I have been following the debate surrounding Gary Bruce's review of Andrew
Port's book with great interest.  I very much agree with Mary Fulbrook that we
need "reasoned and well-researched arguments rooted in sources."  However, it
should be said that the conclusions that historians draw regarding the
relationship between society and state under Communism seem to depend a good
deal upon the sorts of sources they use, chronological scope, and the kinds of
questions asked.  Those studies that use sources that illuminate history from
below tend to emphasize the normality of life under Communism and the ability
of the socialist system to mobilize the support of the populace.  By contrast,
sources that focus on the Stasi, SED and other centers of power tend to convey
to a much greater degree the repressive nature of the system.  The logical way
out of this conundrum is to use as many different types of sources as are
available. Stasi files reveal things about power relations that other sources
do not.  As Reinhard Buthmann has shown, cooperation with the secret police
greatly magnified the power of managers over their underlings.  In my work, I
discuss cases of industrial scientists who appeared to possess a considerable
degree of professional autonomy (or so enterprise documents would lead one to
believe), but who are revealed in Stasi files to have been fighting a losing
battle against the repressive machinations of the Stasi.

It is also the case that any study that omits the Honecker era is bound to
emphasize the degree of autonomy and dynamism of GDR society a good deal more
than one that includes the years 1971-1989.  Documents from the 1950's convey a
grassroots enthusiasm with socialism and a sincere desire among Communists to
convert non-socialists to their ideology.  In the pre-Berlin Wall era, the SED
had to rely more on persuasion than on coercion because its population could
leave for West Germany.  After 1961, the use of direct coercion increased.  SED
and Stasi control over society increased exponentially in the Honecker era. 
Opportunism and careerism were on the rise, and the conversation with
non-socialists all but disappeared.

The choice of subject also has a tremendous impact on the results.  Attempts to
put utopian aspects of the socialist program into practice genuinely resonated
with the public in some cases. It's fine to study these cases.  However, let's
not just look for socialism where we would like to find it, but in other places
as well.  I have found that the SED thought of technology as central to
socialism, and tried to use enthusiasm for technology to mobilize society.  Too
little attention has been paid to this aspect of socialism because it seems so
alien to us, and because technocratic thinking had a detrimental impact on
society in various ways.  (For example, the SED's pro-high-tech bias led them
to neglect consumer industry in favor of high-tech industry.)

Am I arguing that all scholars must approach GDR society in the same way? 
Absolutely not.  There is room in our field both for scholars more interested
in the participation of the population in the building of socialism and for
scholars more interested in the repressive aspects of the system.  However, in
recent years the scales seem to have tipped more in the direction of studies
that cherry-pick attractive aspects of socialism.  What is needed  is a more
balanced, more comprehensive view of the GDR.

Now I would like to turn to Mary Fulbrook's argument that it is contradictory
to accept findings that demonstrate the popularity of Nazi rule in Germany,
while rejecting or criticizing such findings for the GDR.  First, the
popularity of Nazi rule has been questioned by some.  Robert Gellately, for
example, is not without his critics (the most serious of whom are as dedicated
to empirical evidence as he is).  Second, GDR history is a far more immature
field than is the history of Nazi Germany.  In the vastness of the GDR
archives, what is important is still very much contested.  My own perception is
that evidence of repression is being downplayed.  Third, the meaning of
popularity of the Nazi and GDR regimes is very different.  It should be clear
to all that German supporters of the Nazi regime were accomplices to
unspeakable crimes.  By contrast, support for GDR-style socialism appears to
many to be very understandable and possibly praiseworthy.

If only a few were hurt by the SED regime, leaving the majority of the
population to live their lives in tranquility, what does that mean?  The GDR is
in no way comparable to Nazi Germany.  The system of repression worked in an
entirely different way, using psychological insight and pervasive surveillance
to maintain conformity.  Modern, i.e., generally non-violent, means were
employed.  However, the GDR was a dictatorship, comparable, perhaps, to
Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile.  (After an initial phase of violent
repression, these dictatorships settled into a phase in which order could be
maintained with little overt violence.)  I for one would not want to downplay
persecution of small minorities under either of those regimes, or in the GDR.

In the GDR, the SED and the Stasi gave paramount attention to controlling
elites.   Those further down the hierarchy risked having their lives taken away
from them only if they engaged in oppositional activities.  Did the average
East German flee into domestic niches or "sex and alcohol" (as one East German
friend once told me)?  Were the masses content to live without freedom?  These
questions are very disquieting because they are relevant to all modern
societies, including our own.  My own perception is that there was a very
strong undercurrent of discontent in the GDR that does not always come out in
the documents.  An intense comparison of different kinds of sources could tease
it out.  Moreover, whatever the day-to-day behavior of average East Germans,
the  oppression of elites did have an impact down below.  Professional life was
transformed by security regulations, de-professionalization due to
overproduction of university graduates, and decay of factories.

Port's book is a valuable contribution, but now we have to push off to new
shores.

Dolores L. Augustine
St. John's University, Queens, NY

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS