Ronald Webster's "Non-aryan" German Theologians and
Their Lives in Exilesince l933 and Marlene Epp's The Memory of
Violence: Mennonite Refugees and Rape in World War II.
Discussion by Karla Poewe
At the Canadian Historical Association’s Annual Meeting, l994 (posted 2012)
 |
| Jewish Museum, Berlin |
Dr. Webster reviews the lives in exile of about six "non-aryan" German theologians and two "aryan" German theologians married to "non-aryan" women. The terminology is that of the Nazi regime which they fled. He explores the complex relations of these men to (a) their home church and country and (b) their church and country of exile.
My problems with this paper have less to do with how and where the author conducted his research, (namely, in Germany, Britain, and the US), than with his predilections and sensibilities, especially since the latter two are decidedly not in tune with those of the fascinating men he researched. Most obviously Webster's analysis lacks empathy. It is, therefore, excessively judgmental. Things are judged by the author, to be "ominous" (p. 5) "admirable" (p. 7) "naive'' (p. 19) and so forth, all in accordance with the author's values and predilections rather than with those of the people researched. The paper seems to be written from the vantage point of someone who has not experienced and is unable to understand immigration, resettlement, being an exile, being a product of an interethnic marriage, having an interethnic family or, finally, surviving extreme conditions. Lacking empathy the author seems to take literally and judge with hindsight the content of letters and other writings without even puzzling that these documents may be more important for what they exclude than for what they include.
Most serious is the fact that the author has no sense of the importance of Christianity as a metaculture (Burridge 1991). Consequently, the priorities of these theologians, their focused interests and concerns, and their correspondence are not placed in the Christian metaculture from within which these men gauge the world and their lives. The author insists that these men should have interests and identities other than what in fact they make quite clear they have (p.3, 23).
To take one example, while it is clear that the source of Forell's interests in the conversion of Jews is precisely his "non-aryan" origin, his state of being a German ethnic Jew who is also a Christian living in desperate times,the author insists that Forell does not link his work to his "non-aryan" origins (p.3) when, as said, his "non-aryan" origins are precisely his work. Furthermore, since the author does not understand that Forell's assessments have their source in the Christian metaculture, he cannot understand that the statement, namely, the "intellectualisation of man's relationship to God" may only coincidentally refer to Jews, (because Forell happens to work among them). In fact it is a common statement made by any devout Christian about anyone who does not understand faith, grace, and spirituality. The author has similar problems with Christian "salvation" (p.5), insisting that Forell should have meant by it what Webster thinks salvation of Jews should have been.
The author projects his categories into the minds of his subjects, like "the Jews," "the Christians" (p. 4) – categories with which his subjects are clearly uncomfortable. Interviewees make quite clear that they are aware of the great diversity of Jews and Christians. There are class differences and national differences; there are Jews who are Buddhists,Jews who are Christians, Jews who practice Judaism, and Jews who are secular; there are those who were persecuted and those who were not; there were assimilated Jews and ghettoized Jews. While the author is aware of the phenomenon of "opportunistic conversion," he is not equally aware of the fact that some Jewish Christians regard themselves to be more strongly Jewish since conversion than before it.This is a perspective, often a historical one, that deserves serious study.
Because the Webster makes assumptions about what these men's allegiances should be,he cannot appreciate the diversity of their views any more than he can appreciate their sacrifices. For example, the author does not understand how vitallyimportant Forell's dream to re-Christianize German youth might have been to these youths, precisely because Forell was Jewish and Christian. A German Jewish Christian affected by English culture might have worked wonders with German youths, guiding them to recognize the horrors of what we now call "the Holocaust'' while yet enabling a healing of guilt and anger (p. 6). What a sacrifice such work would have been. How deeply he would have benefited Silesians in their desperate post-war plight (Kaps l952/3). Finally, what could have made clearer that Forell's priorities were derived from the Christian metaculture than his readiness to defend Christian Protestantism against wild generalizations, usually ones that ignored the Resistance, and to worry about the Protestant church in Eastern Germany? (p.6).
Given the misunderstanding and misjudgements of Webster, a scholar, is it surprising that the lives of these men are penetrated by deep silence? The author does not seem to understand nor even puzzle over whether their silence is not a response to the expectation and pressure of their hosts thatthey, the theologians, tell their stories to a pattern – which pattern or storyline the exiled theologians may not in good conscience find either acceptable or appropriate. What does one do with a scholar who assumes that if I do not talk about Jews – being one or half of one – that I therefore wish to hide that part of my identity? What does one do with a scholar who cannot understand that I, as a German, Jew, and Christian theologian living in the immediate chaos of post-WWII, am worried about the division of Germany, the loss of Eastern German territories to Poles, Polish vengeance, and so on? (See Sack 1993; and since the, Hirsch 1998). What does one do, except remain silent?
Given the misunderstanding and misjudgements of Webster, a scholar, is it surprising that the lives of these men are penetrated by deep silence? The author does not seem to understand nor even puzzle over whether their silence is not a response to the expectation and pressure of their hosts thatthey, the theologians, tell their stories to a pattern – which pattern or storyline the exiled theologians may not in good conscience find either acceptable or appropriate. What does one do with a scholar who assumes that if I do not talk about Jews – being one or half of one – that I therefore wish to hide that part of my identity? What does one do with a scholar who cannot understand that I, as a German, Jew, and Christian theologian living in the immediate chaos of post-WWII, am worried about the division of Germany, the loss of Eastern German territories to Poles, Polish vengeance, and so on? (See Sack 1993; and since the, Hirsch 1998). What does one do, except remain silent?
In sum, because Dr. Webster insists that these men conform to his ("Webster's) expectations of what they should be, think, and to what and whom they should show ultimate allegiance, he misses what is most exciting. I mean the wonderful diversity of views. These men held diverse views about Germany and the role of German churches under National Socialism (p. 8, 23, and Fischer l990). They varied in their criticisms of host countries and conditions. They expressed varying degrees of uncertainty about where they should retire. They had diverse views about post-war Allied occupation policies (p. 24), and so on. If the paper shows anything it is the unbearable straightjacket into which North American scholars mean to force stories told by those who hail from Germany and who shape, and reshape, their identities in accordance with world traditions and professions and not only nationalities or even ethnicities.
All the same, Webster's paper is important because it highlights the difficulty of scholars who research people that hold alien views, that belonged to a former enemy, that identify with world traditions thereby crossing-over ethnicity, nationality, and re-establishing historical links or bridges between religions, like Judaism and Christianity, that fanaticism had torn apart. Webster's paper also shows the impatience of scholars with the perceptions of people who just survived hell -- with perceptions, in other words, that are a response to the immediate situation and are not yet seen from a safe distance. (Comment added 2012).
All the same, Webster's paper is important because it highlights the difficulty of scholars who research people that hold alien views, that belonged to a former enemy, that identify with world traditions thereby crossing-over ethnicity, nationality, and re-establishing historical links or bridges between religions, like Judaism and Christianity, that fanaticism had torn apart. Webster's paper also shows the impatience of scholars with the perceptions of people who just survived hell -- with perceptions, in other words, that are a response to the immediate situation and are not yet seen from a safe distance. (Comment added 2012).
By contrast with Ronald Webster's paper, I have no major problems with that of Marlene Epp. She tells my and my family's story (as metaphorically speaking does Dr. Webster) in such a manner that I can see myself and members of my family in it, even though we are not Mennonites. The very methodological problems which plague Webster's paper are extensively discussed and sensitively handled in Epp's paper. She understands that "meaning lies in silences and contradictions" as surely as "it lies in what is said." She understands the constraints that memories and constructions place on personal experiences. Above all, she shows the dialectic between personal story and the pressure to make one's story conform to the expectations of one's hosts, in this case Canadian Mennonites (p. 16). She shows how North American Mennonites are incapable of understanding East European Mennonites' victimization, suffering, and experiences generally, putting the latter into a bind about what to tell, how to tell it, and what to leave, even how to leave it, untold.
  | |||
| Published after Conference |
Epp must also be commended for not forcing this material exclusively into feminist theories. It is essential that the story of women, children, and rape become as securely a part of a history of war as are military strategies and tactics, the stories of generals and soldiers, of defeat, victory, and peace treaties.
If there is anything that one would add to this study, if not this paper, it is the following: (1) a more thorough understanding of the rhetoric, as in the use of figures, repetitions, and lyricism (p. 11) that make the conversion of especially painful lived experiences into spoken or written text not only possible but also powerful and authentic. (2) It is important to put closer checks on memory, precisely because memories have differing historical, social, psychological and literary importance.
For example, not expecting ever to return to Germany, I wrote up my childhood experiences almost entirely based on memory. Then came reunification and l returned. Checking my memories against those of others and against the route we took as refugees I am only now becoming aware of what exactly memories are – of how surprisingly accurate and inaccurate they are, of how they are the inner landscape which l constructed in a foreign world, of how they are my psychology reshaped in a North American social environment.
For example, not expecting ever to return to Germany, I wrote up my childhood experiences almost entirely based on memory. Then came reunification and l returned. Checking my memories against those of others and against the route we took as refugees I am only now becoming aware of what exactly memories are – of how surprisingly accurate and inaccurate they are, of how they are the inner landscape which l constructed in a foreign world, of how they are my psychology reshaped in a North American social environment.
 |
| Memories awakened by fieldwork |
 |
| Based on Memories |
0 Komentar untuk "On being Jewish, Christian, Theologian, and German during and after WWII at Home and in Exile"