Die Erklärung von Stuttgart und ihre Interpretationen: Versuch einer psychoanalytischen Kritik
Accordingly to the well-known writers on psycho-analytical subjects, Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich, German society in the post-1945 period suffered from political and social immobility because of a basic incapacity to repent. This arose because of a narcissistic nationalism and deployment of...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
1994
|
| In: |
Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte
Year: 1994, Volume: 7, Issue: 1, Pages: 59-82 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Accordingly to the well-known writers on psycho-analytical subjects, Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich, German society in the post-1945 period suffered from political and social immobility because of a basic incapacity to repent. This arose because of a narcissistic nationalism and deployment of psychic energies in rejecting notions of guilt, which took a variety of forms, and resulted in creating an atmosphere of false or unrealistic consciousness. Even though, at first glance, the Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt of October 1945 sought to express a statement of repentance, it still displayed numerous marks of a defensive mentality. In particular, it relied on the theory that the catastrophe of the Nazi years was due to the universal spread of secularism. By so doing it downplayed the specifically German character of the Nazi regime and sought to relativise its crimes as part of the world-wide overthrow of moral and religious values. This enabled its authors to seek to identify themselves with the churches of the victorious nations, and to call for the "re-Christianization" of the whole of European society. But, at the same time, the Declaration could have been an opportunity for repenting of Germany's particular sins. Yet this opportunity was largely ignored. Already in his commentary, which accompanied the issuance of the Declaration, Pastor Asmussen only added to the unreal atmosphere by placing his central emphasis on the unexamined elements of his church's tradition, such as the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, or the heritage of German national Protestantism. These arguments resulted in the kind of immobility which effectively hampered any true repentance. By adopting a strong position of sympathy for the German people in their hour of distress, Asmussen soon became an advocate of a defensive blocking off of ideas of guilt. By contrast, Martin Niemöller in 1945 expressed deep concern for the necessity of recognizing Germany's and the church's guilt, and so assisted the task of repentance. He sought to impress his audiences in numerous lectures and sermons with the need to examine the past, to face the facts and to prevent any repetition. But even he could not free himself from his strongly nationalistic identifications, which resulted in his eventual denunciation of the denazification steps undertaken by the military governments, and his call of February 1948 for a boycott of such measures.. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2196-808X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte
|