the role of national stereotypes in intercultural language teaching
Eda Sagarra
In his reminiscences of his imprisonment in France on
a charge of espionage, Kriegsfgefangen. Erlebtes 1870 (1871), Theodor Fontane
submitted his own hitherto unreflected perceptions of the French to a critical
examination. In doing so, he aimed to sensitize his readers to the need to
examine their own political prejudices towards their neighbours. It was not
always as Fontane described it. Early nineteenth perceptions of other nations
were driven more by curiosity than by prejudice, although much of curiosity was
naive. By the 1840s, thanks to developments in the print media, the depiction
of national stereotypes became increasingly politicized, particularly in
Germany. Der deutsche Michel, the oldest of such allegorical figures, was
represented in a wide variety of genres, including cartoon, lyric verse, comic
sketch and feuilleton. Yet, while other nations embodied in their allegories of
the national self positive qualities, in Germany the reverse was the case. The
masochistic figure of Michel seemed designed to challenge the young German
nationÕs sense of itself. This remained a feature of Michel cartoons and texts
throughout the nineteenth century, apart from the Wilhelmine period and the
Third Reich. Michel cartoons enjoyed an immense vogue in the Weimar Republic,
in the Adenauer years and again at the time of the fall of the Wall and its
aftermath. The present article argues that these cartoons and texts provide
unique insights into modern German political history and Landeskunde,
particularly in the context of an intercultural approach to GFL.
At the beginning of the second chapter of Kriegsgefangen. Erlebtes 1870, part of which Theodor
Fontane began to write during his imprisonment in France on a charge of
espionage in the winter of 1870 and which he published one year later, we read:
Die Engländer haben
ein Schul- und Kinderbuch, das den Titel führt: Peter Parley’s Reise um die Welt, oder was zu wissen not tut.
Gleich im ersten Kapitel werden die europäischen Nationen im Lapidarstil
charakterisiert. Der Holländer wäscht sich viel und kaut Tabak; der Russe
wäscht sich wenig und trinkt Branntwein; der Türke raucht und ruft Allah. Wie
oft hab ich über Peter Parley gelacht. Im Grunde genommen stehen wir aber allen
fremden Nationen gegenüber mehr oder weniger auf dem Peter-Parley-Standpunkt.
(Fontane
1962:550)
The interest in national character has a
long history, and it would be both interesting and relevant to the theme of the
present conference to explore the contributions to the topic of the climate
theories and the anthropological debates of early modern Europe, particularly
in France and Germany. However, for
reasons of time and space, the focus in what follows will be on the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. Early nineteenth-century debate on what constituted
national (or regional) character, and on its historical origins, was extremely
wide-ranging. Contributors included
Walter Scott, one of the most sophisticated mediators of the concept in both
his novels and his essays, of whom it has been well said that he “understood, and nobody has better illustrated by
example, the true mode of connecting past and present” (Stephen, 1892 in:
Cockshut, 1969:8). In Germany, some early
entrepreneurial publishers played a significant role in popularising the
debate via their fiction list. Thus, between the 1820s and 1850s a number of
them, including Brockhaus of Leipzig
and Manz of Regensburg, capitalised on the public’s curiosity about peoples
different from themselves by launching on to the market a whole series of
‘national-typical’ variations based on the model of Alain Lesage’s picaresque
novel Histoire de Gil Blas de Santillane of 1715-35. Goethe popularised
Johann Heinrich Sachse’s Der deutsche Gil
Blas’ in 1822. The
Irish novelist Charles James Lever had his jolly tale of life as an Irish
barrister, briefly located at Trinity College, Con Cregan, bowdlerised
as The adventures of Con. Cregan. The
Irish Gil Blas. Other titles
included a Russian, a Polish, a French and an Italian Gil Blas (Sagarra, 1989. German publishers of translators paid no
royalties. ‘National stereotypes’ thus offered profit without risk. There was
even Der jüdische Gil Blas, published by Brockhaus in 1834 to attest to the genuinely affirmative
attitude to alterity in this type of literature.
Was it the French revolutionary wars, or
perhaps the reminiscences of old soldiers from Napoleon’s campaigns in France,
Germany, Spain and Russia, which prompted such curiosity in the German reading
public? Or was it not rather the beginning of the railway age which so excited
German poets and writers and which seemed to offer ordinary people the chance
of one day joining the ‘quality’ and travelling to foreign parts? In trying to
account for the popularity in Germany of travel literature and literature about
other peoples between the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the 1848 Revolution,
we need to remind ourselves just how immobile German society then was. For most Germans in those years and for
German women in particular, to ‘travel’
meant simply to go beyond one’s own town or village. ‘Travel abroad’
might mean crossing the border into a neighbouring state; it could also mean no
more than a journey to another province of Germany.
It was during this same period, between
the defeat of Napoleon I and the outbreak of the European revolutions in the
spring of 1848, that the German media
popularised and at the same time politicised the figure of the ‘typical German’
in the person of der deutsche Michel.
The process coincided with and was conditioned by the emergence of a capitalist
literary market in Germany. Initially, Michel stood for the oppressed subject
of an authoritarian system. This was well expressed in a cartoon, published in
the Munich satirical journal, Leuchtkugeln,
in the revolutionary period, featuring Michel and his oppressors. Here we see
silhouettes of ‘poor Michel’, with downcast head and limp cap, chained by the
combined forces of the ‘system’:
throne, altar, military and bureaucracy. The graphic images are
interspersed with satiric verses, which point to the (political) moral. The
motif of der deutsche Michel as the
victim of oppression, who, however, internalises the attitudes of his
masters, is omnipresent in the
literature and cartoons of the 1840s. It was only in the Wilhelmine era (apart
from a brief period of weeks in the summer of 1848, when the German
revolutionary troops were fighting the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein), that
Michel became identified with the
ambitions and resentments of German nationalists.
Of all such allegorical figures, which we
now describe as national stereotypes, the German Michel has the most ancient
lineage. Indeed Michel predates the
second oldest, John Bull (in the History
of John Bull, 1727), by almost two centuries [1] and Marianne of France and Uncle
Sam of America by almost a further century. This is significant, given the
remarkably late emergence of Germany as a nation state in Europe.
Like the modern history of the people he purports to represent, Michel
has always had an unstable history,
beginning with the first cursory and dismissive reference to him in 1541 by
Sebastian Franck in Spruchwörter, Schöne
Weise, Herliche Clugreden, published in 1541 in Frankfurt am Main (Hauffen,
1918:41) and the first known graphic representation one century later (Harms,
1983:274). Since the mid-seventeenth century, the media profile of Michel
has known periods of immense popularity,
notably the Vormärz, the
Weimar Republic and the early years of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Federal Republic,
interspersed with decades in which his existence was forgotten or the semiotics
of his person, body language and dress became inaccessible to the reading
or observing public.
The first pictorial representation of
Michel in the early 1640s as a foolish fop, aping foreigners in dress and
language, coincided with the early debate on the merits (or otherwise) of the
German language by comparison with the languages of her neighbour. The cartoon
by an unknown artist, glossed in verse,
coincided with a spate of textual references of diverse provenance to
the German who has no self-respect and no regard for his language. References
to this ‘teutsche Michel’ are to be found in works published in Strasbourg and
Nuremberg and include among their authors Grimmelshausen and Moscherosch. Even
at that time, the popularity of Michel was intimately associated with the
technological history of the print media. But already by the late seventeenth
century, Michel had disappeared from view. Between that time and his re-emergence
in the short-lived periodical, Der
Teutsche Michel: Trost Einsamkeit, alte und neue Sagen und Wahrsagungen,
Geschichten und Gedichte. Zeitung für Einsiedler, edited in Heidelberg by
Achim von Arnim and Joseph Görres with the help of Clemens Brentano between
April and August 1808, only the occasional mocking verse kept his memory alive,
usually in the form of the archetypal provincial, known as Vetter
Michel. The Arnim-Görres enterprise is of historical interest in the
present context, both because it recorded only the second known graphic
representation of the figure, and, more particularly, because it marks the
first association with what would become and remain Michel’s most
characteristic attribute: his pixie cap.
On the eve of the July Revolution of
1830, Michel emerged as a cypher of political discontent, directed at the
monarchs, of which the broadsheet Michel'sche
Vaterunser am Ludwigstage which
appeared in Würzburg in 1828, is a prime example:
Allergnädigster
Monarch! Vater unser!
Landesvater und
Fürst! Der du bist!
Freude und Belohnung
selbst denen,
die den Ruf haben! Im Himmel!
Wenn du die Gewerbe
und andere Steuern
verminderst, so
rufen wir Geheiligt werde dein
Name!
Wir wünschen, daß
dein Versprechen,
Gnade und Hilfe Zu uns komme!
Mächtiger Segen
ströme dafür auf Dein Reich!
Und alle deine
treuen Bürger
werden sagen Dein
Wille geschehe!
Wenn die Last, die
uns drücket, so
erleichtert wird Wie im Himmel!
Denn dies muß
gefallen, wie im Himmel Also
auch auf Erden!
Durch Konzessionen
und große
Steuern entziehst du
uns Unser tägliches Brod!
Gerechter König! den
verlornen
Wohlstand Gieb
uns heute!
Befördere Ackerbau,
Handlung und
Künste, damit wir
bezahlen können Unsere Schuld!
Verzeihe deinem
Volk, wenn es,
von Abgaben
gedrückt, seufzet Wie auch wir vergeben!
Wenn Handlung und
Gewerbe blühen,
können wir auch
Nachsicht haben mit Unsern Schuldigern!
Gieb uns weise und
deutliche Gesetze
steure den
Muthwillen deiner
Gerichte, und laß
uns nicht zu
Grunde gehen; Sondern erlöse uns von
allem Übel!
Jage die Juden,
Wucherer aus dem
Lande! Denn dein ist das
Reich!
Hilf uns verarmten
Kindern wieder auf! Denn dein
ist die
Kraft!
Dann, guter Vater!
wirst du auch
Ruhm und Segen haben Und die Herrlichkeit
in Ewigkeit.
The rigorous censorship of the Restoration years and particularly of the
1830s ensured that a strict limit was set on the publication and circulation of
such seditious texts and that the
penalties for author, publisher and distributor on discovery were extremely
grave. In Prussia, following the accession of Frederick William IV (1840-61),
cartoonists enjoyed for a little over a year (1842-43) freedom from censorship
on illustration. This prompted a veritable explosion of texts of diverse
provenance, broadsheets and pamphlets, but also verses, sketches, plays, and
occasional pieces in the ubiquitous journals, in the manner of early
feuilletons, which made direct or oblique reference to der deutsche Michel. As
Ludwig Walesrode commented from the safety of his Zurich exile in Unterthänige Reden (1843):
Als der König winkt
mit dem Finger
Auf thut sich der
Geisteszwinger
Und der Satyr aus
halb nur geöffnetem Haus
Speit Karikaturen in
Haufen heraus.
The Vormärz
generation witnessed revolutionary innovation in reproductive techniques,
and it was only now that the transformation became complete in the figure
of Michel from unreflected phrase to self-conscious national stereotype. The
modern history of Michel dates from
the time when, as Günter Oesterle has aptly observed,
“die Physiognomie der Öffentlichkeit [...] nicht mehr von einer exzessiven Lese- und Schreibsucht geprägt ist wie noch
im 18. Jahrhundert, sondern von einem unersättlichen Bilderhunger”.
[2]
The visual dimension became central,
whether represented graphically in
cartoons in broadsheets, pamphlets, newspapers and journals, or in the emblematic
references we encounter so frequently in the literary texts of the 1840s,
whether as lyric verse,
[3]
comic sketch
[4]
or journalistic essay.
[5]
Several factors contributed
to this sudden emergence of a public sphere in Germany in the 1840s, in which
the figure of the Michel took on exemplary character. These were: the presence
of substantial numbers of un- or underemployed and well-educated young men
in the towns and cities; severe economic distress; political repression, and,
finally, the technical capacity of the market to print and distribute such
literature cheaply and quickly.
Public response was indeed gratifying, despite the censorship, and the police
were frequently called out, particularly in Berlin in the mid-1840s, to disperse
crowds which tended to gather outside print shops to buy or just to gape
at the latest product of the market.“Der Siegeszug der
Reproduktionstechniken, die von der Lithographie bis zur Daguerrotypie, vom
Lichtdruck bis zur Autotypie reichen, gibt dem Bedürfnis nach Optischem eine
derartige Nahrung und Durchschlagskraft ...” (Oesterle 1996: 293).
Almost all Vormärz authors, artists and
writers on Michel made reference to the attributes of the ‘typical German’, his
pronounced belly, a propensity for sleep and his Michelsmütze in the shape of a night-cap. The symbolic dimension of
Michel’s ‘attributes’ would have been immediately evident to contemporaries. As
Franz Dingelstedt phrased it in one of his poems from the Lieder eines kosmopolitischen Nachtwächters of 1842, and as
numerous cartoonists recorded in crude or sophisticated graphic image:
Und was der Strauß
für einen Wanst
Besitzt und welchen
Magen!
Nur du, mein
deutscher Michel kannst
Und mußt noch mehr
vertragen!
In 1843 Hermann Markgraff collected a
representative selection of Michel-verses and other popular political poems and
published them in Leipzig (where the censorship was less stringent) under the
title of Liederbuch des deutschen Michel. All the prominent political
verse makers of the day were represented there, among them Hoffmann von Fallersleben, author of the Deutschlandlied
and of the best-selling Unpolitische
Lieder (1841-2), which lost him his university post at Breslau. In the mid and late forties the congruence
of pictorial image and printed word in
the representation of Michel was at its most pronounced. At times it seems as
if graphic artists were simply illustrating separately published verses or the
other way round. Journalistic texts of these years make direct reference to
particularly popular cartoons, such as that of Robert Sabatky representing
Michel with the ‘wounds’ of the thirty-six princes on his body, as he sits,
imprisoned and half awake on a seat guarded by Metternich, Pope Pius IX, the
Russian Tsar and the German police (cp. Sagarra, 1994). In the years and
months preceding the March Revolution
of 1848, the number, variety and outspokenness of Michel-cartoons appeared to
articulate the efforts of the subject to force the prince and the state
authorities to re-define him as a citizen.
Moreover, as the authorities well knew, the technological revolution had
so drastically lowered the costs of reproduction, that it was now possible to
provide and distribute hundreds of handbills with the latest cartoon and/ or
verse, before the police could discover and confiscate them. Print runs could,
on occasion, number up to 4, 000, to be sold for a couple of pence within hours
of distribution (Denker, 1980). At the same time the regional distribution of
the printing presses, from Karlsruhe to Königsberg, from Stuttgart, Munich and
Vienna to Magdeburg and Hamburg, made their own contribution to the
politicisation process.
Following the outbreak of revolution in
Germany in March 1848, two features marked what was a new stage in Michel’s
evolution. Firstly, his figure suddenly slimmed down, his pose and gait were
transformed, as the erect figure of a
typical young German artisan
[6]
suddenly confronted his oppressors,
prince, army and police. Secondly, as reflected for example, in
an extended series of cartoons with accompanying text which had begun to appear
in 1847 in the Munich journal Leuchtkugeln and continued until the summer of 1848, ‘Michel’ began to attribute his political insignificance to
the jealous machinations of Germany’s neighbours. These neighbours included
both the great powers, France, England
and Russia, and also a number of smaller states, such as the Netherlands and
also Denmark, whose role in Schleswig-Holstein in the summer of 1848 proved
to be such a powerful catalyst of nationalist fervour in the German Confederation.
As the Revolution faltered and failed in the autumn of 1848, Michel reverted
to type. His waistline thickened and his belly re-emerged. Most notably, the
semiotics of Michel’s cap now began to register Germany’s political mood and
destiny, as it would do in the century and a half to follow. In the heady
years of ‘das tolle Jahr’ (Fontane),
the ‘Michelsmütze’ had assumed the shape of
the Phrygian cap of the freed Roman
slave, adorned with the French tricolour. Its tassel stood erect, denoting
suppressed energy. Now, as so aptly recorded in the cartoon of the Stuttgart
Eulenspiegel of 24 March 1849, Michel’s bonnet rouge of spring 1848
had begun to droop by the difficult late summer of 1848, and by autumn was
once more — a night-cap. Among the political commentators of the day who employed
the figure of Michel to articulate the different responses of the populace
to the failure of the German revolutions, was one lone figure. The author of Vier Zeitfragen (1847) and Das Wesen der Ehe. Nebst einigen Aufsätzen
über die sociale Reform der Frauen (1849) was not a woman to mince her
words. In a
volume of poems published in Darmstadt
in 1848 under the title of Brutus Michel,
Louise Dittmar laid the blame for the failed revolution fairly and squarely
where, in her view, it indisputably belonged:
Man rief zur Tat:
Auf, auf, zum Kampfe
deutsche Mannen!
Auf, auf, zum Kampf,
zur Bundesschlacht!
Alas, ‘die
Männer von 1848” were not up to it. The volume closes with the dismissive
words:
O deutscher Michel,
deutsches Blut,
Wie liebst du doch
die Kinderruth!
A contemporary caricature by one
Ferdinand Schröder, entitled Das Große
Insiegel des deutschen Reichs, shows Mother Germania with little Michel across her knees,
administering a sound spanking. At her feet is the inscription “Mit Jott für
König und Vaterland” (the motto of the Prussian Conservatives), “Liberté” in
the form of a German chained to a policeman, “Égalité” showing two
goose-stepping soldiers and “Fraternité” showing a prince robbing a poor man,
encircle Germania. (Miscellanea in Dortmund City Library IfZF.
37/1426.)
Michel’s metamorphoses in the second half of the nineteenth century reflect
the rapid transitions of German history in that age. Johann Scherr’s novel
of 1858, Michel. Geschichte eines Deutschen
unserer Zeit, which went into eighteen editions in the next twenty years,
marked the beginning of the new direction. The hero of the novel, like
Gustav Freytag’s Anton Wohlfart in Soll
und Haben (1855), is diligent, clean-living — and humourless. From the
1860s onwards Michel was claimed by the spokesmen of a whole host
of opposing political groups. Thus, as recorded in the pages of the illustrated journal, Frankfurter
Laterne, later Laterne, the advocates of Großdeutschland saw Michel as the stooge of Prussia’s hegemonial ambitions,
with Bismarck as the sinister manipulator of the German people. For the German
liberals during Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, Michel was hailed as a new
Luther, the hallowed champion of civil liberties against the might of Rome.
[7]
For the Social Democrats persecuted under Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist
legislation of 1878-90, or simply as victims of bullying drill sergeants during
military service, Michel was the victim of class justice. (Süddeutscher Postillon 11 (1892), Nr. 24, 8) Alternatively , he could be a kind of new St Christopher, announcing the new vision of Germany
as the land of freedom and opportunity for the worker, a model for the world.
(Süddeutscher Postillon 18, 1899).
In the 1890s, Anti-Semites evoked the popular image of the day, so difficult
for us now to place in its authentic context, of a Super-Michel sweeping multifarious
tiny fat Jews, like vermin, from the
streets. From about 1900 onwards, the satirical journals which supported a nationalist
or government agenda — and this included in the immediate pre-1914
years those, such as Simplicissimus, which had traditionally
attacked the regime — Michel was presented as exemplifying Germany’s right
to a ‘place in the sun’. Thus a boldly drawn cartoon entitled Aus der politischen Kinderstube. Im Nordsee-Planschbecken in the 1913
number of the last-named journal, which at the time enjoyed sales of over
one million shows brave young Michel
in sailor suit, cast as the good boy,
protecting a puny Marianne (France) and other smaller European states against
the ‘bully’ at the seaside. The title
of the cartoon is simply: Michel und
John Bull. Who the bully really is, emerges from two propaganda broadsheets of 1916, showing an enormous Michel slicing a giant salami composed of French,
British and Russian soldiers or whipping them soundly under the caption Druff Michel (Weltkriegssammlung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Frankfurt 10,
3/1).
The prominence which Michel had enjoyed
in German war propaganda did not disappear with defeat and the birth of the
Weimar Republic. Quite the contrary, in fact. However, what is noteworthy about
the Weimar Republic with regard to the Michel figure is his ideological range.
Even more so than in the Wilhelmine period, virtually every political agency
claimed him as their own, Social Democrats, Communists, Conservatives,
pacifists, Anti-Semites, including,
unusually, the Catholics. By 1924 a regional Nazi newspaper, the Nieder-Sachsen Herold was producing a series of cartoons on the
machinations of the Jews against ‘Michel’ and their likely fate. The final
cartoon in the series (Nr. 76: 27
November, 3) shows a giant Michel emptying the bodies of the Jews into a mass
grave.
Once the ‘Kampfzeit’ was over, the Third
Reich had, perhaps predictably, little time for Michel. Which makes
David Lowe’s graphic comment on the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 in the
Evening Standard of 16 October 1939 so extraordinarily prophetic.
Here he depicts Peter the Great sitting
with Stalin in a boat in the Baltic. A diminutive Hitler, clad in a
Michelsmütze, attempts, ineffectively as it seems,
to steer. The Russian artist
B. Jefimov spelt out Lowe’s point more bluntly,
in a cartoon entitled “9 May
1945” and published in the Soviet
journal Krokodil in 1955, the year
in which Adenauer finally negotiated the return of over 100 000 German prisoners-of-war.
What had the German people got out of it all other than a bloody nose?
Bleary-eyed, clad in little more than Michel’s cap, which describes a figure
of nine round his head, accompanied by the word “Maya”,
[8]
the German looks hopelessly
into the future.
Perhaps at no time, apart from the 1840s,
the early 1920s and in the aftermath of 9 November 1989, did ‘the typical
German’ Michel enjoy such popularity as in the Adenauer years. Students of
forgotten regional and special interest newspapers and journals from that
era will come across a plethora of such cartoons in city archives and libraries,
as well as in national institutions such as the library of the Bundestag. Michel, like his fellow Germans
was a thin lad in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Like German democracy in
that era, he was young, and did not always look as though he would survive
to adulthood. The political ‘messages’ exemplified in these often crude cartoons
include ‘Michel as the victim of the occupying powers’, ‘Michel as the stooge
of crafty Adenauer’, who would insist
on re-arming him, suppressing his rights, fobbing him off with material goods
to suppress his memory. But equally popular was the image of Michel as the
guileless lad, who never knew what ‘it’
was all about, and had now passed from one oppressor (Hitler) to another (the
victorious Allies). A memorable cartoon
in Simplicissimus some five days
after the erection of the Berlin Wall on 13 August 1961 depicts an obese Michel,
his back to the Brandenburger Tor
on which Mayor Willy Brandt stands gesticulating hopelessly, about to tuck
into a Lucullan feast provided by the western Allies, in the persons of Kennedy,
Macmillan and de Gaulle. The division of Germany in 1949 had been initially
marked by cartoonists’ attempts to express the sense of schizophrenia characteristic
of these years, such as Michel portrayed as two Siamese twins. But very soon
this image would be overlaid by that of the two brothers, one thin, one fat,
one hungry and affectionate, the other obese and indifferent. Scepticism about the Franco-German rapprochement
is documented in numerous witty cartoons,
[9]
especially in the early years of the Coal and Steel Pact and during
the negotiations leading up to the abortive European Defence Community and
to the successful conclusion of the Rome Treaties. In ‘the first kiss’, Michel and Marianne, the French national stereotype,
try to reach each other standing on a giant steel bar, which is balanced
on a pile of coal. In another cartoon, Marianne greets Michel affectionately,
and dips her hand in his pocket during the embrace to steal his purse.
In the Federal Republic of the 1970s and
1980s, politics, as in other western democracies, became increasingly personalised
in the media. Michel cartoons reflect this development with reference to Michel
and Marianne, his French lover or wife (though the ‘love affair’ was not necessarily
shared by their peoples). During the Schmidt regime, Helmut Schmidt, an unlikely
Michel, was partnered by Giscard d’Estaing, an equally unlikely Marianne.
In the Kohl era, Germany’s, ‘Michel-Kohl’, a much more likely candidate, had
frequent trysts with ‘Mitterand-Marianne’ to provide plenty of copy. The ‘stable
state’ of the Franco-German middle-aged marriage is particularly well captured
in a cartoon by Josef Partiewicz (‘Party’) in the Rheinischer Merkur / Christ
und Welt of 13 July 1987, which features Michel (Kohl) and his ‘wife’
Marianne (Mitterand) in a boat made
from a spiked helmet, in the middle of the Rhine. Reminiscent of the owl and
the pussycat, this marriage, however, is not going anywhere: the ‘boat’ simply
goes round in circles.
[10]
The boat motif occurs in one of the most
brilliant cartoons of the Schmidt era, when the issue of asylum seekers began
to capture headlines. Operating with the topos of role reversal, one of West
Germany’s most gifted cartoonists, Horst Haitzinger, articulated in 1980 the change of public mood which two years
later would bring Kohl to power: A
stout Michel , standing astride his boat shouts “Hiiilfe”, as he vainly wards off skinny hands trying to save
themselves from drowning.
The astonishing variety of ‘messages’ being
delivered to the public becomes evident if we follow the history of German
stereotypy across the pages of the newspaper and periodical press in the first thirty years of post-war West
Germany.
[11]
In registering these diverse images of Michel as the bull in the
china shop, the poor lad whom nobody
loves, Michel being ‘put upon’ by corrupt mindless politicians, Germans tried
to come to terms with what was happening to them in the aftermath of the Third
Reich. The common theme, which had historical roots, but now had a different
emphasis, was that the Germans, unlike
other nations, were not the subject
of their own history. Like some ball of Fortune,
they were at the mercy and behest of others. The conclusion surely
to be drawn was that the Germans were not responsible for their actions. Or
was it? For by the 1980s, a new note
made its presence felt. Its context
was undoubtedly the approach of the fiftieth anniversary of Hitler’s seizure
of power. A novel element now becomes part of the semiotics of Michel, namely
the mirror. Although the Spiegel
had been a fertile source of Micheliaden
in these years, the cartoonist Candas’
contribution in the Rheinische Post
of 29 January 1983 is surely the most
arresting, not least through the introduction of a new dimension into the depiction of the ‘typical German’. It was
one which would become characteristic of the figure in the late 1980s and
the 1990s: self-irony. In Candas’ cartoon, an average-sized Michel, neither
tall nor small, neither attractive nor ugly, just an ordinary fellow,
looks at his own reflection in the mirror and sees — the face of Hitler. Und das
war ich vor fünfzig Jahren? he asks in amazement.
When the Wall fell, it was as though
Michel had been re-born on both sides of the former border. He dominated the national press, seemingly
as popular in the Deutsche Handelsblatt and Die
Zeit as in the Frankfurter Rundschau
or the Spiegel. Above all, Michel
offered a fairly accurate guide to political opinion on both sides of the Wall:
from that first ecstatic ‘Brothers’ as depicted by Hanel (Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung: 13.11.1989), Helmut Kohl’s ‘house
cartoonist’, through the witch-hunting with Honecker as the scapegoat. Then
there were the mutual recriminations of Vierzig
Jahre Unterschiede (FAZ
28.7.1990), and the mocking of foreigners’ clichéd thinking which inspired
Peter Leger’s cartoon of ‘the Fourth
Reich’ in which Bismarck’s eyes look out through a Viking helmet from which
emerges as a Kopfgeburt the figure of
Moneybags Kohl, adorned with a Michel cap and holding up a pint-sized figure of
Lothar de Maizière, the short-lived East German prime minister, who clutches an
olive branch.
Prior to 1989, Helmut Kohl had been
depicted in the media in the guise of the traditional Michel in his armchair,
with his slippers on his feet and his ‘household’ motto ‘Weiter so Deutschland’ on his wall. Kohl’s personal initiative in
the pursuit of German unity, from the 10-Point Plan of 28 November 1989
onwards, earned him semi-mythological status as an oversized but still
‘typical’ German. Thus in one cartoon, East Germans gaze at a statue of a
(naked) Kohl as the discus thrower, hurling a D-Mark in an easterly direction.
In another, he rides in the company of
Dietrich Genscher, the long-serving foreign minister and Finance
Minister Theodor Waigel, with the hapless de Maizière squeezed between them, as
the four riders of the Apocalypse, in pursuit of that elusive unity of spirit
of the two Germanies. But in the majority of the many memorable Michel cartoons
of the post-1989 era, the element of
self-irony is prominent. Even so sensitive a subject as the German public’s
revulsion against becoming involved in armed conflict (during the Gulf War) can
inspire the sight of Michel attempting to please President Bush and his
advisors by trying on boots that are quite clearly much too large for him (Handelsblatt 31.1.1991).
What has all this got to do with the
student learner of German?
Probably, I would argue, quite a lot. For
one thing, familiarity with the history of the German national stereotype, der deutsche Michel, across a most
eventful, not to say turbulent period of her modern history from 1840 to the
present, can serve a number of functions for the learner of German in an
intercultural context. At their most basic, national stereotypes can be
informative and stimulating guides to helping students acquire the kind of
range of cultural associations with which the native speaker grows up. This is
particularly evident in the case of
Germany but also of France, as Maurice Agulhon has shown in his exploration of the allegorical figure of
Marianne (Agulhon, 1979). She, like Michel in Germany, has been a reliable
icon of political mood change in France. Tracing the evolution of Michel’s image in the west German media during the Kohl era can be an instructive
and entertaining guide to German Landeskunde,
a course deemed necessary for students, but not invariably popular with them.
Cartoons help to make the printed text more accessible, as Grimmelshausen
recognised in Michel’s early years when he observed: Ich habe mich wollen behagen/ Mit Lachen die Wahrheit zu sagen.
Indeed his own Simplius Simplicissimus
shared a number of characteristics with Michel at certain points in the
latter’s career in the German media. Furthermore, the study of national
stereotypes, presented as part of a wider study on auto- and heterotypes, can
certainly teach students to be analytical about their own responses, to
understand how these too are culturally conditioned, not ‘given truths’.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, familiarity with the more recent history
of this unique national stereotype, notably with the self-irony characteristic
of modern representations of Michel, can bring home to students, just how
effectively in fact the Federal Republic of Germany has come to terms with its
past. Of course, one could argue
that Michel tells us more about the evolution of the German media than of the
political attitudes of the German people. But the popularity of the figure of
Michel, and the power he has exercised over some of the best graphic talents of their day (many, incidentally, Austrian!), does suggest a
degree of symbiosis between the German media and their readers. Finally, the
study of the German national stereotype may succeed in helping learners of German, who probably will have
little familiarity with her history, to become aware of the lack of continuity
in Germany’s past and to glean some insights into the cultural consequences of
her unstable identity. By contrasting
the negativity ascribed by Germans at many periods of their past to their own
self-image, with the ‘positive’ attributes of Marianne, John Bull, Uncle Sam or
Juan el Español, imputed to them by their compatriots, there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn:
national stereotypes normally affirm the positive features nations like to
ascribe to themselves. In the case of Germany, the opposite is the case. Michel
does not affirm but to question. Indeed, even today, he continues to provoke or
even to challenge the Germans’ own sense of self.
References
Agulhon, Maurice
(1979) Marianne au combat. L’imagerie et la symbolique républicaines en
France de 1789 à 1880. Paris: Flammarion.
Agulhon, Maurice
(1989) Marianne au pouvoir. L’imagerie et
la symbolique républicaines en France de 1880 à 1914. Paris: Flammarion.
Cockshut, Anthony O. J. (1969) The Achievement of Walter Scott, London:
Collins.
Denkler, Horst (Hrsg.) Der deutsche Michel. Reolutionskomödien der Achtundvierziger.
Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam 1971.
Denkler, Horst (1980) Politik und Geschäft. Beobachtungen
bei der Durchsicht populärer Flugblattreihen aus der Berliner Revolution
1848/49. In: Internationales Archiv für
Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 5, 94-121.
Dietrich, Reinhard und Fekl, Walter (Hrsg.) (1997) Komische Nachbarn/ Images du voisin.
Deutsch-französische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Karikatur (1945-1987).
Paris: Goethe Institut.
Fontane, Theodor (1962). Kriegsgefangen in Frankreich. Erlebtes 1870 In: Walter Keitel
und Helmuth Nürnberger (Hrsg.) Werke,
Schriften, Briefe in vier Abteilungen. Munich: Hanser, Abt. 3, vol. 4, 550.
Harms, Wolfgang (Hrsg.) (1983) Illustrierte Flugblätter aus den Jahren der Reformation und der
Glaubenskämpfe, Coburg: Coburger Landesstiftung.
Hauffen, Adolf (1918) Geschichte
des deutschen Michels, Prag: Verlag des Deutschen Vereines zur Verbreitung
gemeinnütziger Kenntnisse in Prag 1918.
Koopmann, Helmut und Lauster, Martina (Hrsg.) (1996) Vormärzliteratur in europäischer Perspektive
I. Öffentlichkeit und nationale Identität. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.
Sagarra, Eda (1989) Gil Blas. Geschichte und Abenteuer eines Romanhelden auf dem
europäischen Buchmarkt. In: Wolfgang Frühwald und Martino, Alberto (Hrsg.) Zwischen
Aufklärung und Restauration. Sozialer Wandel in der deutschen Literatur
(1700-1848). Festschrift für Wolfgang Martens zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1-15.
Sagarra,
Eda (1994) The longevity of national
stereotypes: The German ‘national character’ from the sixteenth century to the
present day. In: Yearbook of European
Studies 7. German Reflections, 1-28.
Sagarra, Eda (1996) Selbstbestimmung durch
Fremdbestimmung. On the history of Der deutsche Michel as a cartoon image in the Vormärz. In: Koopmann, Helmut
and Lauster, Martina (Hrsg.) (1996) Vormärzliteratur
in europäischer Perspektive I. Öffentlichkeit und nationale Identität. Bielefeld:
Aisthesis, 281-292.
Taylor,
Myles (1992) John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion. In: Past & Present 134, 93-128.
Biodata
Eda Sagarra ist Vorsitzende des "Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences" und emeritierte Professorin für Germanistik am Trinity College. Zu Ihren gegenwärtigen Forschungsarbeiten gehören Beiträge zu Grillparzer, zu den Umgangsformen junger Frauen in der Aufklärung, zur oppositionellen Journalistik der frühen Adenauerzeit (exemplifiziert an der Zeitschrift Der deutsche Michel) und zur Semiotik des Huts im deutschen Realismus. Frau Sagarra hat zudem beim Lexikon deutscher Schriftstellerinnen (Hgg. Gudrun Loster-Schneider und Gaby Pailer) sowie an einer (elektronischen) Neuausgabe Ihrer Social History of Germany (1648-1914 mitgearbeitet) .
[1] On the origins of John Bull see Taylor, Myles (1992) John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion. In: Past & Present 134, 93-128.
[2] Die Schule des minutiösen Sehens und Lesens im Vormärz. Zur Raffinesse des Andeutens im Wechselspiel von Bild und Text. In: Koopmann and Lauster (1996:293). See also in the same publication Sagarra (1996) Selbstbestimmung durch Fremdbestimmung. On the history of Der deutsche Michel as a cartoon image in the Vormärz, 281-292.
[3] Heinrich Heine’s political verse offers a particularly eloquent example.
[4] See, for example Robert Prutz, Die politische Wochenstube (1845) or Leopold Feldmann, Der deutsche Michel, oder Familien-Unruhe (1849), both re-published in Denkler (1971).
[5] A prime example is Karl Friedrich Köppen, Der deutshe Michel, published in the Rheinische Zeitung für Politik, Handel und Gewerbe, January 1843, no. 1, which describes in detail a group of onlookers gazing at a reproduction exhibited in a ‘Bilderladen’ of Robert Sabatky’s much-published cartoon of der deutsche Michel bound to a chair and guarded by police under the eye of Metternich, Pope Pius IX, the Jesuits and other representatives of the alliance of ‘throne and altar’.
[6] We recall the unusually high proportion of artisans who took part in the Revolution, and were counted among its first victims.
[7] One of the most extraordinary of these texts was Oskar Panizza’s 666 ‘theses’ under the title of Der deutsche Michel und der römische Papst, published (belatedly) in Leipzig in 1894 and modelled on Luther’s (in every sense) legendary challenge at Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. The cover has a bearded Michel observe the pope in tiara from the recesses of a curtain.
[8] One recalls that the Second World war ended for the Soviet Union on May 9, not May 8 (which incidentally and with the unhappy symbolism which has dogged modern German history, is the feast of St Michael the Archangel, Germany’s first patron saint).
[9] The Paris Goethe Institute collaborated with its French partners in
the highly successful documentary
exhibition of 1987, subsequently published by Dietrich and Fekl (1997) Komische Nachbarn/ Images du voisin. Deutsch-französische
Beziehungen im Spiegel der Karikatur (1945-1987).
[10] The topical reference is to the Franco-German brigade.
[11] I have found very few Michel cartoons in the GDR press over a period of some dozen years research, most of them admittedly spent in Berlin and West German archives.