German Politics and Society

For several years now, democracies all over the world have seemed to be in crisis as fundamental democratic principles, such as the separation of powers or the protection of minorities, have come under increasing attack from nationalist movements and parties. Germany is no exception. Not surprisingly, the responses adopted by established politicians to defend the values and institutions of democracy are primarily national in approach; above all, democracy itself is an institutional order that is bound to nation-states. This is the context in which a concept that many believed to have already been dead and buried in post-war Germany has experienced a renaissance in national debates about identity and community: Heimat. It has cropped up almost everywhere—in novels, songs, and political debates. The most striking evidence without a doubt was the expansion of the country's Federal Ministry of the Interior in March 2018, which was intended as more than just a technocratic decision. Since then, it has borne the title of Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (Ministry of the Interior and Community), with Heimat in this context being broadly defined, including the promotion of volunteering, the integration of migrants, and spatial planning.

This article tests the analytical potential of Heimat to explore identity constructions in East Germany more precisely than sociological studies have done so far. Using the example of the conservative party in the East German region of Eichsfeld in the 1990s and 2000s, I argue that the concept of Heimat, understood as a historical process in which individuals construct their subjectivities in relation to their immediate material environments, can help us to identify variations, complexities, and contradictions of different identities in concrete historical situations. Positioning itself against current debates, the article concludes that Heimat necessarily encompasses both inclusion and exclusion. However, the conservative Heimat concept of the Eichsfeld Christian Democratic Party (cdu), on which this article focuses, proves negotiable and is not necessarily more open toward anti-democratic forces than it superficially seems.

After the demise of the German Democratic Republic, social and economic instability, coupled with the growth of right-wing extremism, resulted in a number of violent and racist attacks on migrant workers as well as riots that lasted several days. This article examines the ways in which these attacks have been remembered in the public sphere since unification, with a particular focus on physical memorialization. Efforts to commemorate these events in the built environment have not, however, been without controversy and raise significant questions relating to notions of Heimat and its disruption. As the article argues, remembering these events today has increasingly become a central part of the construction of local identities and active socio-political spaces, and can be seen as an important element in the practice of Beheimatung.

From its very beginning, the German Democratic Republic (gdr) tried to establish legitimacy through historical narratives. The state party required thousands of amateur historians, who conducted their studies as leisure activities, to participate in this ideological project. Every chronicler had to prove the necessary and inevitable victory of socialism when researching local history. The article focuses on the practices of those hobby historians, looking at the ways in which they went along with the official demands and how they tried to find their own ways to deal with historical issues. Furthermore, it points out how these practices lasted beyond German reunification and are still used today to construct local identity.

This article examines notions of Heimat among older people in post-unification East Germany. Through the lens of the two long histories (of Heimat and of 1989) it takes into account the before, during, and after of critical life events encountered by older people during that period. The article presents the cases of two older women who stayed in place after 1989 and scrutinizes how they countered the master narrative of a (perceived) loss of Heimat. It turns out that both women opposed the idea of older people as “losers” of the transformation. Regardless of the radical right-wing views on Heimat that were emerging, they developed a concept of their own that was based on empathy, solidarity, and tolerance. The article discusses the two cases as examples that encourage approaching Heimat as a social practice of caring for other people and the environment in which they live.

Downwind from the massively polluting carbo-chemical facility at Espenhain, Mölbis became notorious through the 1980s as “the filthiest village in Europe.” Although East Berlin had slated it for demolition and resettlement, the village was rehabilitated immediately after 1989 into a charming exemplar that attracted outside investment. Thanks to continuous engagement by local actors before and after 1989, as well as knowledgeable help from Western experts about finance and reconstruction, Mölbis became a symbol of hope across the polluted industrial countryside south of Leipzig. Countering recent bestsellers that have reinforced stereotypes about rapacious Wessi carpetbaggers and passive Ossi victims, this article builds on decades of scholarship and a unique primary source base to illustrate the considerable success of German reunification at the grassroots level.

This article investigates identities and belonging in post-reunification Germany, focusing on the role of migrant advocates and migrant organizations in Dresden. It explores how these actors articulated support for migrants or for claimed human rights while also grappling with their own shifting roles within a newly unified Germany. It draws on media reports, archival material, and interviews, mainly within a time frame from 1989 to the mid-1990s. Findings reveal how advocates tried to evoke or foster empathy for refugees and migrants by hinting at East Germans’ own experiences of being immobilized. This case study sheds light on the challenges of defining the place of migration in (new) German identities as well as on alternatives to prevailing concepts such as Heimat or “the nation.”