myth of a common descent and other criteria for what Weber refers to as an ethnic group (Weber 1920, 385; 389). This is not to erase the importance of regional differences in Germany. Rather than being comprised of many different ethnic groups, Germany was considered a conglomeration of different groups that essentially came from the same descendent. While this played into the rhetoric of Nazi Germany, one must be careful not to place this belief in common ethnic decent only on the development of National Socialism, as iterations of Germanness through group ethnicity was already present in the foundation of the Weimar Republic (Joppke 2011, 47).
However, the sort of emphasis on pure ethnic—rather racial—descendent, as signified by unified language and culture that was most prevalent during Nazi times, made it almost impossible for Germany to rebuild a traditional form of nationhood, especially during the East/West division. Indeed, Joppke writes that West Germany had to rebuild itself upon the rhetoric of self-denial (Joppke 2011: 45). West Germany was a nation that was not a nation. In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “New” Germany was faced with the question of how to reunify itself as a singular unit without laying the ground for reiterations of historical and dangerous nationalism. During this time period multiculturalism became the new weapon of choice—a tearing down of what Kim refers to as “triumphalist” narratives and allowing space for Germany’s West and East members to meld together in the face of increased immigration from other lands. Laying aside the increase in immigration (the second axis), one can see how at the most fundamental level, multiculturalism made sense in the trajectory of Germany’s articulation and understanding of a nationhood. As a tool, multiculturalism was an open attack to older nation formation through self-denial—continuing political ideology of West Germany (and East Germany as well) during the formation of the New Germany. Joppke even goes as far to claim that multiculturalism is not really an attempt to reclaim nationhood, but rather to transcend nationalism (Joppke 2011, 47). And for Joppke, this articulation makes sense of multiculturalism in a nutshell. Although multiculturalism is about the incorporations of foreigners, the foreigners are simply the backdrop and provide the perfect Gelegenheit or opportunity for Germans to redefine Germanness (Joppke 2011, 51) through a (perhaps racial) project of their own. Germanness is about being multicultural and accepting—to a point. Thus, multiculturalism is about Germanness redefining Germanness for themselves (Joppke 2011, 51). But this historical approach does not capture exactly why West Germany and the New Germany were so willing to embrace the multicultural rhetoric as the specific further self-denial of older concepts of nationhood. It does not capture the true nature of the question that multiculturalist rhetoric was supposed to answer. Even while weaving his historical tale of nationalism, Joppke cannot resist also telling the rest of the story—that of the second axis of immigration—despite his protests that it is more tangential to the true meaning of the debate. The second axis, continued flow immigration of distinctly and recognizably “different” populations of people into Germany helps to fill in the blanks. Starting in 1955 with Italian immigrants brought in through mutual government contracts, Germany slowly began to be …show more content…
While Omi and Winant perhaps specifically created their racial formation theory with the United States in mind, there are many parallels to be made between multiculturalism in Germany and racial projects. It is true, that when regarding the majority of immigrants in Germany and the ethnic and racial makeup or “ethnic” Germans, the rhetoric of multiculturalism may not be a strictly racial project per say. Germany has very specific connotations of race and racism that deal directly with the killing of Jews, i.e. ethno-racial genocide. (Joppke 2011, 65). While multiculturalism is deeply rooted in public debate and seeks to interpret and rearrange the (often racialized by phenotype) groups, it does not do so in the same manner as the United States. The missing link that keeps multiculturalism in Germany from being a racial project lack of attempt to redistribute and reorganize resources along racial lines. Multiculturalism leads to a rhetoric of integration that does not speak of the economic and other resources of those needing to integrate. There are
However, the sort of emphasis on pure ethnic—rather racial—descendent, as signified by unified language and culture that was most prevalent during Nazi times, made it almost impossible for Germany to rebuild a traditional form of nationhood, especially during the East/West division. Indeed, Joppke writes that West Germany had to rebuild itself upon the rhetoric of self-denial (Joppke 2011: 45). West Germany was a nation that was not a nation. In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “New” Germany was faced with the question of how to reunify itself as a singular unit without laying the ground for reiterations of historical and dangerous nationalism. During this time period multiculturalism became the new weapon of choice—a tearing down of what Kim refers to as “triumphalist” narratives and allowing space for Germany’s West and East members to meld together in the face of increased immigration from other lands. Laying aside the increase in immigration (the second axis), one can see how at the most fundamental level, multiculturalism made sense in the trajectory of Germany’s articulation and understanding of a nationhood. As a tool, multiculturalism was an open attack to older nation formation through self-denial—continuing political ideology of West Germany (and East Germany as well) during the formation of the New Germany. Joppke even goes as far to claim that multiculturalism is not really an attempt to reclaim nationhood, but rather to transcend nationalism (Joppke 2011, 47). And for Joppke, this articulation makes sense of multiculturalism in a nutshell. Although multiculturalism is about the incorporations of foreigners, the foreigners are simply the backdrop and provide the perfect Gelegenheit or opportunity for Germans to redefine Germanness (Joppke 2011, 51) through a (perhaps racial) project of their own. Germanness is about being multicultural and accepting—to a point. Thus, multiculturalism is about Germanness redefining Germanness for themselves (Joppke 2011, 51). But this historical approach does not capture exactly why West Germany and the New Germany were so willing to embrace the multicultural rhetoric as the specific further self-denial of older concepts of nationhood. It does not capture the true nature of the question that multiculturalist rhetoric was supposed to answer. Even while weaving his historical tale of nationalism, Joppke cannot resist also telling the rest of the story—that of the second axis of immigration—despite his protests that it is more tangential to the true meaning of the debate. The second axis, continued flow immigration of distinctly and recognizably “different” populations of people into Germany helps to fill in the blanks. Starting in 1955 with Italian immigrants brought in through mutual government contracts, Germany slowly began to be …show more content…
While Omi and Winant perhaps specifically created their racial formation theory with the United States in mind, there are many parallels to be made between multiculturalism in Germany and racial projects. It is true, that when regarding the majority of immigrants in Germany and the ethnic and racial makeup or “ethnic” Germans, the rhetoric of multiculturalism may not be a strictly racial project per say. Germany has very specific connotations of race and racism that deal directly with the killing of Jews, i.e. ethno-racial genocide. (Joppke 2011, 65). While multiculturalism is deeply rooted in public debate and seeks to interpret and rearrange the (often racialized by phenotype) groups, it does not do so in the same manner as the United States. The missing link that keeps multiculturalism in Germany from being a racial project lack of attempt to redistribute and reorganize resources along racial lines. Multiculturalism leads to a rhetoric of integration that does not speak of the economic and other resources of those needing to integrate. There are