Society and Democracy in Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society and Democracy in Germany is a book by Ralf Dahrendorf that was first published in 1965 . With this contribution to historical sociology , Dahrendorf presented an overall analysis of German society with which he wanted to show what had stood in the way of the realization of a liberal democracy since the 19th century .

content

In his analysis, Dahrendorf understands the predominance of authoritarian images of the state and society in Germany as the result of a long history of development, the clearest symptom of which was National Socialism . Dahrendorf is based on the assumption that liberal democracy is characterized by four central elements, which are also indicators of the state of development of a democratic society:

  1. Effective balance of civil rights , so that the opportunities for participation of all citizens are guaranteed despite social stratification .
  2. Rational regulation of social conflicts, which presupposes the recognition of their inevitability in a liberal society.
  3. A “political class” that is differentiated in itself, but is linked by social affiliation and shared values.
  4. Dominance of public virtues in social consciousness over only private attitudes.

With a view to the four elements, the book examines the areas of social structure and citizenship , rule and social conflict , elites and upper class, as well as values and the public sphere . This shows that the implementation of liberal principles in Germany was hindered by the persistence of anti-democratic resentment , authoritarian institutions and authoritarian social models. German society remained “quasi-feudal” until the 20th century. That only changed with National Socialism. Its necessary but unintended result was the dissolution of ties to family, class, religion and region, a "modernity against its will". Nevertheless, the young Federal Republic also remained characterized by illiberal and anti-democratic traits.

How was January 30, 1933 possible?

One of the central questions of the book is: “How was January 30, 1933 possible? How can we explain, on the one hand, the great gains in votes of the National Socialists in the late years of the Weimar Republic and, on the other hand, the acceptance of Hitler's takeover of power and his first government acts by other parties and groups without contradictions? "Dahrendorf rejects the reference to individual events as causal factors:" What does 'Versailles' mean? Isn't a natural law implied here, according to which members of a people who are subject to territorial segregation and reparations in a peace treaty must vote for a radical national party fifteen years later? And does it look better with corresponding 'laws of nature' with regard to inflation and the economic crisis? ”Dahrendorf derives his answer from the four indicators:

  1. Older and closer ties held people so tightly in bondage that they could not grow into the role of modern citizens. Technical and economic development advanced, people remained unable and unwilling to freely convey their interests to the market for political decisions. Large groups behaved in a pre-democratic manner, which resulted in a longing and a call for the “warmth of the closed society”.
  2. This led to an aversion to social conflicts; certainty was always sought: "So everywhere the order of the opposites was sought in their final elimination, not against it in their reasonable regulation."
  3. The monopoly elite of the empire was not followed by a self-confident ruling class in the Weimar Republic. Remnants of the old elite stood next to a “cartel of fear among those who unexpectedly found themselves at the top and were only able to maintain the existing condition due to a lack of social establishment.” An elite of this kind had little to do with the onslaught of a decided subgroup Oppose resistance.
  4. The prevalence of private virtues (compared to political engagement) had a similar effect as in Bonapartism . The "German friends of the private" also shouted "silently, as it were, for the usurper."

Dahrendorf considers the fact that there were connections between big industry (and big agrarians) and the NSDAP to be particularly important for party development, but not as a suitable explanation of the takeover: “This theory bears unmistakable traces of a conspiracy theory. Through the suggestion of secret agreements between the overpowering, distorted big capitalists and Hitler, the theory meets the naive need for an explanation as concrete as possible of otherwise incomprehensible phenomena. Methodically, it is, as it were, the anti-Semitism of the left.

At the political level, at the beginning of the Nazi regime, “the National Socialist leadership clique was able to connect with another anti-democratic and activist elite, namely the traditional authoritarian groups” and thereby gain the power that made the abolition of the Weimar Constitution possible. There was no liberal elite that could have stopped this development.

National Socialism and Social Revolution

It soon turned out that the alliance of the traditional elites with the National Socialists was a mistake. "Because the revolution that did not take place in 1918, which was the only and tragic success of the Weimar coalition to have stopped and which the Nazi allies wanted to avoid on January 30, 1933, is now in motion." Dahrendorf states: “For Germany, National Socialism carried out the social revolution that was lost in the upheavals of imperial Germany and held back by the events of the Weimar Republic. The content of this revolution is modernity. "

The revolutionary thrust into modernity was unintentional by the National Socialists and yet a necessary result of their rule. It was also at odds with the Nazi program, which emphasized traditional ties. In fact, traditional ties were broken very quickly. This process began with the " Gleichschaltung" and continued with the establishment of the social role of the national comrade . Many other social roles of people, memberships and affiliations have been swallowed up by this same and public role. The covenant brother and the comrade, the Christian, the son, the father and much more had to cede his area to the national comrade. "The Volksgenosse was the figurehead of the National Socialist revolution."

Resistance rose late. On the basis of his previous considerations, Dahrendorf describes it as a “counter-revolution”, the aim of which was to restore the pre-revolutionary state. The National Socialist revolution produced modernity against its will. The counter-revolution sought to maintain traditional ties to family and class, religion and religion. A “perversion of German history” wanted the revolution to come in such a diabolical form and for the resistance of the authoritarian traditionalists to take on such humane forms: “The German resistance against Hitler is a glorious sheet of German history; but it is not a step on the way of German society to the constitution of freedom. "

reception

Sighard Neckel believes that Dahrendorf gained a great response from the general public in the 1960s with society and democracy in Germany . He was one of the few sociologists who asked about the resistance to a Western-style democracy in Germany. There was no longer such a comprehensive analysis of society.

Jens Hacke calls the book “a diagnosis of the times with a national pedagogical intention and with a socially liberal impetus”, since it is now part of the early history of the Federal Republic of Germany. In the triad of historical explanation, sociological analysis and committed political theory, society and democracy remain an exception to this day and can hardly be overestimated in terms of impact history. “Dahrendorf's interpretation of National Socialist rule and its social consequences was stimulating, even provocative.” Hacke, however, considers Dahrendorf's inclination to take the Nazi propaganda of “Gleichschaltung” and “Volksgemeinschaft” at face value to be contestable. More recent studies have since shown that the social structure in National Socialist society changed far less than Dahrendorf assumed.

In 1965, immediately after the book was published in a Spiegel review, Jürgen Habermas judged Dahrendorf: “He has no illusions and does not nurture any. (...) He, who goes back to the traditions of the 17th century, would presumably be called conservative in England and republican in America - but here he effortlessly turns everything against him, at least the faded slogans of the People's Chancellor and his opposition. "

expenditure

  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany . Piper, Munich 1965.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany . German Book Association, Stuttgart / Hamburg 1967.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and democracy in Germany . Doubleday, Garden City 1967.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Sociologia della Germania contemporanea . Il Saggiatore, Milano 1968.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and democracy in Germany . Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1958.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany . Unabridged special edition. Piper, Munich 1968.
  • Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany . 5th edition. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1977, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 (first paperback edition appeared in 1971).

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ The content is presented, unless otherwise stated, by Sighard Neckel : Dahrendorf, Ralf (* May 1, 1929 in Hamburg, † May 17, 2009 in Cologne) Society and Democracy in Germany. In: Georg W. Oesterdiekhoff (Ed.): Lexicon of sociological works. 2nd, updated and expanded edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-02377-5 , p. 154 f.
  2. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 400.
  3. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 400 f.
  4. ^ A b Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 401.
  5. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 402.
  6. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 402 f.
  7. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 410.
  8. ^ A b Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 414.
  9. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 416.
  10. ↑ Dahrendorf called such bonds ligatures in later works
  11. ^ Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 424.
  12. ^ A b Ralf Dahrendorf: Society and Democracy in Germany. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1971, ISBN 3-423-00757-5 , p. 425.
  13. ^ Sighard Neckel: Dahrendorf, Ralf (* May 1, 1929 in Hamburg, † May 17, 2009 in Cologne) Society and Democracy in Germany. In: Georg W. Oesterdiekhoff (Ed.): Lexicon of sociological works. 2nd, updated and expanded edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-02377-5 , p. 155.
  14. ↑ a b c Jens Hacke : Pathology of society and liberal vision. Ralf Dahrendorf's exploration of German democracy. In: Zeithistorische Forschungen / Studies in Contemporary History. Online edition, Issue 2, 2004 ( online , accessed April 21, 2015)
  15. ↑ The delayed modernity. Jürgen Habermas on Ralf Dahrendorf: “Society and Democracy in Germany”. In: Der Spiegel. 53/1965. ( online , accessed April 21, 1965)