsof themovement, a
romanticizing rightwing and a leftwing "bearinga socialist
flavor."Othershavemadesimilarobservations, and a littleread-
ingof sourcesshowsthatthereis substanceto theallegation.A
particularly intriguing aspectof Neo-Objectivity was whatmight
be calledtheGermanintellectual's discovery oftechnology.29 The
Expressionists, following theexampleof the futurists,had already
beentouchedbya fascination withtechnology; now it grewinto
fullbloom. The sociopolitical implications of thiswereas am-
bivalentas thoseofExpressionism and Neo-Objectivity in general.
ComingtoGermany conjointly withAmericanism, and in thecon-
textof the pacifism prevailing in the 1920s,technological and
technocratic philosophies had originally a democratic bent.Tech-
nologycould appearas an objectiveagentthrough which to re-
mobilizethedemocratic processthathad cometo a stopin 1919-
1920. But therewerealso authoritarian versions of thesephiloso-
phies, and it was they which prevailed under the impactof the
depression.In additionto emphasizing thevarieties and tensions
withintheNeo-Objectivist position, those factsalso seem to point
to somecontinuity betweenNeo-Objectivity and Expressionism.
If suchcontinuity could be confirmed by historical research, it
wouldgreatly helpus to clarify theconceptofa Weimarculture.
It also mightenableus to takeanotherlook at the problemof
the disillusioned, indifferent, and cynicalreactions. Afterall,
comingaftertheexcessofintoxication and ecstasyduringthelast
stageof Expressionism, disillusionment and cynicism were not
altogether unhealthy reactions.
27Gay,op. cit.,pp. 119ff.;Kracauer,op. cit.,pp. 165ff.
28Kracauer, op. cit., ibid.
29For the following,
Lethen,op. cit.,whoseorthodoxMarxistinterpretation is
however. On the Expressionists
unconvincing, see Sokel,op. cit.,pp. 158-161,218.
272 SOCIAL RESEARCH
Thus, even Kracauer notes that therewas, around 1928-1929,
what he calls a "briefreveille/'30exemplifiedby a leftistvictory
in the electionsof 1928 on the one hand, and by an increasein
sobersocial criticismin literatureand filmon the other. Actually,
the reveillewas not all thatbrief. In the fieldof politics,there
was alreadyin 1924 the strikingsuccessof the Reichsbanner,the
democraticparamilitaryorganization.Within nine monthsafter
its foundationin May 1924, the Reichsbannercounted threemil-
lion members,thusoutdoingthe Vaterlandspartei of 1917 by more
than 100 per cent.31This was not merelyan expressionof mili-
tarismin democraticdisguise. In 1926, observersin the Reichs-
wehrnoticedwithcharacteristic concernthewave of pacifismthat
swept the country. They were no less worriedabout the wide
supportthat Stresemann'spolicy of bringingGermanyinto the
League of Nationsreceivedamong the population.82
In the intellectualand cultural field,a comparisonbetween
Kracauer's analysis of filmsand Günther Rühle's no less bril-
liant analysisof the theater33reveals some discrepancies.Krac-
auer's briefreveille appears in Rühle's account as a rathercon-
tinual current. This must raise the question as to whetherthis
discrepancyis not due to the different media the two authorsare
focusingon. Both Kracauer and Rühle deal with,among other
things,the economicsof theirmedia, and it is thought-provoking
thatthe period followingthe inflationwas apparentlya period of
depressionforthe movies and of relativewell-beingforthe the-
aters. More important,probably,is the fact that the movie in-
dustrywas highlyconcentrated,especiallyby the UFA concern,
while the theaterswere eithersmall privatebusinessesor were
controlledby eighteendifferent, and often politicallydiffering,
stategovernments.What Kracauerdistillsfromthemoviesas "the
Germanmind" mayratherbe the mind whichthe UFA directors
so Kracauer,op. cit.,pp. 190ff.
3i Karl Rohe,Das Reichsbanner Rot Gold,Düsseldorf,
Schwartz 1966,p. 73.
32WolfgangSauerin: Bracher,Sauer& Schulz,Die nationalsozialistische
Machter-
greifung,2nd ed.,Cologneand Opladen,1962,p. 775.
ss GüntherRühle, Theaterfürdie Republik,1917-1933,Frankfurt/M., 1967,In-
troduction,pp. 11-44.
aimed at- and to some extent undoubtedlysucceeded in- pro-
ducing.34
Finally,theseare also the yearsduringwhichthe FrankfurtIn-
stitutfür Sozialforschung startedits career,and this deservesa
brief special note. Martin Jay's forthcomingstudy of the In-
stitut3Bwill show that this institutionalone encompassedan in-
crediblerichnessboth of scholarlyindividualitiesand of scholarly
interests.Max Horkheimerand Theodor Adorno, FredericPol-
lack, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm,and Leo Lowenthal,with
WalterBenjaminas a distinguishedaffiliate, are the major names;
economics,history,philosophy,sociology,psychology,literature,
and music the disciplinesmore or less covered. More important
is the factthatthe "CriticalTheory" as developed by the Frank-
furt School appears as a veritable philosophyof experimental
thinkingand, hence, could be used as a heuristicdevice for the
understandingof the Weimar spiritin general.
There are two major points of departurefor Critical Theory.
The firstis thatin modernsocietyit is no longerpossibleto con-
ceive of, let alone to formulate,objectivevalues. The Frankfurt
School deliberatelyrefusedto "name" God- to explicitlystate,
that is, supremevalues and principles. Instead theyscrutinized,
using the methodsof the sociologyof knowledgedeveloped by
Marx, Scheler, and Mannheim, the existing philosophies and
theoriesand exposedtheirideologicalbases.This raises,of course,
the question of their own "ideological basis/' The refusal to
name God does not necessarilyeliminateHim, and the Frankfurt
School clearly had its own set of values, derived, however re-
341 am adding,as an illustrationof the fragmen tarinessof the above account
ratherthanas a completion of it,namessuchas ErwinPiscatorand Leopold Jessner
BertoldBrecht;KurtTucholsky;and thenovelists
(theaterdirectors); AlfredDöblin,
RobertMusil,Lion Feuchtwanger, Hans Fallada,and TheodorPlivier - all of whom
roseduringthe 1920s. One problemI cannotdiscusshere is the relationbetween
Germanand Austrianwriters.I am includingall Austrianswho were integrated
into Weimarculturethroughresidenceand/orcommunication and influence.
« I am grateful
to MartinJayforhis permission to use his manuscript.The main
sourceforCriticalTheoryis the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung,vol. 1 ff.(1932ff.).
Max Horkheimer's essaysin thisjournalare now collectedin: id.,KritischeTheorie,
1968.
2 vols.,Frankfurt/M.,
274 SOCIAL RESEARCH
motelyand obliquely, fromthe Enlightenment.At this point,
Critical Theory ran the risk that refusingto name God would
turninto an ideologicalattemptto conceal Him- or else end in
general confusion. The FrankfurtSchool tried to protectitself
against this risk by using Critical Theory as an experimental
method. Critical Theory was to be deliberatelyand repeatedly
exposed to challengein order to hold it open forchange and to
ascertainits own historicity.
If the Frankfurterssucceeded,in thisway,in balancingCritical
Theory between ideologyand confusion,their positionwas cer-
tainlya fragileand precariousone. But this,too, was deliberate,
and it was so forreasonshavingto do with the second focal point
ofCriticalTheory- itsattemptat bridgingthetraditionalGerman
splitbetweentheoryand Praxis. The Frankfurt School'ssolution
was the exact oppositeof Hegel's. Hegel had triedto name God
and to deduce from this a universal philosophicalsystemthat
would providea framework forthesolutionof all problems. Once
thetheoreticalsolutionwas found,actionwas merelyan automatic
execution. In historicalactuality,however,the theorybecame
oftenself-supporting and thegap betweenit and Praxis opened up
-
again if indeed it had ever been closed. The FrankfurtSchool,
by contrast,triedto preventtheoreticalselfsufficiency by keeping
theoriesin a precariousbalance. Theory was supposed to serve
and encouragePraxis, not impede it.
How much thiswas expressiveof theWeimarspiritcan be seen
froma comparisonwith the contemporaneous right-wing philoso-
phies. The Dezisionismus of Martin Heidegger, Ernst Jünger,
and Carl Schmittwas grapplingwith exactlythe same problem
and was using,in a purelytechnicalsense,a similarapproach- re-
fusalto name God.36 But the twovalue systems wereworldsapart.
Decisionismwas a comparatively cynical,irrational,and irrespon-
sible solution,an attemptat intellectualsuicide out of cultural
despair; CriticalTheorywas an attemptat intellectualsurvivalin
36 Cf. Christian Graf von Krockow, Die Entscheidung: Eine Untersuchung über
Ernst Jünger,Carl Schmitt,Martin Heidegger, Stuttgart,1958.
thefaceofoverwhelming odds,made on thebasisofan unshakable
belief in man.37
It is possible to argue, of course,that CriticalTheory did not
reallybelong anymoreto the Weimar Republic. Its maturation
came onlyin 1937,afterits authorshad emigrated,and thiscould
be takento mean thatits maturationwould have been impossible
undertheRepublic. However,thedevelopmentof thistheorywas
remarkablystraightforward; the adventof Hitler and the emigra-
tion of its originatorsleftremarkablylittleimpresson it. Conse-
quentlywe could also argue conversely - that the death of the
Republic was premature. The authors of Critical Theory be-
longed indeed to a new and risinggenerationof scholarsthatwas
representedalso in otherdisciplines - in history,forexample,by
the group around EckartKehr and Hans Rosenbergwho became
the foundersof the new German social history.38
But does not Peter Gay's thesisstill standthateven as insiders,
the Weimar intellectualsremained essentiallyoutsiders?30 No
doubt it does, and we cannot demolishit if we want to present
undistortedhistory.And yeta dynamicand sociologicalinterpre-
tationmightqualify the thesisto some extent. For example, it
cannothave been accidentalthatall throughthe 1920s the Right
in generaland the Nazis in particularwereclamoringabout being
suppressedby the Kulturbolschewisten.Until the depressionthe
Weimar intellectualsindeed dominatedthe culturalscene,while
theinfluenceof thevölkischideologistswas confined,by and large,
to what mightbe called a philistineunderground. It was only
in the Briining era, from 1930 on, that positions became re-
37 However, cf. Horkheimer's anguished retrospective comments in op. cit.,
vol. 1, pp. IX-XIV; 2, pp. VII-XI.
38 Kehr published his path-breakingSchachtflottenbauund Parteipolitik in 1931;
Rosenberg indicated his advance beyond the historyof ideas in his "Theologischer
Rationalismus und vormärzlicher Vulgärliberalismus," Historische Zeitschrift141
(1930), pp. 497 ff. Their position in the professionwas precarious, of course, but
they were not isolated as is indicated by names such as Walter Goetz, Arthur
Rosenberg. Franz Schnabel, Veit Valentin, Tohannes Ziekursch,etc.
39 Gay, op. cit.,eh. 1 and passim.
276 SOCIAL RESEARCH
versed.40 Since then, the conservatives, and Nazis
proto-fascists,
began indeed to prevail,and some of the errorsabout the cultural
developmentof theWeimar Republic originatefromthe factthat
theirauthorsgeneralizedtheconditionsof the early1930sto stand
forthe entireWeimar period.
Anotherpoint is more sociological. Modern culture is a pre-
dominantlycosmopolitanand urban phenomenon,and Germany's
lack of a capital in the westEuropean sense is anotherimportant
factorin the explanation of the peculiaritiesof German nine-
teenth-century intellectualhistory.In the Weimar Republic, it
was preciselythisthatwas in theprocessofchanging.In the 1920s,
Berlin rose as the integratedpolitical,social, and culturalcenter
ofthenation,givingGermanyforthefirsttimein herhistorysome-
thingresemblinga national capital such as Paris or London.41
Soon the "pull" of Berlin as an intellectual magnet was felt
throughoutthe entireGerman-speaking world of centralEurope,
includingHungary, and sometimes even beyond. By the end of
the 1920s,Berlin had outrun both Munich and Vienna as a na-
tional as well as a European intellectualcenter. And thissuccess
was perfectlynatural in the sense that it was built on a broad
social basis. The intellectualsdid not come to Berlin merelybe-
cause theyfoundthereso manycolleaguesand professionalfacili-
ties,but also and especiallybecause theyfound the social climate
of thatcitymorecongenialthanany other. Much as the Weimar
intellectualswereoutsidersin Germany,theyweretrueinsidersin
Berlin. If it were permittedto defineWeimar culture in terms
of a "Berlin culture,"therewould be not the slightestdoubt that
it existed. Nor was thisBerlin cultureentirelyisolatedfromthe
40Rühle,op. cit.,pp. 33 ff.,withexamplesfromthe theater. Highlyrevealing
forthe situationis the historyof the prestigious
PrussianAkademieder Dichtung
in which the republicanwritersprevailed from the outset and even forced
Kolbenheyerto resignin January1931. The only descriptionof that history1
have found is in the Nazi publicationof Hellmuth Langenbucher,Volkhafte
DichtungderZeit,2nded.,Berlin,1935,pp. 158-166.
4i WalterKiaulehn,Berlin-Schicksaleiner Weltstadt, Munichand Berlin,1958,
is a mine of information.An eruditecounterpart is Hans Herzfeldet al., eds.,
Berlinund die ProvinzBrandenburg im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,
Berlin,1968.
restofthecountry.Therewerea fewcenters oftheWeimarspirit
in otherpartsof Germany.It was not by accident,forexample,
thatthe InstitutfürSozialforschung was locatedin Frankfurt.
Everything is regionalin Germany, and so is- in partat least-
democracy.Thus,besidestheHansecities,Saxony-Thuringia, and
southwestern Germany, southern Hessewith Darmstadt and Frank-
furtbelongto theGermanregionswiththeoldestdemocratic tra-
ditions.
The preceding surveyofWeimarintellectual historyhas hope-
fullyshown how lopsided our knowledge has been in this field,
butit maynotyethavefullyanswered thequestionas to whether
therewassomething thatwe maycallWeimarculture.Factsalone
willnotdo here- weneeda conceptual framework forthis.How-
ever,if we wantto conceptualize Weimarintellectual -
history
indeedWeimarhistory in general- we facea basicdilemma.Evi-
dently,we cannotevaluateand analyzeWeimarcultureby the
standardsof the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, or by those
ofClassicism,or Realism.Voltaireand Diderot,Winkelmann and
Goethe, Balzac and Dickens have been succeeded, and to a degree
superseded, by Marx, Darwin, Freud, and Nietzsche. Since Ro-
manticism,theWestern mindhashad to workout a newrelation-
ship withthe irrational.The Enlightenment couldstillraisethe
battlecry:écrasezl'infame;thetwentieth century hassomehowto
livewiththeinfamous. Yet, however much Enlightenment, Classi-
cism,andRealismmaybe outdatedtoday,theirmostfundamental
valuesare nevertheless indispensable to us. Fromthispointof
viewtheproblemofthetwentieth centuryis howtodealrationally
withthe irrational.
We havebecomeaccustomed todealwiththisdilemmain terms
ofmodernism, and I am suggesting herethatwe wouldarriveat
a morepenetrating of
understanding theWeimarsituationif we
wouldconceptualize it in theseterms.This is not the occasion
foran extendeddiscussion of thevariousdefinitions of modern-
ism.42I am confining myself to statingthatI willuse thetermin
42The literature on modernism, though large, is still in the
developing stage.
278 SOCIAL RESEARCH
definitionand, hence,will exclude the theo-
its literary-esthetical
logical meaning. I also will distinguishmodernismfromthe con-
cept of modernizationas it is used in the social sciences,and will
presentlygive a definitionof thisdistinction.Finally,it will be-
come clear thatI am not using the termin the derogatorysense
of Renato Poggioli43 - in Poggioli's terms,I am speakingabout
"modernity." Poggioli faced a real dilemma, however,and his
case is so characteristicthat it may serve as a representativeex-
ample. As a historian,Poggiolihas a verypenetrating understand-
ing of the crucial factthat Classicism is no longer an existential
possibilityin the modernera, or, thatforthe modernartistto be
realisticmeans rejectingRealism. As a critic,however,Poggioli
needs standardsand he findsthem,understandablyenough, in
whatwe mightcall his Latin senseof balance. Thus, he uses this
sense of balance for distinguishingmodernityfrommodernism.
But is not balance the markof Classicism,and is not the lack of
suchbalance preciselywhatcharacterizes modernism?We seem to
move in a viciouscircle here, tryingto get away fromClassicism
and yetforeverfallingback on it. This is not Poggioli'sfault,how-
ever. That even as brilliant,perceptive,and subtle an authoras
Poggiolicannot solve the problemindicatesthatit may not be a
problembut a condition. It is the conditionof modernman and
thebasic criterionof modernism.Modernismis characterized by a
fundamentalambiguityin all individualand social relations in- -
cluding the concept itself.
It is easy to underestimatethe difficulties of the case. Some
mightbe temptedto think,forexample,thatwe shoulddistinguish
Statementsby writersrange fromBaudelaire to T. S. Eliot and W. H. Auden.
Renato Poggioli'sbrilliantThe Theoryof the Avant Garde, Cambridge,Mass.,
1968,is mosthelpful. IrvingHowe, ed., The Idea of Modern in Literatureand
theArts,New York,1967,and Hans Steifen, ed.,AspektederModernität, Göttingen,
1965are usefulrecentanthologies.FredWeinstein's and GeraldM. Platt'sthought-
provokingThe Wishto be Free: Society,Psyche,and Value Change,Berkeley,1969,
has helpedme in formulating theproblem. I cannotdiscussperiodizationproblems
here. See JacquesBarzun,Romanticism and the ModernEgo, Boston,1944,who
arguescogently foremphasizing the differences
ratherthan the similarities
between
modernism and romanticism.
43Poggioli,op. cit.,pp. 216-220.
the objectiveconditionfromthe consciousand affirmative accept-
ance of it. Using Poggioli'swordswitha different valuation,they
mightproposeto designatemodernityas the conditionand mod-
ernismas the intellectualmovementdealing with the condition.
We may have need of such a distinctionin a number of mar-
ginal cases, but essentiallyit is misleading. What we are deal-
ing withis not a conflictbetweenconsciousnessand condition,or
betweenidea and reality;rather,we are dealingwithambiguity -
a split withinconsciousnessitselfarisingfromthe extremeself-
awarenessand self-consciousness of modern man. In the com-
parison between the FrankfurtSchool and the decisionists,the
distinguishing mark of the latterwas not ignoranceor naivete.
Othersmighttake offfromthisexample and argue thatwe need
at least a valuativedistinctionbetweenmodernistsand anti-mod-
ernists.But again we run into a dead end if we pursue thisline
of reasoning. There are certainlytrulyantimodernistconserva-
tives; theyare to be found among dropoutslike ErnstWiechert
who recommendedwithdrawalinto a "simplelife,"44but thiswas
not the choice of men like Carl Schmitt,ErnstJünger,or Oswald
Spengler. They did notrejectmodernity;theyweretryingto sub-
ject it. Characteristically
enough,theythemselvesused paradoxi-
cal termsforself-interpretation, such as "conservativerevolution"
or "national bolshevism."45
It would seem to be the lesserevil, then,to leave the ambiguity
of modernismas it standsand defineit as the specificcriterion,
instead of tryingstrenuouslyto reach for a consistencythat is
untypicalof the subject. Needless to say, this ambiguityis not
confinedto theRightor to theWeimarperiod. We are encounter-
ing it also in theworkof Kafka,and in thepoliticalpositionof the
New LeftforwhichJürgenHabermascoined anotherparadoxical
term: Linksfaschismus(Left fascism). Ambiguityis a general
characteristic of modernman, and that is preciselywhy the con-
4*ErnstWiechert,Das einfacheLeben,Munich,1939.
«For details,see Mohler,op. cit., pp. 18-20; Otto-ErnstSchüddekopf, Linke
Leute von Rechts:Nationalbolschewismus in Deutschland1918 bis 1933,Stuttgart,
1960.
280 SOCIAL RESEARCH
cept of modernismis useful for organizingWeimar intellectual
history.Since I cannotdemonstratethisin detail withinthe con-
finesof thisarticle,I will devote the remainingspace to further
developingthe generalconceptand will illustrateit by reference
to examplesfromWeimar intellectualhistory.
The social backgroundof modernismhas variouslybeen de-
scribedas the aging of bourgeoissociety,the rise of democracy,
mass society,or industrialsociety. The decisive social change
here is that the traditionalclasses,in a strictsense,dissolveinto
a pluralityof interestgroups. The new societyis, in otherwords,
stillstructured;it is a masssocietyonlyin a politicalsensebecause
it achievesvirtuallyuniversalparticipationin politics- however
varyingthe level of participationmay be. In this limitedegali-
tariansense,it is also a democraticsociety. Economically,thenew
societyis an affluent societyin the sensethatit at least protectsits
membersfromstarvationand outrightmisery,howeveruneventhe
distributionof wealthmaystillbe.46 In historicalperspective, the
combinedresultof thesechangesis that the revolutionbecomes
establishment.The excitingdreams,hopes,and aspirationsof the
nineteenthcenturyhave becometheordinarymatters,theroutine,
even the mediocritiesof everydaylife in the twentiethcentury.
"The world/'said Karl Mannheim,"has become finished/'and
the ProtestanttheologianDietrichBonhöfferechoed,in a charac-
teristicvariation,"The world has come of age." 47
This has a curiousdialecticalconsequence,forit does not mean
stagnation.The new societyis still in a stateof change; in fact,
changeis turninginto a constant,controlledprocess - change,too,
is becomingan everydayexperience. But it is a changewithinthe
systemonly; thereis no longera possibilityfora change of sys-
tems. Indeed, how can therebe a revolutionagainstthe revolu-
tion,or forthatmatter,againstdemocracy?The authoritarianor
totalitariandictatorships thatgrowout of democraciesare funda-
mentallydifferent fromthe feudal monarchiesthat precededre-
« The Americanmodel varieshere fromthe Europeanone.
47Karl Mannheim,Ideologieund Utopie,Bonn,1929,p. 243; DietrichBonhöffer,
und Ergebung,
Widerstand Munich,1951.
publican democracies.However hostilesuch dictatorships are to
democracy,theydare not deny all the basic democraticvalues;
even the Nazis and the communistsdid not have the pluck to do
that. These dictatorships constitutea violationof, ratherthan a
revolutionagainst, the democraticsystem. Consequently,anti-
totalitarianmovementsare objectively not revolutionarybut
restorative.Modern antitotalitarian movementsresemblethe re-
sistancesand frondesof the medieval nobilitiesin that theyaim
at a restorationof violatedold rightsand values ratherthanat the
creationof new ones. Thus, the European opposition against
Hitler in the secondworldwar, in an act of unreflected but pre-
cise self-interpretation,called itself"the Resistance." The case
is the more conclusiveas the termresistancewas independently
adopted in mostoccupied countriesand prevailedin spite of the
prominentparticipationof thecommunistsin theresistancemove-
ments.
A second formof twentieth-century conflictresolutionis the
crisis. Where democraticsystemsbecome inoperativeand rigid,
theyare oftenbeing revitalizedby an infusionof plebiscitaiele-
ments - public controversies, demonstrations, civil disobedience,
etc. Historically,the firstexample of thiswas the Dreyfuscrisis,
and I am temptedto venturethe thesisthat the Dreyfuscrisisis
for the twentiethcenturywhat the French Revolution was for
the nineteenthcentury.
Applicationof this analysisto the German case is, generally
speaking,implied,but I mightpoint out, specifically, that such
an approach would greatlyhelp in clearing up the continuing
conceptualconfusionoverthe Novemberrevolutionof 1918. The
problemin 1918 was thatGermanystillneeded a revolution,but
she found herselfin an historicalsituationin which revolutions
wereno longeradequate meansofcrisisresolution.
The meaningof this general backgroundof social change for
intellectualhistorycan be summed up in a number of points.
First,in termsof the social positionof the intellectualsand the
educated classes,their isolation is now becoming complete. In
282 SOCIAL RESEARCH
the nineteenthcenturytheyhad been isolated merelyfromthe
bourgeoisiebut had still recourseto joining the workingclass as
its intellectual,and sometimespolitical,leaders. In the twentieth
centurythisis no longerpossible. The intellectuals,too, are be-
comingan interestgroup,althoughtheirinterestis not primarily
economicbut cultural: the defenseof intellectualfreedom. Yet
the defenseof freedomas a particularinterestis stilla paradoxical
idea, and intellectualsare respondingto it in a varietyof ways.
One ofthemis theparadoxicalidea of theavantgarde- elitistwith
regardto the present,but democraticwithregardto the future.
Second, the idea of progressbecomes problematical,and as
a result tensionsand conflictsarise within the intellectualclass
betweenwhatI mighttentatively call thehumanistsand the social
engineersand technocrats.Ever since the Enlightenment,pro-
gressivemovementshave been guided,by and large,by the belief
thatsocial and technologicalprogressare not onlyinterrelated and
interdependent but would also be mutuallyconvertible.With the
adventof the twentiethcenturythisidea has increasingly become
doubtfuland controversial.From the perspectiveof technology
and of the natural and social sciences,the idea of progressmay
stillappear unproblematical;fromthe perspectiveof the humani-
tiesand the artsthe dialecticalreversalsof progressand the social
price paid forit become increasinglya matterof concern. The
dualism in the conceptsof modernitybetween modernismand
modernizationis a reflection of thisdivisionamongmodernintel-
lectuals. But this conflictis not just one of pessimismversusopti-
mism. For somemodernistsnoveltyand changebecome values in
themselvesas surrogatesforprogress;othersinterprettheiraims
as progressfroma dehumanizingtechnocracyto a trulyhumane
society.
A thirdcriterionof modernismis the crisisof values. Tradi-
tional, as well as old-styleprogressive,ethics and estheticswere
stillconfidentin assumingsomekind or some potentiality of abso-
lute or objectivevalues. They aimed, therefore, at constructing
a hierarchicalvalue system. Modern man, by contrast,is faced
with the problemsof the historism and relativismof values.
As a result,classicalethicsand esthetics have been increasingly
replacedby pluralistvalue systems.The neo-Kantians Rickert
and Windelband,and the Austrianschool of Meinong and
Ehrenfelshave developeda theoryof value in such terms;
estheticianslikeHeinrichWoelfflin and WilhelmWorringer have
doneequivalentworkforthearts. Another reactionto thecrisis
ofvaluesis thesearchfornew,immanent, absolutes- one of the
rootsof themodernists' fascination withtheirrational, theemo-
the
tions, self-surrendering on
ecstasy, the one hand,and with
theworldof elementalforces, primitivism, and vitalism, on the
other.
In closeinterrelationship withthecrisisof values,modernso-
cietyexperiences a crisisof communication systems in thebroad-
est sense. Modernman is no longercertainof his language.
Philosophers and mathematicians havetriedto eliminateconven-
tionallanguagealtogether in favorof a quasi-mathematical and,
hence,seemingly value-neutral of
system symbols.Linguistsre-
ject theidea of an objectivelanguage;accordingto FritzMauth-
ner,an earlypioneerin thefieldofmodernphilosophical linguis-
tics,thenotionthatlanguagesare expressive of realityis Wort-
aberglauben - "wordsuperstition." Practicing writers,artistsand
composers have reactedin a characteristically splitway to the
situation. On the one hand,theyrevolutionized artisticforms
ofexpression.Expressionist poets triedto "smash" and fragmen-
tizetheirlanguage;theDadaistseventriedto invententirely new,
abstractlanguages. In music, Schönberg and his disciplesaban-
donedtonality and triedtodevelopnewmusicalsystems. Painters
likeKandinsky eliminated subjects from theirpictures and turned
to abstractionism in painting. At the same time,artists,com-
posers,and writers, no longersure of the communicative self-
sufficiencyof their art,now resort to explainingthemselves in
independent theoretical writings,program notes, and self-inter-
pretative statements.
A fifth
criterion ofmodernism is experimentation. In theface
284 SOCIAL RESEARCH
of the crises of value and communicationsystems,intellectuals
findthemselvesin need of developingnew modes of reactionand
response. No longersafelyguided by the well-established arcana
of traditionalistcraftsor by optimisticbourgeois philosophies,
theydevelop highlyflexibleand responsivetypesof intellectual
and artisticproduction. The solution to the problem is the ex-
periment. The new intellectualstyleis experimental. In Ger-
many,this stylewas firstdeveloped by Nietzsche. Interpreting
Nietzsche'saphoristicphilosophyas an experimentalone is the
mostconvincingway of resolvingthe old controversy of whether
or not Nietzschehad a "system/*Such adoption of experimental
formsby the arts and humanitiesis a curiouslyambiguous loan
fromthe sciencesthroughwhich the scientificmethod becomes
translatedinto an artisticstyle. What it actuallymeans is that
artistsdo not committhemselvesfullyor permanentlyto their
modes of expression. They risk theiridentityby creating,like
Picasso,a successionof styles,or by allowing,like Brecht,a clash
betweentheirsocial and estheticalvalues. Thomas Mann seemed
to have foundthe perfectsolution- ironyas a universalmedium.
But it did not workwhen he had to face the Nazis.
Little as such experimentation may resembleits originalscien-
tificmodel,it does retainone characteristic
of thescientific
method
- experimentscan and do fail. This is the last and mostobvious
similaritybetweenmodernismand Weimar history. The prob-
lem ofcommitment and allegianceplayeda crucialrole in Weimar
history- not merelyon the democraticside but also on the oppos-
-
ing one and theWeimarexperimenteventuallyended in failure.
Indeed, it would be a fascinatingtask to analyze the historyof
the Weimar Republic in termsof a modernistexperimentthat
failed. It is perhapspossible to argue that the Germans,in re-
sponse to an extremesituation,carriedexperimentationto such
lengthsthattheyeventuallylostcontrol.

Weimar Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weimar Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEIMAR CULTURE: EXPERIMENTS IN MODERNISM

Author(s): WOLFGANG SAUER

X he idea thattheWeimarRepublicmayhaveproduceda "Cul-

2 PeterGay,WeimarCulture:The Outsideras an Insider,NewYorkand Evanston,

You might also like