Among its file on „Social Democracy“ in the Archive for the Church Province of Saxony is a 1907 article from the Social Democratic newspaper, the Volksblatt, in Halle entitled, “Who terrorizes?” According to their report, Dr. Vogl, had suddenly been removed from his position as pastor in the town of Leislau by Kamburg with one third of his earnings withheld. Directly after the parliamentary elections in February of 1907, Dr. Vogl had held a “family night” at the church on the topic of “The political parties of the Reichstag”. Dr. Vogl claimed that he only wanted to introduce people to the topic in a matter of fact sort of way and not step on anyone’s toes. He also wanted his presentation to help the political parties learn to understand each other so that they could fight with “only the honorable weapons of truth and justice”. At some point in the evening, a local aristocrat (“Rittergutsbesitzer”) named Schlueter stood up and announced that the pastor had to fight Social Democracy above all else. The pastor, according to Schlueter, should also explain how social democracy wanted to do away with Christianity and destroy marriage and the family. Dr. Vogl countered with the remark that there was nothing in the Social Democratic platform about destroying marriage or family. Furthermore, people misunderstood the party platform plank: “religion is a private issue”. Thereafter, Schlueter told Dr. Vogl that he should be ashamed of himself and then left the “family night” with his wife. The reporter noted that Dr. Vogl was widely loved and respected in his community and there was a strong feeling of bitterness among his congregation and beyond. Such an occurrence reminded the reporter of one of the darkest times in the middle ages where people burned those of different faiths. Dr Vogl, accordingly, would realize that contemporary society was the greatest enemy of truth and justice. What, the reporter asked, would the bands of liars have to say about this?
Notes: Source: AKPS, Rep.A, Generalia, Nr. 1529, "Die Sozialdemokratie"; image above is entitled, "The Red Terror" from an 1881 edition of the Viennese satirical paper, the Gluehlichter.
I plan to introduce more of my archival findings in later postings and I want to explore their interpretation and significance for my work. I think this finding from today's archival research is interesting for several reasons. It is an article appearing in a pro-Social Democratic newspaper in Halle. So one has to take its reportage with a grain of salt, but it does articulate a notion of "terror" even as it raises "terror" as a question. From its emergence as a political force in the late 1870s, the working class political movement had articulated a capitalist form of "terror" as part of its way of organizing workers in the face of work-related fears. Opponents often resorted to labeling nascent Social Democracy as a "red" form of terror. In this case, the aristocrat's remarks reflect that trend among conservative circles to paint the emergence of Social Democracy as a form of "terror" that threatened Christianity, the family and marriage. The reporter uses collective memories of persecution to frame the description of the aristocrat's words and actions as an example of the capitalist system's terror. By the turn of the century, parliamentary politics had developed a high level of rhetorical exaggeration in Germany around supposed threats and terrors from both the left and right. I wonder how much objective positions in those platforms played a role in comparison to those calls of "terror" and how the invocation of collective fears affected those communities. In that context, it is interesting to see a pastor try to develop a presentation within the confines of a "family evening" to better inform people as voters. The aristocrat's attempt to publicly shame the pastor, appears to have backfired, but it also reveals one way in which people publicly threatened each other for political purposes at the turn of the century, namely through use of hierarchical forms of status and shaming as a way of then removing that pastor from his congregation. The local Social Democratic paper used this occasion of an apparently non-biased pastor to more effectively make the case. Most Protestant pastors, I would have assumed, would not have veered from their support of the monarchy and attacks on related opposition. Social Democracy was supposed to be the most immediate internal enemy to the Reich. It then strikes me how someone like this aristocrat can "archetype" space (see Teresa Hubbard's presentation of her work on the "home and fear" from the Akademie Schloss Solitude Conference post for this idea) or at least attempt to shape the "family night" to articulate the "terror" of Social Democracy and threaten the pastor and anyone else open to opposing ideas. I think the description of the pastor's actions and the actions of the Social Democratic newspaper also reflect William Reddy's concept of individuals "navigating" social and cultural space that others are attempting to shape for the purpose of control. In the bigger picture, I think these kinds of sources reveal how national politics was already working through the local level before the First World War. More importantly, these local political practices and notions of "terror" would continue to influence German politics in the wake of the First World War, beyond the Kaiser's call for national cooperation (the "Burgfrieden") during the war and the revolution that followed in the wake of Germany's defeat and the end of the monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment