Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (10) (remove)
Document Type
- Review (10)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Institute
The volume consists of eight essays with a precise focus: the study of the "dynamics of social exclusion" as reflected in data available for 1994 to 1996, when a detailed survey of a sample of households in EU countries, the "European Community Households Panel," was conducted. On the basis of these data, the authors document the extent and prevalence of poverty generally and specifically in regard to particular risk groups defined in terms of age, health and personal circumstances (young adults, lone parents, people with sickness or disability and retirees).[1] The analysis was carried out for five countries: Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and the United Kingdom, which were taken to be representative of the extremes of EU membership: north and south; wealthy and poor; large and small. The essays discuss income poverty (measured as incomes at 40, 50 or 60 percent of median incomes) as well as housing problems, access to basic necessities like food and utilities, access to consumer durables and social interactions. The essays document not only that the extent of poverty varies between countries--a well-known fact--but also that its causes and effects continue to differ even in an increasingly united western Europe. Austria had the lowest proportion of the population in poor households (17 percent--compared to 18 percent in Germany, 21 percent in the United Kingdom and Greece, and 24 percent in Portugal). While sickness and disability were likely to impoverish individuals in all the countries studied, this was particularly true of Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom (that is, northern Europe); retirement was more likely to result in income poverty in the south. The north-south divide was less relevant for parents; single income households with children were particularly likely to suffer from income poverty in the United Kingdom, Germany and Portugal. Poverty was more likely to be persistent than merely a brief phase in the life cycle. Persistence rates of income poverty were around 80 percent in Greece and Britain, above 70 percent in Portugal and above 60 percent in Germany and Austria. But the effects were rather different. In the United Kingdom, high persistence rates of income poverty coincided with low persistence rates (34 percent) of amenities deprivation, whereas the persistence of necessities deprivation was relatively low in Greece at 39 percent. The volume was conceived as a contribution to policy decision-making in the aftermath of the 2000 Lisbon Declaration, which focused (among other things) on poverty and encouraged member states to set more concrete targets for dealing with social exclusion. Some member states did so; Britain, for example--a country where income poverty was particularly likely to result in deprivation of basic necessities--vowed to abolish "poverty" by 2020. The volume is a treasure-trove of data and empirical analysis; it makes essential, though at times rather trying, reading for anyone interested in the extent of social exclusion, and the likelihood of falling into or escaping from it. It also provides ample proof--if any were needed--that governments seeking to combat social exclusion have to set different priorities, because they are not attacking the same phenomenon. Unfortunately, the empirical as well as the more conceptual contributions reveal some of the approach's and the book's shortcomings.[2] The book's very advantage--providing a precise research agenda--is also a drawback. With its focus on three years, and on the life-cycle rather than more stable factors such as ethnicity, occupation or regional origin, the volume presents a particular image of the risk (and duration) of deprivation, which may be more or less comprehensive for different countries. The narrow temporal focus makes one wonder whether measuring poverty's "persistence" of poverty makes much sense for such a relatively short time. Such doubt is enhanced when considering some of the oddities in the results: how did households that remained poor in the United Kingdom manage to get their hands on consumer durables? (The same question could be asked for the sudden increase in access to necessities in Greek households.) Illustrating the empirical findings with more concrete examples would have been helpful, particularly when they are counterintuitive, for instance the statement that patterns of poverty in eastern and western Germany were converging in spite of the continuing divergence in unemployment patterns. Another question--admittedly suggested by events of the last several years--is whether ethnicity, regional origins or occupations are not more important in determining the extent and duration of social exclusion than life cycle. These factors were not, and partly could not be, measured on the basis of the data used, but have moved to the center of policy debates today. This matter relates to another issue the book does not address: who is to blame for poverty, and what roles have governments and the European Union assumed in determining poverty patterns and trends? Have past policy choices--for instance, cutting benefits; increasing "flexibility" in labor markets; encouraging the emigration of jobs (such things the European Union is frequently accused of doing)--made a difference? Is combating poverty a serious policy agenda, or merely window-dressing to make the "reforms" that were key to the Lisbon agenda for modernizing the EU more palatable? Europe seems to be facing an internal contradiction between the agenda of competition and privatization (which results in higher access costs to essential services for "low value" customers) and the agenda of abolishing poverty. This contradiction is partly sustained by U.K. data. Which element is and should be more important to the European Union or national governments is hotly debated, but of course serious contributions to the debate require a comprehensive review of the present state of affairs through the type of careful studies of which this volume is an excellent example.
Im Mittelpunkt der Darstellung stehen zwei Angehörige der Familie Clough. Anne Jemima (Annie) Clough wurde 1820 in Charleston, North Carolina, geboren und starb 1892 im englischen Cambridge. Ihre Nichte Blanche Athena (Thena) Clough kam 1861 in Derbyshire auf die Welt und starb 1960 in London - das erklärt Anfangs- und Enddatum des Untertitels. Die Geschichte, die Gillian Sutherland in dieser lebendigen und materialreichen Familienbiografie erzählt, hat zwei Fluchtpunkte. Das Schicksal der Cloughs ist eng verflochten mit der Geschichte von Newnham College, Cambridge, wo Sutherland lehrt. Zudem geht es der Autorin um das Verhältnis zwischen bildungsbürgerlichen Berufen und 'gentility', d. h. einem finanziell abgesicherten und nach den Maßstäben der englischen Oberschicht respektablen Lebensstil. Annie Clough war die Tochter eines Kaufmanns, der mehrfach bei dem Versuch scheiterte, von Amerika oder England aus im Fernhandel oder Finanzwesen, vor allem im Handel mit Baumwolle, sein Glück zu machen und ein respektables Vermögen zu erwerben. Die Übersiedlung der Familie nach Amerika war Ausdruck der Hoffnung auf das Potenzial des Baumwollmarktes; die Rückkehr nach Liverpool ein erster Ausdruck des Scheiterns. Aber während die Bank von Annies Großvater nur einmal in Konkurs ging und mittelfristig alle Schulden tilgen konnte, machte das Handelshaus ihres Vaters zweimal bankrott. Die Notwendigkeit, zum Unterhalt der Familie beizutragen, brachte Annies Bruder, den in Oxford als Theologen ausgebildeten, Spezialisten als Dichter bekannten Arthur Clough dazu, sich zunächst als Vorsteher eines Studentenwohnheims des Londoner University College, dann als Beamter im 'Erziehungsministerium' zu versuchen - beides letztlich mit mäßigem Erfolg. Das lag freilich auch daran, dass Clough, den die Debatten im Umkreis des Oxford Movement zum Atheisten hatten werden lassen, als Lehrer in einem noch weitgehend theologisch geprägten Umfeld nur schwer tragbar schien; eine akademische Karriere in Oxford blieb ihm ebenso verschlossen wie die Aussicht auf eine Pfarrei. Annie Clough wählte ebenfalls den Weg in den Bildungsbereich. Freilich fehlte ihr eine formale Ausbildung, die über den Schulbesuch selbst hinausgegangen wäre. Mithin waren auch ihre Unternehmungen als Lehrerin und Schulleiterin eher provisorischer Natur; dazu kam der frühe Tod des Bruders und das Bedürfnis, mit für dessen Kinder zu sorgen. Annie Clough engagierte sich somit aus Überzeugung, aber auch aus ökonomischem Interesse für einen Ausbau der Frauenbildung. 1871 wurde sie Vorsteherin eines vor allem auf Betreiben Henry Sidgwicks gegründeten Wohnhauses für bildungswillige Frauen in Cambridge. Die Universität hatte soeben Vorlesungen für weibliches Publikum geöffnet und damit eine Kernforderung der akademischen Frauenbewegung erfüllt. Ähnliche Vorlesungen wurden bereits in anderen Teilen Englands angeboten. In Cambridge ergab sich aber das Problem, dass in der Stadt keine geeigneten Unterkünfte für alleinstehende Damen zur Verfügung standen. Das spätere Girton College befand sich damals noch in Hitchin; das Cambridger Modell sah zudem vor, dass Frauen ganze Vorlesungszyklen besuchen sollten, die sich vorwiegend an männliche Studenten "in residence" richteten, was wiederum die Begleitung durch eine Anstandsdame erforderte. 1875 wurde aus dem zunächst fünf Damen beherbergenden Wohnheim Newnham Hall, 1879 Newnham College, nach Girton das zweite Frauencollege der Universität. Die Autodidaktin Clough wurde von einer quasi-Hausdame zum College Principal. Auf diesem Posten folgte ihr Thena Clough, die zu den ersten Newnham Studentinnen gehört hatte. Der zweite Teil des Buches kreist um die Funktionsweise des Colleges, den langen Kampf um die Zulassung von Frauen zu Universitätsexamen und das intellektuelle Milieu Newnhams, ohne doch ganz zur breiten College Geschichte zu werden. So gerät freilich die These aus dem Blick, bildungsbürgerliche Aktivitäten seien finanzielle Rettungsanker der englischen Oberschicht gewesen, die es erlaubten, ohne großen Aufwand einen respektablen Lebensstil zu sichern (2 f.), der normalerweise auf Handelskapital oder Landbesitz gegründet gewesen wäre. Im Falle der männlichen Cloughs mag das so gewesen sein (auch Thenas Bruder machte eine eher wenig distinguierte Karriere im civil service), bei den Frauen der Familie wird aber bereits deutlich, dass die These kaum verallgemeinerbar ist. Zudem fehlen systematische und detaillierte Angaben zum Einkommen der Cloughs; über weite Strecken scheint ein Rest von Familienvermögen und ein dichtes Verwandtschaftsnetzwerk wichtiger gewesen zu sein als der Beruf. "The Power of Mind" passt da - auch mit Blick auf Annie Cloughs angeheiratete Cousine Florence Nightingale und andere Angehörige des weiteren Bekanntenkreises - als Erklärungsmodell schon besser.
The articles in this volume represent anthropological approaches to the study of external and internal boundaries in Europe. The authors raise fascinating methodological and empirical questions by approaching European societies from the perspective of a discipline usually working on the basis of greater cultural distance between scholars and the objects of their research. Moreover, the volume tackles a subject usually understood as a political project and a political problem, E.U. Europe, in an original non-political-science perspective. The volume's case studies are all based on bottom-up views of Europe, with fieldwork the methodology of choice. The first articles focus on institutions. Cris Shore and Daniela Baratieri's article focuses on the ambivalent results of attempts by European schools, which cater mainly to Eurocrats in Brussels and Luxemburg, to replace nationalism with a sense of European identity or nationhood, while Gregory Feldman discusses Estonian programs for the integration of Russian-speakers and Davide Però addresses the position of Italy's left-wing parties and public to the "new immigration." While these essays argue that "Europe" may not be as destructive to national (institutional) boundaries or the nation state as is often supposed, the next block of articles tackles migration across boundaries in a more conventional perspective, focusing on particular immigrant groups. Helen Kopnina discusses Russians in London and Amsterdam, while Christina Moutsou focuses upon immigrants in Brussels and Jacqueline Waldren examines Bosnians in Mallorca. To me, the case study of Turkish migrants in West Berlin by Sabine Mannitz is particularly intriguing, because it uses the peculiar experience of a lesson on Jews' fate in the Holocaust in which the teacher cast immigrants as permanent outsiders in Germany to explore pupils' sense of boundaries, and the East-German West-German divide appeared to loom much larger for immigrants than that between foreigners and Germans. The last section focuses on concrete and contested boundaries in European states and towns: William F. Kelleher, Jr. discusses Northern Ireland, Greek towns are the focus of Venetia Evergeti and Eleftheria Deltsou's article and South Tyrol is examined by Jaro Stacul. The volume makes for diverse and diversifying reading, and can only be highly recommended to anyone interested in innovative perspectives on the fate of the European project.
Douglas G. Morris's excellent book poses a broad question: what happened to the rule of law in Germany after 1919? How severe was the collapse of judicial impartiality and competence? Can one doubt whether the Weimar Republic ever qualified as a republic, "if a necessary part of a republic is a judiciary committed to democratic ideals and impartial justice" (p. 1)? That there was a collapse in judicial impartiality is hardly in doubt. As early as 1922, Emil Julius Gumbel provided statistical proof: between late 1918 and summer 1922, a total of 354 political murders committed by perpetrators affiliated with the political right had been punished with one life sentence plus 90 years and 2 months imprisonment; in 326 cases, there had been no punishment at all. By contrast, the 22 murders committed by left-wing sympathizers in the same period had been punished with 10 death sentences, 3 life sentences and 248 years and 9 months imprisonment; only 4 perpetrators escaped (p. 1). To be sure, this statistic may indicate more about the political leanings of police officials and prosecutors investigating cases than of judges who rule on the evidence put before them, but the divergence in sentencing remains remarkable. Morris reformulates this insight to ask how Germany's judges, trained to apply the law in an impartial and technically correct manner, could become raving political partisans willing to twist the law in favor of a particular political position. He does not seek to provide a comprehensive answer, but focuses on cases which involved Max Hirschberg, a Jewish attorney who practiced in Munich from 1911 to 1934, when he escaped to Italy. Hirschberg moved on to the United States in 1939, where he died in 1964. Hirschberg was not only involved in the major political trials of the day in 1920s and early 1930s Munich, but also developed a systematic interest in judicial error, which culminated in a major work on Das Fehlurteil im Strafprozeß, published in 1960. Morris is interested primarily in how trials were conducted. This in-depth analysis is divided into three blocks: political trials in 1922 and 1925, when Germany's war guilt and the causes of defeat were treated in libel suits and criminal prosecutions; non-political cases in which Hirschberg succeeded in having judicial errors reversed; finally, political cases linked with the rise of the Nazi party from 1926. In each case, Morris offers a clear exposition of the facts and substantial as well as legal issues in the case, a step-by-step analysis of trials and appeals processes, and an evaluation of the outcome. The main lines of argument which emerge from these analyses are, first, that some problems were peculiar to Bavaria. The main issue was the existence of people's courts, introduced during Bavaria's brief socialist phase to provide swift justice. The people's courts did not just increase judges' freedom of action by abolishing procedural safeguards, but also protected judges from professional scrutiny and criticism because there were to be no appeals. One of Hirschberg's major victories in the cases of the early 1920s was successful lobbying for their reintroduction. Second, Munich's judges may have been particularly traumatized by the brief revolutionary episode (and by the political preferences of Bavaria's ministries, which were systematically anti-Republican); moreover, they were called upon to decide a stream of political trials, some of which--notably libel trials--effectively sought the impossible, namely a definitive judicial ruling on the validity of a certain interpretation of history or a personal political position. Third, in spite of significant personal variations in style and substance, even after the reintroduction of appeals judges tended to use their freedom of maneuver in an anti-left-wing (which implicitly meant pro-National Socialist) sense. However, until 1933, this state of affairs did not challenge the ties which bound the profession. The Bavarian ministry of justice failed in its attempts to have Hirschberg disbarred in the early 1920s. Even when Hirschberg was released from so-called protective custody in 1934, most of his colleagues rallied round the decorated war veteran, allowing him to retain an access to the court building that was denied most Jewish attorneys. Finally, the problems of the justice system affected non-political cases as well, which may have deepened distrust of Republican institutions. The meticulously researched book benefits immensely from its author's experience as a practicing attorney familiar with courtroom drama and legal technicalities, which are vividly recreated and succinctly explained. The focus on Hirschberg illustrates both the immense obstacles a defense attorney faced and the victories an exceptionally gifted attorney could still win. Even though the courtroom perspective disregards some of the motivations which have their roots outside court--be it the social structure of and career perspectives in Munich's legal profession or political pressures on judges--these are not the main focus of Morris's research. Finally, one could argue about the optimist portrayal of pre-1918 German justice in politically sensitive cases. The clear focus on Weimar trials ensures that the book is no biography. Although Morris includes brief chapters on Hirschberg's youth and his years in exile, not much information is offered on Hirschberg's private life, the economics of his legal practice or his time in exile. But this decision does not diminish Morris's achievement in providing a fascinating insight into the workings of Weimar justice.
Celia Applegates neues Buch erzählt die Vorgeschichte eines überdeterminierten Ereignisses: der Aufführung einer gekürzten Version von J. S. Bachs Matthäus-Passion in Berlin 1829. Das Ereignis hatte viele (mögliche) Bedeutungen. Biografisch markierte es den Durchbruch Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdys als ernsthafter Akteur auf der Berliner, deutschen (und internationalen?) musikalischen Bühne. Musikalisch brachte es die Wiederentdeckung Bachs als Vokalkomponist, auf die eine bis 1833 andauernde Aufführungswelle und Neueditionen folgten. Allgemeinhistorisch könnte man argumentieren, dass Bach 1829 zum 'deutschen Erinnerungsort' wurde, der künftig eine Ikone des deutschen Kulturnationalismus, in dem die Musik bekanntlich eine Schlüsselrolle spielte, darstellte. Applegate geht es dagegen vorwiegend darum, 1829 als Endpunkt darzustellen: die Aufführung brauchte "einen Saal, eine Partitur, Sänger, Instrumentalisten, einen Dirigenten, ein Publikum" (173) - warum kamen die ausgerechnet 1829 zusammen? Sie schildert fünf Entwicklungsstränge, die in Berlin zusammenliefen. Mendelssohn Bartholdy konnte sich durch das relativ risikofreie Experiment einer Aufführung historischer Musik 1829 - nach einer gescheiterten Opernpremiere, einer Reise nach Paris und einer Wanderung durch Deutschland - in einer besonderen Weise präsentieren: als Experte für nationale, respektable, religiöse Musik. Letztlich bleibt aber auch nach Applegates Recherchen offen, welchen genauen Anteil an der Konzertplanung Mendelssohn, Carl Friedrich Zelter und Eduard Devrient hatten. Zweiter Punkt: die allmähliche Erhebung der Musik von einer Quelle bloßer, schwer analysierbarer und national unspezifischer Unterhaltung zu einer ästhetischen Form des Ausdrucks, der Kommunikation und Artikulation nationaler Besonderheit fand in philosophischen Debatten vor allem um und nach 1800 statt. Drittens profitierte die Aufführung von einer wachsenden, protestantisch geprägten, nord- und mitteldeutschen Musikpresse. Vor allem Adolf Bernhard Marx und seine Berliner Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung veranstalteten zugunsten Bachs und des Berliner Konzerts eine regelrechte publicity-Kampagne, der es auch darum ging, dem Publikum die wahre Bedeutung des Stückes (und die 'richtige' emotionale Reaktion) nahe zu bringen. Der Chor, der in Berlin auftrat, bestand aus Männern und Frauen. Das war zwar musikalisch nicht völlig neu, aber bei Aufführungen von Kirchenmusik hatte es das bislang nicht gegeben. Entscheidend war, dass es ein besonderer Chor war: eine Ansammlung musikalischer Laien in der Berliner Singakademie, die selten öffentlich auftraten und somit in doppelter Hinsicht einen Gegenpol zu weiterhin unter einem gewissen Prostitutionsverdacht stehenden weiblichen 'Bühnen-Profis' bildeten. Schließlich hatte die mit den preußischen Kirchenwirren verbundene Krise der protestantischen Kirchenmusik Bach im Besonderen und Kirchenmusik im Allgemeinen für eine säkulare (oder doch zumindest säkularere) Verwendung freigegeben, die zugleich erlaubte, Bach konfessionell zu delokalisieren und auch für ein katholisches deutsches Publikum annehmbar zu machen. Das elegant geschriebene Buch liefert einen sehr bemerkens- und bedenkenswerten Beitrag zur Musik-, Kultur- und Nationalismusgeschichte des ausgehenden 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland. Mäkeln kann man natürlich immer: etwa, indem man fragen würde, ob der Rückgriff auf Mack Walkers eher statisches Bild der deutschen Gesellschaft (vgl. 61, 67) wirklich besser zu Applegates Interpretation passt als neuere Portraits einer dynamischeren, mobileren Gesellschaft [1], oder ob nicht auch der Blick auf nationale Vorstellungen um 1800 ein weniger stärker hätte differenziert werden können. Das ändert freilich nichts daran, dass man selten ein so kluges, spannendes, konzises und wohlproportioniertes Buch lesen wird. Anmerkung: [1] Vgl. Theodore Ziolkowski: Berlin. Aufstieg einer Kulturmetropole um 1810, Stuttgart 2002; Helga Schultz: Das ehrbare Handwerk: Zunftleben im alten Berlin zur Zeit des Absolutismus, Weimar 1993; Lothar Gall: Bürgertum in Deutschland, Berlin 1989.