« . vo ..r, 21.2,; h“ «QM: ... m‘fiél i J .5. lktd 526“}. ‘Wwynwwrnrwfi M1. . {14. g? ‘ . 1 . Jr 43%,. Inaug- 19:15:: 71‘ «(Lu w 1...,“ u \ . W331...“ . urnnr ‘.‘\l/ltfl.|u In l\.l\. l :01 Enz.__.4%w. .‘cfiu‘fmuegg AFIV. sat :2 IUIHHllHUllHlIHHU||llllllllllHilllllllllmllillllll 3 1293 02050 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "The Negros of Our NationY: Ambiguities of Antiracism in West Germany, 1974—1984 presented by Julia M. Woesthoff has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for fiM . ’4- dggree in ”1.5+0Py 99mm 721mg? Major professord/ Date Dec. 10,1 26m 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOXto remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11/00 clam.m14 “THE NEGROES OF OUR NATION”: AMBIGUITIES OF ANTIRACISM IN WEST GERMANY, 1974-1984 BY Julia M. Woesthoff A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF ARTS Department of History 1999 ABSTRACT “THE NEGROES OF OUR NATION”: AMBIGUITIES OF ANTIRACISM IN WEST GERMANY, 1974-1984 BY Julia M. Woesthoff This thesis analyzes essays about guestworkers in the mainstream liberal and conservative West German press between 1974 and 1984. It explores the ways the debate about guestworkers provided a site for working through larger political tensions between liberals and conservatives during a decade which (in 1982) saw the shift fIle Social Democratic 1x3 Christian Democratic rule. The thesis assesses time ambiguities iJI the self-styled. anti- racisn1 the economic recession of 1966-67. At this time, the initial enthusiasm about guestworker labor was replaced with a growing concern about foreign employment, and Chancellor Ludwig Erhardt proposed that Germans work one additional hour per week to mitigate any possible labor shortage. The guestworker presence in Germany developed into what was commonly called the “guestworker problem,” setting time tone for time subsequent decades. One sign that attested to the increasing uneasiness about guestworker politics was the enactment of the Foreigner' Law (Auslandergesetz) 111 October" of 1965. According to this law, foreigners who indicated a desire to settle in Germany (by applying for permanent residency and working permits) faced expulsion. The law thus underscored that guestworkers’ length of employment as well as their stay in the Federal Republic should be temporary. However, legislation regarding guestworkers developed unevenly, informed kn! immediate» developments rather than of German policies regarding foreign labor see Ulrich Herbert, A History. 3 Ibid., 227. long-term objectives. In 1971, for example, an ordinance on work permits allowed guestworkers who had been employed in the FRG for at least five years to apply for a special work permit. While it was limited to five years it was not in any way connected to possible changes in the workers' economic status, and thus fostered rather than curbed guestworkers’ residency in West Germany. While the economy experienced another upswing in the years after the recession, it was not able to repeat its swift recovery after the oil crisis of 1973. Since guestworkers were disproportionately employed in heavy industry, they bore the brunt of Germany’s rising unemployment. Earlier notions of aa “guestworker problem” thus returned in the form of German guestworker policy. The continued incoherence of solutions was evident in Germany’s two—tiered approach to the problem. When the government called for EH1 immediate guestworker recruitment ban (Anwerbestop) on 27 November 1973, for example, this was initially considered sufficient to stem increasing unemployment in a declining economy, to stop the influx of foreign workers, and possibly even entice some to leave. At the same time, however, the federal government also acknowledged that it was necessary to deal with guestworkers as well as their families who were already in the country. The legislative solutions, in Herbert’s words, left the total impressionumf a very hastily conceived and occasionally hectic policy, attempting by means of ever-new decrees and ordinances, guidelines, and laws to regulate and guide social processes over the short term—without always recognizing (n: giving proper attention to their longer term nature or scope. Not surprisingly, then, tflua recruitment ban enui other measures to deal with Germany’s guestworkers did not have the desired effect. Instead of decreasing the foreign population, the number of foreigners in Germany rose even more. Due to the ban, guestworkers feared leaving the country for short visits home — afraid they would not be able to retain their jobs in Germany. As a result, many sent for their spouses and families, a right protected by the Federal Republic's Basic Law (Grundgesetz). In addition to the recruitment ban, a change in the regulation of German child benefits was responsible for the influx of foreigners into the country. Until early 1974, guestworkers received full (monetary) child benefits (Kindergeld) regardless of where their children lived (in Germany or the home country). However, new legislation lowered the amount of child benefits for guestworker children who had remained behind and further convinced 9 Herbert, A History. 247. guestworkers to bring their families to Germany. The government followed up on its child benefit laws by denying employment opportunities for guestworker children. Guestworker youth joining their families in Germany after 31 December 1976 were neither allowed to hold an apprenticeship10 nor a work permit. Already two years earlier, starting in December 1974, spouses following their partners were prohibited from obtaining a work permit. .A few years later, trends again moved in the opposite direction. In October 1978, the law was modified to allow foreigners who had stayed in Germany for a five-year—period to apply for a permanent residence permit (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung). One year later, in .April 1979, employment regulations for guestworker children and spouses were reformed as well. According to the new laws, spouses were able to acquire a work permit after four years of continued residence in the Federal Republic; children were able to obtain an apprenticeship after two years — although only if no German claimed the job. Thus, even as some of the foreigner policies prevented the settling of guestworkers in the FRG, other measures facilitated it. It is pmecisely this mix of incentives to w Students who do not acquire a high school diploma (and are thus not eligible for a college education) usually enter into an apprenticeship for three years to learn a trade. return as well as measures to facilitate integration that allowed conservatives to interpret Social Democratic politics as integrationist (and to deem that problematic), even as the ruling Social Democrats themselves continued to pretend that guestworkers’ stays were (Hi the whole temporary. In September 1979, this incoherent politics of “temporary integration”11 - meant to mask the fact that West Germany was indeed an immigration country - was openly criticized by Heinz KUhn, the representative for matters relating to guestworkers of the federal government (Beauftragter far Gastarbeiter-Fragen). He presented a report which marked a turning point in the political handling of foreign workers in the FRG. Kiihn “demanded a consistent line of integration within the policy of foreign nationals of the federal government rather than the codification of the non-immigration character of labor I migration.’ This report recognized “de facto immigration,” which had so long been denied, while nonetheless also supporting' the ban on further immigration.12 This is a formal indication of a shift in the guestworker debate toward a tmditics of integration and the recognition that many guestworkers by their actions were demonstrating that n Ursula Mehrlander, “Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” Auslanderpolitik im Konflikt, ed. E. Gehmacher (Bonn, 1978), 134. Cited in Herbert, A History. 249. they intended to stay in West Germany permanently. Previous policies were always based on the assumptions that foreign workers would eventually return (voluntarily or not) to their native country.13 Ironically, despite the ways guestworkers served as political battleground between the main parties, the shift from 51 Social Democratic to aa Christian Democratic government in 1982 changed very little in foreigner politics. The dual impulses of Social Democratic practices were simply intensified by the Cfiuistian Democrats. Christian Democrats proceeded to pursue even more forcefully the facilitatitni of re—migratitni of guestworkers back to their home countries as well as the prevention of any further migration to Germany. Yet at the same time, for those foreigners who were already in West Germany, the Christian Democrats now argued that naturalization should be the logical conclusion to integrationist efforts. They eliminated the option of indefinite residency in West Germany, and .insisted. that guestworkers either stay (and then also apply for West German citizenship) or leave. As a result of this intensified double strategy, although, most aspects of foreigner policy appeared as continuities with 12 Herbert, A History of Foreign Labor, 249. B Ibid., 250. 10 the pre-1982 trends, integration would remain a point of acute contention between liberals and conservatives.14 Over the last decade, a flurry of scholarship has made important contributions to an understanding of the guestworker situation. This scholarship has broken new ground by examining the ideological underpinnings of German interaction with guestworkers, as well as situating guestworker history within the larger context of German migration history15 and particularly within Germany’s history' of foreign employment.l6 Since the early 19903, scholars have increasingly explored the various ways in which guestworkers and particularly Turks — who, since the early 19705, make up the largest minority in Germany - have been represented within German society. In addition, they have tried to explain guestworker marginalization by analyzing images of foreigners/guestworkers in German film and literary texts, thus exposing “the complicity of representation 1J1 stubbornly' reproducing' constructions of ”17 otherness dictated tn! dominant ideologies. The various “ Detlef Bischoff and Werner Teubner, Zwischen EinbUrgerung und Rfickkehr (Berlin: Hitit Verlag, 1992), 52ff. m Klaus Bade, Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland (MUnchen: C.H.Beck, 1992). “ Herbert, A History of Fbreign Labor. n Azade Seyhan, “Introduction” to New German Critique’s special issue on Minorities in German Culture 46 (winter 1989): 3. Also see Gail Wise, Ali in Wunderland (Diss. UC Berkely, 1995); Marie Lorbeer and Beate Wild 1] studies have shown that there exists, for instance, an unreflective continuation of Nazi sentiment in the treatment of foreigners (expressed in jokes, for example, that compare Turks to Jews) as well as an often “misleading binary opposition between Germanness and Etmeignness” 511 the way guestworkers have been portrayed, an observation that my 8 work also illustrates.1 Works like (the sarcastically titled) Die freundliche Zivilgesellschaft (The Friendly Civil Society) and the more recent Unsere Tiirken (Our Turks), approach German-Turkish relations through a critical analysis of German society instead of focusing solely on foreign (particularly Turkish) workers. Both studies reveal that racisni has been consistently central to German (political, ~social, and cultural) dealings with foreigners.19 Other scholars have worked to represent foreigners’ perspectives on Germanness. Eberhard Seidel-Pielen as well as David Horrocks and Eva Kolinsky in Turkish Culture in German Society Today, for example, present personal narratives about the Turkish experience 1J1 Germany. 131 addition, Horrocks anui Kolinsky (eds). Menschenfresser-Negerkhsse. Das Bild vom Fremden im Alltag. Berlin: Elefanten Press, 1991. m Wise, Ali in Wunderland, 5—6; Anna Kuhn, “Bourgeois Ideology and the (Mis)Reading of GUnter Walraff’s Ganz Uhten.” New German Critique 46 (Winter 1989): 191-202. ” See Redaktion diskus (ed.), Die freundliche Zivilgesellschaft. Rassismus und Nationalismus in Deutschland (Berlin: Edition ID-Archiv, 12 draw attention to the increasing literature written by foreigners in Germany. A growing scholarly engagement with this genre began in the 19805 when foreign workers began to write extensively about ndgration anui its significance in 20 These studies txx> have worked to their life experience. expose the problematic and often racist German attitudes vis-a-vis guestworkers and other foreigners in German society. Sara Lennox’s work, on the other hand, takes a critical look at German anti-racism. In her article “Divided Feminism: Women, Racism and German National Identity,” she addresses the issue CHE anti-racism :hi a. German feminist context. Lennox shows that far from aiding in deconstructing categories of difference, anti-racism has a stabilizing influence on the category of whiteness when it does not 1992); Eberhard Seidel-Pielen, Unsere TUrken (Berlin: Elefanten Press, 1995). w David Horrocks and Eva Kolinsky, Turkish Culture in German Society Today (Providence, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1996);, Barbara A. Fennell, Language, Literature an the Negotiation of Identity (Chapel Hill, London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Russell King, John Connell, and Paul White, Writing Across Worlds—Literature and Migration. (London, New York: Routledge, 1995); Gisela Brinker-Gabler and Sidonie Smith (eds), Writing New Identities: Gender, Nation, and immigration in Contemporary Europe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). Sabine Fischer and Moray McGowan (eds), Denn Du Tanzt auf einem Seil. Positionen deutschsprachiger MigrantInnenliteratur. (TUbingen: Stauffenberg, 1997). Sara Friedrichsmeyer, Sara Lennox and Susanne Zantop. The Imperialist Imagination. German Colonialism and its Legacy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998). 13 question how “racial and national identities are constituted".21 Apart from Lennox’s article, however, ambiguities embedded in Cknmany’s anti-racist discourse remain under- theorized. While many scholars have referred to newspapers to substantiate their findings, their analysis lacks specific engagement with how the mainstream press has simultaneously elaborated on and decisively shaped the guestworker issue. Such an approach reveals that the print media debate itself has not only served. as a .site for working out relationships between German liberals and conservatives, but also served to construct as well as reflect popular German sentiment. A5 Eric Naiman has argued in a very different context (an analysis of Soviet ideology during the years of the New Economic Policy), ideology and the literature that can shape it are not purely reflective of material realities but affect the perception of those realities in ways that then have an impact on the development of material realities themselves.22 Naiman’s sources are obviously more overtly propagandistic than the German ones. But the conceptual point he makes u Sara Lennox, “Divided Feminism: Women, Racism, and German National Identity,” German Studies Review (1991): 493. 2 Eric Naiman, Sex in Public. The Incarnation of Early Soviet Ideology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). 14 holds true for the guestworker debate in West Germany as well. This thesis, then, is neither an analysis of popular German attitudes about guestworkers nor a study of guestworkers’ own lives. It is, rather, an analysis of the way in which the mainstream media repeatedly used the guestworker issue as an occasion for addressing ideological conflicts Germans were having with each other. In this thesis, I show that while debating issues of foreign employment as well as foreign settlement in West Germany in the 19705 and 19805, conservative and liberal newspapers and magazines alike also used the debate to discuss and thereby create knowledge not only about guestworkers but also about German economic, sexual, and national identities. In contrast to the U.S. press, the West German press is more overtly politicized, so that papers and magazines unabashedly represent their allegiance to (n: criticimn of either of the two main political parties and of other political tendencies ix; either the Left (n: the Right. The periodicals whose coverage I have examined include, on the conservative side, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, Rheinischer Merkur, and Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt, anui on the liberal side, the magazines Der Spiegel and Stern, and the weekly and daily newspapers Die U Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau, SUddeutsche Zeitung, Vorwarts, and Das Parlament. In 1974, in the wake of the oil crisis and the recruitment ban, the discussion of foreigners and foreigner-related. government policies even :hi the German liberal publications took on a very critical tone regarding the ways the ruling Social Democrats handled the guestworker issue, but as I will show, there were also decisive differences ix) conservative and liberal treatments (Hf the issues. From the early 19705 on, the presence of guestworkers had become ever more noticeable in German society; this was so not only because they stayed Ibut also because they increasingly started to explore alternative avenues regarding work, such as establishing their own businesses. Furthermore, as their families joined them and their children entered German schools, they transgressed spatial boundaries and gradually moved into German neighborhoods. These developments elicited ambiguous responses from the press; on the one hand, guestworkers were admired for their work ethic and family values. On the other hand—precisely because they possessed these admirable traits and were increasingly settling in German society—they were also perceived as a serious threat to German identity. 16 In their coverage of guestworkers, although occasionally discussing Italians, Greeks, or even the Chinese, the magazines and papers often singled out those workers and families of Turkish origin. By January 1972 Turks had become the largest foreign contingent among the guestworkers. Not only that, but while the number of guestworkers had a little more than doubled in the 5-year-period from 1968-1973, the number of Turkish guestworkers more than quadrupled during the same time frame, so that by 1973 Turks made up around 23 percent of the foreign workforce.23 After 1973, the number of guestworkers (regardless of their nationality) declined. By and large, this also meant a general drop in the number of residents from the recruitment countries. The number of Turkish nationals in Germany, however, kept growing. Moreover, unlike most other guestworkers, Turks in Germany were seen to be especially different and unassimilable and were the center of attention because of their Asian origins (most of them came from Anatolia, located in the Asian part of Turkey), and because of their religious beliefs and oriental culture. As the articles will show, these factors set them apart from other foreign workers and often served to make them the archetype of guestworker difference. 23 Herbert, A History, 230. 17 Guestworkers’ apparent economic success accrued an especially potent symbolic meaning because of the centrality of economic issues to West German attempts at moral reconstruction in the wake of fascism. Guestworkers’ roles in the economy seemed particularly threatening to West Germans who, after 1945, had sought to re-establish an identity based on industriousness and economic growth rather than national pride—or rather, industriousness and economic growth became the only legitimate sources of national pride. As Micha Brumlik and Claus Leggewie point out (with only partially restrained sarcasm), “People principally managed to master the simple every-day in the early days of the Federal Republic: as economic. citizens [Wirtschaftbfirger]. The question of German identity, of a historical consciousness and self-understanding, of taking an acceptable stand on one's own history, seemed answered by [Germany’s] limited sovereignty, thoughts about Europe and integration into the West—the ‘burden of history’ was so well taken care of by official commemorations.”24 By comparison, the other groups who made up more than 10 percent of the foreign labor force were Yugoslavs (18 percent) and Italians (12,8 percent). u Micha Brumlik and Claus Leggewie, “Konturen der Einwanderungsgesellschaft: Nationale Idenitat, Multikulturalismus und ‘Civil Society’," in Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland. ed. Klaus Bade (MUnchen: C.H. Beck, 1992), 432-33. 18 In the 19705 and 19805, Germans still largely identified themselves. as “economic citizens.”’ In. the course of the 19705 and early 19805, however, Germans also became much more cautious regarding their economy and its limits. German society was trying to come to terms with a growing lack of confidence about capitalism caused not only by the New Left critiques (voiced in the late 19605 and early 19705) but above all by the repercussions of the oil crisis. After Germany had so quickly recovered from the recession in 1966- 67, the post-war economic miracle now appeared really to have come to an end, and neither conservatives nor liberals seemed to know how to regard this development. Newfound anxieties about capitalism and consumerism manifested themselves in heightened ambivalence about foreign and especially Turkish participation in both. A number of articles which represent various aspects of the liberal and conservative ideological landscape implied.ea certain sense of 1055 brought about by the influence of Western consumer culture (especially as it affected moral values), and this provided the context for admiring the supposed traditional lifestyle of the guestworkers. But numerous authors also displaced their ambivalence about German consumerism by mocking foreigners’ eager embrace of it. 19 In other instances, both liberals and conservatives used the guestworker problem as the ground on which they struggled to come to terms with the feminist movement. Conservatives demonstrated this implicitly as they expressed their concerns about low German and high guestworker birthrates. Liberals dealt with this more explicitly in their assault on—and yet also fascinated obsession with—— guestworkers’ purported patriarchalimn. Yet other articles meanwhile, explicitly attest to continued German grappling with the National Socialist past. In sum, the guestworker debate was never exclusively informed by labor politics in the strict sense. In worrying about guestworkers’ relative success in establishing a livelihood where Germans many failed to do so, and in worrying about the growing number of second and third- generation guestworkers in Germany, Germans were worrying as well about their own values, their own comparatively low birth rates, and their own national and party-political reputations. The ways in which guestworkers and policy decisions about them were discussed in the different newspapers provided. a constant forum for assessments of German history and society. .At the same time, while both sides—liberal and conservative—ostensibly discouraged open discrimination 20 against guestworkers, it was not just the German rhetoric of admiring guestworkers’ purportedly inherent traditional values and their relative success “against all odds” (i.e. previous attempts to reduce their numbers) that revealed a systematic, stereotypical racism in the guise of antiracism. In addition, eumi overall, the language used 1J1 describing the guestworker problem both in the liberal and conservative print media repeatedly supported the opinion that foreigners in general and Turkish guestworkers in particular were inherently different from German people regardless of their actions. Precisely as journalists called for greater popular understanding of Germany's “guests” and styled themselves as creating the grounds for that greater understanding, they also continually reiterated an array of problematic stereotypes. They did this by elaborating on and simultaneously reifying guestworker difference. As it turns out, it is the liberals who most forcefully styled themselves as antiracists but who nonetheless, ironically, most determinedly (re)produced guestworker difference. My analysis concludes in 1984 for a number of reasons. By 1987, two-thirds of the guestworkers had been living in West Germany for more than 10 years, i.e. had settled 21 there.25 Their increasingly diverse economic and social participation as well as Germans’ growing interest and support in the guestworker issue can account for the fact that in the mid-19805 the terms of the debate shifted. For example, literature by non-Germans published in Germany (and mostly dealing with their German experience) increasingly appeared on the German literary market. Writing competitions for foreigners and the creation of the annual Adalbert von Chamisso Prize in 1985 for the literature of this genre also supported the development and increasing visibility of the genre in particular and the non-Germans' voices in general.26 As Gail Wise has pointed out, the interest in foreigners’ personal narratives that developed at this time about “experiences in what was perceived to be a restrictive society” coupled. with EH1 increasing number‘ of calls for action against racism pointed to a “tentative acceptance of foreigners as members of West German society.”27 Another publication that centered on guestworkers was GUnter Walraff's Lowest of the Low [Ganz Unten], published in 1985. The book was a sensational bestseller in Germany, and. helped shape the trajectory' of discussions on % Fischer. “Migration.” N See Sabine Fischer and Moray McGowan, “From Pappkoffer to Pluralism” Writing Across Worlds. Literature and Migration. Ed. Russel King, John Connell, and Paul White (New York: Routledge, 1995). 2’ Wise, Ali. 154. 22 guestworkers in its aftermath. Walraff, dressed as the stereotypical guestworker ix) old, out—of—style clothes, a black. wig, aumi mustache, speaking' broken. German. with an affected Turkish accent and lookrmg for employment, encountered atrocious working' and living conditions. Wallraff’s muckraking expose evoked an enormous outcry, not so much about the treatment of guestworkers, but primarily about the politics of the companies Wallraff had exposed (McDonald’s and the steel company Thyssen among them). Only secondarily did the issue of racism find its way into the post-Wallraff discussion. While some of Wallraff’s Turkish co-workers, who spoke out against Wallraff’s work, did not protest the author’s portrayal of guestworkers in general nor the lack of a critical analysis of their treatment (instead, they protested Wallraff’s sole claim to authorship, the lack of promised financial support from royalties, and unequal remuneration in comparison to their German colleagues when helping Wallraff) “by speaking about the project, [Turkish] co-workers defied Wallraff in more than the issue of authorship” as they appeared informed and eloquent in their criticism.28 28 For a detailed discussion of the reception of Ganz Unten see: Kuhn, “Bourgeois Ideology.” 23 While Wallraff's book itself perpetuated and possibly even reinforced German stereotypes about guestworkers, it also evoked reactions from members of the Turkish community that clearly challenged those very stereotypes. The growing outspokenness, then, of guestworkers themselves, both about their CNN] participation Ill and contribution t1) Wallraff’s work, as well as more generally in addition to the gradual emergence of leftist and church-sponsored German antiracist initiatives, steered the debate away from an (almost exclusive) top—down approach to the guestworker problem and towards time development of rmnxe grass-roots integrationist and mmlticultural activism starting III the second tmfldf of the decade. 24 A‘U CHAPTER 1: THE CONSERVATIVES In Germany's conservative papers, particularly Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Die Welt, Rheinischer Merkur (RM), and Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt (DAS), depictions of guestworkers in the mid-19705 were initially seemingly positive and uncomplicated; guestworkers were in Germany temporarily, had established themselves within the Germany economy, and would leave again as soon as they had saved enough money to live comfortably in their re5pective home countries. These same views, however, quickly became imbued with a variety of anxieties that revealed at least as mush about German preoccupations with their (NW1 national, economic and sexual identities as they did about those who supposedly were the focus of their discussion. Specifically, these discussions exposed German concerns about their cmn lower' productivity' along' with. what they' perceived to 1x3 inadequate reproductivity, and many essays pondered the consequences such factors ‘would. have (n1 German identity. Moreover, the guestworker‘ debate was also ea forumi where larger political ideologies were debated; the issue of foreign workers was often only a symptom. In 1974, the Rheinischer Merkur published an eight-part series called “Guestworkers in Germany.” This series is 51 25 useful introduction to the conservative vista as it took shape immediately after the recruitment ban. Reacting to the recent political debate about guestworkers, the author, Gregor Manousakis, was highly critical of those left-liberal voices that considered liberal government foreigner politics as too harsh because they were oriented towards exclusion rather than integration. Rather, he felt that those opinions only provoked problems and stirred up anxieties. Manousakis took it upon himself to enlighten Germans about guestworkers and their contribution to German society, at times presenting them in decidedly positive and even laudatory terms. In doing so, Manousakis often used Germans as a point of reference, 1J1 effect revealing rmufli about Germans as well. Overall, however, Manousakis managed to insult both, Germans and guestworkers. Criticizing German workers in particular and Germans in general, Manousakis was convinced that guestworkers were largely needed because of the “misjudgment of the impact of an increasing prosperity on [Germans’] willingness to take on gainful employment.”29 In other words, he believed Germans had gotten used to their standard of living and a regulated work week, which they were able to enjoy only because (M5 the strong guestworker presence. Since Germans 26 were unwilling' to give up these amenities, they had to support the guestworkers’ presence and industriousness. Furthermore, Germany needed guestworkers because, according to Manousakis, the introduction and popularity of the birth- control pill had caused a slump in the German birth—rate, which meant slower population growth and labor shortages.30 Without enough German laborers, then, guestworkers were recruited to fill the open positions (overwhelmingly located in the industrial sector) and were thus assigned the role of maintaining the German standard of living. In short, Manousakis showed Germans to be weak and dependent upon the strength. emphasize their role as guestworkers, not permanent residents. He therefore claimed that the guestworker debate was itself based on what he saw as an incorrect liberal premise that guestworkers were in Germany to stay and thus needed to be integrated into German society. (Note that liberals in actuality at this point did not favor permanent immigration either.) Manousakis thus painted liberals as far more integrationist than they actually were so an; to highlight his CNN] perspective. In Manousakis’ view, any measure taken to aid guestworkers in their adjustment in Germany was futile and was ai‘waste of money and energy. Rather, guestworkers came to Germany because it allowed them to make more money in a shorter period of time than they could make at home. After all, Manousakis asserted, “[t]he European South has also shared in general progress,”32 implying that the region was doing fairly well and hunger and dearth were not as prominent as Germans might have thought.33 n Gregor Manousakis, “Part II: Sie kommen nicht aus Not. Arbeiten, sparen, Wohlstand erwerben ist ihr Ziel, “ RM, 28 December 1973, 10. n . Ibid. B This view of sameness would later on be contested as the guestworkers were recognized as permanent residents in Germany 28 According to Manousakis, stock-piling money was guestworkers’ only goal and every aspect of their lives was organized around it. For him, it followed that guestworkers themselves were responsible for their generally poor living conditions in ghetto-like neighborhoods - rather than ruthless landlords and a general reluctance among Germans to live with or even near guestworkers. Such an argument also allowed him to avoid engaging critically with any legacy of German racism. As he maintained, “[t]hese people virtually live in a state of psychological intoxication. Fascinated by the possibility to carry DM150 more to the bank each month, they can not find the strength to refrain from it. They have lost any sense of time, life and money.”34 Despite such incredibly insulting characterization which shifted the blame for guestworkers’ living conditions from Germans to the guestworkers themselves, Manousakhs was also quick to point out that the ghettoes, which had drawn so much attention in cities like Frankfurt and Berlin, were unpleasant exceptions since most guestworkers were able to live in adequate, governmentally or company-subsidized 5 housing.3 Generally, Manousakis assured. Germans that “to Germany come healthy, family-oriented, patriotic, [and] u - Ibld. ” Gregor Manousakis, “Part III: Slums sind nicht die Norm. Trotzdem: Geschaft mit der Wohnungsnot,” RM, 4 January 1974, 16. 29 civilized people who are deeply rooted in the traditions of their country. Their world, their social ties are intact.”36 Here, Manousakis' implications were twofold: Germans did not have to fear guestworkers because they were “decent” people; they also had strong ties to their home country and would thus want to return to it rather than settle in Germany. The contradictions in Manousakis’ account throughout the series (guestworkers characterized out-of—control desires for money versus deep-rooted traditional ties; substandard housing as a self-chosen cost cutting strategy versus housing conditions as not so bad and therefore not worth bemoaning after all) only make sense against the background of his assault on .liberal state and federal guestworker strategy. Manousakis was in constant dialogue with and highly critical of what he persisted in portraying as consistent efforts to integrate guestworkers into German life. The criticism implicit in most every articLe in the series erupted explicitly into the forefront of the eighth and final installment, focused (n1 guestworker children’s schooling. Because he believed that guestworkers would only want to stay in West Germany temporarily, Manousakis advocated educating guestworker children in a way that allowed them to return to their home countries rather than “ Ibid. 30 teaching them how to cope in a German environment. He lauded classes that were taught by teachers from the recruitment countries who themselves were barely in command of the German language. Moreover, Manousakis believed that idz‘was particularly advantageous tflun: these teachers iuui “hardly any connections to the leftist Pedagogy establishment in the Federal Republic” and, thus, he was satisfied that “their classes could not be converted into pedagogical I laboratories.’ According txa Manousakis, leftists, however, found The situationmunacceptable, the ‘situation' had.tx) be changed. The agitation against foreign elementary school classes began and was successfully executed through a typically leftist-radical move. It was determined that the Mediterranean text books supposedly contained anti-democratic bodies of thought; the Left at least declared all patriotic expressions and songs in these books as such. The outcry was enormous. Patriotic education today belongs ix) the untouchable, sacred privilege of socialist people's democracies. Whoever thinks such an education appropriate outside the communist world is a ‘fascist.’37 Besides the general scathing sarcasm and criticism of leftist ideology, the reference to the potentially fascistic nature of foreign education politics indicated another point of contention between liberals and conservatives - how to deal with foreigners in Germany in light of the country’s fascist past. Manousakis attempted to LHMRD the ideological 31 linkages between postwar conservatism and fascism by making a mockery' of and ‘purporting' to expose the hypocrisy in leftist critiques of conservatism. Conservatives were anxious that their preoccupation with encouraging guestworkers to return to their home countries rather than integrating them into West German society could be associated with racist Nazi policies; lampooning and exaggerating leftist cries of “fascism” was an effective way to turn the tables. Many of the themes in the Rheinischer Merkur series were evident in Die Welt’s portrayal of guestworkers as well even as Die Welt made even less flattering remarks than Manousakis had about guestworkers and particularly Turks. For example, in 1974, a contributor in Die Welt, while agreeing that “the Turks attempt to lay the groundwork for a future existence at home,” nevertheless declared that "More than any other groups Turks stand out because—in comparison to other groups of foreigners—their degree of civilization is the lowest compared to that of the Germans.”38 But I_D_i_e Welt also reprimanded Germans for their attitudes that made guestworkers necessary in the first place. The paper ” Gregor Manousakis, “Part VIII: Schulexperimente mit Auslanderkindern. Die Golgen eines verfehlten Unterrichtssystems-Das Recht auf Muttersprache,” RM, 8 February 1974, 16. m “Die Schnauzbarte vom Bosporus arbeiten hart und leben karg,” Die Welt, 12 January 1974, 3. 32 reported, for example, that even "in times of immense unemployment no law could probably force the German unskilled laborer to ever do the dirty work againtefore he himself will take hold of the broom again, he will prefer to live off unemployment benefits rather than face such ‘social decline.’”39 Such a statement spoke to the immense stigma that was attached to most of the jobs guestworkers held. Apart from performing the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs in heavy industry, guestworkers worked in the fish- processing industry, tanneries, commercial cleaning, and the catering trade. Over time decade (and. 'beyond), the distribution of occupations did not change much at all. By 1984, well over 80 percent of the guestworkers still 40 performed blue-collar labor. Moreover, Die Welt further underscored Manousakis’ critical viewpoint of liberal ideology. In an essay somewhat derogatorily entitled “The mustaches from the Bosporus work hard and live meagerly,” the paper vehemently dismissed what it called "social criticism on TV," "TV shows tinted with social criticism" and "books from progressive publishers.” Conservatives argued. that while liberals were portraying guestworkers as the source of a possibly precarious social 39 "Bei weniger Arbeit wird Ibrahim zum Problemfall," Die Welt 1.11.74, 4. 33 situation, liberals themselves were doing nothing to improve the situation. In fact, conservatives contended that liberal criticism of the status quo and suggestions for improvement were worsening rather than bettering the guestworker situation.41 It was precisely, then, in order to counter what it saw as liberal trouble-making that Die Welt, like other conservative papers, offered what it.sfinv as more positive images of the guestworkers by focusing on guestworker success stories. These emphasized that some guestworkers had indeed reached high ranks in certain industrial branches and lauded their discipline and industriousness that had earned them such positions. The tension with liberals is crucial in understanding the phenomenon of the positive conservative portrayal of guestworkers, which (to us in hindsight) might otherwise appear bizarre because praise for guestworkers could of course as readily been translated into support for guestworker integration into German society. Although Die Welt and Manousakis’ essays are representative of early conservative praises for guestworkers as contributing, goal-oriented, and above all w See Herrmann, Helga. “Auslander am Arbeitsplatz.” Informationen zur politischen Bildung 237/4. Quartal 1992, 12. “ See "Die Schnauzbarte vom Bosporus arbeiten hart und leben karg" in Die Welt, 12.1.74, 3; as well as "Bei weniger Arbeit wird Ibrahim zum Problemfall," Die Welt 1.11.74, 4. 34 temporary inhabitants of the Federal Republic, Die Welt and Manousakis’ series also already address one of the themes in the guestworker debates that would. be very' much in the foreground by the late 19705. While discussing the guestworker “problem,” the conservative press reveals a deep-seated anxiety which over—masculinizes the guestworker and—by default—places Germans in a weaker, less (re)productive light. Manousakis 1J1 particular shows the beginning of this trend as he depicts the virile sexual young guestworker on the verge of invading Germany. Lonely? No, their [guestworkers’] leisure time is filled with cars and women. Women? At this thought at the latest, many young men and women42 who have grown up experiencing the sexual discipline of a patriarchal society become rebellious. The next day they are waiting in line in front of the German embassy of their home country [organizing their departure for Germany].43 Despite this one vision of sexually charged guestworkers flooding into Germany, most conservatives in the mid—19705 declared that the debate about guestworker mores itself was contrived. The conservative press repeatedly asserted that the German people had nothing to fear because guestworkers were traditional, civilized people who helped maintain ” Despite Manousakis' inclusion of women in his discussion of rebellious Turkish youth against a patriarchal society, his focus is clearly on foreign men in Germany, as the reference to leisure time filled with cars and women shows. ‘3 “Part II: Sie kommen nicht aus Not,” 10. 35 German standards and were only temporary residents. For these reasons, guestworker politics and concomitant efforts to integratel guestworkers iJnxa German society' stirred. up unnecessary uncertainties about Germany’s future that formed the basis for these so-called groundless debates. Between 1974 and 1977, the most prolific of the conservative papers in its coverage of the guestworker debate - the highly respected and influential Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - continued tx> publish articles that identified guestworkers as single, transient males. The articles attempted to promote an understanding of male guestworkers, by implying that what they possessed that made them different and admirabLe was what Germans were ultimately lacking. The guestworkers were portrayed as non- threatening, even endearing in their sheer simplicity; they were seen as "thrifty", "religious", and "humble," as well as praiseworthy for their economic and sexual discipline.44 Such images had also prevailed throughout the debate prior to the recruitment ban. They had, however, always been coupled vdjfli the assumption — (n: fervent hope - that most guestworkers would return to their home countries due to the “ see Petra Michaely, "Auch an der Saar weiB man wo Mekka liegt," FAZ 21 September 1974, 6(BZ); Key L. Ulrich, "TUrkische Arbeitnehmergesellschaften—Geschaft mit der Hoffnung," FAZ, 12 October 1976, 7-8. JUrgen Eick, Gatarbeiter. Mehr, weniger oder gar keine," FAZ, 3 March 1976, 1. 36 strain that monastery—like living arrangements put on them. This strain was created by the alien environment in which they lived, without women or family, as one journalist explained it. So, even though they were praised for sexual restraint, there was fear that it would not last long. By 1974, it had become clear that such assumptions, however about guestworkers’ imminent return to their home countries were already wishful thinking. Positive images of guestworkers mingled and eventually gave way to ever more ambiguous ones, which further exposed conservative anxieties about guestworkers by revealing German insecurities about themselves. Rather than promoting an understanding for temporary foreign workers, there was now an increasing number of more critical depictions of guestworkers. In March of 1975, Axel Schnorbus, a journalist with the FE, contemplated the consequences of Germany's guestworker politics and how they reflected on German national character, calling into question the benefits of using foreign manpower to increase the German standard of living: "If we don't want to knuckle down to it ourselves to reach a higher standard of living, then we have to let even more foreigners work for us. However, this would be a highly 37 doubtful improvement."45 Following Schnorbus’ line of argument, JUrgen Eick III the article "Guestworkers: more, less or none at all” broached the issue unequivocally: "Without a doubt, this country needs guestworkers. However, does it need another million Turks?” Eick answered his own question with a “no,” showing the dilemma in which Germans saw themselves at the time and, without a doubt, had gotten themselves into by first welcoming and then taking for granted guestworker labor.‘16 Part of this skepticism also grew out of the belief that guestworkers were impossible to assimilate into German culture because of their “fixation on family" rather than on their German environment.47 This awakening to a possibly permanent guestworker population in Germany further established an image of guestworker work and family ethic as superior in comparison to Germans while also using these elements to mark them as different. A discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of guestworker contributions to German society revealed as much if not more about Germans' perceptions of themselves as they did about the guestworkers. By 1977, what harmless and possibly endearing portrayals there had been of guestworkers w Axel Schnorbus, “’Gastarbeiter mach Deutsche arbeitslos.’Oft wird nur die eine Seite gesehen,” FAZ, 3 March 1975, 11. “ Jfirgen Eick, Gastarbeiter. Mehr, weniger oder gar keine,” FAZ, 3 March 1976, 1. 38 ceased to exist and the same characteristics were now seen as threatening. Guestworker productivity' became less the focus of attention (and anxieties), except when it was discussed 1J1 exclusively' :masculine terms. Generally, guestworkers were described as virile males, appropriating parts of the German landscape. Articles in the 12%; like “When guestworkers settle down” and “The Turks are here” spoke to an awareness of a more permanent guestworker presence, while portraying that presence in, at best, ambivalent terms. Guestworkers became conspicuous and ubiquitous in “larger masses of men” gathered in train stations or in such situations when “little, strong men with back mustaches hauled trash cans, [and] Mediterranean musclemen incomprehensibly shouted after young girls.”48 In the early 19805, when unemployment in Germany steeply rose again, additional articles appeared that reported in an increasingly alarming tone about guestworkers in the German workforce. Guestworkers ibecame especially' newsworthy' when they dealt with and even succeeded in situations where Germans faltered: “According to the main branch of the German retail trade organization, for the owner of a grocery “ Knut Barrey, “’Unfreundlich und nicht hilfsbereit.’ Deutsche und Gastarbeiter—Eine Mainzer Studie,” FAZ, 17 April 1974, 6. w Peter Hort, “Wenn Gastarbeiter seBhaft werden. M055en Familien drauBen bleiben?” FAZ, 15 January 1977, 10. Bruno Dechamps, “Die TUrken sind da,” FAZ, 21 April 1979, 1(BZ). 39 store to succeed, each of his employees needs to do DM 25,000 worth of business if he wants to do reasonably well. To the Turkish or Chinese grocer these narrow margins do not applym[because] the whole family pitches in [Thus] industry and readiness for action as well as their modesty are their strongest trump cards in the competition.49 Not only were guestworkers perceived as the ones who could persevere in situations that Germans were unable to master, they even succeeded when Germans made the conscious effort to hold them back: “Despite the fact that obstructions have always been rnn:;hi their way, they hold whole branches of the industrym virtualLy in their hands. Against this background, the Turkish cobbler, the Greek produce store, and the Yugoslavian tailor (who does alterations) are extraordinary achievements, that reveal where the foreigners’ capabilities lie: in their determination, their competence and their industriousness .In regards to performance many of them are equal to Germans if not superior to them the role of pariah now threatens the Germans.”50 While finding multiple examples among the various ethnicities, most concern was expressed about the largest w Gottfried Eggerbauer, “Vom Wohlstand nicht nur naschen,” RM, 29 January 1982, 11. 4O ethnic community in Germany, the Turks. The conservatives believed that the German environment and Germans’ rejection of Turks was actually conducive to Turkish industriousness and success because (referring to Germany) "to have to live in a soulless world and to be the ones in need, has encouraged rmnu/ Turks tx2 seek self-affirmation...Turks in the Federal Republic today already have 17 billion marks at their disposal. ‘One has txa encourage them.tx> invest this money in the German industry to help invigorate the German II economy,’ says Zafer Ilgarb, head of the Turkish Community in Berlin.51 Thus, at the core of German anxieties about guestworker industriousness was the recognition that guestworkers were needed to uphold a West German standard of living (inferring its connection to German identity). Their successful, and even superior, work ethic maneuvered Germans into a marginal position that seemed to deny them much control over the situation. This work ethic was not perceived as entirely positive, however, but rather exposed German ambivalence about capitalism and the work ethic and the greed -and exhaustion - it brought out in many guestworkers, and not just Turks. "I know Sergio and his stubborn way of getting out of this w Konrad Adam, “Die Letzten konnten eines Tages die Ersten sein,” FAZ, 7 November 1981, 1(BZ). 41 Germany whatever he can,” an article in the F52 opined. The article also described how “at the end of the day everybody is dead [tired] and everybody screams at everybody else and they throw around pots and hate each other in this dreadfully small apartment. At least they have earned money, and of course, [they] won’t give any of it to authorities and other enemies.”52 While Germans were enjoined tx> work hard enmi save (virtuous traits 1J1 German society), this virtue, when pursued by cmhers, seemed to 1x3 revealed as selfish (i.e. a vice). What is exposed here is a constitutive incoherence within capitalist morality, one that. is, however, not recognized aus such. Moreover, the view—also revealed. in time quote above—that. working (too) hard ruins people’s private life exposes yet another incoherence within capitalism1 which is rarely confronted directly. Only in time context of “pitying” foreigners was it, at least partially, acknowledged. These depictions also reveal that by the early 19805 Germans were well aware that many guestworkers had settled in Germany. They had brought their families into the country and established their own businesses. Conservatives, however, were still unwilling to acknowledge that Germany 51 Mascha M. Fisch, “Sokrates soll Deutscher sein," RM, 16 December 1983, 27. 42 had become an immigration country. Paradoxically, the guestworkers who had been described as extremely successful competitors in the German economy because they opened businesses with the help of their families—and had thus been held up to Germans as examples—were also perceived as the ones least likely to settle and assimilate into German culture. "The Turks flock [to Germany], trailing Tunisians and Moroccans. [These people], then, would probably be only marginally capable and willing ti) settle down [and integrate] in Germany.”53 This shift in the origin of guestworkers (from a European to a non—European-based guestworker force) amplified German apprehension while continuing to fuel concerns about fears of overpopulation by what the conservatives depicted..as time most undesirable groups of foreigners. Consequently, while implicitly' admitting that Germany had de facto become an immigration country, and that action had to be taken to make this reality as painless as possible, fears concerning a loss of German identity were implicit iii the conservative discusshmi as Germanness and German social structures were threatened because - no longer temporary — growing numbers of guestworkers were becoming w Horst Schbtelburg, “Sagen wir doch ruhig einmal danke,” FAZ, 13 March 1982, 2(BZ). 43 permanent members of German society. There developed another strand of conservative rhetoric that not only criticized liberals’ (purported) integration efforts aus impracticable but also emphasized guestworkers’ own inability to integrate into West German culture, regardless of any efforts that would be made to aid them in the process Guestworker reproduction as well as appropriate roles for guestworker and German women respectively gained increasing attention — as the numbers of those perceived as impossible to integrate rose - and, moreover, was considered another factor that severely threatened Germany's national and. ethnic characteru As early' as 1975, «difficulties in advancing guestworker integration were traced back to guestworker mothers who were trying to hinder their children's success of integration. “The man wants to stay, his wife does not. Therefore, she does not vunfi: to learn German and children who do not speak it either or only '64 Such articles badly, are her security for a return home. implied that guestworker wives' traditional behavior posed a threat ti) integration. efforts, and fix: was proposed that integration could be improved through "provision of jobs for B Konrad Adam, “Die Letzten konnten eines Tages die Ersten sein," FAZ (Bilder und Zeiten), 7 November 1981, 1. “ Key L. Ulrich, “Die Stadte und ihre Auslander,” FAZ, 13 January 1975, 6; also see Renate Mreschar, "Eltern auslandischer Kinder kenn ihre deutsche Umwelt kaum," FAZ, 19.January 1977, 6. 44 [foreign] women."55 Guestworker mothers and non—working foreign women, then, were seen as the reason for failed integration attemptsfi56 which is interesting when juxtaposed against the liberal discussion of the strong patriarchal structure of the guestworker household. In the 19805, when the number of Turkish, Tunisian and Moroccan guestworkers increased in comparison to the number of guestworkers from European countries, the focus of attention broadened to include German women and particularly their reproductivity (which, by extension, reflected German “values”). Initially, the issue of German reproductivity was not always at the center of the debate. Rather, it was implied in discussions about the threat of over- foreignization that measures had tie be taken ti) stop the forces that were identified as rapidly changing Germany’s character. The issue was first openly discussed in 1980, in an extensive, full-page $2 editorial by the scientist Dr. Theodor Schmidt-Kaler, called "How many foreigners Germany % “‘Ohne Gastarbeiter mUBten wir dicht machen,’” FAZ, 21 February 1975, 13. 56The traditional (patriarchal) structure of the guestworker family is much less seen as a specific problem. For example, as is pointed out in one article, "young foreigners stumble [straucheln] in [both], the border zone [Grenzgebiet] between the old milieu of the extended family (with its taboos) and the new one of their German friends (with other but also rigid rules)” (see Key L Ulrich, “Aufenthalt ja—lernen und arbeiten nein,” FAZ, 1 February 1977, 5). 45 can live with."57 Schmidt-Kaler differentiated between different cultural rates of reproduction (where Asian and Moroccan women had the highest level of fertility and German, Yugoslav and Greek women’s were much lower) and determined their respective potential for integration into German society. He concluded that, if current developments were to continue, one had to realize that "[t]he [German] cultural tradition is disrupted, another nation with a different ethnic and spiritual substance will live 1J1 our country one day Our problem is not the guestworker per se, but the Asians [in this group of guestworkers]." However, it is important to notice that Schmidt-Kaler did not so mmch blame what he called the “Asiatic races” for obliterating the German character, but that he ultimately saw the problem in German (women's) attitudes. However, the encouragement of our younger generation is criticald The drop in time birth ratem[is] at least partly the consequence of individual reactions to conditions that have developed in various aspects of our lives in regards to state measures, internal company behavior and so on.58 According to Schmidt-Kaler, the situation could be alleviated with a return to older values. As he put it, an immense relief of the job market is to be expected, when young women become mothers Having children is an existential. part CHE humans’ self-fulfillment [and it Theodor Schmidt-Kaler, “Mit wievielen Fremden die Bundesrepublik leben kann,” FAZ, 30 September 1980, 11. 58 Ibid. 46 is] a gift and responsibility What good is the prosperity of time present generation ii? the identity, the perpetuation of the German nation is jeopardized?59 This fear of a deteriorating German identity was expressed again 51 year later, when time FAZ declared that "Nations [Vblker] must remain recognizable and over- foreignization, especially when there is unlimited immigration, leads at some percentage point ti) a nation’s demise.”6O That same year, a letter to the editor targeted Germans themselves for what was perceived as ant immediate threat to German national identity: Losing control of the foreigner situation can primarily be attributed to the fact that German couples prefer consumption over children. Isn’t it much more convenient, and particularly more prestigious, to spend money on cars, luxury apartments and exotic travel? On the other hand, for foreigners often with traditional family ties children are an indispensable part of their lives, and that, in my opinion, is much more human and natural.61 Guestworkers’ reproductivity, in short, combined with their supposed retention of traditional family values, came to be a point of envy as well as extreme concern to Germans whose dwindling numbers and pleasure in consumption left them weak and vulnerable to non-German forces. As with earlier articles that. highlighted. guestworkers’ supposed superior work ethic, this article again severely criticized Germans - 59 ' Ibid. w Hans-Otto Maetzke, “Umgang mit Fremden.” FAZ, 9 April 1981, l. m “Auslanderfeindlich (Leserbrief).” FAZ, 7 November 1981. 10. 47 this time for their consumerist attitude — and in this way too expressed ambivalence about capitalism which was seen as being at the heart of Germany's crisis. Ultimately, the discussions surrounding issues of guestworker politics (that were intimately tied to productivity and reproductivity) also led to an examination of the relationship between these issues and Germany's National Socialist past. Unanimously, conservative journalists rejected any pmssibility of ea continuation of Nazi sentiment within German society in general and Q There existed, guestworker politics in particular. however, an agreement that Germans, because of their National Socialist past, were very sensitive in their dealings with foreigners and especially guestworkers. Crucially, liberal policymakers were identified as interpreting more conservative/restrictive measures and critical voices (i.e. anti-integrationists) as National Socialist in spirit because of their racist overtones. The conservative press also at times admitted that problems surrounding guestworker integration evoked difficult connections to Germany’s National Socialist past. Therefore, finding strategies regarding the guestworker problem while simultaneously discussing them in racially and politically 48 neutral terms, became almost impossible, a situation greatly lamented by conservatives. The attempt at debating guestworker integration measures imiaa neutral language, it was asserted, only led to a different form of extremism without leaving room for any middle ground. As one journalist asserted, one was caught between “‘Foreigners Out!’ and 'Love thy foreign fellow neighbors’ and had to decide if one wanted to be a Nazi pig or a humanist."63 It was feared that guestworkers would only take advantage of Germany’s remnants of national guilt. In addition, conservatives displaced the responsibility for German unwillingness ti) adapt to time diversity' that accompanied large guestworker communities onto the guestworkers themselves: "You [the guestworkers] are forcing your way of life on us For the lovely [foreign] brothers and sisters are often the most radical. They have no comprehension for the diversity of our Federal Republic." As early as 1974, Henk Ohnesorge pointed out that “Those [people] who were for the rotation method [and] sending foreigners home after a certain amount of time, and who justified these solutions with reference ti) foreign development aid [Entwicklungshilfe] through. the 'technical Q Also see FAZ, “Sagen wir doch ruhig einmal danke,” 2(BZ); Friedrich Karl Fromm, “Gefahren kann man auch herbeireden,” 27 August 1982, 1. 49 know-how [gained in Germany] and the confrontation with a modern industrial society; who argued this would assure that the largest possible number of Mediterranean job seekers would have the opportunity to acquire starting capital for a modest existence at home; [people who proposed these ideas] were accused of inhumanity, rigid profit orientation and - yes, even of - master' race mentality.”64 This statement (like the Manousakis one in the Rheinischer Merkur) anticipates and exaggerates -enii in this way attempts to preempt - time way that left-liberal critics would make 51 connection between time current guestworker problem.euii the Nazi past. Such concerns reappeared again and even more forcefully in the early 19805, as Hans—JUrgen Schilling wrote in the Rheinischer Merkur: “Does Auschwitz oblige us to the defiant determination to keep even those minorities who can not be integrated, since we have not even been able to protect our own Jewish citizens who, for the most part, were German- nationally minded and had been assimilated into German culture for hundred of years? Or shouldn’t such horrendous memories rather help us to bring us to our senses, that nothing, nothing at all justifies our assumption that the w Horst Schlotelburg, “Sagen wir doch ruhig einmal danke.” FAZ (82), 13 March 1982, 2-3 . 50 reformed/purified [gelauterte] post-war ethic could set an example in the world how multi-racial co-existence can work?”65 While Schilling tries to free the debate about guestworkers from. Germany’s past—event as he presents an offensively distorted vision of the Holocaust and seeks to instrumentalize the Holocaust himself — the Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt too voiced general fears that the intense debate in Germany about the situation of foreigners in their country could, outside of Germany, be perceived as xenophobia: "The current critical discussion about foreigners threatens to paint the Germans as racist within the country as well as outside of it.”66 Thus, over the course of a decade, many different dynamics became evident at once in the various conservative contributions to the guestworker situation. On the one hand, conservatives praised guestworkers for their work and family ethic while paradoxically lobbying for their exclusion from German society. Part of this paradox was rooted in what the conservative press perceived as a loss of appreciation for “traditional" family values among Germans who instead embraced the questionable merits of consumer capitalism. The 6‘ Henk Ohnesorge, “Bei weniger Arbeit wird Ibrahim zum Problemfall,” Welt, 1 November 1974, 4. 65 Hans-JDrgen Schilling, “Warnung vor humanitaren Utopien,” RM, 9 January 1981, 3. 66 Liselotte Funcke, “Wir haben sie doch gerufen," DAS, 20 June 1982, 5. 51 liberal tendency ti) taint conservative jpolitics with the brush of Nazism was a further component embedded within the guestworker debate, and it became a site for working through a number of anxieties only indirectly related to foreign labor in the Federal Republic. 52 CHAPTER 2: THE LIBERALS While liberals, like conservatives, were interested in guestworker work ethic, i.e. their life in the West German public sphere, liberals were even more concerned with the private side of guestworker life. They focused more on the relationships between guestworkers and Germans, looking at neighborhood attitudes, for example, and tended.ti) present individual feature stories. Within sniii stories, liberals tried to combat racism by creating an understanding through depictions of the guestworker situation. Whereas the conservatives discussed the issue of racism only marginally or not at all to deflect attention away from. or avoid association with it, liberals pointed to its ongoing pervasiveness. Moreover, liberals were extremely concerned about guestworker “self-segregation” as well as highly critical in their assessment of guestworkers' purported patriarchal lifestyle, especially as it interfered with integration attempts. Similar to the conservatives, liberals also criticized the Social Democratic Party (SPD) politics regarding guestworkers. Whereas conservatives criticized SPD strategies for supposedly being too soft on stemming the stream of guestworker relatives into Germany and too passive to effectively encourage them to return to their respective 53 home countries, liberals accused the SPD of focusing solely on restrictive politics that, at best, made guestworker integration difficult, and, at worst, completely undermined it. The discussion of guestworkers in the weekly intellectual newspaper Die Zeit was not only guided by German discussions about “over-foreignization” but also by the liberals’ and guestworkers’ perceived fear CHE “forced Germanization”€7-— two extremes that were portrayed as the result of a lack of knowledge and trust on both sides of the German/guestworker divide. The liberal consensus was that both, guestworkers as well as Germans, needed to be educated about each other. Thus, Die Zeit informed the public about guestworkers 1J1 an attempt ti) overcome various negative stereotypes and to integrate guestworkers successfully into German. society.68 This education of both the guestworkers and the German community, however, was promoted almost exclusively from a German standpoint and thus was deeply influenced by German perception of guestworkers. Turks, in particular —seen also by liberals as the mast foreign and m German politicians as well as guestworkers themselves viewed schools as the primary site for such intervention. As many guestworkers still planned on returning home one day, they were especially concerned for their children and their relation to their respective home counries. “. “Auslander? Aber ick bin doch hier jewohnt,” Zeit, 31 December 1976, 18. “Wohin mit dem vierten Stand,” Zeit, 7 January 1977, 7. “Mustafa im Hinterzimmer,” Zeit, 12 May 1978, 37. 54 exotic - were singled out and eventually came to be seen as the group needing the most attention. As a result, they also came to be seen as the general indicator for the guestworker situation. An article in 1978 made clear that Turks had become the ultimate Other, even in the eyes of fellow guestworkers. As one journalist reported after overbearing an Italian guestworker discussing Turks: [T]he problem are the Turks. One has to fear for one’s life. If, by chance, you ask a Turkish woman to dance, you are going to have a knife between your ribs right away. [And what do] the Turkish men [do] in comparison to that? Always four, five girls in their arms at once. No wonder, what with their weird religion.69 Although Die Zeit did not generally perpetuate depictions of Turks as knife-carrying womanizers, the paper, nevertheless, consistently portrayed Turks an; inherently different from Germans. In its elaboration of guestworkers’ supposedly inherent differences, Die Zeit was preoccupied with a number of themes: their‘ class status created. ignorance, Ei tendency toward. prejudices, and language barriers; their cultural leap from the medieval period into modernity, from peace into restlessness, from poverty into consumption; their w Monika Fresenius, “Besuch im Zugabteil. Na Also!” Zeit, 24 February 1978. 55 distance to the German logical—realistic way of thinkingf7O Against these assumptions, Die Zeit made its mission promoting understanding for the Turks’ inherent differences and at the same time depicting them as incapable of full integration and thus in need of the German understanding the paper set out to foster. So while promoting integration, Die Zeit. at the same time nevertheless questioned its possibility. A5 I will show in the following discussion, throughout its coverage of the guestworker situation, D_ie_ geit positioned Germans vis-a-vis guestworkers and, in this way, implicitly criticized as well as established boundaries of German identity. Until the mid-19705, guestworkers in general figured only one-dimensionally in [fire Zeit. By criticizing German workers’ attitudes toward “menial” work—similar to portrayals (ME guestworkers 1J1 conservative newspapers—Die gait created a positive guestworker image that was tightly connected to their work identity. In an overall evaluation of the guestworkers as workers, they clearly came out ahead 70 See Ruth Herrmann, “LaBt uns mitspielen,” Zeit, 15 July 1977, 41. “Gastarbeiterkinder. Kein Platz an der Sonne,” Zeit, 14 April 1978, 16. Jfirgen Bertram, “Mustafa im Hinterzimmer," Zeit, 12 May 1978, 34. Gunter Hofmann, “BDrger statt Gastarbeiter. ‘Einwanderungsland Bundesrepublik’?” Zeit, 7 September 1979. 56 1 It also set them when compared to their German colleagues.7 apart. Die Zeit believed that German attitudes as well as the social welfare net of the Federal Republic were the seedbeds for larger problems regarding guestworkers. Not only did guestworkers seem to be able to function well in spite of the limited means available to them, they also seemed to be settling in Germany, at times, at the cost of Germans: According to official observations, as a consequence of the republic’s social security' net guestworkers increasingly get their wives and families to come: whoever can show their five children is less in danger of losing one’s job than a bachelor or even a native.72 As is evident in the tone and argument of these remarks, in some ways Die Zeit’s view surprisingly strongly reverberates with statements made by the conservative FA_Z_. In short, guestworkers were successful and were lauded for their contributions to German society but only to a certain point: as long as they were only evaluated within their capacity as workers. On the other hand, they were already being shown as developing strategies (i.e. using their children) to “steal” German jobs. n also see Frank Otto, “Arbeitslos in der Fremde.” Zeit, 25.10.74: 41. Wolfgang Hoffmann, “Draussen vor der Tur.” Zeit, 27.8.76: 17. Ruth Herrmann, “Alle Turken sind schon da." Zeit, 8 September 1978, 12. n Eduard Neumeier, “Raus mit dem asozialen Gesindel,” Zeit, 24 January 1975. 57 Die Zeit not only was concerned with the guestworkers’ professional lives but with their private lives as well. By the mid-19705, the male-dominated image of the guestworker was giving way to a more family-oriented image. This image correlated with the increasing visibility of a guestworker second generation in the German educational system as well as in the German job market. Moreover, the new child benefit regulations in early 1974 increased the number of guestworker children. who were brought into Germany. The image of an exploding Turkish guestworker population loomed large, making the issue of understanding Turks in particular for the purpose of integration that much more pressing and difficult. As a result, both female» and. male guestworkers were constantly evaluated in respect to their familial roles — as mothers and fathers, wives anmi husbands. Foreign. women’s double burden of being both a mather and an employee came under scrutiny. Die Zeit criticized them for bad parenting when they' neglected their children. because they' went to work. They were portrayed as mothers and wives first while German women were portrayed as career women which placed them on the opposite side of the same coin, as for example when Ruth Herrmann indicated in Die Zeit that, “74,3% of foreign mothers see the meaning of life in having children. 58 (70,3% of German mothers reject this attitude). When it comes to earning' money, the ‘meaning of life' does not matter - especially for the husband, who has the say in 7 . . . ”3 Herrmann managed to critiCize both: these families. German feminists as well as guestworker patriarchalism. In this as well as a variety of other articles, the failure of Turkish guestworkers to integrate was closely connected to their gender roles, since these roles made it difficult for them to behave in ways that would allow liberals to endorse or even approve of them. Turkish men were seen as the culprits preserving the traditional patriarchal system,“’ while women were forced into subordinate roles that restricted their liberties, especially when interacting with a non—Turkish environment. Two articles by Ruth Herrmann, written two years apart, are of special interest in this respect. They are feature stories that focused on the difficulties of members of a Turkish family coping within their German environment while _” Ruth Herrmann, “Gastarbeiterkinder. Kein Platz an der Sonne,” Zeit, 14 April 1978, 16. 7‘ See also Michael Holzach, “Auslander? Aber ick bin hier doch jewohnt.” Zeit, 31 December 1976, 12. In an article by Ruth Herrmann, Turkish parents are also held accountable for the problems that grew out of the increased number of children that followed their parents to Germany after 1973, blaming them for neglecting to think about their children’s welfare but rather about the money involved (Zeit, 30 March 1979). Moreover, not only were foreign working mother evaluated for their lack of parenting skills (or the lack thereof), but they were also not discussed at all regarding their performance at work (compared to 59 also attempting to retain traditional values. Herrmann makes the overarching claim that these families are largely helpless, rooted in their tradition, and that especially the wife has the most difficulty and the least success negotiating her life. What is remarkable in these articles is Herrmann’s condemnation of patriarchy coupled with a seemingly contradictory fascination with and delight in what she clearly' sees as the .antithesis. of German life. Her fascination manifests itself in her detailed descriptions ranging from the decoration of the apartment to the wife’s traditional garb and her utter submissiveness to the family as well as Herrmann, the visitor. Herrmann’s assessment of the wife’s potential is even more telling as she asserts that the wife’s emancipation from her traditional life through the acceptance of a more German lifestyle is impossible. For example, Herrmann determined that for a Turkish man “to have a wife is, first and foremost, useful. Useful to bear sons. And when that is over, then for something else. Always a useful worker.”75 Herrmann depicted the mother and wife - called Saime in the first essay, Mujgan in the second (although it is obvious that both articles deal with the same family) - in a German women, for example), even though many guestworker women were employed in Germany. 60 way that did not allow her to escape the subordinate role of “the oriental woman” despite Saime/Mujgan’s best efforts. Instead of “granting” Saime/Mujgan the possiblity of future agency, Herrmann evoked sympathy for her while emphasizing her (and, by extension, all Turkish women's) “genuineness” and “naturalness” (which, in turn, gained Herrmann's admiration).76 Rather than portraying Saime/Mujgan as a capable woman, Herrmann depicts her as a victim. This is a result of Saime/Mujgan’s position in relation to German capitalist society but also because of her “backward,” “pre- modern” native culture; i.e. the patriarchal system. Even though Herrmann evoked sympathy for the Turkish wife, Herrmann clearly did not perceive her as an1 equal. Rather than. jpromoting EM] understanding' for 'Purkish. ‘women’s difficult position in Germany, Herrmann underlined the inherent differences between German and Turkish women while also offering criticism of the ways Turkish women were treated. The narration of Saime/Mujgan’s life in Turkey (including her marriage at the age of fifteen), her servile attitude towards Herrmann, and her almost fatal belief that the uterus is the organ that defines a woman, all served as 75 Ruth Herrmann, “Immer Heimweh nach Anatolien,” Zeit, 16 December 1977, 52. 76 It could be inferred that Herrmann displaces her own desires and anxieties onto Saime/Mujgan: her fear that she might never be 61 part of Herrmann’s criticisms of the system that cast Turkish women as victims.77 This depiction further allowed Herrmann to delineate herself (read: all German women) from Saime/Mujgan (read: all Turkish women). In Herrmann's view, Saime/Mujgan was caught in the patriarchal system and seemed to have lost part of her old identity while unable to gain a new identity in Germany. In the end, however, Herrmann identified this as Saime’s/Mujgan’s failure to become more German. This view, then, reasserted that German women could View themselves as emancipated and “patriarchy-free” in comparsion. It also allowed German feminists to pride themselves in social gains they may or may not have achieved. Furthermore, it permits them to shift focus away from German men toward the demonization of Turkish men. Herrmann did not approve of Saime's transformation into a more “Western” woman. Rather, she believed that “the seven years in Germany have affected Saime like dye remover affects colorful fabric.”78 This sentiment was repeated in even more explicit terms in the second article when Herrmann wrote, Her [Mujgan’s] transformation has confused even myself. [When I had met her the first time] her head was tied into a veil And when a male person came near her, she emancipated; a desire to not have to try to be the role of emancipated woman 77 Zeit, 16 December 1977, 52. 78 Ibid. 62 pulled it up to her eyes she did not sit at the table, stood waiting if Kave in tiny coffee cups had to be refilled, offered hazelnuts and apples...At the time, she had to give up work in the cafe, because two men were supposed to work in the same room [with her]. At the time, she walked four steps behind her husband.79 In the end, Herrmann concluded, “[Mujgan] feels emancipated” (emphasis mine) denying Mujgan the ultimate success and regarding Mujgan’s attempts at emancipation as a failure.80 In the late 19705, Die Zeit’s discussion continued to show evidence of the belief that integration was unlikely. As long as guestworkers had asked for help or seemed helpless, the paper made attempts to evoke sympathy for their situation. However, once some of them became more successful and started to adopt Western capitalist values, they were depicted in a critical light. Like conservatives, Die Zeit found guestworkers’ loss of “authenticity” disappointing. Any attempt that guestworkers made to negotiate German customs—which was depicted by journalists as the vacuous values of a consumer culture—was criticized. Even worse, their efforts were seen as a threat rather than a potential boon because the outcome posed a risk to the order of German society, especially as guestworker children 79 Zeit, 19 January 1979, 58. ” Ibid. 63 grew up in two cultures. A large part of this criticism grew out of the perception that Germany had become an immigration country, since many of the worker recruits from the 19505 and 19605 clearly turned out rmi: to be “guests.” This, in turn, raised a number of questions: How were guestworkers to be viewed if not as temporary migrants? What was the guestworker’s “proper”' place 1J1 Germany' society? fine was permanent guestworker settlement to be handled? The discussions that grew cni:<1f this new realization foreshadowed the notion that solidarity between Germans and Turks would not be possible because Turks — quite literally - bought into what Die Zeit perceived as a deeply flawed consumption—oriented German value system which conservatives criticized as vmflJHBI In other words, Germans wanted Turks to fit in but not really be like them. For example, in 1984, Nina Grunenberg, a journalist for Die Zeit, observed about one of the members of a group of Turks on their way to Turkey that, Emina thought it important to establish that she will be able to travel with her husband in a brand new Opel Ascona for DM 35,000 this summer. Traveling by bus is a little beneath her her surroundings apparently have not m See Ruth Herrmann, “Immer Heimweh nach Anatolien," Zeit, 16 December 1977, 52. Ruth Herrmann, “Mit vier Sbhnen und einer nfitzlichen Frau.” Zeit, 19 January 1979, 58. Ruth Herrmann, “Eine Schranke ist gefallen,” Zeit, 30 March 1979, 79. Nina Grunenberg, “Emina ist keine arme Frau,” Zeit, 15 June 1984, 9f. 64 only colored her German but also her attitude towards property and money.82 About another traveler, Grunenberg remarks, “Achmed gives a somewhat nouveau-riche impression. In Belgrade, he wanted to pay for his lunch with a one-thousand-Mark bill for Turks, 83 Clearly, Grunenberg this is quite extraordinary behavior. understood what she saw as inherent Turkish humility and simplicity to have vanished. Thus, Grunenberg was not only disappointed about the loss of what she perceived to be original Turkish qualities. Both. of Grunenberg's remarks reveal her annoyance that the Turks did not remain impoverished and exploited laborers to be pitied and defended by valiant liberals. Grunenberg’s observation also exposed some confusion, however, about how to feel about the supposedly good life everyone in Germany is daily encouraged to have. Die Zeit’s discussion of (inferior) German and (superior) guestworker work ethic greatly resembled conservative arguments as the paper initially evaluated German work ethic and values vis-a-vis those of the guestworkers. Germans were portrayed as “spoiled,” welcoming the guestworkers as they took over the “dirty work,”—not the least because Germans had “unemployment benefits [and m Nina Grunenberg, “Emina ist keine arme Frau,” Zeit, 15 June 1984, 9f. m - Ibid. 65 welfare] behind. them,” (especially iii contrast. to 'Turkish migrant workers.84 An explicit discussion of Germans’ questionable values also appeared in a letter to the editor. Its author, Hans Rosen, argued what other articles had only hinted at: that the guestworker force which was supposed to make German life better was instead corrupting Germany’s value system, implicitly condoned by German actions. Rosen openly accused fellow Germans for thinking that, guestworker children are supposed to even out the [German] birth deficit! The thought of counteracting diminishing population with the naturalization of foreigners appears to many a very convenient solution to the problem. What kind of society is this, which sees it as normal that guestworkers take care of not only the dirty work, but also of having children? It is a society in which the basic duty of human existence, to father and raise children for the sake of our own future is not only not upheld, but also degradedmIt is a society that tries to cover up its deep insecurity, its inferiority complex with the frenzy of production and enjoyment. It is a society that is not interested in its self-preservation. because of its inferiority complex. Those who do not respect themselves are not going to make the effort to preserve their identity for the future.85 What Rosen feared, then, was timn: Germans allowed guestworkers to replenish the dwindling numbers of West German inhabitants, and while praising guestworkers' morals and adherence to traditional family values, Rosen, saw 3‘ Ruth Herrmann, “Alle Tiirken sind schon da.” Zeit, 8 September 1978, 12. 66 Germany’s moral fiber dramatically weakening to the point of possible obliteration of German identity. The daily newspaper SUddeutsche Zeitung resembled Die Zeit fill its doubled-edged enmi implicitly racist stance towards guestworkers. There was a definite ambiguity regarding guestworkers and their integration into society. For example, the SUddeutsche envisioned “in Turkey, an army of millions of young men and women” that was just waiting to come to Germany, it pointed out how “the different groups of 86 foreigners assiduously produce children”. Another article in SUddeutsche titled “In Frankfurt, the alarm is going off” also pointed to the “high birthrates of the Italian, II 87 Spanish, Yugoslav and Moroccan neighbors. Paradoxically, in the same breath the paper called for an “image campaign” to counteract the racism it found so prevalent in the German press88 and contended that “after five years, as experience has shown, the will [of guestworkers] prevails to stay here and to live more or less like their German colleagues. Then, wives and children are fetched or they want to have a family; then, one makes an effort to learn German and generally to try to conform socially.89 % Hans Rosen, “Leserbrief: Gastarbeiterkinder. Dreckarbeit,” Zeit, 16.5.80, 53. 86 Stefan Klein, “Stichproben aus einem tristen Milieu,” SZ, 2 June 1977, 3. See also Alexander Hoffmann, “In Frankfurt lautet die Alarmglocke,” SZ, 2 June 1979, 9. m Peter Diehl-Thiele, “Die Deutschen und ihre Gastarbeiter,” SZ, 6 February 1975, 4. W 2 June 1977, 3. ” 15.2.75, 4. Also see 18 August 1979. 67 While thus emphasizing guestworkers’ growing effort to integrate, the SUddeutsche’s criteria to support its belief were strongly tied to guestworkers’ reproductive behavior. Citing data from the Statistisches Landesamt Baden Wurttemberg, the paper interpreted a later marriage age and a decline in birth rate as strong indicators that many guestworkers embraced integration. Thus, the SUddeutsche moved back and forth between a more positive and assertive View of guestworker integration and the fear that this undertaking would not be possible. Integral to the success of integration into German society, then, was absolute assimilation. In the eyes of the SUddeutsche, this entailed absolute conformity: in terms of language in particular and social conformity in general. In the end, however, it did not show confidence that integration could kme attained. Like Die Zeit, the Sfiddeutsche also regarded guestworkers as inherently traditional. However, ii; is important ti) note that tradition, and the need to adhere to it, are constantly being newly invented, not least in resistance to German racism. ihflii Mandel’s discussion cflf Turkish. women’s headscarves provides a strong example.90 % In her article "Turkish Headscarves and the 'Foreigner Problem': Constructing Difference Through the Emblems of Identity," Ruth Mandel maintains that since most Turks are denied integration into German 68 Part of the skepticism about Turkish assimilation was founded 1J1 Muslimi guestworkers’ increasing religious fundamentalimn and especially in their adherence to patriarchal family structures that compromised integration efforts and also formed a resistance to them. Of course, the fear that Muslims could not possibly integrate into German society is oddly coupled with the pre-stated anxiety that they will integrate all too well—by becoming rampant consumers and mediocre workers. In one of its feature stories about an ethnically mixed working-class neighborhood in Duisburg,91 the SUddeutsche acknowledged the rampant racism when it cited housewife Margret Hempel: “I really don’t have anything against Turks, good Lord, no, but the dirt and noise - especially in the evening, that's when they [Turks] get really lively” and when she further recalls her son urinating on a Turkish child, her only comment is “He was right.”92 While displaying German reluctance ti) show understanding for the guestworkers, the paper also determined that a society they deploy contested symbols such as the headscarf as a means to express their resistance to German racism. Thus, the identity that has been chosen through the conscious choice of wearing the headscarf to protest German racism shows that certain identities grow out of a "particular situation,...are generated, contested, not simply decreed or enacted" (45). m Duisburg has a comparatively high number of guestworkers due to the concentration of heavy industries like coal mining and steel, a sector in which the majority of guestworkers is employed. 69 coming together of foreigners and Germans was often hindered not only by women like Margret Hempel but also by a “Turkish husband who cannot get used to the idea that his wife does something on her own all of a sudden.”93 In the guise of education, the paper tried to inform its readership about guestworkers as it pointed to the patriarchal structure in guestworkers’ lives. Not only did it talk about German women's problems in marriages with foreigners, it also depicted the problems of second generation guestworker women who were forced to adhere to a patriarchal lifestyle in which the men of the family decided over the women’s lives.94 Rivaling this explanation was the view that foreigners’ lack of familiarity with the language in particular and the German life—style in general hindered the integration process; that their difference caused rejection among Germans. % Stefan Klein, “Die ‘FrontstraBe von Huttenheim,” SZ, 10 November 1980, 3. % Ibid. This situation was portrayed as similar for German women married to foreigners. “As many women in a similar situation, she [Heidi] suffers most from the sense of family that is strongly developed among Orientals.” However, it is interesting to note that the head of the Bavarian center for emigrants and people working in foreign countries [Auslandstatige] places blame on the German women who are not interested enough to find out where their husbands come from (Sabine Reuter, “Heidi, Osman und Vorurteile,” SZ, 13 March 1981, 3.) ” See Reuter, “Heidi," 3; Gerd Kronke, “Bist nie richtig weggegangen und nie richtig angekommen,” SZ, 26 September l981,8; Christian Schneider, “Die stummen Schaufensterpfippchen,” SZ, 29 September 1981, 3; “THrken sollen ein Konzept vorlegen,” SZ, 17 August 1982, 3. 70 Because men often have jet-black hair and dark mustaches, because the women sometimes wear headscarves and the girls long pants under their skirts, they stand out on the street. Because they have different habits and a different religion and because their lack of knowledge of the German language makes it hard to make themselves understood, Germans perceive them as alien, sometimes even sinister.95 Repeatedly, then, Die SUddeutsche: was caught. between its seeming desire to create an understanding for guestworkers and its inability of looking beyond those differences it highlighted. In this vmun it reinforced those differences and fostered stereotypes in its attempt to break with them. Thus, the jpaper' became complicit in time perpetuation of unreflected criticism of guestworkers while securing a sense of German superiority. In the early 19805, as racist attacks against guestworkers, especially Turks, were on the rise, an increasing number of debates around guestworker integration targeted policies that failed to solve what had become the “guestworker problem”. The weekly paper Vorw'arts was more critical than most other liberal papers in its discussion of integration. and. German attitudes toward guestworkers. As early as December 1974, the paper had asserted that guestworkers were still needed in.time German industry and that even “more important than the question of how continued 95 52, 17 August 1982, 3. 71 influx [of guestworkers] could be curbed, seems to be [finding] a recipe for how integration can be made possible ,as In an article or easier for those who are already here. called “Calculation instead of Morals and the Consequences,” published in 1977, Vorwarts criticized the lack of moral and social standards III the political decisions involving the guestworkers, including suggestions such as only giving residence permits to those guestworkers who agreed to assimilate into German society. By the 19805, when the SUddeutsche increasingly tried to explain guestworker policies to its readers, Vorwérts pointed to the consequences of 19705 politics. Germans displayed a decided lack of interest in improving the situation of guestworkers as well as German-guestworker relations. Vorwarts found implicit evidence for its claim in the poor living conditions that guestworkers still endured97 as well as in the explicit racism that was expressed in threats like “You can be sure that your men will be sent to the oven,” alluding to the fate of Jews during the Holocaust and speaking to a lack of V’ergangenheitsbewa'ltigung.98 Vorwarts saw part of the continuing problem in journalists’ % Petra Rosenbaum, “Mitbfirger statt Reservearmee,” Vbrwarts, 26 December 1974, 8). m See Willi Grandrath, “Die vergessenen Mitbfirger” Vbrwarts, 22 May 1980, 20. 72 and politicians’ creations of “the guestworker problem” that allowed Germans to “select their very own personal guestworker problem: the immeigners’ loud children 1J1 the apartment next door, the smell of non—Germanic spices from the kebab store at the corner, overall, the many foreign faces in the big city streets of intellectual provincialism.”99 Vorwarts’ awareness of guestworkers’ continually bad living conditions; the pervasive racism in German dealings with guestworkers; as well as journalists’ complicity 1J1 perpetuating' guestworker' stereotypes, :marks Vorw'arts as more critical than other papers are in their depictions of guestworker life and guestworker problems. One of the solutions that Vorwarts proposed was an extension of suffrage to the foreign members of German society to lift guestworkers CNN: of their second-class position and ti) be able ti) “realize living together III a neighborly fashion through the practice of solidarity politics.”100 Such a proposal would also mean a German 1055 of ius sanguinis (citizenship rights based on bloodlines rather than place of birth) and thus a loss of privilege as Germans. % Christian Bockemflhl, “Standiger Kampf gegen Unverstandnis,” Vbrwarts, 10 December 1981, 10. % Horst Heinemann, “Ein Stichwort wird zum Alibi,” VOrwarts, 25 March 1982, 23. ”0 Hermann Korte, “Auslander waren immer da. Und waren immer schlecht dran,” Vbrwarts, 2 December 1982, 18. 73 The liberal weekly Das Parlament picked up on a number of the issues put forth and interpreted by Die Zeit, the suddeutsche, and Vorwarts, and in 1981, it devoted an entire issue, containing more than 15 articles, to the topic of guestworker integration. The articles were largely dedicated to finding explanations for why integration of guestworkers in Germany was so difficult to accomplish — no liberal paper denied. that - and