Analysing Society in a Global Context: Empirical Studies on Sociation Processes of Volunteers and Refugees [1st ed.] 9783030455774, 9783030455781

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-x
Introduction (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 1-14
Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 15-47
Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 49-80
(Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 81-100
Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 101-121
Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 123-147
Using the Toilet: Role Play (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 149-174
Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 175-201
Conclusions (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 203-226
Epilogue (Anne Sophie Krossa)....Pages 227-229
Back Matter ....Pages 231-245

Citation preview

EUROPE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

Analysing Society in a Global Context Empirical Studies on Sociation Processes of Volunteers and Refugees Anne Sophie Krossa

Europe in a Global Context

Series Editor Anne Sophie Krossa Mainz, Germany

How can ‘Europe’ be conceptualized under conditions of globalization? Going considerably beyond the more mainstream perspective of the ‘European Union’, this book series opens up a space for a variety of debates in relation to this question. These are consistently based on the agreement that it limits the analysis of Europe if we ‘exotize’ it by restricting it to itself. Consequently, Europe and its manifold aspects are contextualized and systematically linked to reference points in the global world or to the concept of globalization. This also means that ‘globalization’ loses much of the vagueness that it is often accompanied by, as it is repeatedly conceptualized and applied in relation to Europe. The series has a strong sociological and theoretical focus, but is open to interdisciplinary connections and various methodological approaches.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14974

Anne Sophie Krossa

Analysing Society in a Global Context Empirical Studies on Sociation Processes of Volunteers and Refugees

Anne Sophie Krossa Catholic University Mainz, Germany

Europe in a Global Context ISBN 978-3-030-45577-4 ISBN 978-3-030-45578-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image: © iStockphoto.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

to Kristian and Jordi, my epic sources of happiness and inspiration

Contents

1

Introduction

1

2

Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

15

3

Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

49

4

(Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

81

5

Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

101

6

Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

123

7

Using the Toilet: Role Play

149

8

Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

175

9

Conclusions

203

10

Epilogue

227

vii

viii

Contents

References

231

Index

241

List of Images

Image 8.1 Image 8.2 Image 8.3 Image 8.4 Image 8.5 Image 8.6 Image 8.7 Image 8.8 Image 8.9

“dry kissing” “wash hands with soap, dry afterwards” “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” I “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” II “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” III Changing partners, unprotected sex “Be careful by (sic! ) bleeding gums (you and your partner)” I “Be careful by (sic! ) bleeding gums (you and your partner)” II “If you notice changes in your wellbeing (itchiness, feeling sore, changes on your skin, …) on your body go to the doctor! Inform your doctor of illnesses that you are aware of!” I

180 181 181 182 183 184 185 185

186

ix

x

List of Images

Image 8.10

“If you notice changes in your wellbeing (itchiness, feeling sore, changes on your skin, …) on your body go to the doctor! Inform your doctor of illnesses that you are aware of!” II

187

1 Introduction

Negotiating difference, and thereby also unavoidably gauging similarity, is at the core of sociation. Its intrinsic element of referring to others as well as to the self or to selves is often accompanied by reflections on belonging and non-belonging, on being inside and outside of collectives and on respective borders. This forms the second central aspect and point of reference here, which is to view society as a flexible point of reference, as horizon. In this book, the focus on difference, its negotiation and partly reflection in practice translates the conflict-focused theorisation I have developed in my previous book, Theorizing Society in a Global Context (Krossa 2013; see also 2009), into the area of empirical studies and their methodologies. A more concept-oriented book on the subject has been published in the meantime, primarily for teaching purposes and in German (Krossa 2018). From their varying angles, all three books are based on the assumption that it is worthwhile readdressing the concept of society—in a non-essentialist way, of course—and developing it further for today’s world with the instruments of conflict theory. Consequently, the three books discuss the concept of society in a global context, i.e. with direct reference to globalisation, and more precisely, to glocalisation, defined as © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_1

1

2

A. S. Krossa

a process, “through which ideas and practices spread all over the world, by adapting to local or particular conditions and ‘find a place’ there” (Robertson 2003, 583; see also 1992, 173f.). Glocalisation has two main consequences: “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson 1992, 8). Since the main idea I developed in Theorizing Society is the key theoretical point of reference of the current book, I will briefly recapitulate the main thesis here. How is social life possible based on difference that changes its manifestations but is, in principle, permanent? I looked at extreme forms of social contact, namely those forms at the margins that raise the question whether they still represent a form of socially connectable communication that enables some kind of exchange. That suggested question originated in the writings of Georg Simmel (1992), who opened the discussion by assuming that a combination of accordance and dissent is the condition of any exchange with a potential for social connectivity. He speaks of interplays [Wechselwirkungen]. Simmel discusses particularly trenchantly the question of whether war in the sense of extreme dissent still entails a potential for social connectivity. He has doubts at first, but later confirms it, making it conditional on some kind of existing explicit or implicit agreement though, for instance, that members of the army and civilians are to be treated differently. On this basis, he develops his groundbreaking hypothesis that, except for the absolute, extreme form of extinction, an element of conflict is required for any sociation. I have systematised this further by looking at the opposite pole in more detail, namely the one of ‘extreme harmony’, where total agreement is as great an obstacle for sociation as is total dissent. This has resulted in a continuum between total dissent and total accordance. In both extreme cases, the combination of consent and dissent necessary for sociation is absent: no consent at the ‘extreme dissent’ pole, and no dissent at the ‘extreme consent’ pole. In contrast to this, all manifestations within the broad space in between these extreme poles have the potential for social connectivity. This continuum not only opens up possibilities for allocating communications along a type of line, but actually opens up a three-dimensional space, as it allows for ambivalent combinations, e.g. combinations of the two extreme poles occurring simultaneously. This is

1 Introduction

3

giving a hugely abbreviated summary here, merely in order to convey the most general idea; however, you can find this theoretical approach and a number of closely related concepts discussed at length and in a variety of ways in Theorizing Society in a Global Context. This is, fundamentally, the starting point for the present book, a theoretically informed and inspired springboard used to see if I can substantiate my theoretical findings with a closely related empirical analysis and thereby demonstrate the practical viability of my theoretical suggestions. To this end I now pose the following question: how is difference and similarity negotiated in practice? Are particular integrative and disintegrative potentials or even effects systematically linked with specific forms and strategies of conflict communication? What role do ambivalent forms play that combine different elements? And ultimately how do the results of my empirical work reflect on and further my theoretical work when discussing society in a global context ? Practically speaking, my first task was to decide where to look for interesting, potentially informative and empirically examinable fields and data material. Personally speaking, after so many years of theoretical research, I was not sure if anyone would actually enjoy me carrying out empirical research, which notoriously includes speaking with real people! As it turned out most of my ‘objects of study’ evidently liked speaking with me, and I surprised myself by how happy (and comfortable) I actually am with it. So please feel encouraged if you are in a similar situation! All empirical forms and their researching are necessarily framed in specific time and space and, in January 2015, it was admittedly not very difficult to decide what and whom to turn to if one was interested in globalisation/glocalisation and society in a conflict-theoretical perspective. A so-called ‘refugee wave’ was ‘rolling’ (note the semantics!), though had not yet reached its peak, that was based on two main and complementary facts. On one side of the coin, in several countries, especially Syria, there was war and/or serious destabilisation that forced many to flee. Several millions had only left Syria up to that point. Most of them stayed in neighbouring countries, but several hundred thousands had applied for asylum in Europe. Exact numbers do not exist. However, for 2015, it was estimated that Germany took in about a million people. On the other side of the coin,

4

A. S. Krossa

the historic experience of the Second World War in Germany and the widespread acknowledgement there of the perpetration of terrible misdeeds were, and still are thoroughly reflected in public consciousness, largely due to all-embracing state education practices.1 Also, flight and (re-)integration had been experienced by a substantial number of its inhabitants, and different individual experiences are often still actively remembered in families.2 Obviously, this is a radical abbreviation of a complex matter, but as is well known, this resulted for Germans in an ambiguous national identity which led to a tendency across large parts of society to adopt (their own interpretations of ) transnational or cosmopolitan values, accompanied by the fact that the number of nationalists increased. For legal, economic or political reasons, each applicant for asylum in Germany has the right to have their application looked into individually,3 and when Germans applauded newly arriving refugees at train stations, Angela Merkel’s policy gave the impression of her society being a relatively welcoming and safe place—Germany seemed to be an attractive destination for a new beginning for many individuals. Against this background, in the acute situation of comparatively large groups of migrants arriving in Germany, many individuals wanted to ‘help’4 and action groups sprang up everywhere, in villages and cities alike. Their characteristic structure was, in a nutshell, the following. Of the volunteers, the largest proportion was typically women in their fifties and upwards but also others transcending age/gender/belief differences. These were meeting refugees of whom the largest group were young Arabic men but also others right across the age/gender/country of origin 1 In

my school, as in most others, we discussed the Second World War, Germany’s role in it and especially the pogroms every year from the age of ten years onwards. 2 At a town meeting with local politicians on the set-up of a new refugee’s home, I addressed the audience of about 400 persons, asking who has experience of fleeing in their family, either their own or their parents or grandparents. Following my own example, almost another 200 people raised their hands. 3This is, however, countered by a particularly strict naturalisation law. In contrast to France, for instance, German nationality status usually depends on bloodline. This indicates a general focus on homogeneity, with at least unconscious consequences for social relations. 4 Among other things, this has led to a volunteer movement so vast that some social workers openly informed me in 2015 that they are unable to ‘organise them’. One social worker admitted that he does not answer his phone most of the time because so many people want to ‘help’.

1 Introduction

5

divide mainly in order to help and foster integration (volunteers) and receiving information and various kinds of support (refugees). Although I am not a sociologist of migration I nevertheless decided to analyse and thereby make use of this subject, its issues, actors, materials, and practices, and it is no coincidence that they form the empirical point of reference of this book. Firstly, migration is a sign of our times, both quantitatively and regarding its conscious perception. It would be difficult to write about any idea of society today without taking that into account. This forms the background, secondly, for the fact that migration simply makes difference (and any related attempts to deal with it) particularly visible. This is an advantage for research. Difference in fact is everywhere, but here we can see it quite clearly, in a specific, socially concentrated form, and at the same time immediately referring to matters beyond itself. A welcome side effect is of course that my elaborations are so connectable to, or even compatible with the vast literature that is currently being produced in the field of ‘real’ migration studies. Importantly for me, then, migration is (interpreted as) a direct impulse necessitating integration. Ignoring, for the time being, that in much everyday life integration is construed less as some kind of mutual responsiveness and rather as assimilation—of ‘the others’ to ‘our’ ways, whatever that may be—, in principle, integration as a more processual concept combines difference and similarity generically. In this sense, migration functions as a magnifier that makes it possible to see what the characteristic processes of sociation and non-sociation are everywhere and what the communicative forms are they are based on. These can be even more intensely and consciously observed in our own times and especially in phases of enhanced mobility, intensified human movement across borders, subsequent contacts with ‘difference’ and various forms of exchange. By now it should be clear that it is the principle of integration, and more precisely sociation, that is the real focus of my interest in society, and that migration lends itself for illustration, though especially with respect to empirical research it is a hugely interesting and informative field in itself. In concrete terms, I can now draw on migration to see what practical and verbal contents, forms and strategies of communication between

6

A. S. Krossa

volunteers and refugees on difference (and similarity) can teach us about sociation and society. The selected examples here have three main functions. First, they stand for themselves, as individual instances that highlight and illustrate events and patterns at a particular time and place. Second, being combined together and thereby displaying patterns, underlying structures and logic, they visibly refer beyond themselves and open up space for abstraction and generalisation. And third, such generalisation lends itself to the systematic advancement of my initial theoretical questions. As Theorizing Society in a Global Context extensively discussed, and endeavoured to make a case for revitalising the term society, I want to make only a brief remark on this, especially for those who have not (yet) read that book. In my view, there is a particular risk in looking at social issues via very small-scale perspectives only, i.e. by sticking to the first of the aforementioned functions of the research examples, we risk perceiving them in isolation and therefore limit their explanatory radius. In a different context, Toni Morrison has compared the problem of looking at small details only to looking at a fishbowl: “It is as if I had been looking at a fishbowl – the glide and flick of the golden scales, the green tip, the bolt of white careening back from the gills; the castles at the bottom, surrounded by pebbles and tiny, intricate fronds of green; the barely disturbed water, the flecks of waste and food, the tranquil bubbles travelling to the surface – and suddenly I saw the bowl, the structure that transparently (and invisibly) permits the ordered life it contains to exist in the larger world” (Morrison 1992, 17). Thus it is not sufficient to stand passively out of pure fascination for the detail, but to put things in relation to one another and thereby to give them added sense and explanatory force. And increasingly this seems to be recognised, as a great deal of conference discussion experience appears to confirm. Typical questions that frequently come up are: what are we relating to? Who is ‘we’? What should be adapted to? What are the relevant frameworks? Without making any kind of normative judgement here (and obviously this discussion is quite a minefield), this discussion owes a great deal of its dynamic to perceptions of various mobilities. For research purposes, this means that when looking at individual cases and analysing them now, society as a point of

1 Introduction

7

reference certainly does not lose its relevance. In fact, the very opposite is the case. If we are unable to see the ‘fishbowl’ and take that entity into account, to use it as some kind of framework and one that does not have to be perfectly defined (in fact, what is?), we are unable to see links, relations, regularities, orders and—just as important and telling— exceptions, peculiarities, ambivalences and paradoxes. And to state the obvious: the fishbowl metaphor is much too concrete for my purposes. It is not about realising that society as such ‘is there’, but that we share certain ideas that make it possible to relate meaningfully to each other. In this sense, society is applied here in line with the Thomas theorem, as a constantly reconstructing horizon. For now, however, the focus is indeed on empirical examples and their details, in order to derive forms, types, patterns and strategies. Can we detect some structures that will then allow us to attempt a typology of conflict-related communications with potential accordingly for sociation and influence on society formation? Allow me to give you a brief glimpse into the results that are extensively discussed in the set of conclusions. I did indeed find a substantial number of useful examples, right across the constructed continuum and in the various groups. The main result for me, however, is the impressive number and variety of instances that are characterised by ambivalence and often border on the paradoxical. This is, in fact, where things became really interesting for me, for instance when both extremes are combined. So, in which respects did I find such ambivalences in principle? The first useful differentiation is between content and form. It is hard to believe, were it not actually proven on the grounds of the comprehensive data material, how regularly, and sometimes constantly, we employ complex communication strategies, right through to tacitly putting antagonisms next to each other, which are actually irreconcilable, in order to make manifestly systematic, though not necessarily conscious, use of grey zones. And it is genuinely fascinating to see how all these tactics are placed on a thematic level but are all aligned to the purpose of (re-)establishing hierarchical social order. And I am glad to say that the focus on (ascriptions of ) dirt and cleanliness turned out to be a really interesting and fruitful route. It brought about a broad variety of results, stretching from actual endeavours to suppress problems, as this subject

8

A. S. Krossa

is considered ‘embarrassing’ and as ‘something not to talk about’, right through to massive and semi-aggressive contentions of alleged ‘misbehaviour’. But before going into more detail, I briefly want to explain my general decision to use dirt and cleanliness as the focus for this research. Dirt and cleanliness are characteristically closely linked with emotions, i.e. they are not typically material for compromise. Related definitions and rules are important, that are usually fairly strict and clear—at least to the group that considers them their own. Constructions of self/selves and others on this basis are commonplace, and closely intertwined definitions of normality and deviance largely protect them from being scrutinised. Consequently, they are hugely effective in including and excluding groups in social contexts. Provoking conflict and impacting on definitions of collectives in a quite direct way, this subject is particularly attractive for approaching the question of society from a conflict-theoretical perspective. This, however, is theoretical rationalising. In fact, the process of my work was the other way round. The subject of (allocating) dirtiness and cleanliness was not at all what I had in mind when I entered the field. Only when I repeatedly stumbled across it, could I not ignore it any longer and began to see patterns. The theoretical elaborations support and confirm it now. More specifically, I now approach the data by posing the following questions. Which conflict-prone themes of dirt and cleanliness can typically (and untypically) be detected in relations between refugees and volunteers? How are they dealt with? And equally importantly, how can the various dirt- und cleanliness-related communicative and other practices be located alongside the continuum between the two extreme poles of ‘total harmony’ and ‘absolute war’ and their potential for sociation? In addition to this contentual focus, there is also a methodical aspect that guides this book. Each chapter, except for this Introduction, the first theoretical chapter on dirt and the Conclusions, makes use of a specific qualitative methodological approach: discourse analysis, participant observation, breaching experiment, group discussion, role play and image analysis. Several chapters are complemented by qualitative interviews. These combine cumulatively to form a multi-method approach that represents a focused ethnography (Knoblauch 2005) overall. In this way a large topic is approached via various methods to allow for a mutual

1 Introduction

9

checking and also balancing of the results. This is certainly not a ‘methods book’, though. The methods are not explained in detail (there are other books doing this), rather, with the help of the examples, I want to substantiate my research-practical approach and show which methods lend themselves to specific subjects and how they can be applied exemplarily. This fundamental decision to do focused ethnography is based on my conviction, or methodological taste, that really interesting results are usually obtained when we try to deeply probe into ideas and their practical and verbal expressions through people, and the chances for this are good whenever we give our counterpart some space for the ideally free development of their ideas and expressions. The thematically suggested focus on practice, including discursive practice, both typically not explicitly reflected upon by the individuals, and the allegedly self-evident character of ascriptions of being dirty or clean in the everyday, support the decision for deep-reaching qualitative methods. They allow for the practical power of performative classifications and related practices, including the emergence of social structures and order in a broad sense, to take centre stage, and be supplemented by reflective verbalisations: “Practical knowledge manifests itself not only in doing but also in related speaking – in becoming aware, in assuming, in explaining, in concluding, in justifying, in criticising. The language used for this is diffuse (…), often fragmentary, but uses words and sentences that are right to the point in specific practical situations. It likely takes up examples, analogies, experiences made in comparable situations with similar problems. Thereby, by talking about and correlating of examples, the general, the ‘regular’ is being invoked, for which individual cases can be examples” (Hörning and Reuter 2004, 37). This general decision for qualitative, and mostly ethnographic, research forms also requires thorough self-reflection as ethnographic researcher. This will resurface throughout the book, because, as it turned out, I appeared to have an opinion on everything (partly due to the provocative subject, I hope). Mainly, however, I was surprised by my own reluctance to address the subject of dirtiness and cleanliness and how it is used in social ordering. Throughout the various stages of this book, I struggled to walk the fine line between producing a concise sociological

10

A. S. Krossa

analysis of the subject on the one hand, working out often problematic social patterns, and of doing justice to the many individuals and their (mostly very understandable) positions and activities. My respect for those I worked with was always and still is huge, and as a sociologist, my task is to get as close as possible to social meanings, structures and patterns. You see, I am still struggling. It helps to understand the dilemma as something quite common, though. Very recently, a colleague wondered if we, as ethnographically working researchers, really do want to understand our subjects, or if it is rather about writing a ‘new story’: “And ‘new’ means it shall be surprising, display a different perspective, open up a new view. A ‘good story’, simply…” (Eberle 2020, 39).5 To me, it seems that this is the crucial point. And while I must accept that the ambivalences between the different viewpoints as just mentioned cannot be solved in any simplistic way, I am very clear about the fact that I am not writing stories for the sake of the story and at the cost of the researched individual.6 Regarding the results, my aspiration is not completeness, obviously, but an illumination of the spectrum, to reflect on and so enrich the theoretical side with the variety of applications and forms shedding a differentiated and advancing light on the underlying theoretical question of society. To this end, the book is structured as follows. Starting from the groundbreaking ideas of Mary Douglas—dirt as ‘matter out of place’ and therefore disturbing the social order—, in Chapter 2, Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives, the state of research on the general subject is looked at and tailored to my more specific research interest. The main aim is to elaborate on the fact that the dirt–cleanliness nexus at the core of our everyday experience is always ambivalent and at the same time socially protected 5 He

mentions the reaction of a social worker to the introduction of a study on social workers at a conference: “This study showed which strategies and practices of social control they exert towards their clients. One social worker present at the conference was horror-stricken about this depiction. He not only conceived it as disrespectful but as downright vicious, because the good intentions of the social workers to help their clients had been completely misjudged and changed to their complete opposite” (Eberle 2020, 39) in his perception. 6 One of the reviewers asked if I had discussed my results with the actors I researched. I did, in some cases, where an interest in it has been expressed on their side. In other cases, when they were more interested in simply conveying their perspective to me, I also respected this and did not impose the results from a sociological perspective on them. This is also part of ethical research for me: accepting what the researched actors are willing to exchange.

1 Introduction

11

to an alarmingly high degree via definitions of either normality or nonnormality. This makes it so effectively revealing regarding processes of inclusion and exclusion, and constitutes an ideal focus for looking at the forms and contents of conflicts and their potential. Chapter 3, Border, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse,7 addresses the concepts that are most important here via a qualitative discourse analysis. The contribution of this chapter to the book is to set out a general framework for the core terms of the discussion—others, selves, borders, inclusion, exclusion, etc.—within the broader current context of the migration/refugees theme. It also includes some initial references to the issue of interpretations of un-/cleanliness. The chapter starts out with a quote from the then Minister of the Interior who, immediately following a very serious boat accident where many refugees drowned off Lampedusa in October 2013, said: “Dublin II remains unchanged, to be sure”. Press comments made over the course of the subsequent week are analysed, searching for core concepts, their various definitions and related controversies. The following five chapters are all based on examples of various kinds of contact between volunteers and refugees and illustrate more or less direct negotiations between and among them.8 A participant observation, complemented by some qualitative interview data, is the chosen approach to the subject of Chapter 4, (Not) Separating Waste.9 As the issue of waste (separation) keeps coming up, the empirical research is preceded by some reflections on sociological interpretations of waste as dirt and non-dirt generally. What can conflicts about waste separation between established residents and refugees teach us about functionalising stigmata of dirt for drawing social boundaries? This is discussed using the example of a specific setting, which consists 7A

version of this chapter has been published in German as Krossa (2016). ‘Andere, Selbste, Grenzen: Momentaufnahme eines Diskurses zur globalen Migration.’ Culture, Practice and European Policy, 1(1), 16–38. 8Translation of the empirical data has been challenging, as most refugees had weak skills in German language, while most of the volunteers spoke in dialect. 9 Parts of this chapter have been published as follows: ‘Negotiating Difference and Cohabitation: Global Refugees in a German Village’, in Caselli, Marco and Gilardoni, Guia (2017): Globalization, Supranational Dynamics and Local Experiences. Palgrave Macmillan, Europe in a Global Context Series, 16–38.

12

A. S. Krossa

of ‘explaining’ volunteers and ‘learning’ refugees, the latter being mostly Muslim Syrian men. The context is a small village in Germany in 2015. In Chapter 5, the method of breaching experiment is applied in the context of Environmental Education. It is based on two days of research, carried out in 2016 on a group that aims to teach refugees the ‘right behaviour’ regarding environmental everyday life practices. Examples are how to clean, wash, dry or air, and again how to separate waste. Starting out with participant observation and ethnographic interviews with various actors in the field, an unplanned breaching experiment took centre stage. A Syrian family has been unexpectedly well informed about the subjects treated in this context (also, in fact, better informed than myself ) which led to confused and delimiting reactions on the part of the organisers, unravelling efficiently the underlying structures of the social constellation. In Chapter 6, the subject of Circulating Used Clothes is addressed via group discussions. Issues around collecting and passing on used clothes have come up in many interviews since the beginning of 2015. Practices regarding collection of clothes and attempts to pass them on to refugees have changed considerably over the course of the past four years, though. The chapter is based on two group discussions carried out in 2019 with refugees on the one hand and volunteers on the other hand, partly stimulated and complemented by comments from interviews with both refugees and volunteers from 2015 until today. Using the Toilet and, more precisely, practical and verbal commentaries on respective practices of refugees and their social implications, is the topic of Chapter 7. A subject that is predominant in the discussions of volunteers, the ‘wrong’ use of toilets by refugees and the resulting problems of dirtying shared bathrooms, is a widespread cause of concern in refugee–volunteer relations. One group of volunteers regularly visits a reception camp, i.e. the first accommodation of asylum seekers in Germany that typically houses very large numbers of persons most of whom have few if any German language skills yet. Adapted to their language conditions, the activists’ group aims to convey to the refugees an understanding of ‘basic German culture’ via role play, largely pantomime, targeting practices. One of their focal points is the use of the

1 Introduction

13

toilet. In 2016, I accompanied the group and since then complemented this research with various reflective interviews between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, I also asked them to do a variety of role plays on their subject, using it as a qualitative method myself. Thereby it becomes quickly clear that the actual realisation of various roles and tasks also illustrates constructions of otherness and selfness that are clearly based on a wish to support the other finding their feet in a new social context but also has structuring effects. Methodically, we have two manifestations of ‘role play as method’ here, one as an outright mediation effort of the group itself, the other on a meta-level as a reflection of the actors, their activities and emerging and visible structures. In Chapter 8, Sexual Hygiene, the recurring assumption of a genuine link between specific practices of cleanliness and health is placed at the centre of attention. In 2016 a group, formerly focused on health advice regarding AIDS; developed, published and distributed a leaflet, entitled ‘Healthy Everyday Life in Asylum Seekers’ Homes’. With a combination of images and short texts in German, also translated into English and Arabic, it targets refugees in order to familiarise them with ‘clean’ and (assumedly therefore) ‘healthy’ practices. These refer, for instance, to using bathrooms and toilets and to cleaning in general, but especially to bodily hygiene and to sexuality. Consequently, the focus here is on aspects of body, gender and sexuality, and the main method is an image analysis, focusing on images in this leaflet, supported by short accompanying comments. This is complemented by sequences from an interview I have conducted with the main responsible author in 2016, and further explanations that were given by her via email subsequently. In the Conclusions, then, we return to the questions we started out from in this Introduction and developed throughout the book. The various empirical results of the chapters are combined, compared and clustered according to their presumable location on the continuum. Patterns have crystallised throughout the empirical analysis, related to both extremes as well as to the space in between, but most interestingly with ambivalent locations and effects. The result for now is a proto-typology that will be developed further—despite the fact that the focus on ambivalences already counters an ideal-typical typology to a certain degree.

14

A. S. Krossa

Acknowledgements I want to warmly thank Tony Waine, my friend and former colleague from Lancaster University, for his friendly and precise proof reading and commenting on this book, as he did on my other books and articles for nearly a decade now.

References Eberle, T. (2020). Phänomenologische Ansätze ethnografischer Forschung. In R. Hitzler, J. Reichertz, & N. Schröer (Eds.), Kritik der hermeneutischen Wissenssoziologie (pp. 39–51). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Hörning, K. H., & Reuter, J. (Eds.). (2004). Doing Culture. Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis. Bielefeld: Transcript. Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused Ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/20/43. Accessed 21 November 2019. Krossa, A. S. (2009). Conceptualizing European Society on Non-normative Grounds: Logics of Sociation, Glocalization and Conflict. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(2), 249–264. Krossa, A. S. (2013). Theorizing Society in a Global Context. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Krossa, A. S. (2018). Gesellschaft. Relevanz eines Kernbegriffs der Soziologie im Wandel. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Robertson, R. (2003). Religion und Politik im globalen Kontext der Gegenwart. In M. Minkenberg & U. Willems (Eds.), Politik und Religion (pp. 581–594). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

The role dirt can play is immense: “(F)ilth represents a cultural location at which the human body, social hierarchy, psychological subjectivity, and material objects converge” (Cohen 2005, viii). Even just the thought of dirt has an immediate emotional and (often) also physical impact on us, expressed typically as aversion: “our dislike of dirt (…) is so strong that we tend to avoid touching, tasting, smelling, looking at, or even speaking or writing about, dirt and dirty things” (Smith 2007, 16). At the same time, dirt in various forms often evokes an ambivalent appeal and fascination even, again with a potentially strong impact on our emotions. Fundamentally though, dirt depends on definition: “(t)here is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. If we shun dirt, it is not because of craven fear, still less dread of holy terror. Nor do our ideas about disease account for the range of our behaviour in cleaning or avoiding dirt” (Douglas 2002, 2). This directs attention to a corresponding definatory power. However, in our everyday life experience dirt does not appear at all as being defined and hence flexible. Neither are we usually aware that the underlying differentiations of both dirt and cleanliness become ever more detailed and refined, just like the © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_2

15

16

A. S. Krossa

corresponding attempts to control and order.1 In fact, the whole thematic field is, socially, particularly shielded on the basis of definitions and ascriptions of normality or non-normality. That this is factually removed from discourse indicates its social importance. What is being protected so fervently and anchored so firmly on an emotional level—we do not need to think about it, we simply feel it!—must be of utmost importance socially. While not all areas of life are loaded with expectations of assimilation, i.e. a one-sided adoption of rules, the vast majority of instances related to dirt and cleanliness certainly is, and usually so in intransigent ways.2 In fact, definitions of dirt and ascriptions of dirtiness are highly effective in excluding people in the most fundamental ways in case the assimilation does not take place as expected by them. This is reflected in characteristic, communicative forms. Typically, dirt, dirtiness and even cleanliness are either actively talked about by bringing it into ridicule, making use of some ironic distancing, e.g. via laughter, or they are subject to open disagreement, often in hefty ways. Most often, however, they are not talked about at all but kept under wraps with the help of a variety of strategies of non-communication. That combination of the factual social importance of the subject and its usually non-straightforward forms of communication suggests to us that the subject of dirt deserves and needs deliberate and targeted attention. Here, specific and systematic use is made of the fact that the subject has a peculiar affinity with various forms of conflict and respective chances for sociation or non-sociation and society.3 1 “Smelling

someone’s real body or allowing your own real body to be smelled has become an intrusion, a breach of a crucial boundary” (Ashenburg 2007, 271). Sissel Tolas, an ‘odour artist’ or, as she sees herself, ‘professional provocateur’ comments: “What is the body without the smell of mango? You don’t know (…). People are so used to fictions that reality is difficult to react to. And people are afraid of smelling like themselves, because that means being naked. It’s dangerous today, to go out without any external smell” (quoted in Ashenburg 2007, 280). And Ashenburg comments: “Our natural smell reminds us of our animality, something we usually prefer to forget” (2007, 282). 2 “For instance, most settlement folks saw no reason for concern about ‘the use of black bread instead of white (…)’. But in matters of personal and domestic hygiene, particularly when a family’s health seemed in jeopardy, they gave straightforward advice, often in form of demonstrations” (Hoy 1995, 113). 3 Douglas admits that for reasons of clarity and coherence of her argument she has “made society sound more systematic than it really is. But just such an expressive over-systematising is necessary for interpreting the beliefs in question” (Douglas 2002, 4).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

17

Consequently, the perspective adopted here does not start out from dirt and derives its impact on society, but assumes, as already Mary Douglas and many of her followers did, that actually a causality exists the other way round. In both abstract and concrete ways, people differentiate and construct dirt as a criterion to help differentiate in line with a generally accepted order. Douglas suggests we should “treat people’s ideas of purity as part of a larger whole” (Douglas 2002, viii), i.e. in the sense of society as a socially ordered system, calling for a new social theory on these grounds. Or, more specifically: “to understand body pollution we should try to argue back from the known dangers of society to the known selection of bodily themes” (ibid., 121). Following Mary Douglas, but more concretely politically, Forty assumes for the early part of the twentieth century, “we might expect the rapid social change and disintegrating social boundaries that came with the increasing political power of the working class to be behind the middle-class preoccupation with bodily, domestic and public cleanliness” (Forty 1986, 159). Here too the sequence clearly starts out from (traditional) order and impacts on definitions of dirt and cleanliness. In the following sub-chapters, paradoxical and ambivalent forms are of particular interest when looking in more detail into order, how it is constructed and at the same time challenged constantly. It turns out to be a tightrope walk that suggests—strongly though—it is self-evident and unequivocal. In fact, the social construction of ‘in’ and ‘out’ is the underlying motivation, as will be explored now.

Differentiation and Order “Reflection on dirt involves reflection on the relation of order to disorder, being to non-being, form to formlessness, life to death” (Douglas 2002, 7). The classical starting point for a discussion of social meaning and effect of—ascribed—dirt and dirtiness for processes of social ordering is indubitably Mary Douglas’ understanding of dirt as ‘matter out of

18

A. S. Krossa

place’.4 A conditio sine qua non of any matter out of place is the existence of some order, and one that gives orientation with regard to what belongs where and that allows us to categorise at all. Douglas states: “As we know it, dirt is (or more precisely: symbolises, A.S.K.) essentially disorder (…). Dirt offends against order” (2002, 2). As a very general sociological pattern, and like any order, the order of dirt depends on differentiation, ideal-typically with at least two manifestations, and real-typically with many more in between.5 Turning the sequence of the argument around, as sheer material existence, dirt is not problematic as such: “So long as identity is absent, rubbish is not dangerous […]. Where there is no differentiation there is no defilement” (ibid., 160). So again, dirt and its socio-symbolic consequences are being created “by the differentiating activity of mind, […] [as] a by-product of the creation of order” (ibid., 161, italics A.S.K.). Consequently, “where is dirt there is system” (ibid., 35), a system with a range of hierarchically structured categories. Ideal-typically then, order calls for clear-cut differentiation, and everything and everyone being in a particular place—and staying there. In such a rigorous and ultimately static form, this pattern is obviously an example of the total lack of potential for sociation. Real-typically, a great deal lies somehow in-between, i.e. neither in one category (‘clean’) nor in the other (‘dirty’), and/or threatens to move from one to the other or oscillates between them. All that is in between is of utmost social importance because it potentially calls the logic as a whole into question. Thereby, potentially it both challenges the coherence of the order, ‘at worst’ (at least seen from the perspective of this specific order and its beneficiaries) leads to its corrosion and continually demonstrates and thereby stabilises this very order. 4 With

this expression, she makes recourse to Henry J. Temple, Viscount Palmerston (1784– 1865), who, long before her, coined it—at first in a more literal than symbolic sense, though (see Ashenburg 2007, 237). 5The starting point for both, order and cleaning, is difference, then: “In Anglo-Saxon the verb ‘to order’ (…) has two distinct meanings – prioritization and soundness: ‘to give order or arrangement to; to put in order; to set or keep in proper condition; to dispose according to rule; to regulate, govern, manage; to settle’ (…). The philosopher Plato once described cleansing (katharmos), logically, as the science of division – ‘of the kind of division that retains what is better but expels the worst’ – and commented that ‘every division of that kind is universally known as purification’” (Smith 2007, 25f.; with reference to Parker 1983).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

19

Feeling typically provoked by the in-between and striving for clarity, our characteristic practical activity is performing an “ordering of experience by associating contingent social divisions with classifications of the natural world” (Duschinsky 2016, 3). This process invests the respective order and their categories with a reading and feeling of inviolability so that then the “perception of the dirtiness of others (…) reinforces dominant value systems and social boundaries” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 5). This explains why so much effort and emotion is invested into respective rules and their enforcement: such “rules or codes about purity and pollution (…) show where the boundaries are” (Fardon 2016, 29), where ‘in’ and ‘out’ is. It is, however, the ostentatious rigidity of the subject that calls for a twist of Douglas’ quote. Maybe dirt is not matter ‘out of ’ place, lying outside and thereby threatening the social system (see Wolkowitz 2012, 17), but matter precisely in place? Its huge meaning and powerful function as a constructed benchmark for inclusion and exclusion certainly suggests this. As we have already established, socially speaking there is nothing irrational about categorising things and people in order to order. In fact, ideas of cleanliness and dirtiness suggest themselves for that precise purpose of organising legitimacy, as their linkability to so many levels makes them particularly powerful. The quote at the very beginning of this chapter illustrates this point succinctly. Combined, they strike us fundamentally on an emotional level. In this analytic sense, then, dirt is matter in place, as ultimately it contributes substantially to the core task of social organisation, for it is interpreted as a fundamental marker of difference. Mary Douglas undoubtedly shares this interpretation.

What Is Dirt, What Is Cleanliness and What Is in Between? Addressing dirt and non-dirt from a sociological perspective requires a ‘de-naturalising’ view: “No one knows how old are the ideas of purity and impurity in any non-literate culture: to members, they must seem timeless and unchanging. But there is every reason to believe that they are sensitive to change” (Douglas 2002, 5).

20

A. S. Krossa

Interestingly, dirt is typically contrasted with cleanliness. While dirt appears to be material in one way or another, cleanliness is a state, rather, of body, place, thing and mind. Put pointedly, dirt is stagnation, cleanliness is process and transports effort and responsibility. Already, a number of Western values and anti-values are apparent. But let us begin with a more descriptive approach by asking what is dirt and dirtiness, and what is clean and cleanliness?

Dirt In a world where the main focus and directedness is on culturation and overcoming the natural restrictedness of the material, including one’s own body in all conceivable ways (in this way, the body itself can be considered an ‘other’), dirt is an unwelcome link to the reality of life. It sticks to the body, clings to surfaces in the home, is an unwanted part of all direct and indirect environments. Thereby, it carries—if negatively interpreted—the sense of difference and disorder. Dirt can be “considered at theoretical level, but also as that which slips easily between concept, matter, experience and metaphor (…), (being) located within and constitutive of space and social relations” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 1). Despite the fact that dirt can never be classified in a definite way (see Thompson 1979, also Douglas 2002), a useful starting point when discussing dirt is its assumed material basis. At least on the surface, various types can be differentiated, e.g. “dust, odour, earth and garbage” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 4), or a number of bodily forms such as sweat, blood, sperm, vaginal discharge, urine and faeces. Historically, dirt is increasingly subject to differentiation.6 Not very long ago, germs as dirt invisible to the naked eye accrued to this list, adding to longer known invisible threats such as potentially dirty

6 For

a short historical look at changing interpretations of dirt, see Shove (2003), ‘Humours, Miasmas and Germs’, 85–88.

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

21

food7 or spiritually contaminating contacts in a broad sense.8 Germs, like all invisible dirt, work in particularly diabolical ways, depending on a certain degree of imagination that is always at risk of developing its own and uncontrollable dynamic: “Germs were likened to tiny invisible seeds or amiculae that flourished, flew, and wriggled everywhere, thriving on unwholesome matter or weakened human constitutions” (Smith 2007, 297). In other words, germs exponentiated familiar patterns, with deep-reaching consequences: “Germ theory reinforced every single lesson of the old gospel of cleanliness, but the ‘eternal vigilance’ now required made house-cleansing a heavy burden of responsibility; its neglect was akin to murder” (ibid., 299). To what extent this can have not only an individualising but even isolating effect, is illustrated by a children’s book, entitled “Germs are not for sharing (…), published in 2006 by Elizabeth Vendick that instructs children to play without touching each other. No more ‘ring-around-the-rosy’, holding hands or highfives” (Ashenburg 2007, 292). The inherent distrust towards others is further underpinned and reinforced by an ideational structure that links dirt’s (assumed) materiality systematically to an edifice of further, uniformly derogatory ideas, such as poverty, powerlessness, unhealthiness, neglect of self, of others and of the environment, corresponding lack of respect, and involving danger because of a risk of contagion. In such an assumedly obvious combination, dirt becomes socially so powerful that usually it is nearly impossible to recognise and acknowledge its constructed and, therefore, situational and relative character.

7 Potential

dirtiness of or contamination via food is not exactly new, though, as Smith’s example of the nineteenth century illustrates: “The transcendental vegetarians and the medical herbalists (…) believed in inner cleanliness in the ancient sense of ingesting ‘clean’ foods and drinking pure drinks” (Smith 2007, 269). 8 Jodelet writes about the fear of ‘madness’ (1991), for instance.

22

A. S. Krossa

Cleanliness Cleanliness plays the ideal-typical counterpart, then. Contrary to everyday experiences, cleanliness is treated socially as standard, dirt as deviation. Being as constructed as dirt is, cleanliness largely mirrors and turns around its features, and is typically linked to positive associations, such as health, high social standing, high morale, and taking on responsibility for oneself, others and generally for the environment. Having cleanliness ascribed to oneself by others is of immense significance, as “cleanliness is intimately connected to the elaboration of a (well functioning, A.S.K.) ‘social skin’, which acts as a social filter between the self and society” (Masquelier 2005, 10). This fundamental social function urgently demands a corresponding management. However, “clean is a moving target” (Ashenburg 2007, 296),9 in other words, we do not know exactly what clean is and therefore can never ‘really’ achieve it. This puts us in a state of constant pressure and striving.10 Douglas states that such a search for purity is a paradox in that it is “an attempt to force experience into logical categories of noncontradiction (…). Whenever a strict pattern of purity is imposed on our lives it is either highly uncomfortable or it leads into contradiction (which) if closely followed leads to hypocrisy. That which is negated is not thereby removed” (Douglas 2002, 202). Sociological analysis, again, needs to acknowledge that absolute cleanliness, or purity, is an illusion, an ideal type for sure, but never a real type. Mistaking the two types would be hugely problematic: “Other than as a symbol, purity, in short, 9 Ashenburg

continues: “New demands are added on constantly, without subtracting anything” (2007, 269). This is not entirely true, though, as, for example, ecologically oriented rationalities that counter such developments do gain strength, too—though with their own and no less dominant imperatives of order. 10 Economic logic supports this, as specifically adjusted marketing strategies clearly illustrate: “In 1927 the soap makers retaliated by founding the Cleanliness Institute, a trade organization devoted to inculcating in Americans a belief in the supreme value of hygiene. Eighty percent of soap manufacturers supported the new organization, and (…) the Institute aimed at making Americans feel that there was no such thing as ‘clean enough’. To do that, they were willing to play the germ card, in publications such as Hitchhikers: Patrolling the Traffic Routes to the Mouth and Nose, a deliberately worrying book addressed to doctors, nurses, health workers, bureaucrats and teachers. But for the general public, in an advertising campaign (…), the Institute bypassed health issues as usual to concentrate on the ability of soap to deliver status, money and romance” (Ashenburg 2007, 255).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

23

is the danger” (Fardon 2016, 28). So, it is not only that we do not know what exactly clean is, it would be socially counterproductive to try to impose unequivocal rules and precise behavioural codes. This stands in obvious contrast to the alleged clarity of cleanliness and social order, though any social order can in practice survive only if it leaves a margin, where degrees of deviation are accepted and at least slightly flexible concepts of (non-)cleanliness can emerge in practical actions. Immediately after cleaning, the process of dirtying starts,11 and we continually address it. All practices of cleaning (bathing, washing, etc.), then, are illustrations of the typical processual character of the subject. This means we can only be generally active in this direction, making use of strategies we consider reasonable, and it is precisely the effort that is socially significant.

In-Between This attempt to differentiate between ‘the dirty’ and ‘the clean’ and the immediately plausible insight that a clear-cut differentiation is not possible, directs our attention to the sociologically really interesting part of this discussion, namely to the in-between. This does not primarily refer to reinterpretations of dirt, as ‘jumping’ across the in-between and thereby changing character quite fully. In that respect, the question would be: when does dirt become clean, and how? This is in effect the subject of Chapter 4, when rubbish is partly redefined as valuable, recyclable material and, therefore, as an object that can be used to demonstrate one’s own ‘appropriate’ moral-ecological thinking, acting, and ultimately being. Such reinterpretations, however, are, thoroughly, game changers. To be precise, we do not talk about dirt anymore then. In contrast, the focus is here on the in-between as such, an in-between that forms a grey zone and is typically accompanied by a fear of pollution, contamination and contagion. Speaking as if it were material substance for the moment, such an in-between is certainly not clean, and socially it is not interpreted as such. Two general types can be broadly 11The

whole subject is therefore less static that operationalised by Mary Douglas when she speaks about dirt and cleanliness as opposing poles of order, and people and actions being allocated to either the one or the other (see also Masquelier 2005, 22).

24

A. S. Krossa

differentiated. Either something that is ‘somehow dirty’, but not in an unequivocal way; or something that is ‘really dirty’ and on the way to moving on to ‘the clean’. In both cases, the (perceived) risk of pollution is imminent. Conceptually, with pollution being imagined as reversible in principle through cleaning mostly surfaces in a broad sense, contagion goes further. Its underlying pattern is that “when entities contact, ‘essence’ passes between them and leaves a permanent trace” (Rozin and Royzman 2001, 305). Therefore, contagion goes deeper, under the skin, so to speak. Contamination covers a middle ground between the two previous concepts. Correspondingly, therefore, it can be treated through thorough cleaning, scrubbing or medicine. All three of them, however, “can be provoked by animals, objects, substances, actions, thoughts and people” (Speltini and Passini 2016, 167). And paradoxically, as well as contrary to all everyday experience, pollution seems to be ‘not normal’, but “implies some life to harmful interference with natural processes” and “an abnormal intrusion of foreign elements, mixing or destruction” (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982, 36). Most importantly, and in systematic conflation again with the established principle of order, “we find that the kind of contacts which are thought dangerous also carry a symbolic load (…). I believe that some pollutions are used as analogies for expressing a general view of the social order (…). Such patterns of (..) danger can be seen to express symmetry or hierarchy” (Douglas 2002, 4). In a nutshell: (imagined) contamination threatens social order and its hierarchies and is therefore so problematic.12 In a way, we can even say that only the in-between counts as dirty and threatening, because the ‘really dirty’ is usually seen as being so different and ‘other’ that it mostly drops out of our framework of perception. It is precisely the perceived potential of polluting that allocates active perception and interpretations of threat to something that is potentially dirtying us, our environment, in short, disturbs our order.

12 See

also Theweleit (1987, 1989) on the neurotic and fascist components of this fear.

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

25

This in-between can be addressed with various concepts, all of them based on an element of liminality, being in, or being a threshold. Contents of liminal zones always threaten to break out, to erupt into savagery. Their characteristic simultaneity of having the potential for tranquillity and wildness equip such zones with danger and related tension that requires constant attention and brings corresponding strain, as transgression literally ‘makes’ dirt: “Dirty things, (Mary Douglas) argues, are those that transgress established borders, confound order and disrupt dominant belief systems” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 4), precisely because of their typical “formlessness, dirt and disintegration” (Smith 2007, 33). Particularly outsiders are seen as representing such transitional states, especially if they ‘came to stay’ (Simmel). This means that, structurally, migrants and refugees, in particular, are typically ascribed a specific inbetween status, which is characteristically closely related to the risks of potential transgression and subsequent ascriptions, be they conscious or subconscious. Migrants, ‘strangers’ who came to stay and are located in between “conventional socio-political categories, are thus perceived as polluting. Because (their category, A.S.K.) challenges ‘time-honoured distinctions between nationals and foreigners’ (…), their transitional status becomes a source of metaphorical ‘dirt’ and, therefore, danger” (Masquelier 2005, 10f.; with reference to Arendt 1973). Although this may be expressed rather drastically and one-dimensionally, it is important to direct attention to the underlying structure, as this tends to have practical implications: “A polluting person is always in the wrong. He has developed some wrong condition or simply crossed some line which should not have been crossed and this displacement unleashes danger for someone” (Douglas 2002, 11). This means, migrants and refugees may appear to be particularly provocative, just because of the under-determination of their status, which challenges established categories and their structuring of order. This makes them prone to ascriptions of dirt that are directed ultimately to allocating them away from the liminal zone, so to speak, and into a clear-cut category that is actively related to the self. By being treated as anomalous, attention is directed towards them. They can either be straightforwardly excluded or ‘dealt with’, “reclassified, physically controlled (by exile or elimination),

26

A. S. Krossa

avoided, labelled dangerous or used to enrich life” (Fardon 2016, 26)— and several of such activities mostly at the same time or successively. In all cases, a perceived risk of transgression incentivises the socially highly important opportunity to (re-)produce social boundaries, very much in line with Durkheim’s classical assumption of the functionality of delinquency for social stability. So, although on the surface it does appear as—a sometimes massive—stirring-up of and threat to order, it is in fact (also) a chance for stabilising existing power structures.13 Importantly, however, the in-between is a multifarious matter. It points to issues of vagueness, transition, junction, crossover, passage, but also more specifically to transgression, infraction, trespass, contamination, contagion and infestation. On the other hand, and as the example of ‘putting on Arabness’ (footnote 10) shows, it can evoke fascination, curiosity, complicity and creative mixing. Thereby, a space is being opened up for more differentiated, but also less controllable categories in between. Something/someone can be—and usually is—simultaneously clean and dirty, pure and profane, impure and sacred, in transition, temporarily irritating, etc. A particularly interesting type of such in-between is the concept of abject, as prominently developed by Julia Kristeva, with parallels to Freud’s uncanny. Abject “matter is the cause of a combination of physical, moral and psychological reactions” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 5). It represents the in-between ideal-typically in relation to the subject of dirt and cleanliness, but also of illness and health and similar thematic areas. Conceptually, it stands for ambivalence that is generated by a simultaneity of revulsion and attraction. On the one hand, it provokes “fear, disgust, and shame” (Speltini and Passini 2016, 166). On the other hand, the abject is “also a source of fascination, and hence a source of pleasure” (Wolkowitz 2012, 18). Again, and importantly, “it is not the lack of cleanliness that causes abjection but what does not respect borders, rules 13This

can be nicely illustrated by the following example: “For Victorians, dressing as an ‘Arab’, though not passing for one, was widespread affectation: oriental costume was popular at fancy dress balls and on the London stage. Such putting on of ‘Arabness’ was frivolous, perhaps, and romantic, a means to tame the exotic by emulation. Yet it was no less serious for that. For in displaying the capacity to know and assume ‘the other’ at will, it affirmed the superiority of the self beneath the guise” (Boddy 2005, 174, with reference to Said 1978).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

27

and identities” (ibid.), i.e. a social stimulus, that “exposes the fragility of the border between self and others, threatening to dissolve the self ” (ibid., 17f.), because such a threat to the familiar order ultimately is or feels like a threat to the self.

Creating ‘Clarity’ What happens, then, if something or someone is considered dirty in a risky sense, i.e. because of a perceived risk of transgression and respective fear of pollution or contamination? In short: how does one aim to win back control? Strategies deployed to address dirt in its various forms and to reduce social ambivalence are manifold, as briefly mentioned before. They range from attempts at controlling and containment via avoidance or firm rejection in order to prevent pollution from the outset, to endeavours to manage through boundary creation and maintenance, to numerous purifying efforts in order to seize control after being polluted. Examples especially of the latter are ritual acts, as in Mary Douglas’ works, neutralisation via actual cleaning and sanitation and, symbolically, either “through links of social interaction and reciprocity” (Bauer 2005, 242), i.e. making the other as similar to me as possible, or exoticisation, which is the opposite move as distancing activity. The direction of all such strategies, however, is towards control of the other. Adopting a historical view, Boddy speaks about processes of “figuratively marking off the ‘cultivated’ and ‘developed’ from the ‘primitive’, ‘barbarous’ and ‘unwashed’” (Boddy 2005, 170). With the help of an example, she explains: “By invoking the discourse of cleanliness and filth, bourgeois Britons set themselves off from a host of ‘unruly others’, be they prostitutes, Irish or Sudanese” (ibid.). In practical terms, this took place in familiar ways: “British reports of Muslim Sudanese as dirty, lazy and superstitious were legion, and drew on opposing self-perceptions to erect boundaries between ruler and ruled” (ibid.). As a pattern, the ordering process draws on fundamental social distinctions that typically solidify into stigmata, often followed by severe sanctions—obviously a vicious circle, hence hugely damaging for affected individuals and groups.

28

A. S. Krossa

From the point of view of the socially powerful, though, this is about securing control by “organizing flows of value across the self and the community, and demarcating boundaries between one community and another” (McClintock 1994, 147). This explains Mary Douglas’ resolute assessment: “Eliminating (dirt, A.S.K.) is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organise the environment” (Douglas 2002, 2), and consequently, “ideas about separating, purifying, demarcating and punishing transgressions have as their main function to impose system on an inherently untidy experience. It is only by exaggerating the difference between within and without, above and below, male and female, with and against, that a semblance of order is created” (ibid., 5; italics A.S.K.). Ordering, more concretely, is about ‘creating clarity’ by establishing criteria of belongingness via membership and non-membership accordingly. In line with experiences of insecurity that people may increasingly perceive in their worlds, e.g. the fear of germs and apparently evermore refined measures we adopt against them, may well illustrate “our wish to be protected, to be safe in a world that seems increasingly unsafe” (Ashenburg 2007, 289). When securities are craved for, steps are taken to assure oneself about validities of rules and borders. How, then, do we concretely create selves and others along the lines of dirt and cleanliness? Which aspects come into play, and how do they interact? Obviously, various influencing factors impact mutually on each other in the process of creating, recreating and enforcing groups and respective belongingness. Practices are central to this: “Regardless of whether an individual chooses intentionally to litter, to collect or to recycle garbage, such a decision shapes the person’s self-constitution as ethical subject and, at the same time, is presented to a wider (..) public (…). Discourses on pollution do create and reveal awareness of the self because they involve a process of subjective reflection, experience and practice” (Dürr and Winder 2016, 65). The following pattern of selfrealisation and of constitution of an other can be assumed: “As a process, subjectivation operates in part through ethical ‘work on the self ’ and it concomitantly creates an ‘outside’ that is deemed problematic or even dangerous, unable to achieve moral subjectivity – and therefore remains ‘other’” (ibid., 64), thereby also offering a generalised basis for judging normality versus deviance, insider versus outsider and so on.

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

29

Consequently, collective levels generally parallel this, as summarised in the perspective of social identity theory: “intergroup relations are affected by a tendency for in-groups to pursue a positive distinctiveness of their groups, seeking and supporting those in-group and outgroup comparisons that favour the in-group over the out-groups” (Speltini and Passini 2016, 169; with reference to Tajfel and Turner 1979; Tajfel 1981). Importantly, this relation is bidirectional. On the one hand, perceptions of dirt, pollution and related risk of contagion are socially influenced: “socially acquired information about pollution that is shared by a particular culture affects the individual system through social learning and group hygiene behaviour” (Knowles et al. 2016, 103). On the other hand, the process also produces structure and respective orientation through activities of the individual, as dirt avoidance also “is a creative moment, an attempt to relate form to function”, whereby “rituals of purity and impurity create unity in experience (…). By their means, symbolic patterns are worked out and publicly displayed” (Douglas 2002, 3). As always, individual and collective levels can be separated analytically only, as they form a joint process, comparable to a double helix: “individual practices are positioned as ‘normal’ with reference to collective conventions and (..) such conventions are reproduced through daily routines (…). (I)t is the routinization of practice that gives these reasonings their collective power” (Shove 2003, 94f.). This is reflected in countless practical examples.14 It is useful to recall that social impulses are the starting point for any representation of dirt in whatever material and imagined form. It is the need for social differentiation that is the impulse for subsequent ascriptions. Accordingly, changes in definitions of dirt and cleanliness that continuously take place are ultimately based on and express social issues. For the United States in an historical perspective, Hoy states: “It was, in fact, confrontation with racial and cultural outsiders that transformed cleanliness from a public health concern into a moral and patriotic one” (Hoy 1995, 87). And, more related to present times, Speltini and Passini comment, that “prejudice has shifted from blatant to more 14 Shove,

for instance, comments that “(c)onsumer’s ‘need’ for toilet soap grew in parallel with the societal ‘need’ for cleanliness” (2003, 101).

30

A. S. Krossa

subtle forms. These modern manifestations of bias express the same discriminatory beliefs but more indirectly (…). In this sense, the use of the opposition between cleanliness and dirtiness may be used as a less overt way to discriminate against some out-groups. Indeed, immigration policies have been supported by subtle appeals to disgust-eliciting themes such as disease threat” (2016, 169f ). This emphasises the social and political sphere as being the main focus of order with negotiations on dirt and cleanliness at the symbolic level being but one element of it.

Loading with Meaning This sociopolitical function, and more specifically corresponding processes of how meaning is allocated in this sense, is to be looked at now. Two conjunctions stand out here. The first is the one of cleanliness and moral purity, the second is the one of cleanliness and health. Both issues, morale and health, are closely linked with interpretations of dirt and cleanliness and corresponding judgements. In fact, the three are often interpreted together.

Cleanliness and Moral Purity The external man unquestionably influences the internal man. (Bok 1896, 14)

Cleanliness and moral immaculateness appear to form a ‘natural’ unity. As Speltini and Passini believe, “cleanliness is connected with the idea of innocence, whereas dirtiness is connected with conceptions of guilt and sin (…). The antinomies of clean/dirty and pure/impure are indeed deeply rooted in representations of common sense and in the collective knowledge, constructed by scientific notions, myth, traditions, and social communications” (2016, 165). Regarding the latter, Ashenburg observes that the “archetypal link between dirt and guilt, and cleanliness and

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

31

innocence, is (also, A.S.K.) built into our language (…). We talk about dirty jokes and laundering money” (2007, 8), for instance. The fact that this conjunction seems so self-evident that it is practically unquestioned is particularly problematic because it actually represents a specific, but largely non-perceived power structure. And this factual invisibility directly contributes to the persistence and possibly even amplification of this very power structure. As Boddy pointedly remarks, “(i)deas about cleanliness condensed a range of bourgeois values, among them monogamy (clean sex), capitalism (clean profit), Christianity (being cleansed of sin), class distinction, rationality, racial purity” (2005, 169). It does not surprise, then, that dirtiness, impurity and un-enlightenment can virtually function as equivalents—always with derogatory overtones. With this combination of features, and all of them pointing in the same problematic direction, the argument for urgent ‘help’ for those dirty, unenlightened and therefore ‘in need’, literally suggests itself. Tackling both bodily and spiritual issues at once, the task becomes most serious: “On the basis of a connection between cleanliness of body and purity of moral character, sanitary reformers were expected to teach the poor that ‘there is religion in cleanliness’” (Masquelier 2005, 6; with reference to Bushman and Bushman 1988, 1218). Obviously, this meant and means not only an offer of bettering the other, but also oneself visa-vis those ‘others’, generating an ideal of the ‘helping self ’. The task of convincingly representing especially bodily—and therefore moral—cleanliness was and is not a simplistic one, though. While the risk of being dirty is quite concrete, and appropriate measures can be taken in line with certain established rules, there is another, even less controllable, accompanying risk: the risk of being too clean. Appearing too clean arises suspicion, as is illustrated here, for example, in Chapter 6 on clothes donations. The strength of that suspicion can be linked to a variety of reasons. In a book published in 1932 and addressed in particular to aspiring people stemming from lower classes, Hadida “cautions women not to appear for a job interview wearing a fragrant powder or perfume, because the prospective employer will probably believe she is trying to disguise a bad odour of her own: ‘The one who smells of clean

32

A. S. Krossa

unperfumed soap indicates that she has no odour to conceal’” (Ashenburg 2007, 253; with reference to Hadida 1932). So, the first suspicion could be that the other is so unclean they do depend on ‘all these’ cleaning activities. Also, of course, it could hint at some pathological condition, as “cleanliness can be an obsession” (Masquelier 2005, 15), a psychological problem. Finally, and importantly, any ‘extreme’ cleanliness of others can put the self under pressure, as I must then wonder if my cleaning regimes are (still) adequate, or if I am threatening to tip over the edge. Irrespective of the concrete concern, ‘too clean’ always means socially unclean in some way, as the fine line, socially so precisely defined, fails to be met. Allegedly excessive cleaning standards and practices typically receive even more disapproval if they are suspected of having a religious component. Historically, but also now, as the data illustrates, the issue of being too clean has been attributed to Muslim groups.15 Today, much more generally, any turning to religious cleaning rituals tends to create suspicion, as “in today’s world, maintaining religion, and a quest for ritual purity, has become the concern of Others, whose backwardness many seek to purge from our bright and forward-facing society (…). (T)his forms a piece of the backdrop of Islamophobia, where ‘Islam’ represents a group strongly associated with unenlightened observance of religious authority, and especially of ritual purity” (Duschinsky 2016, 15), but is also open to respective forms of any religion. Both motivations are based on belief structures, though.

Linking Cleanliness and Health Undoubtedly religion is a matter of interest to many people, and so are ideals of morality as just outlined. At least in the Western world, the significance of health as motivation for cleanliness and also for morality has probably become prevalent, however, as can be recognised by its profound impact on the everyday. 15 “Sometimes, the other is, suspiciously, too clean – which is how the Muslims, who scoured their bodies and washed their genitals, struck Europeans for centuries. The Muslims returned the compliment, regarding Europeans as downright filthy” (Ashenburg 2007, 2).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

33

The link between cleanliness and health became socially meaningful when illness and death were not straightforwardly interpreted as being fate or divine punishments anymore. A shift of perception took place that foregrounded an assumed causality of dirt and illness, and cleanliness and health. Consequently, the attitude that disease and death “were no longer seen as inevitable” (Hoy 1995, 108) quickly gained acceptance. In a historical example, Hoy refers to the United States during the decades in the middle of the nineteenth century when she writes: “cholera, which had once been considered ‘a scourge of the sinful,’ was discovered to be ‘the consequence of remediable faults in sanitation’” (Hoy 1995, 23; with reference to Rosenberg 1962, 5). With the allocation of influence and respective responsibility to the individual now—for the body, the family, the house and so on—a heavy weight was placed on each and every one. From that point onwards, people had to account for what they do and not do regarding dirt—and for the consequences thereof. This, again, implements a fundamental aspect of morality, clearly pointing to an increasing focus on self-responsibility, self-interest and individualisation in general. Hygiene as a curious concept linking cleanliness and health gradually took centre stage. The concept of hygiene appears to convey an idea of appropriateness, of proportionality. It professes to know the ideal meeting point between cleaning input and positive health impact. In fact, this cannot be known once and for all, therefore it must be based on a kind of simulation of clarity, normality and self-evident indisputability. This combination of profound stress on hygiene and the fact that it cannot be readily nailed down causes typical difficulties: “If North Americans find it difficult to control the look and smell of their bodies, their attempt to control their health is even more stressful” (Ashenburg 2007, 284). But here too the interpretation of dirt as unhealthy in a broad sense proved to be flexible for social purposes: “Considerations of health, which had been so important before World War II, ceased to be a primary reason for cleanliness after 1945” (Hoy 1995, 171). Instead, personal ‘dirtiness’ increasingly came to be seen as a kind of fundamental contempt for oneself and more generally towards the individual as such. And this, it was assumed, impacts negatively on all fortunes in life, especially those regarding wealth, status and romance. In the first half of the

34

A. S. Krossa

twentieth century, immigrants were “told that ‘Good Health is Wealth,’ which could be obtained by being clean” (Hoy 1995, 88).

Power and Ascription The relation between dirt and power is immediate and manifold: “There is power in the forms and other power in the inarticulate area, margins, confused lines, and beyond the external boundaries. If pollution is a particular class of danger, to see where it belongs in the universe of dangers we need an inventory of all the possible sources of power” (Douglas 2002, 98). In a nutshell one might claim that those who hold definatory power allocate roles and positions of ‘the clean’ and ‘the unclean’, including the many related social consequences discussed already. Typically, “the unfit, the poor, or the ethnic and religious other” (Masquelier 2005, 6) are subject to processes of respective labelling, stigmatising and attempted purification. Order is being (re-)created, substantially supported by material artefacts and related practices familiar to the powerful.16 Conversely, striving for cleanliness is characteristically directed towards social advancement and empowerment, especially in highly individualised times (this will be elaborated further in section “To Convert or Not to Convert”). Firstly, social advancement and expected power gain refer to oneself. An advertisement of the Cleanliness Institute (an association of US soap producers in the first half of the twentieth century, see also footnote 7) claims: “The clean-cut chap can look any man in 16 “To late Victorians (…), soap was a civilizing force (…). Designed to purify bodies, clothes, and homes, soap was (…) a material metonym of Britain’s industrial empire and the values it extolled. Its utility was not just practical, but rhetorical: it signified a social order only speciously external to its use. Put another way, its use was a performative act: it brought about hygiene, the rational, scientific, and ranked state of social affairs for which it stood. Thus, soap was both allegorical object (…) and a practical means to enlighten the ‘primitive’ world – Africa, of course, but also the dark and festering urban jungles at home. Reciprocally, producers of soap and other items of domestic hygiene drew on images of ‘evolutionary primitives’ – monkeys, apes and dark-skinned peoples – in advertising their wares (…), illustrating the dialectics between empire and metropole” (Boddy 2005, 178f.). But such commodities “are not simply the vanguard of empirical rule; they create the empire all by themselves” (ibid., 179).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

35

the face, and tell him the facts – for when you’re clean, your appearance fights for you (…). There’s self-respect in SOAP & WATER” (quoted in Ashenburg 2007, 257). Reasoning expressed like this can take on paradoxical forms, as in an example of Hoy who refers to Lydia Maria Child: “in an essay entitled ‘Advice from an Old Friend’, she gave former slaves an additional reason for taking care of themselves and making a good impression – ‘it is one of the best ways to prove that you are not inferior’” (Hoy 1995, 56; with reference to Child 1865/1968, 247). Secondly, and possibly even more pressing, the link between cleanliness and social advancement is also applied to one’s children, with the correspondingly allocated responsibility of parents, and mainly of mothers: “Of course there are some teachers who love their charges whether they are clean or dirty, but your child may have an instructor who is partial to the privileged classes. In such case, no matter how modest your means may be, no matter how poor are the facilities for bathing in your little home, you are wise if you make an appeal to her, for the child’s sake, through his cleanliness” (Hadida 1932; cited in Ashenburg 2007, 253— note the gender forms!). Such ambitions and systematic efforts to improve one’s position on the scale of social equality have been extensively discussed by Pierre Bourdieu who draws on Norbert Elias. However, its logic and force are obviously much older: those in the lower social strata strive to climb up, being oriented towards conduct of those in the higher strata and hoping to catch up. In analogy to what has been addressed in section “In-Between”, such upwards oriented groups embody the in-between, and the traditional order as seen from the perspective of the respective rulers. As they cannot prevent the orientation of lower strata towards their current rules, the higher strata feel the need to be inventive and continuously spawn new rules and forms, in rather semi-conscious ways though, in order to keep ‘them’ down and maintain themselves in a superior position17 ; a practice Bourdieu calls distinction. It is no surprise that this kind of process took up the feature of cleanliness as well: “As immigrants struggled to keep clean (…), middle-class Americans became more aware of the 17 While Bourdieu looked at such processes alongside the feature of social class, it can be applied to all sorts of hierarchical differentiations, although being allocated to some sort of allegedly lower social group usually goes hand in hand with material deprivation anyway.

36

A. S. Krossa

germ theory and grew more anxious about the spread of contagious diseases” (Hoy 1995, 99), diversifying and complexifying matter and rules of cleanliness and hygiene and thereby distinguishing themselves further. This issue even seems to be amplified in relations between ‘helpers’ and those who receive their ‘help’, as will be illustrated in the subsequent, empirically orientated chapters (for historical examples see Hoy 1995, e.g. Chapter 4). Nevertheless, and as the quote at the beginning of this sub-chapter states, there are different powers located in different groups and individuals, forming a power structure that is far from being one-dimensional.

Strangers Strangers are the personification of the in-between. The status of the stranger can be based on various characteristics such as gender, class, race and ethnicity and age. However, all are accordingly subject to definition. Turned the other way round, people allocated to the in-between are defined as ‘strange/r’. For Georg Simmel, the stranger is a “wanderer (…), who comes today and stays tomorrow” (Simmel 1992, 764; transl. A.S.K.). The resulting in-between position not only makes her or him “the potentially more free and objective person”, but she or he also has to “pay the price of being the easiest target for the surrounding society” (Loycke 1992, 111; transl. A.S.K.). In other words, the issue is not that there might be outsiders, but that someone is different but comparable to ‘us’, ‘too similar’ in a way, and not from here but here to stay. As intruders, they occupy inbetween spaces and encompass a range of potential behaviours, such as assimilation, pollution, taking power and wealth as well as being seen to be an asset. The typical reactions of insiders—again a relative term—are calls for and attempts to reduce complexity and ambiguity, such as ‘getting them out’. As this is usually not successful, an interesting space for dealing with the stranger opens up, displaying a number of characteristic strategies. Two criteria that are typically used and adapted for purposes of classifying strangers in relation to dirtiness and cleanliness will now be subject

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

37

to detailed analysis: ethnicity and gender. These now raise a question that ‘strangers’ have to ask themselves, especially with respect to expectations of cleanliness: to convert or not to convert?

Ethnicity and Gender Ascriptions of dirtiness in the context of ‘strangeness’, based on interpretations of ethnicity, illustrate nicely the direction of any argument of this kind: being an excluding move, it starts out with the discriminating part. Ethnicity is declared as the critical attribute (and this itself is typically divided into further subcategories), equipped with fundamental expressive power and social meaning. Linking strangeness as ‘wrong ethnicity’ to dirtiness is particularly efficacious and widely applied: “Non-white and immigrant group’s habits and practices have frequently been labelled as unhygienic and used to justify denigration and the interference by dominant authorities in the most intimate areas of life” (Campkin and Cox 2012, 6). Historically, for example, both in the United States and in England, the colour black had often been associated with dirt: “Hence people who had darker skins than Anglo-Saxons (…) usually suffered a stamp of inferiority” (Hoy 1995, 92). Also, however, people with the same skin colour but with a different ascribed ethnicity have been subject to very similar ascriptions and social consequences: “Seen by some as ‘vast masses of filth’ who were ‘foul and stagnant’, southern and eastern immigrants made nativist Americans uneasy and anxious” (ibid., 92). The fact that the groups to which the label is allocated differ hugely shows clearly that the motivating force is in the discriminator—using it for her or his purposes—and not in any subjectively existing, ‘real’ feature. The responsibility for problem solving is typically allocated to the other, though. In the first half of the twentieth century for instance, “the African-American middle-class, the Urban League, and the Chicago Defender placed the burden of improvement on the migrant’s backs (…). Detroit’s migrants (…) were encouraged to follow the lead of the much admired Pullman porter. His face may have been ‘as black as ebony’ but his soul and body were ‘as white as snow’” (ibid., 119f.).

38

A. S. Krossa

This discursive structure can easily be applied to gender , too, thus turning the issue into a sexist one, in direct analogy with the structure of discrimination on ethnic grounds. With respect to allocating dirt and lower social status, the argument is typically constructed as follows: women pool the problem of dirtiness, especially through the combination of the alleged ‘nature’ of their body and the cleaning and caring tasks often being allocated to them.18 Campkin and Cox state: “The ordering of people in terms of their proximity to dirt operates both in direction to perceived personal dirtiness and responsibilities for cleaning dirt away” (2012, 5). Both discriminatory features are ‘neatly’ combined along the lines of ascribed dirtiness in the paradox of the ethnically different cleaning woman as ‘other’: “One outcome of this imagined association with dirt is that African-American women were presumed to be appropriate domestic servants” (Cox 2011, 62). Women are actually the main cleaning and caring actors on both sides, as members of the incoming population as well as of the receiving population, as both addressees and as volunteers. In the context of women working with freed slaves in the second half of the nineteenth century, Hoy writes: “Committed to improving the situations of these poor and desperate people, northern women (with very different standards of cleanliness) worked long days, sorting, repairing, washing and distributing clothes sent to them by their aid societies” (Hoy 1995, 55). This is strongly reflected in their self-images. At the end of the nineteenth century, some activists described their role as “public motherhood” (ibid., 102), an image that also comes up in interviews with female volunteers today. As addressees on the other hand, women are not only (made) responsible for being clean themselves, but also overall for the well-being of their families. This includes a general expectation that they ensure cleanliness and, deduced from that, the healthiness of everyone and everything in and around the house.19 A special focus is on them as mothers responsible for their children in times when there were high child mortality rates. 18 More

specific examples are care of the elderly (see Wolkowitz 2012, 20) and its proximity to dirt and death, as well as prostitution (interpreted as primarily women’s activity, see ibid., 22f.). 19 Hoy remarks that “marketers continued to assign women responsibility for cleanliness – it was their duty to see that ‘he wears the cleanest shirt in town’” (Hoy 1995, 171).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

39

This relates to general standards of cleanliness but also more specifically, for example, to the quality of milk fed to their babies. At the beginning of the twentieth century, “(h)ealth departments and settlement houses, in particular, carried out a small assault on contagious diseases and infant mortality through formal instruction in personal hygiene. Immigrant mothers, all agreed, were key” (Hoy 1995, 107f.). Importantly, this coincided with the fundamental change of attitude towards the origins of and potential influence on illnesses, as described above: “Americans began to believe (…) that nearly all newborn babies would live” (ibid., 108) with the appropriate hygiene.20 To sum up: the aforementioned paradox of the allegedly ethnically and gender ‘other’ cleaning woman very well illustrates how dirt and cleanliness are socially “constructed in relation to, and within, social relations” (Wolkowitz 2012, 24), and carry respective symbolic meaning with political impact. As there is no obvious reason for letting anyone whom I consider to be particularly dirty clean my house, the construction is deconstructed. The motivation of structural domination becomes clearly visible. Most problematic, however, is the developing dynamic: “The stigma of working with dirt means that domestic workers find themselves trapped within a vicious circle, which defines domestic cleaning as low status because it is done by women, and women of low status because they deal with dirt. Migrant women and women of colour are additionally caught in a cycle that characterises them as appropriate people to do dirty work, and thereafter stigmatises them because of their contact with other people’s dirt” (Cox 2011, 64).

To Convert or not to Convert? The developing pressure, resulting from stigmatisation, leads ‘inbetweeners’ unavoidably to the question of whether to assimilate or not. The issue of converting typically involves two sides, as in the case with ‘helping’: on the one hand the person who converts to new rules and on 20 With reference to Henry Street Settlement House on New York’s Lower East Side, Hoy writes: “As early as 1903 the settlement had started an infant welfare station, where immigrant mothers received clean milk and lessons in hygiene” (Hoy 1995, 110).

40

A. S. Krossa

the other hand the person who potentially converts the other into the new spatio-cultural context. The addressees of demands and attempts at ‘bettering’ are defined from the point of view of powerful groups. Usually, it is not about excluding one specific group (i.e. refugees), but all who in their view are ‘not like us’, by holding their ‘wrong’ (hygienerelated) behaviour against them because they are somehow categorised as members of the lower strata. Hoy, for instance, speaks about “teaching immigrants and African-Americans along with the white majority about the dangers of dirt” (Hoy 1995, xiv). This structure shows that the basic approach is first and foremost determined by the principle of hierarchy. On the side of the converters, or helpers, two main types can be differentiated: professionals and volunteers, both directed to better—obviously from their own point of view—or at least align the situation of others. This is the case in historical examples as well as for today, hence, certain structures and themes recur again and again in this context. For example, and similar to the stumbling block of ‘separating waste’ in Chapter 4 of this book, Hoy mentions for the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century: “settlement workers could not ignore rotting garbage and faulty drains (…) (, they) wanted the urban poor to understand how cleanliness could improve and lengthen their lives” (Hoy 1995, 102f.). And they assured each other that they were only doing the right thing: “There cannot be a more noble, or more god-like action, than to minister to the wants of our fellow creatures in distress (…) to instil into their minds some just ideas of the importance of proper food, fresh air, cleanliness, and other pieces of regimen necessary in diseases, would be a work of great merit, and productive of many happy consequences” (Buchanan 1769; quoted in Smith 2007, 255). Smith, however, comments very accurately that “the Buchanite poor were to have good done unto them, whether they liked it or not” (2007, 254). In any case, such practices certainly instal and reassert social order by putting everybody in ‘their place’. On the side of the potential converters, a necessary precondition of any practical attempt to convert is the belief that the other can be converted at all: “Yankee women (…) shared a view of the freed population ‘as culturally backward but not inherently deficient’” (Hoy 1995, 54; with reference to Small 1979, 391). Otherwise, these others would not

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

41

be suitable for any conversion attempt. In other words, only if people of the lower strata can be designated to a liminal zone, is it both possible and necessary—from the perspective of longer established residents serving as volunteers—to assimilate them. In their concrete teaching, various goals are typically mixed together, then. US-American volunteers working with immigrants, for instance, taught them ‘clean and healthy’ practices, “promising them they would make their children true Americans” (Hoy 1995, 114). In other words, conforming to standards of cleanliness of the socially powerful group is interpreted as a sign of general assimilation: “In the process, cleanliness became something more than a way to prevent epidemics (…) – it became a route to citizenship, to becoming American” (ibid., 87), and Hoy continues: “By linking the toothbrush to patriotism, Americanizers clearly demonstrated that becoming American involved a total makeover of personal habits and loyalties” (ibid., 89; italics A.S.K.). Such conversion through teaching can take on very detailed forms: “Americanizers (…) used English lessons to teach adults as well as children how to bathe (with soap and warm water), when to bathe (preferably every day but at least every week), and where to bathe (first in public baths, then in bathrooms)” (ibid., 88f.). This strongly resembles current practices of ‘teaching’, as apparent in explanations of ‘right behaviour’ especially in Chapter 7 on using the toilet, and also in the context of waste separation and environmental education as illustrated in Chapters 4 and 5. Interestingly, claims of conversion often call for adaptation and assimilation in extreme forms, i.e. to adhere to ‘the rules’ in an exaggerated way, certainly more strictly than would be expected from any insider, as illustrated also in Chapter 4 on waste separation and especially Chapter 8 on sexual hygiene and a ‘healthy everyday’ in general. And there seem to be many examples where converters have taken up such extraordinarily high standards willingly. An example is Booker T. Washington, “the most influential Afro-American leader of the late nineteenth century”, who “demanded that ‘everywhere there should be absolute cleanliness’” (Hoy 1995, 89ff.)—a claim that is simply impossible to factually satisfy as explained earlier in this chapter, but that is key in expressing absolute acknowledgement of and submission to ‘valid rules’. Many accepted this

42

A. S. Krossa

and “adopted American habits of hygiene as best they could – not only to stay healthy but also to be accepted and ‘get ahead’” (ibid., 88).21 Others, however, avoid conversion. This is often not easy, as newcomers not only wish to blend in, especially at a younger age but also because the new can seem particularly attractive. ‘Westoxification’, for instance, describes an “unexamined attraction to things ‘Western’ (glossed as ‘nonIranian)” (Bauer 2005, 233), which is suspected of leading to ‘behaving indecently’ and ‘losing one’s culture’ from the perspective of the sending group. The ensuing question is, then: “How can an exile, particularly a woman exile, respond to, or through cultural means avoid, her own embodiment of the temptation and danger of the other without losing her self , literally and figuratively? (This is about) struggles against the ‘impurities’ and ‘contaminations’” (ibid., 234), that the West as other holds. Then again, such claims of adaptation to cleanliness rules can support particular groups in their self-esteem, as this example of rather poor Polish and Lithuanian women in the first half of the twentieth century illustrates: “They brought high standards from the old country; in their case, settlement workers would preach to the converted (…). In the end, cleanliness enhanced their self-esteem and made them proud of the little they had” (Hoy 1995, 99). Even if incomers, or strangers, are willing to actively take on new cleanliness rules and practices, there are a number of pitfalls. First, converting is usually made difficult by the set-up of specific systems of testing the other. In the context of the United States, immigrants “vividly recalled their trepidation as they came before uniformed physicians and immigration officials as well as their panicky fear that they or family members would fail the examinations” (ibid., 94). With an attitude of representing some ‘objective’ rationality, institutions are set up to give all processes of inclusion and exclusion a veneer of neutrality. In fact, however, hierarchy is displayed in numerous ways and submission required, directed at groups but acted out upon each and every individual, thereby implementing the specific hierarchy and its respective order in each and

21 “By 1910, Americanizers (…) had succeeded in making cleanliness a hallmark of being American” (Hoy 1995, 121).

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

43

every person’s body and mind. This general type of medical examination is applied and performed on refugees today, too. Second, many groups with lower social standards allocated to them had and still have to learn that, no matter how intense their efforts, they would not be acknowledged as equals. As Hoy writes, “the reformers wanted their (immigrant, A.S.K.) neighbors to see what they saw – the links between unsanitary conditions, repeated illnesses, and high rates of mortality” (1995, 103). Wanting them to see things in the same way ‘we do’ and to assimilate accordingly does not mean, however, that this would result in interaction at eye level. In fact, no matter how much discriminated groups and individuals tried to adapt, to ‘catch up’, the social structure that determined the social position and their relations did not fundamentally change, at least not over a short period of time. We could even assume the opposite effects. By addressing, for example, African-Americans in a historical North American context as a problem, they were also constituted as a problem. Consequently, practices of giving advice and helping the other to convert “could not address the problem of endemic racism (…). Adopting urban hygiene practices was not enough to overcome the entrenched racism that they faced, and African-Americans remained characterised as dirtier and less ‘American’ than whites” (Cox 2011, 61). In a similar vein, Hoy summarises thus: “For African-Americans, however, integration proved to be only a mirage. Once they removed their dirt, whites found it nearly impossible to forgive them their color” (Hoy 1995, 120). On the surface, when openly discussing skin colour in a discriminating way also became politically incorrect, other features have been accentuated, always though holding up the core of the argument: “They argued it was not the size of the immigrant pool that concerned them, but its ‘character’: they maintained that the personal habits of these newcomers (…) were ‘repugnant’ to the ‘inherited tastes’ of Americans and would weaken the nation’s wealth and power” (ibid., 92). The parallels with some of today’s anti-immigration arguments are striking. And this again illustrates how it is order that creates dirt and respective deviation—and not the other way round.

44

A. S. Krossa

Conclusions All issues addressed in this chapter direct our attention to social structures and patterns, and more precisely to agency, control and recognition as mirrored in hierarchy. As illustrated, ascriptions of dirt and cleanliness are merely the surface of deeper levels of the social order. That is why respective ascriptions work so powerfully socially, but the direction of the course is not dirt regulating the social, but the social making use, so to speak, of images of dirt for constructing and systematising order. This also directs our gaze to other profoundly important subjects of sociology that are part of this discussion, albeit in the background. One core issue is the aspect of individualisation. Ashenburg remarks: “In cultures where group solidarity is more important than individuality, nudity is less problematic and scrubbed, odourless bodies are less necessary” (2007, 10). This is probably true. However, we should maintain a selfcritical attitude when we construct the other as other on the basis of their apparently deviant attitude towards individuality, too. Similarly, it appears as if migrants are often seen as being particularly corporeal, so to speak. Outer appearance, sometimes perceived as being slightly ‘different’—possibly darker hair and skin, or styles of hair, beard and dress— can operate in a way to make ‘them’ more visible, and to even be perceived as more physical in a way. In this sense, being seen as ‘being physical’ especially as a ‘member’ of a particular group, can be a problem as such in societies that most laboriously focus on the individual on the one hand and on suppressing everything bodily, and nature in general, by cultural transformation on the other hand. In a society like this—like our Western societies typically are—being physically visible can already foster an ascription of impurity and inappropriateness in a broader sense. This can be strengthened further by ‘dubious’, ‘suspicious’ cleansing rituals of various kinds on the side of the other, or by assessing them as being ‘too clean’, as mentioned previously. In other words, this subject illustrates extremely well general structures and issues of our worlds. Precisely because ascriptions of dirt and cleanliness are so strongly protected by definitions of normality and deviance, it is extremely useful to occupy the position of an other whenever possible. From the perspective of a Western researcher in the role of a stranger,

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

45

Bauer assumes that “we might be able to transform or ‘cover’ (our) transgressions (in the field). However, we still need to learn the ‘grammar of purity’ and the process by which it could be achieved” (2005, 235). Especially the terms and concepts that appear to ooze stability require deconstruction right down to their utterly contingent social bones, in relation to both ‘other’ and (especially) ‘one’s own’ contexts. Only with such a genuinely flexible structure do we not risk missing “the ongoing way in which order (or: semblance of order; A.S.K.) is made as uncertain process” (Hetherington 2004, 163), especially via definitions and ascriptions of dirt and cleanliness and related conflict. Results are always indeterminable and temporary.

References Ashenburg, K. (2007). The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History. New York: North Point Press. Bauer, J. (2005). Corrupted Alterities: Body Politics in the Time of the Iranian Diaspora. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body’s Surface (pp. 233–253). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Boddy, J. (2005). Purity and Conquest in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body’s Surface (pp. 168–189). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Bok, E. (1896, November 13). The Morals of the Bathtub. Ladies’ Home Journal. Buchanan, W. (1769). Domestic Medicine, or: A Treatise on the Prevention and Cure of Diseases by Regimen and Simple Medicines. London. Bushman, R. L., & Bushman, C. L. (1988). The Early History of Cleanliness in America. Journal of American History, 74 (4), 1213–1238. Campkin, B., & Cox, R. (2012). Introduction: Materialities and Metaphors of Dirt and Cleanliness. In B. Campkin & R. Cox (Eds.), Dirt: New Geographies of Cleanliness and Contaminations (pp. 1–8). London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Child, L. M. (1865/1968). The Freedmen’s Book. New York: Arno Press.

46

A. S. Krossa

Cohen, W. A. (2005). Introduction: Locating Filth. In W. A. Cohen & R. Johnson (Eds.), Filth: Dirt, Disgust and Modern Life (pp. vii–xxxviii). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cox, R. (2011). Dishing the Dirt, Dirt in the Home. In R. Cox, et al. (Eds.), Dirt: The Filthy Reality of Everyday Life (pp. 37–73). London: Profile Books. Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and Danger. London and New York: Routledge (originally 1966). Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Culture and Risk. New York: Syracuse University Press. Dürr, E., & Winder, G. M. (2016). Garbage at Work: Ethics, Subjectivation and Resistance in Mexico. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 52–68). London and New York: Routledge. Duschinsky, R. (2016). Introduction. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 1–19). London and New York: Routledge. Fardon, R. (2016). Purity as Danger. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 23–33). London and New York: Routledge. Forty, A. (1986). Objects of Desire: Design and Society Since 1750. Moffat: Cameron Books. Hadida, S. (1932). Manners for Millions: A Correct Code of Pleasing Personal Habits for Everyday Men and Women. New York: Sun Dial Press. Hetherington, K. (2004). Secondhandedness: Consumption, Disposal, and Absent Presence. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(1), 157–173. Hoy, S. (1995). Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and Social Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Knowles, K. A., Borg, C., & Olantunji, B. O. (2016). Disgust, Disease and Disorder. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 103–120). London and New York: Routledge. Loycke, A. (1992). Der Gast, der bleibt. Dimensionen von Georg Simmels Analyse des Fremdseins. Frankfurt am Main, New York, and Paris: Pandora. Masquelier, A. (2005). Dirt, Undress and Difference: An Introduction. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the

2 Dirt: Theoretical Perspectives

47

Body’s Surface (pp. 1–33). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. McClintock, A. (1994). Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising. In G. Robertson (Ed.), Travellers Tales (pp. 128–142). London: Routledge. Parker, R. (1983). Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rosenberg, C. E. (1962). The Cholera Years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. Oxford and New York: Berg. Small, S. E. (1979, August). The Yankee Schoolmarm in Freedmen’s Schools: An Analysis of Attitudes. Journal of Southern History, 45, 381–402. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Smith, V. (2007). Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. New York: Oxford University Press. Speltini, G., & Passini, St. (2016). Cleanliness Issues: From Individual Practices to Collective Visions. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 162–177). London and New York: Routledge. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Theweleit, K. (1987). Male Fantasies: Women, Floods, Bodies, History (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Theweleit, K. (1989). Male Fantasies: Male Bodies—Psychoanalyzing the White Terror (Vol. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wolkowitz, C. (2012). Linguistic Leakiness or Really Dirty? Dirt in Social Theory. In B. Campkin & R. Cox (Eds.), Dirt: New Geographies of Cleanliness and Contaminations (pp. 15–24). London and New York: I.B. Tauris.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

Border as concept can be used particularly well to illustrate core processes of the social, of society in a broad sense. As summarised in the Introduction to this book and extensively discussed in Theorizing Society, we are already aware, since the work of Georg Simmel, that sociation requires a combination of difference and accordance, and, more precisely, antagonism in the sense of socially relevant, quasi activated difference. On the issue of border, different and similar matters converge and diverge, and the aspect of separation cannot be disconnected from the one of linkage, therefore it manifests a material and/or symbolic incentive for discussing alongside these conceptual–theoretical lines. Obviously, but importantly, border is not limited to its geographic form. It exists where it is defined as such, takes on concretely symbolic forms, and has social effects. Border opens up a flexible space with creative and destructive, ambivalent and often paradoxical potentials. This is especially the case with definitions of selves and others. Contemporary theory generally acknowledges the fact that the definition of the ‘other’, the ‘stranger’ is a contingent act that commonly results in plurality, i.e. produces multiple others, depending on the situation. In principle analogically, the contrasted self that constitutes itself differently according © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_3

49

50

A. S. Krossa

to dialectic constellations, so to speak, needs to be understood as contingent, too. Therefore, there are plural ‘selves’ here too. How do, more specifically, influences of globalisation impact on assessments of selves and others, and how does that find expression in border representations on various levels, e.g. on the national, European and global? In order to approach these questions, I wish to present the results of a qualitative discourse analysis and link them with some interdisciplinary theoretical aspects of border. The discourse I chose for analysis here focuses on representations of borders between Europe and ‘the global’, the latter largely referring to Africa,1 on the basis of the European-global, intra-European and intra-German drawing of borders. To this end we will look at a moment of intensification of the discussion on global refugees in Europe against the background of the socalled Dublin Regulation. Since 1 January 2014, the Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III) juridically determines that people from so-called third countries may only apply for asylum in the EU country they have entered first. Obviously, this makes some countries much more probable candidates than others, especially those who are on the outer borders of the EU. Using press articles, a discourse will now be analysed that developed in the period from 8th to 11th of October 2013 as a reaction to the comments of the then Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich.2 When (at that point of time) an unusually tragic boat disaster with nearly 400 deaths took place on the 3rd of October the same year close to the Italian island Lampedusa, Friedrich commented: “Dublin II remains unchanged, naturally” (quoted in Handelsblatt, 8.10.).3 Friedrich’s statement elicited a wave of varied and, simultaneously, specific reactions that are adduced for the subsequent analysis. Now, some six years later, this reads, on the

1 An

initial starting point is the assumption that the ‘Mediterranean’ is imagined as a “geopolitical concept”, which for Europe is “the basis for the construction of the geopolitical ‘other’ – Africa” (Strüver 2008, 66) and serves as background for respective self-constructions. 2 I am grateful to Kora Hoffmann and Diana Steegers for their profound approaches to the subject that led to very helpful preparations for this analysis. 3 Dublin III became effective on the 1 January 2014. The previous regulation, Dublin II, which is still the point of reference for Friedrich, had been valid since March 2003. Regarding the core aspect for this discussion, they are identical.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

51

one hand, as a comment on the well-known chronology of the occurrences and functions, now viewed on an already historical basis. On the other hand, the fundamental concepts remain remarkably valid, as well as patterns of dealing with them. The following questions determine the research now. How, and in which ways, are borders represented discursively? What functions are attributed to borders? Which ideas of others and respective selves come to the fore thereby? Which references to dirt and potential contamination in a broader sense become apparent in this? And which ambivalences that remain open or unresolved are revealed by that discourse? This chapter is subdivided into four sections. The first section addresses the question as to what extent border is interpreted as either line or space. The two main levels of reference—the European and the global—appear to be subject to opposing imperatives. While, within the framework of the EU, borders are supposed to be suspended so that ultimately there is only one joint space,4 the global is ideal-typically defined by border as line. The implication here is that line as well as space are discernible in different contexts, and there are good reasons for understanding both concepts as not being mutually exclusive. Secondly, interpretations of others and their implications for self-constitutions are looked at. Thereby it becomes apparent that different types of borders are being activated in different situations and perspectives, so that different others become self-relevant. Additionally, it becomes obvious that clear borders between selves and others do not readily exist. The third section focuses on the two border-constituting aspects delimitation and linkage. In that context it is also less about a one-dimensional decision for the one or the other, but rather about a differentiation, for instance in the sense of relationing and balance, or interpretations of fairness. Finally, in the fourth section I will analyse how the increasingly obvious contingency of borders affects dealing with them and which ambivalences remain in this discourse on global migration in the European context. The text is loosely framed by first deriving which potentials for sociation are identifiable under the portrayed conditions. 4 Generally, but also on the ambivalences of this political aspect, see for instance (Bös 2001; Vobruba 2005; Bach 2008).

52

A. S. Krossa

Line and Space In sociological analyses, the focus undoubtedly is on a space-based conception of border in opposition to a linear one. This is closely connected with an increasing questioning of unambiguity and stability of underlying spatial entities that are traditionally seen as nation states, also in sociology,5 as border can only function as line if the units it separates have a so-called container-form, i.e. are interpreted in an essential way. The fact that social ‘units’ are not homogeneous, that their relations typically are overarching and therefore continuously produce mixture and hybridisations, on the one hand, does not prevent us from continuing with this interpretation, also in more indirect forms.6 On the other hand—and that is certainly more interesting in the sense of the Thomas-theorem— it does not necessarily discount the idea of borders as clearly demarcating lines. Some scholars suppose, on the contrary that an increasing awareness of contingency even supports such interpretations.7 Both forms—line and space—are points of reference in classic as well as newer perspectives. Despite a widespread reference in sociological classics nation states as fixed spaces of society, as it were, one finds already in earlier sociological perspectives the concept of border being approached relatively openly, at least in parts.8 Two sociological classics will be cited here: Émile Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Émile Durkheim (e.g. 1984) addresses forms of society and thereby indirectly the two ideal types of borders. Simply structured societies, that he imagines as largely homogenous and segmentarily differentiated in 5 Respective

questions—e.g. ‘Does the nation state come apart?’—were and are discussed extensively (Krossa 2013; Schroer 2012; Ray 2007). 6 For instance in the assumption: “border theory seeks to show how identity and other aspects of cultural life act as barriers or bridges between and among people, with particular emphasis on ethnic, racial and gender identity” (Wilson 2012, 79). 7 “Precisely against the background of dissipating borders, the container model seems to gain attractivity again. Even if these scenarios of closure and partition prove to be an illusion, they still are greatly common and effective illusions” Schroer (2012, 179). This illusion is mostly understood as such, because: “The idea of living at a closed, lockable place becomes experienceably ficticious everywhere” (Beck 1997, 132; quoted in Schroer 2012, 200). This aspect is discussed in more detail in section “Hardening or Softening? Ambivalences” here. 8 More generally on the etymology of the term, see Eigmüller (2008), Eigmüller and Vobruba (2006). On the history of border, see e.g. Medick (2006).

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

53

principle, exhibit a container-character. In reference to border, his suggestion of the concept of no man’s land is interesting for it separates two societies of this ‘simple’ type completely and forms a broad line, so to speak. This means that any actual space character in the sense of social potential is superseded, because in that zone no social exchange with sociation potential (may) take place. Durkheim’s second society type follows the principle of functional differentiation that comes with an increasing opening of social spaces and thereby softens and ultimately undermines the lineal character of their borders. In Durkheim’s socio-evolutionary perspective, the lineardelimitative form of border is a transitional stage, and possibly even a conditio sine qua non for opening borders that then take on the form of space.9 With Georg Simmel, a change of perspective takes place in several ways (Simmel 1992; see also Löw 2012; Eigmüller 2006). His starting point is the assumption that border was a sociological fact: “The border is not a spatial fact with sociological effects, but a sociological fact that takes on spatial form” (Simmel 1992, 697). Here it is of interest that Simmel does not adduce demarcation as a set starting point, he does not even put it into the foreground. Instead, he generally asks about the potentials of border to foster or hinder interaction, especially under conditions of conflict and even war, as mentioned in the Introduction. He thereby transcends any pure principle of demarcation from the outset: “Every border is a spiritual-emotional (in German, it is seelisch, which is not directly translatable into English, A.S.K.), more precisely, a sociological occurrence; but through its investing in a line in space the relation of reciprocity gains in clarity and security regarding positive and negative sides – certainly also often an ossification” (ibid., 699). Although at first sight it appears as if Simmel and Durkheim were interpreting the impact of border on order and orientation similarly (Schroer 2012, 69), Simmel’s attention is on a very different point. He focuses precisely not on an alleged stability that clearly demarcating borders can create towards the inside, but from the very start relates to something overarching and 9 Parsons

confirms it was “clear, that no society could attain what we will call the ‘advanced primitive’ level of societal evolution without developing relatively clear-cut boundedness” (Parsons 1966, 39).

54

A. S. Krossa

its qualities and potentials. Border is “a living energy that pushes (people) apart and (at the same time, A.S.K.) does not let them out of their unity” (Simmel 1992, 697). The ‘line in space’ therefore to him means that there is a shared space of both or more units, that from the outset can only be understood to a restricted degree as such though, i.e. selfcontained. The line to him is consequently an instrument of ordering, as it relates both (or more) sides directly to another and clarifies this relation in one way or another. This can also be reconstructed with the help of the so-called no man’s land. For Simmel, this is first of all “the empty space as empty (…), a deserted stretch of land (…), space (…) as pure distance, as quality-less expansion” (ibid., 785). But he immediately enlarges on the concept: “The neutrality of the uninhabited space gains a completely different sense by empowering it to positive services: its function, that had been a separating one so far, can also become a conjoining one. Encounters of persons that would be infeasible on the territory of the one’s or the other’s, may however take place on neutral territory” (ibid., 787)—whereby the space becomes usable in a way for both sides10 and develops into a potential “carrier and expression of sociological interaction” (ibid., 790). Thereby both line and space experience fundamental and enriching reinterpretations through Simmel. In a number of current sociological writings we also find conceptual openings towards border as space. These generally assume that border is “not first and foremost a division that separates spaces but one that differentiates them” (Rigo 2006, 170). Their mutual starting points are, first, that border is not to be reduced to a clearly ordered back and forth between different, simply opposite elements but based on the principle of their relationing,11 which leads to contingencies. This implies, second, that border needs to be conceptualised as process, i.e. as temporally ongoing and as being based on combinations of change and continuation.

10 “If such an opportunity of encounter is given without that one of the two needs to leave their standpoint, a(n) (…) objectification and differentiation is initiated thereby” (Simmel 1992, 789). 11 On the principle of relationing that brings different things or people into exchange across borders beyond the simple context, see also (Karafillidis 2010); on the discussion of ‘substantial versus relational’ interpretations of space, see e.g. Schroer (2012) and Löw (2012).

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

55

Such a process of relationing takes place in various forms and has spaceconstituting consequences, namely both in a territorial, local sense and in an abstract spatial sense, for example, in the form of developing joint institutions. One particular aspect that follows from this is, third, that border is not simply and exclusively a place of the adjacent alien, so to speak, but simultaneously the place of self- and other-(de-)construction. On this aspect, some concrete suggestions are made regarding the sense of border zones, which expressively do not correspond to the criteria of the no man’s land. In contrast to its principle of taking out antagonism, ambiguity, and ultimately the social as such, such models conceive a spatial, generally open zone with the option of joint ‘creation of meaning and sense’ (Donnan and Wilson 1999, 64). On that point, e.g. Saskia Sassen suggests the term analytic borderlands, as “spaces that are constituted in terms of discontinuities; in them discontinuities are given a terrain rather than reduced to a dividing line” (2013, 211). With more consideration of the characteristic conflictuality of such zones, Suvendrini Perera developed the term borderscape, with “different temporalities and overlapping emplacements as well as emergent spatial organizations” (Perera 2007, 206f.). Ludger Pries puts the conceptual and empirical focus on transnational spaces that emerge out of various migratory movements (e.g. 2008, 2010)12 which can be interpreted as—partly encompassing—border zones in a broader sense. The empirical data adduced in the following display both lineal as well as spatial interpretations. Following the pattern of line, the external borders of the EU are mainly understood, although not always as explicitly as in formulations such as “fortress Europe” or “refugees before the gates of Europe” (Freitag-comment, 9.10.),13 which represents an idealtypical distribution global/line and Europe/space quite precisely. This is reinforced by the only allegedly relativizing term gate because both the will and the control over opening and closing are actually being called into question already. Also terms such as border security and border patrol primarily point to the idea of a line: “The EU-partners will send concrete help to Italy only for border security” (Der Spiegel, 8.10., similarly 12 More 13 In

concretely on the idea of ‘Europe as borderland’ see Balibar (2004). the data material, EU and Europe are generally used synonymously.

56

A. S. Krossa

Die Welt, 8.10.). Frontex is referred to as “European border guards” and as “European border protection troops” (FAZ (a), 8.10.). Also Eurosur is confronted with expectations of creating or protecting the linear character of an outer border: “The system shall make the outer borders of the EU more secure, with the help of satellite technology, surveillance drones, and a more intensive information exchange between member states” (Euractiv, 8.10.). Here, too, a direct contrasting of European space and clearly separated global space is to be found. On the other hand, the director of the FRA (European Agency for Fundamental Rights) Kjaerum—however in an only slightly relativising way—speaks of “our border control rights” (ORF.at, 8.10.). In accordance with the principle of line, we also find ideas of containers. A politician demands “an expansion of border security and development aid” (Die Welt, 9.10.), and it is also claimed that it should be ensured that potential refugees “remain in their countries and feel in good hands” (FAZ, 10.10.), or in a good place, rather. This is regularly becoming explicit by a compression into the semantic short form Africa that forms the constructed counterpart to a far more differentiated ‘us’ (for more on this see section “Selves and Others”). Strikingly, the global border as line is nearly always formulated as instigation. It is supposed to be created, secured—and this refers immediately to its precarious status. Results on the inner-European space are reciprocal to that. The European space is also represented as direct or indirect claim, by continuously referring to inner-European borders as a problem (more on this below). National borders become apparent as active: “A talk (…) also revealed differences of opinion, though – e.g. between Germany and Italy” (FAZ (a), 8.10., see also Handelsblatt, 8.10.). And particularly distinctly: “Germany displays hardness” (ORF.at, 8.10.). Also, borders are drawn between individual states and groups of European states, be it more concretely—“Germany is (…) increasingly pressured, because many (…) expect a stronger engagement of Berlin in order to relieve the Mediterranean countries” (Die Welt, 8.10.), and “The fringe countries such as Italy, but also Greece and Spain, have felt (…) overchallenged for years” (ibid.)—or more abstractly: “Mikl-Leitner argued in support of an exoneration of the main receiving countries” (ORF.at,

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

57

8.10.). At least on the level of perception, this is not indicative of a complete loss of significance and meaning of nation states, the container perspective and clear drawing of lines also within the EU. Representations of no man’s land are revealed in various expressions, mainly with spatial references to the Mediterranean. On the one hand, it is seen as action space: “The EU commission suggested to the states a large scale operation by European border guards of Frontex, that encompasses the whole Mediterranean from Cyprus to Spain” (Die Welt, 8.10.). On the other hand, as space where many deaths occur it also takes on the character of a no man’s land in a particular way: “Offshore of the island, divers continued (…) the recovery of bodies from the (…) sunk refugee boat (…). With the help of ropes and cables, they pull bodies to the surface of the water” (Süddeutsche, 9.10.). And as demand: “The Mediterranean must not continue to be a mass grave for refugees” (FAZ, 10.10.). This no man’s land can be expanded spatially in the sense of a ring of dead people around the outer borders of Europe. Zeit Online estimates that each year between 19,000 and 25,000 people die there: “They die in the hands of gangs of people smugglers, drown in the Mediterranean or suffocate in lorries” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). With the people, the social itself dies, and at best only their death is being administrated. Conflict and exchange do not practically take place at the place as such (e.g. also because of Italian fishermen being prohibited from helping people who are drowning, see on this subject also section “Demarcation or Conjunction? Relationing and Constructions of Space”). In this sense, there is a non-social element of the no man’s land as space with line character, in line with Durkheim. At the same time, however, Simmel’s relationing, ordering understanding of that space is also present. Obviously, this order also requires concrete and critical analysis—and in this sense no man’s land as abstract space becomes relevant, indeed, as inducement for discourse and potential or stipulated negotiation with the other. Other forms of no man’s land also came up in the data material, e.g. camps with their isolating, encapsulating effect (Süddeutsche, 9.10.), as well as the institutional proceedings, especially concerning asylum procedures (Zeit Online, 9.10., Süddeutsche, 9.10.; more on this in section “Demarcation or Conjunction? Relationing and Constructions of Space”).

58

A. S. Krossa

Selves and Others On border, constitutions of others and selves take place simultaneously. Those are contingent and underpin processes of definition. In analogy with the differentiation line/container, interpretations of selves and others can be differentiated into distinct and diffuse. With the analytical opening of the understanding of border towards space, what develops is “an overlay of inside and outside, closed and open, own and strange, vicinity and distance” (Schroer 2012, 78). Thereby, it becomes at least worthy of discussion if there is even a partially clear basis for fixed definitions of others and selves, because, as shown with Simmel already, the potential of border crossing and respective sociation is entailed from the outset in the concept of border. More specifically this is illustrated by Reckwitz’s term limit in the sense of an aspect of border that relates to “a normative and asymmetric border, the one between (…) the legitimate and the illegitimate transgression, behind which something waits which transgresses the border in the direction of the pathological as well as the fascinating” (Reckwitz 2008, 302). Consequently, and with respect to the transfer to the constitution of selves even more far-reaching, Augé argues that “the image of the other blurs increasingly and this prompts directly or indirectly a crisis of differenceness” (Augé 1995, 86)—i.e. also a respective crisis of the self or selves. Balancing the “double feeling of difference and congruence” (ibid., 92) becomes a task that is not simply solvable. This supports a growing awareness of the fact that the otherness of the other is relative only, and consequently selfness can only be of limited stability: “Disturbingly, the stranger is within us: we are our own strangers” (Kristeva 1988; quoted in Gifford 2010, 28). Accordingly, both the relation of inside and outside as well as the scheme of selves and others change fundamentally. This analytical perspective is usefully complemented with perceptions, though, that becomes particularly visible in the discourse analysis. How, then, is the other perceived? As just aesthetically different, and thus primarily culturally enriching? As disturbing though not particularly gravely? Or as essentially different and therefore with a tendency towards threatening? How are delimitation and proximity represented? Which

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

59

consequences does that have for self-representations? Some stimuli for this aspect of discussion will now be derived in an interdisciplinary perspective and made connectable to the discourse analysis. The opposition between essential interpretations of border on the one hand and constructivist or substantial ones on the other hand is taken up in a philosophical debate, inspired by biology, using a juxtaposition of immunologic and post-immunologic interpretations of society. According to Roberto Esposito, our present time is characterised by an immunological disposition whose basic pattern is a “protective reaction towards a risk” (2004, 7), and more precisely: “Someone or something invades an – individual or collective – body and changes, transforms, contaminates it” (ibid., 8). Typical events were the “fight against the blaze of a new epidemic (…), the reinforcement of the bulwarks against illegal immigration, and the strategies that are targeted to neutralising the latest computer virus” (ibid., 7). Of particular interest is the localisation he makes: “what remains constant is the place where the threat is located, and this is always the border between inside and outside, what is one’s own and what is other, the individual and the shared” (ibid., 8). Here, border is interpreted as a clearly delimitative line that is based on selfcontained units. Byung-Chul Han assumes a directly opposite position. He summarises Esposito’s idea as being based on a “clear separation of inside and outside, of friend and foe, or of own and other (…). Attack and defence determine the immunological action (…). Everything that is strange is being fended off. The subject of the immune defence is strangeness as such” (2014, 8). Against this, Han puts the term post-immunological society that distinguishes itself precisely “through the disappearance of otherness and strangeness (…). Thereby, otherness is substituted by difference that does not cause immune response (…). Also strangeness alleviates itself into a formula of consumption. The strange yields the exotic. The tourist travels it” (ibid., 9). And with the concrete example of the discussion on migration, Han concludes: “Immigrants and refugees are perceived as burden rather than a threat” (ibid., 11). Polly Matzinger (2007) differentiates the argument. In the context of cancer research, she arrives at a renewed distinction. Instead of assuming—as is usual so far in medical research and in principal in line with

60

A. S. Krossa

Esposito—that the body differentiates between self and strange and sheds the strange, she suggests that the body distinguishes within the category of the strange between friendly and dangerous. Thereby, the attention is shifted away from the other as such and towards specific qualities of the different. This takes place, however, without aestheticizing the concept of the strange completely, as does Han, and thereby making it as one-sided ultimately as did Esposito in an inverse direction. This biological philosophically based differentiation between friendly and dangerous can be paralleled with a sociological one than Andreas Langenohl has offered within the framework of a highly interesting and original study on town twinning (2015a, summarised see 2010), i.e. the differentiation between value-related essential and aesthetic interpretations of cultural difference. He assumes that difference is especially unproblematic—i.e. particularly prone to sociation—if it is interpreted as an aesthetic one, quasi as embodiment of ‘different but on eye-level in principle, with readiness to exchange’: “French wine, English biscuits, Italian sausages” (Langenohl 2015a, 54). Thereby, border is being reproduced and sustained in principle, however, with the linking focus of border. According to this type of difference, the other is basically considered to be interesting; Langenohl repeatedly even speaks of its celebration— which can also be interpreted as an opportunity to look more closely at and even celebrate ‘the own’ on the ground of the other that is only minimally deviating or deviating in categories considered less important and therefore constitutes an unthreatening other. The second, socially considerably more problematic type of essentially interpreted difference by contrast follows the principle of delineation and is closer to frontier. This one is also illustrated by Langenohl, by drawing on situations which take place within the framework of a group of French men and women and Germans who travel jointly to meet with Muslim citizens in Berlin (ibid., Chapter 8). In short, the following was observed. The town-twinning partners from France and Germany jointly encounter their Muslim hosts with discernible alienation, clearly interpreting the border between them as essential. Practices that illustrate this are conspicuously formal behaviour, such as anxiously diplomatic formulations, or expressly formal actions with respect to joint dinners, plus an explicitly moderate thematisation of ‘difficult’ aspects, a focus on

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

61

explaining oneself while being anxious to cling to the assumed specificity of the fronting positions, including an over-conscientious acknowledgement of an allegedly special—i.e. fundamentally deviating—culturality of the other. This leads to a narrowing down of the exchange, whereby differences of opinion are increasingly not expressed in open controversy with the allegedly essentially different other. Rather, they manifest themselves as agitated discussion only within the (in this case) German–French self-group—self-group in the sense that within it, the two groups who mutually perceive themselves as merely aesthetically different understand themselves as belonging together. In opposition to the assumedly essential (Muslim) others, the communication discontinues regarding those themes that are considered really important. This example shows how border is quite typically reproduced by various practices of distanciation and vicinity at that, here ‘Europeans versus Muslims’ and not for instance ‘those living in Germany versus those living in France’, or possibly no delineation of such kind at all. Also, Langenohl’s example entails the important aspect of the construction of antagonism via an often systematic simplification of the other on the one hand and a claim to be a highly differentiated self on the other hand. In his example, this takes the form of a deviating one-dimensionality that is considered problematic on the one hand and a positively interpreted diversity (Europe) on the other hand, i.e. the reference to Muslims (in Germany) as representation of the global in its alleged unpredictable otherness: “what distinguishes Europeans from migrants is that the latter are seen as exemplars of their culturality while the former are seen as cultivated in their diversity” (ibid., 216).14 Thereby, both perspectives that differentiate the aspect of otherness, i.e. the biological-medical one of Matzinger as well as the sociological one of Langenohl, illustrate the imperative of making an assessment effort towards any other and corresponding border representations. The journalistic data exhibits a distinct tendency for quantitative expansion. Instead of a dividing line between a self and an other, several

14 “The problem consisted (…) not so much in a stereotype about other local cultures, but in the conviction that others have a serious global culture” (Langenohl 2015a, 219), one, whose demarcation has been constructed as practically insurmountable.

62

A. S. Krossa

selves and others and respective borders become evident that are activated in varying contexts. They are also tagged with qualitatively differing labels of difference. This is generally in line with those approaches that consider the other neither as completely dangerous nor as a wholesale aesthetic point of reference but that differentiate within the category. At the same time, however, again and again we find substantial simplifications in perception and representation, as well as also paradoxical forms. A first distanciation of the other takes place via abridgement. The conjecture put forward in the Introduction already—Africa is used as a relevant collective other—is being validated in the corpus repeatedly. Firstly, Africa is used over and over and generally un-reflectedly as a semantic abridgement that seems to constitute the other simply as a matter of course. Examples are “stream of refugees from Africa” (Martin Schulz, quoted in Spiegel, 8.10.), “refugee rush from Africa” (Die Welt, 8.10.), or “The Mediterranean represents the Africa-Europe border, not the AfricaItaly border” (The Guardian, 8.10.). Differentiations of the African other are very rare and usually simplifications, such as references to “North African countries” (Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). References to individual countries are even less prevalent; the only exception in this data corpus is the mentioning of Libya and Tunisia by the ORF.at (8.10). In contrast to that, the European self is constantly differentiated, and in much greater detail. By analogy, on the individual level the other is the refugee. This figure comes up in practically every one of the analysed press comments. This is also a largely artificial figure, though, that rarely is looked at in any differentiating way. While the origin, history of refuge, etc., are not mentioned as individualising aspects, a demarcation line is mentioned that runs between refugees already present and those who are just arriving. This strengthens a quantitative aspect: “On Lampedusa, refugees have protested against their placing in a reception camp. They (…) tried to stop busses on their way into the overcrowded camp” (Süddeutsche, 9.10.). The second step of distanciation can be identified by the fact that the problem is being allocated to ‘Africa itself ’ and only requires ‘help’ from us: “The EU had to speak with the African states about how the

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

63

causes of flight could be eliminated” (Handelsblatt, 8.10.), with the aim that potential refugees “remain in good hands and feel in good hands” (FAZ, 10.10.).15 In this way, self and other are constructed as distinctly as possible. Thirdly and quite colossal in their othering and distanciating effects, we find allusions as well as direct referral, to illegality, criminality, etc., be it affirmative or not, so for instance “illegal immigration” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.) or “Asylum abuse” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.), or in this example from the Guardian: “Friedrich said that most of those trying to cross the Mediterranean were ‘economic’ migrants rather than political refugees and they were seeking better social security than they would receive at home” (The Guardian, 8.10.). Thereby the border can be portrayed as legitimate: “Eurosur shall improve communication between the states and thereby help to identify illegal immigration and fight transborder criminality” (Handelsblatt, 8.10.). On a micro-level, this pattern of suspicion is reflected in massive action claims, e.g. on the grounds of an action plan of the EU commission to “fight convenience marriage (…) and detect residences of immigrants (…) more easily” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.). Here we see how far substantial suspicions reach into the private, to what high extent ‘strange’ is seen as ‘dangerous’, in analogy to the hypotheses of the immunological society. On the individual level, this refers to the criminalised other, the illegal, mainly, however, the smuggler (more on this figure in section “Demarcation or Conjunction? Relationing and Constructions of Space”) or the terrorist, as current prototypes of danger and unpredictability.16 All this clearly represents aspects of pollution and risk of contamination. In contrast to this first line of argument directed against a global outside, a second line that is aligned to the inner-European space focuses on the plurality of the other/s. Ajar with the political imperative of internal European commonality, European borders manifest themselves abundantly clearly—albeit typically accompanied by claims to overcome 15 Conversely,

in the following quote the responsibility or fault is located in the EU—but that is an exception: “‘The criminality of the people smugglers is a consequence of the border that is closed for refugees’, criticises Pro Asyl” (ORF.at, 8.10.). 16The Society for Threatened Peoples blames Friedrich, he had fanned fears, “there were terrorists among the Chechen refugees (…). With this populism, Friedrich encouraged the inhumane treatment of many refugees” (Society for Threatened Peoples, 9.10.).

64

A. S. Krossa

inner-European fission and to act jointly. Thus in the following example, the inner division is pilloried. It needs to be overcome, so the argument goes, explicitly in order to be able to deal with the shared problem of the illegal (global) other: “Italy’s Minister of the Interior (…) stipulated changing the rules that shuffle off the whole burden of illegal immigration to the countries of first entry” (Der Spiegel, 8.10., also Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). Here, inner-European cleavages are clearly recognisable, but the principle of European unity is evoked normatively and precisely in demarcation of the global other. One specific aspect of the adduced discourse, however, shows that the relevance of national borders and respective inner-European fissions cannot dissolve offhand. Neither can they be framed as a joint counterposition in opposition to a global other. The concrete trigger is Friedrich’s direct link with an inner-European issue. He speaks of “poverty immigration (…) of Bulgarians and Romanians that allegedly come to Germany to apply for money from the benefits system” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.; similarly Die Welt, 9.10.). Thereby, he evokes an image of an—inner-European (!)—criminal other and names very clearly two member states, i.e. actual partners. The commentators pay some attention to that, and the reactions are typically relativizing only at first sight: “Mostly, this is about members of the Roma-minority” (Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). Other contributors to that discourse do not take up the implicit offer to constitute a joint inner-European other as we will see below. Friedrich also places a kind of economic criminality into the centre of attention: “Friedrich prompts the EU to crack down on such behaviour: ‘It can’t be possible that freedom of movement is misused in that one changes a country only because one wants higher welfare benefits’. The Minister asked to clarify if we can send those back and impose a re-entry barrier on those who come to Germany for subreption of benefits” (Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). The claim that Europe should protect itself, and Germany in particular, is consequently based on the use of discursive means such as illegality, criminality and general suspicion. By referring to an already existing inner-European issue of poverty and migration, and by using systematically the global discourse for a parallelisation with the European one, Friedrich strives to fend off the expectations towards Germany on a global level too.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

65

The European partners realise that this has the character of passing on responsibility, though, and their subsequent strategies of othering consequently display various forms of distancing. An ironisation has been especially noted in the press: “Asylum politics: EU Commissioner criticises ‘beer tent statements’ from Germany” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.; similarly Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). The precise quote can be found in the Frankfurter Neue Presse: “‘The German Minister Friedrich – we go back a long way – sometimes talks such beer tent talk. That’s why everybody likes him, I like him, too, and I also like the beer tent’ EU Commissioner of Justice, Reding, scoffed. It was a matter of the ‘free movement of European citizens’, though, and therefore subject-matter arguments were required” (Frankfurter Neue Presse, 9.10.). This line of separation, running right through the alleged European self, not only expresses distance as such. Furthermore, it increases this distance qualitatively through a targeted, degrading nationalisation, mainly expressed in the metaphor of the beer tent that assumedly represents Germany, that otherwise, however, also could be interpreted as aesthetic differentiation—and a resulting image of a less seriously taken, more provincial Friedrich. Finally, an inner-German drawing up of borders can also be observed. These are not commented on ironically, though, but very seriously (Der Spiegel, 8.10.; similarly Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.; Zeit Online, 11.10.; on the position of the Green Party on this subject see Le Figaro, 9.10.) and also include moral depreciation of the moral opponent: “Trittin (of the Green Party, A.S.K.) about Friedrich: ‘abyss of cynicism’” (FAZ, 10.10.). Also Riexinger (of the party ‘The Left’) expresses clear distance, as summarised in the Süddeutsche: “Friedrich tries to overtake the AfD (party of the far right, A.S.K.) on the right. In this way, a climate is being generated that encourages brown gangs (Nazis, A.S.K.). A minister of Internal Affairs who acts as hatemonger is a danger for internal security” (Süddeutsche, 9.10., also FAZ (b), 8.10.). By using vocabulary that is quite commonly applied to the currently meaningful other, i.e. ‘the Islam’, difference is being strongly emphasised. And by describing Friedrich as dangerous, he is depicted as being strange in the extreme. Overall, the comments clearly aim at distancing via suggestions of difference and strangeness, and these strategies are often remarkably similar to the strategies of othering of Friedrich himself, as described above.

66

A. S. Krossa

In summary, we see firstly that the global other appears to be broadly categorised in simplified ways, while both the national and the European inside are differentiated far more carefully. Secondly, aesthetic definitions of strangeness hardly manifest themselves in the discourse. That is not only the case with respect to the strangeness of the global other but also of the European and especially of the national (political) other. If, for instance, the then Minister of the Internal speaks of the “full burden of the illegal immigration” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.), or Malmstroem, then EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs, claims that “all member states must do their ‚utmost‘ for the accommodation of refugees” (Handelsblatt, 8.10.), this definitely goes beyond interpretations of the other as something to be consumed or merely aesthetically different. A perceived or evoked danger becomes even clearer when looking at examples where transborder criminality, invasion of the illegal, etc., in the sense of pollution and contamination are thematised, and the other is sweepingly classified as dangerous. The intermediate stage ‘burden, not threat’, as suggested by Han, is to be found, if at all, only as a rhetorical device to understate the worries of other Europeans, to deflect unwanted consequences for the (German) self: “Germany is the country that accommodates most refugees in Europe. That illustrates that the stories that Italy is overstretched with refugees are not true” (Friedrichs, quoted in DPA, 8.10.). Thirdly, also within the European and the national framework, essential definitions of others are adduced. In the European frame, this becomes particularly obvious with Friedrich’s insertion of ‘the Romanians and Bulgarians’ into the Lampedusa discussion. Thereby, he makes no difference between them and refugees stemming from ‘African’ countries. Both are depicted as foreign and—on the ground of their alleged criminal potential—dangerous in principle. That contribution to the discussion is particularly interesting, as it runs on two levels, so to speak. By naming Romania and Bulgaria, Friedrich attacks two European partners; however, just like the Kölnische Rundschau, most readers will be aware that Friedrich is actually alluding to Sinti and Roma. Interestingly, in political commentaries, this subtextual line of strangeness is not taken up.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

67

Demarcation or Conjunction? Relationing and Constructions of Space How and under which conditions do borders take effect in a demarcating way or rather adjoining or even linking ways? The argument of this section combines various aspects in order to elaborate a hypothesis of relationing (that is already at the core of Simmel’s suggestions) which is a condition of the development of social space. An explicit process orientation is thereby crucial. The focus is on the press data. I want, however, to refer to two interesting amplifying aspects with a background in psycho-analytically inspired research. Sigrun Anselm attributes to the space on the border a unique status: “Always, on the border something realised that has no space and no opportunity of articulation in the inside (…). On border, not only spatial transgressing of limits but also such in terms of civilisation take place” (1995, S. 197f.), the latter corresponding with Reckwitz’ liminal aspect of border. That, however, is first and foremost only a vague starting point for relation, and also border itself has not yet become space. The phrasing ‘on the border’ indicates rather an affiliation, an addendum that could be used for connection. This allows for the derivation of a potential for space (development), especially on the grounds of the explicit reference to repetitions and its inherent chance of something typical emerging that takes place ‘on the border’ again and again. Such a combination of practices and a component of time offers potential for space emergence in a social sense. Secondly, and conceptually close to Simmel, Anselm specifies space as inside plus outside plus border: “To find one’s own borders and to be able to load them with positive connotations, a manageable, organised space is required, in Winnicott’s words: the transition space that encompasses the inside and the outside. That, what lies outside of the borders of the subject, must be tangible, discernible, and internalisable as such, so that the subject can situate itself in an outer inside” (ibid., 200f.). In other words, also the outer space must be graspable as relevant, i.e. stand in tangible relation to the inside. Only then does it offer a background against which an inside and a self make sense, and only then are any potential connecting factors provided in the sense of Simmel’s minimum

68

A. S. Krossa

criterion for sociation. Consequently, “the everyday experiences of border and strangeness must be assimilable via symbols and forms that allow both to come to fruition: the identical and the difference. A multitude of codes of behaviour (…) can be described as synthesis of setting of limits and transgressing them” (ibid., 201). The results of the discourse analysis illuminate processes of space emergence within the European Union against the shared global border. In particular, however, they specify the aspect of border as space in between, its constitution and various elements. That can be well illustrated with comments on the border space between the EU and the global. The first aspect of space emergence that Simmel describes in the very first sentences of his paper Der Streit as ‘banal’ (it is more or less the principle of scapegoating), is a closer association of a group against someone who is defined as joint outsider and enemy. For constituting an EUinside, a strategy of space creation can be detected that develops against a global other and works towards a clear separation: an alleged unification of the inside on the basis of a demarcation towards an outside. This can be portrayed with the help of two examples here. The discussion on justice inside Europe, and the one on the incoherent realisation of joint rules for treating refugees. Within the EU, a normative frame of reference does recognisably exist which maintains that there must be a ‘just’ distribution of refugees, i.e. that a balance within the European Union needs to be created, in order to reach a certain degree of homogeneity in this respect: “Especially Italy needs to organise the intake of refugees more justly” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.). Austria’s then Minister of the Internal said: “I think highly of finding a system that simply distributes the responsibility more justly” (Die Welt, 8.10., also Die Welt, 9.10.). Justice can be interpreted very differently, though: “For the Federal Minister of the Interior, Friedrich, the claim for more solidarity from Germany is ‘incomprehensible’” (Süddeutsche, 9.10.), and he “rejected claims of a fairer burden sharing in the refugee policy” (Euractiv, 8.10.), on the basis of statistics. The second area for consideration is the appeal to apply rules coherently: “Initially, it needed to be about transferring and applying the new EU-guidelines on asylum politics to national law, Malmstroem explained” (FAZ (a), 8.10.). So far, the balancing limps also because of

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

69

“strongly varying success rates” (Zeit Online, 9.10.) of asylum procedures of the various EU states. Precisely this repeated lament emphasises the validity of the general aspiration of a ‘just’ balancing and the expectation of a general convergence within the shared space EU. This EU internal space-building process only seemingly experiences a break when a second level is included, i.e. Friedrich’s reference to an allegedly problematic inner-EU migration, as described above. Most importantly for the perspective here, a substantial contradiction develops, and becomes quasi subsumed with the attempt to reach a shift in interpretation via a proclamation of joint goals. To that end, inner-EU borders are defined as comparatively insignificant—maybe not as fully aesthetic, but we do see attempts at making EU internal differences invisible. For instance, in the context of ‘the Bulgarians and Romanians’, there is (again indirect) talk of a European action plan: “From January 2014, money from the European Social Fund shall be put into the social integration and the battle against poverty” (Die Welt, 9.10.). The border between the EU and the global is constituted in several ways as space ‘in-between’. The discursive means that appear most often are characterised by mobility, and solidify via repetitions: stream, people smuggler, boat and camp. In the context of the global (outer) EU border the term streams is used by the then President of the EU, Martin Schulz, who says it was “a shame that the EU left Italy alone with the stream of refugees for such a long time” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.). The newspaper ‘Die Welt’ speaks of a “refugee rush from Africa” (8.10.), while the ‘Kölnische Rundschau’ refers to a “refugee stream in the Mediterranean Sea” (8.10.). This illustrates how metaphors of nature and its powers are popular, a stream, rush or storm, something liquid or partly liquid or even aerial; in any case something that is not graspable and therefore particularly uncontrollable and threatening.17 Also, the time component of a stream evokes the idea of a continuous process, i.e. the continuation of movement as such. Thereby, the border space becomes a relative constant, a distinct phenomenon.

17The

fact that this expression transports a judgement becomes obvious in contrast to the term migratory movements that is used for the same space-creating process elsewhere (Freitagcommentary, 9.10.).

70

A. S. Krossa

While stream and similar terms are collective forms of this process, the figure of the refugee undoubtedly is the most important individual, personal, and in a direct sense also corporeal category of that space. With this term, the (fleeing) movement is also perpetuated. With respect to the constitutive process of space emergence, another individual figure plays an even more important role in that discourse, though: the people smuggler.18 The strategy of individualisation of the structural problem culminates in an elucidation of the ‘Kölnische Rundschau’: “The captain of the refugee boat sunk off Lampedusa has meanwhile been detained. The 35-year old Tunisian is being investigated, including multiple cases of deliberate manslaughter and sea damage” (8.10.). In a collective respect, criminalisation as an expressed strategy of othering finds expression in people smuggler gang (FAZ (a), 8.10.), a term that is also used by ‘ORF.at’ (8.10.) by referring to a Friedrich quote: “We must dispose of people smuggler gangs”. Concretely, the people smuggler as enabler and realiser of transgression and transfer constitutes space. This is further strengthened by his/her alleged continuous professionalisation. While the figure of the refugee is seen as ambivalent (this becomes clear, e.g. in the context of the boats, see below), the people smuggler here is seen as unconditionally morally reprehensible, dangerous and therefore to be fought against: “Meanwhile, the Minister of the Internal calls for getting tough with people smugglers” (Euractiv, 8.10.; similar Die Welt, 8.10.). Also a statement of Baralauskas, the then Minister of the Internal of Lithuania, locates the blame fully on the side of the people smuggler—the refugee becomes a mere victim and global power structures are not even mentioned. He announces “a more effective fight against human traffickers, of whom the refugees who make their way to Europe are at the mercy” (FAZ (a), 8.10.). Here we recognise the attempt to turn the people smuggler into the shared other of everybody else, and the signal that neutralising him or her would allegedly solve the overall problem. By contrast, Pro Asyl, an organisation working for refugees and human rights, states: “Whoever wants to fight people smugglers has to create legal escape routes, not to 18 Another

2002).

perspective on this figure is border violator (see e.g. Eigmüller 2008; Horn et al.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

71

seal borders” (Euractiv, 8.10.). Taken together, the border space is further manifested as such—precisely via the general focus on the question ‘how’ instead of ‘if ’ regarding an institutionalisation of formal and legal escape routes. Another element of the discourse that symbolises repeated movement and thereby constitutes border space is the boat. Boats as such represent both a space of their own and a core element of the manifesting border space and a particularly contradictory one at that. Occupied with refugees, but also as part of the coastguards and fishers, they are the most important mobile element of transport that constitutes the water border as space, by linking ‘both sides’ systematically with each other. On the one hand, the boats are a collective expression of the activity of people smuggling. It is not only their overloading with refugees but also their putting out to sea in principle that is assessed as morally reprehensible (as became recognisable in the discussion on ‘Africa’ in part 3.2. especially). Additionally, however, with the loading with refugees, the boats entail an element of desperation which brings an ambivalence into effect, as it is obvious that for the refugees the boat is always existential—a matter of life or death. And it is to be assumed that they are aware of this: “They flee and many die – but the boats keep on coming” (Zeit Online, 11.10.). On the part of the EU, refugee boats are strictly interpreted as being objects of activities. These activities, however, are relatively indefinite and also contradictory. Typically, in the data we find general references, such as to “handling of refugee boats in the Mediterranean” (Die Welt, 9.10.). In a more obviously difficult and contradictory form, this is expressed in more specific comments, e.g. on the relation between the EU, national regulations, fishers and refugees: “Fishers who save refugees are threatened with monetary penalties and imprisonment. This had (…) led to the situation that fishers did not want to help the drowning refugees” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). And at the same time: “EU-representatives offered harsh criticism of the rigorous anti-immigration laws that threaten fishers with penalties should they help refugees in distress at sea” (ORF.at, 8.10.). Thereby, fishers are somehow forced into the role of ‘border guards’ and inevitably find themselves morally condemned. A further element constitutive of the border space is the camp. In comparison with the aspects just mentioned, its mobility is to be determined

72

A. S. Krossa

more indirectly. It emerges precisely out of holding refugees in a general preliminarity. In the data it is mainly thematised with respect to issues of placement and accommodation: “Greece, Hungary and Cyprus lock newcomers into thoroughly overcrowded camps, in Italy refugees must often live on the street or in old shanties” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). The second part of the quote highlights the core aspect that refugees after their arrival in Europe are continually kept in an interspace, in a lasting transition zone (obviously a paradox), usually both physically as well as legally and—consequently—mentally: “By now, the proceedings of jurisdiction in line with Dublin usually take longer than the actual asylum procedure. This is expensive, bureaucratic and keeps the refugees in permanent insecurity” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). Thereby, the border space that (here) has been primarily constituted via the Mediterranean and its crossing is further strengthened by a clearly expanded time dimension. This juridical manifestation of border space is preceded by a factual one on the Mediterranean itself, though. Comments reflect the impression that the EU simply expands its territory on the grounds of the idea that ‘the other’ countries were unable to act: “A EU-diplomat criticises the plan as ‘naïve’, the solution was a stricter control of the coasts of Libya and Tunisia by the coast guards of these countries” (ORF.at, 8.10.). And the Kölnische Rundschau quotes Friedrich: “Boats must be detected better and faster, and it must be ensured that these boats do not even put out to sea in Africa” (8.10.; also Die Welt, 9.10.). This solidifies generally the demarcation between ‘the others’ and ‘us’—with the latter even having an opportunity to ‘do good’ by ‘wanting to help’. Thereby, however, an alleged approach of moving closer to the ‘other’, actually displays and manifests a distance. And additionally, this can be interpreted as moral legitimation for persistent differences because the moral aspiration of a balance within the EU, as just depicted, is not shown for the global context. Instead, we find references to some kind of fairness: “We must act now in order to find a balance between our rights of border control and the needs and rights of the migrants’, FRA-director Morten Kjaerum emphasised” (ORF.at, 8.10.). Here, a ‘fair’ balance is treated as a question of demarcation/frontier on the one hand and adjacence or even linkage/border on the other. The comments on that differ substantially,

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

73

though, regarding both their direction and their range: “It would be necessary to open to borders. That may cost the welfare systems something, but it is about more than that: human dignity” (Freitag-Kommentar, 9.10.) This, however, is an individual and somewhat isolated opinion within the data material.

Hardening or Softening? Ambivalences Which consequences emerge from the conceptual and factual shift of border as line towards an increasingly differentiated and differentiating, often ambivalent and tendentially conflictual space? How can border fulfil its fundamental functions under these conditions, principally to reduce complexity and to legitimise continuing differences? Two general points may be made on this matter. First, we can assume that, if certain borders dwindle in importance—e.g. those within the EU—others are strengthened and gain in importance, quasi as compensation, e.g. the outer borders of the EU. Thereby, the functions of the border are stable in principle, they are simply shifted to another level, or to another place, so that their functionality is not generally questioned or put at risk. A second interpretation assumes a qualitative change, though, assuming that, once the principle of clear demarcation is questioned, a justification is generally required for any border. On the topic of contrasting border and frontier, Delanty and Rumford state: “the outer limit of the EU is becoming more like a border at precisely the same time that national frontiers within the EU are becoming diffuse” (2005, S. 32). The two authors in this way derive a general flexibilisation of the principle ‘border’ which is now fundamentally linked with corresponding, continuing claims of legitimisation and enhanced conflict potential— and becomes openly contingent. This makes border generally vulnerable. At the same time, however—and following Simmel’s original argument again—conflictivity as such functions as creator of space because it enhances the chances of agglomeration of sense and webs of meaning to develop, which support the emergence of relations. Both perspectives include an element of insecurity, a more or less conscious perception of contingence, but while the first interpretation

74

A. S. Krossa

appears to entail a return to the generally familiar, clear order after a transition period, the second perspective means that contingency and its effects are perpetuated. The differentiation between analytical and perception-related perspective as mentioned in the Introduction can be usefully referred to here. In a broader sense, the first interpretation correlates rather with the level of perception, while the second perspective is more interesting in an analytical sense. It would be exaggeratedly abridged, though, to depict them as mere juxtaposition. In fact, the level of perception acts considerably on the analytical one. Schroer assumes, that “differentiations become more diffuse without disappearing completely. They remain valid, but lose their precision (…). And precisely this blur provokes efforts to came back to clear demarcations. The investments into a line in space testify the large need for clear separations and differentiations” (2012, 180; italics as in original; similarly Blaive and Lindenberger 2012, 102). Consequently, it makes sense to assume a parallel running of the space model and the line model instead of a complete superseding of the latter. Against this background, the last section of this analysis will focus on the manifest ambivalences of the discourse that cannot be dissolved, it seems, so far at least. Thereby, concrete dilemmata reveal themselves, both contentual ones such as the question to which end EU boats shall be deployed, as well as formal ones, e.g. the simultaneous juggling with line- and space-interpretations of the European-global border. The most basic ambivalence is that of the border as such. Terms like border security or, in personalised form, border guards (e.g. DPA, 8.10.), illustrate how border does not function in any abstract way but must be activated by discourse and action. As a matter of principle, it is a vulnerable zone with ambivalent potential. The particular, and here especially relevant, case of the border space Mediterranean between Europe and the global as well as the dealing with its already mentioned elements of ‘refugee’ and ‘boat’ is also ambivalent in principle: “To help Italy directly, the EU held out the prospect of more help with border protection and maritime salvage of refugees” (Die Welt, 8.10., similarly FAZ (a), 8.10.). In this example, two literally contrarious tasks are combined non-reflectively, plus the fact that Italy is supposed to be an addressee of the support, not the refugees. Indirectly

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

75

quoting Friedrich, the Handelsblatt writes (8.10.): “In the past two years, the border security agency Frontex had rescued 40.000 people from distress at sea and were therefore not remotely an instrument of shielding as was always claimed”. This paradox is based on two fundamental but contrasting aims, on the one hand to accept as few refugees as possible into one’s own country, and on the other hand to rescue refugees from death. This polarity is not openly thematised, in fact, it appears to be left systematically in limbo. Only in one case is the paradoxical character of the instruments clearly addressed as such: “The European border security agency Frontex and the border surveillance programme Eurosur have at their command the technology and the equipment to detect and rescue refugees that got into distress at sea in the Mediterranean. But so far they are mainly used for repelling” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). Instead, typically ambivalent solutions are proposed, e.g. to solve the problem by splitting it. Friedrich claimed to be applying a combination of actions to be taken that tackle hugely different points, e.g. improvement of sea rescue, improvement of the situation of the home countries of the refugees, and tougher proceedings against people smugglers (Die Welt, 8.10.). A second strategy is to mechanise the subject, for instance via Eurosur. However, the naming already indicates the focus of the instrument: “With the help of satellite technology, surveillance drones, and a more intensive information exchange between the member states, the system shall make the outer borders of the EU securer” (Euractiv, 8.10.). Obviously, that is an approach based on military strategy. This is also reflected in the repeated use of the term operation (e.g. FAZ (a), 8.10.; Handelsblatt, 8.10.), as well as by the following quote: “The EU wants to help out Italy (…) also with a Task Force”, an ‘expert group’ (Kölnische Rundschau, 8.10.). Such strategies of mechanisation, ‘technisation’, evokes the idea that effectually there was a ‘right way’ to deal with ‘the problem’. This ‘right way’ simply had to be conducted by experts, like a medical operation, then it would be a ‘clean affair’. In a wider sense, also arguing with appropriate, ‘fitting’ statistics, as described above in the context of the discussion on justice, is part of this approach. Finally, there are also occasionally questions and comments that address more fundamental issues, at least at first sight, e.g. on the issue of whether the borders should be opened completely: “Bosbach said (…):

76

A. S. Krossa

‘(…) Shall the borders be opened for all who want to come, or not?’ Whoever pleads in favour of open borders had to tell the population which consequences that would have” (FAZ (b), 8.10.). With such a generalised but ultimately only rhetorical challenging of the border, the allegedly open discussion is reduced to two alternatives: to repel or be overrun. The fact that there is no clear solution that can stand once and for all is, arguably, clear to all involved parties. But the acknowledgement not to have a solution for the problem is an isolated incident, at least in this data. The EU “Nobel Peace Prize winner of the year 2012, is stretched to its limits regarding the frequently invoked solidarity in terms of refugees” (Der Spiegel, 8.10.). And so, compromise proposals, if they address at all the substantial question of human dignity, are strikingly vague, for instance when concepts are suggested for a “more humane policy of intake” (Zeit Online, 9.10.). And exactly on this point—humanity as a principle—the differentiation between other and self begins to sway, and with it unavoidably the concept of border as such. And yet this could well be interpreted as a reference to the opportunity of continuing communication, and a corresponding potential for sociation if a more open communication on this developed.

Conclusions Independently of the analysed level, border became apparent as a communication inducement, and more specifically as an incentive for conflictive dispute. The data illustrate very clearly its typically intensifying effect that is at the same time geared to the principle of contrast and lends itself to some kind of balancing (inner-EU borders) or possibly fairness (EU-global border). Thereby it was possible to trace border spaces and its manifold aspects of emergence, i.e. practices, material manifestations, as well as specific logics and also ambivalences, on several levels, including forms of the concept of no man’s land. Stabilisations in form of institutionalisations can also be detected (e.g. Eurosur, Pegida). In this sense, we

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

77

must not necessarily agree with Durkheim and Parsons that the border form of line must precede the one of space, but as line is fundamentally conflict-laden, as a principle of demarcation and linkage, it most probably fosters—at least according to Simmel—conditions for sociation and respective space emergence. Both towards the inside (EU) and regarding interaction with the global outside, potentially joint sense consolidates webs of meanings, relations and, again, communication-inducing asymmetries. Selves and others have been represented in various ways. While selves have been assumed as much more differentiated from the outset, others have been broadly subject to simplifications (Africa) and additional othering, often via criminalisation or other aspects of a presumed risk of contamination. The fact that selves and others and their relations are up for discussion, however, became very obvious on the grounds of references to humanity and human dignity that fundamentally call into question a clear, linear self–other border. Thereby, the contingency of (categories of ) others, selves and borders is enhanced which led to simplifications (e.g. criminalisation of others and mechanisation of solutions), but not always. On the other hand, some data examples also showed that compromises are sought (‘more humane’), paradoxes are named (deployment of Frontex and Eurosur) or ambivalences are helplessly illustrated (‘not all can come’). This basically confirms the suggestion of Delanty and Rumford that all borders (at least in the context analysed here) are now confronted with fundamental and assumedly continuing claims to prove their legitimacy. On this basis, one-dimensional developments are not probable in the sense of an unequivocal ‘return’ to undisputable selves, others and respective line-type borders. And pluralisation, diversification and spread of border discourses seem rather to point to an enhanced potential for conflict as well as sociation. Like sound waves, global events trigger discourses on all kinds of levels. It appears as if the characteristic paradoxes especially lead us to consider profound propositions about ‘the others’, but mainly about ‘us’ and our relations.

78

A. S. Krossa

References Anselm, S. (1995). Grenzen trennen, Grenzen verbinden. In R. Faber & B. Naumann (Eds.), Literatur der Grenze – Theorie der Grenze (pp. 197–209). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Augé, M. (1995). Krise der Identität oder Krise des Andersseins? Die Beziehung zum Anderen in Europa. In W. Kaschuba (Ed.), Kulturen – Identitäten – Diskurse: Perspektiven europäischer Ethnologie (pp. 85–99). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bach, M. (2008). Europa ohne Gesellschaft. Politische Soziologie der Europäischen Integration. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Balibar, É. (2004). We the People of Europe: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Beck, U. (1997). Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Blaive, M., & Lindenberger, T. (2012). Border Guarding as Social Practice: A Case Study of Czech Communist Governance and Hidden Transcripts. In M. Silberman, K. E. Till, & J. Ward (Eds.), Walls, Borders, Boundaries: Spatial and Cultural Practices in Europe (pp. 97–112). New York: Berghahn Books. Bös, M. (2001). Zur Kongruenz sozialer Grenzen. Das Spannungsfeld von Territorien, Bevölkerungen und Kulturen in Europa. In M. Bach (Ed.), Die Europäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. Sonderheft der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 40 (pp. 429–455). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. London and New York: Routledge. Donnan, H., & Wilson, Th. (1999). Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State. Oxford: Berg. Durkheim, É. (1984). Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Eigmüller, M. (2006). Der duale Charakter der Grenze. Bedingungen einer aktuellen Grenztheorie. In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 55–74). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Eigmüller, M. (2008). Subversionen an Staatsgrenzen – eine Einleitung. In M. Eigmüller & A. Müller (Eds.), Subversionen am Rande. Grenzverletzungen im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert (pp. 13–22). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

3 Borders, Others, Selves: Concepts of a Discourse

79

Eigmüller, M., & Vobruba, G. (2006). Einleitung: Warum eine Soziologie der Grenze? In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 7–11). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Esposito, R. (2004). Immunitas. Schutz und Negation des Lebens. Zürich: Diaphanes. Gifford, P. (2010). Defining ‘Others’: How Interperceptions Shape Identities. In P. Gifford & T. Hauswedell (Eds.), Europe and Its Others: Essays on Interperception and Identity (pp. 13–38). Bern: Peter Lang. Han, B.-C. (2014). Müdigkeitsgesellschaft. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz. Horn, E., Kaufmann, S., & Bröckling, U. (2002). Grenzverletzer. Von Schmugglern, Spionen und anderen subversiven Gestalten. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos. Karafillidis, A. (2010). Grenzen und Relationen. In J. Fuhse & S. Mützel (Eds.), Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung (pp. 69–95). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kristeva, J. (1988). Etrangers à nous-mêmes. Paris: Fayard. Krossa, A. S. (2013). Theorizing Society in a Global Context. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Langenohl, A. (2010). Imaginäre Grenzen. Zur Entstehung impliziter Kollektivität in EU-Europa. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20 (1), 45–63. Langenohl, A. (2015a). Town Twinning, Transnational Connections and Translocal Citizenship Practices in Europe. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Langenohl, A. (2015b). Ähnlichkeit als differenztheoretisches Konzept: Zur Reformulierung der Modernisierungstheorie. In A. Bhatti & D. Kimmich (Eds.), Ähnlichkeit. Ein kulturtheoretisches Paradigma (pp. 105–127). Konstanz: University Press. Löw, M. (2012). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Matzinger, P. (2007). Friendly and Dangerous Signals: Is the Tissue in Control? Nature Immunology, 8(1), 11–13. Medick, H. (2006). Grenzziehungen und die Herstellung des politisch-sozialen Raumes. Zur Begriffsgeschichte und politischen Sozialgeschichte der Grenzen in der Frühen Neuzeit. In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 37–51). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

80

A. S. Krossa

Perera, S. (2007). A Pacific Zone: (In)security, Sovereignty, and Stories of the Pacific Borderscape. In P. Kumar Rajaram & C. Grundy-Warr (Eds.), Borderscapes: Hidden Geographies and Politics at Territory’s Edge (pp. 201–227). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pries, L. (2008). Die Transnationalisierung der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Pries, L. (2010). Transnationalisierung. Theorie und Empirie grenzüberschreitender Vergesellschaftung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ray, L. (2007). Globalization and Everyday Life. London and New York: Routledge. Reckwitz, A. (2008). Unscharfe Grenzen. Perspektiven der Kultursoziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript. Rigo, E. (2006). Trafficking Citizenship. Von der ‚Festung Europa‘ zur Regierung der Zirkulation. In T. Hengartner & J. Moser (Eds.), Grenzen und Differenzen. Zur Macht sozialer und kultureller Grenzziehungen (pp. 161– 174). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. Sassen, S. (2013). Analytic Borderlands: Economy and Culture in the Global City. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 210–220). Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Schroer, M. (2012). Räume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raums. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Strüver, A. (2008). Bildbesprechung. Das Mittelmeer als Grenzdiskurs. In H. Bredekamp, M. Bruhn, & G. Werner (Eds.), Bildwelten des Wissens. Kunsthistorisches Jahrbuch für Bildkritik (pp. 66–69). Band 6/2, Grenzbilder. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Vobruba, G. (2005). Die Dynamik Europas. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wilson, T. M. (2012). Revisiting the Anthropology of Policy and Borders in Europe. In D. Andersen, M. Klatt, & M. Sandberg (Eds.), The Border Multiple: The Practicing of Borders Between Public Policy and Everyday Life in a Re-Scaling Europe (pp. 77–95). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

Waste is what is left of the useful, i.e. the profane, preferably after it has been exhaustively used. What we ideally expect of it is immediate and total vanishing. As long as the leftovers of anything consumed are still there, they are in that state and hold the status of the in-between (see section “In-Between” in Chapter 2). How to treat waste, then? What is considered to be recyclable, what is not, what follows concretely in each instance? As thinking about and actually carrying out recycling prolongs having to deal with rubbish, the problem increases. And typical of any contact with the in-between, the risk of contamination looms, but more importantly, the self that deals with the in-between risks getting lost in it, is threatened by disintegration, amorphousness, indeterminacy and lostness. Consequently, we urgently try to avoid contact with the subject, with people linked to it, let alone with the material waste as such, if possible by obscuring and ignoring it fully. That also means that, if we address it, we must have very good reason to do so and consider it unavoidable for one reason or another. And if we feel forced to address the subject at all, we do our utmost to get rid of the in-between character, by © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_4

81

82

A. S. Krossa

conceptualising and addressing waste as if it could be related to—ideally two—clearly differentiated categories only: potentially clean or just dirty, useful or futile, good or bad. Thereby, the provocative character of waste that threatens the cultural order is at least contained, and therefore somehow controlled. Importantly though, waste is process. Dürr and Winder speak about the “process of the becoming of garbage as it turns into valuable matter or health hazard, or sign of resistance to authority in interaction with respect to specific individuals” (Dürr and Winder 2016, 65). And, importantly, vice versa, there is also a process of ‘un-becoming’ dirt. Waste can be precious as recyclable material. Then, the general idea is that by separating waste and feeding it into the recycling circle, we make repeated use of raw material and thereby contribute to the protection of the earth, making a healthier life possible for ourselves and future generations. Clearly, waste as recyclable material carries moral and practical responsibility, for the environment and the community. When we focus on waste that is allocated to processes of recycling, Giesen differentiates between two basic types. Changing waste into something profane or into something holy, the latter referring to “relics or collections, (…) waste art or souvenirs, (…) that are frozen in the state of decay – further decay is arrested with all conservational means” (Giesen 2010, 189ff ). The focus here is on the former, though, i.e. on waste that is fed into recycling processes that aim for it to become utilisable again. For actors, respective processes of separating, reusing or transforming items of waste into something useful again do carry a strong meaning of ecological awareness and taking on responsibility in general. The material of waste as such, on the other hand, undergoes a process that specifically relieves it of the problematic in-between status. Separation, allocation to one category or another, for example, real, unusable waste for decay or something useable to be and therefore non-waste for reactivation, take place and for the latter transformation into new determination and purpose, at least temporarily (this can be reconstructed also on the subject of clothes’ donation and reuse, as shown in Chapter 6). Thereby, two main effects occur. Order is (re-)established with respect to the material, waste, and order is (re-)established regarding persons, i.e. actors that take part in

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

83

the activity of separating or not-separating, reusing or not reusing, and their relations. Although this process and taking part in it is certainly not new, in the past decade it has developed a particular dynamic and become a broad societal issue with practically everybody taking part in it or at least being summoned to do so. While the basic differentiations take place in all types of societies,1 the forms of dealing socially with it differ. Giesen identifies three possible reasons for this. First, citizens may identify themselves differently with public spaces, and second, cultures of self-representation and self-control may vary. Third, different and fundamental principles of communality may impact on sensitivity towards waste: “primordial communities with pronounced discourses of cleanliness and rituals of purification will not only tend to demonise outsiders but also to perceive and eliminate waste more than traditional communities in which that, what appears as waste to others, is part of the accustomed staffage of the everyday: the accustomed stuff that – no matter how useless – has always been there and may stay” (Giesen 2010, 193). The focus of the following empirical study is less on the reasons why perceptions may differ, nor is it on the question of whether they do differ at all in fact. These elaborations are only used as a background, as I am more interested in how interpretations, that ideas of dirt and cleanliness and respective dealings with waste differ between groups, are used to establish hierarchy and social order. For this, I choose a bottom-up account of processes of negotiating cohabitation, adducing a grassroots group of volunteers who describe themselves as ‘normal citizens’. Over the course of several months they organised weekly meetings of volunteers and refugees from various non-European countries in a small German village where a refugee home for about 70 persons is located. At the time of research, from January 2015 to July 2016, the expressed aim of the volunteers is to establish a ‘welcome culture’ as a basis for ‘integration’. In order to do so, they started out offering, for instance, language classes, an introduction to ‘German culture’, little trips and outings with

1 Regarding

the principle of separating and working up, it makes no difference if the issue is addressed with high-tech machines or by waste collectors.

84

A. S. Krossa

smaller groups as well as individual help with official agencies and other day-to-day needs. Most of the refugees who live together in a shared house, a publicly financed but privately owned refugee home, are from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Pakistan, i.e. from non-European countries, some are from the so-called Balkan states, such as Kosovo and Albania. A group of about six persons from Albania has a Romani background. Generally, and most explicitly at the beginning of the relations, volunteers interpret and address ‘the refugees’ as a group. In their interactions, the volunteers have a largely homogenising tendency, addressing ‘the refugees’ as one group and making very little differentiation between them. ‘The refugees’, however, do not regard themselves as one group. Most of them select their personal contacts according to language, religion and nationality. This is reinforced by a spatial segregation of the newcomers along ascribed criteria into floors where specific nations and religions live: African women, often with children, on the ground floor, and Asian single men on the first floor. Only the second floor brings people together on the basis of a shared and acquired characteristic. Here, whole families of various backgrounds live together. Still, not all of the refugees are primarily orientated to ascribed features and the vast majority certainly not always. Even more far-reaching, in several interviews, refugees insisted on not being called refugees at all. Many are most keen to be perceived as individuals. For some, the refugee label explicitly symbolises a barrier to their new start to life.2 Although interestingly all its members are of German nationality and live either directly in the village or nearby, the group of volunteers is highly heterogeneous as well, regarding educational, regional or generational background, personal experience and length of time they have lived in that village. Some are religious, others emphasise that they are not but volunteer for humanitarian reasons. The core group is mostly female, while the functionaries around them are predominantly male—a 2 For

the purpose of this research, I use the two terms ‘volunteers’ and ‘refugees’, not without differentiating within the categories, if useful, of course. However, in the concrete exchange and especially the including and excluding ordering activities, these categories are factually valid points of reference in the practices and reflections of the actors.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

85

protestant priest who offers a meeting room and support of various kind, three social workers and the owner of the house where the refugees are accommodated. These internal differences are, however, made partly invisible by creating an impression of homogeneity, e.g. when the volunteers convey ‘their’ sense of ‘German culture’. Even in situations when, for instance, regional differences become evident (as illustrated below) and the alleged homogeneity that is displayed to the refugees obviously crumbles, this fact is, typically, not openly acknowledged and reflected. In other words, an ideal of internal homogeneity is being held up artificially to which the newcomers are expected to adjust, despite a considerable degree of internal difference on both sides. The underlying concern seems to be that the logic and thereby legitimacy of the whole endeavour could be called into question, if internal differences come to the fore. This structure applies particularly to the beginnings of the initiative while later more individual approaches gain importance in both groups, resulting, among other things, in the dissolution of the group meeting regularly. Gradually, combinations of volunteer(s) and refugee (s) emerge that are recognisably based on some shared acquired features, specific experiences or life situations going beyond the volunteer-refugee divide and its construction of generalised otherness. Examples include a more intellectually orientated person who focuses on an artist/intellectual Syrian man, a mother of five who looks after large families in particular, or a woman who widowed early with a young child and now takes care of young single mothers. This illustrates an interesting shift in perceptions of difference and similarity, generally from ascribed to acquired features. In the field, the disposal of waste has crystallised as a subject in the relations between refugees and volunteers, and among volunteers in particular. It brings out especially well how social order is being constructed on the basis of differences that are defined and considered relevant, and respective hierarchies, ideas of right and wrong, of normality and deviation, of orders of us and them and resulting potentials for inclusion and exclusion. Generally speaking there are typically “social perspectives with contradictory practices and different actors with complex relationships and forms of agency, all of which make managing the ‘garbage problem’ difficult” (Dürr and Winder 2016, 65).

86

A. S. Krossa

Setting the Stage Hypothesis: A Clash of Transnational Values I assume that in the specific context of waste separation we can see that one currently particularly important moral imperative—‘helping refugees in need’, directly related to the very general idea(l) of ‘humanity’—clashes with another core value in Germany which is ‘environmental protection’, linked to a ‘good world’ as a habitable and fertile place for all of us. What happens when two such nation-transcending values, both interpreted as fundamental, collide? How are basic social concepts thereby differentiated further? Framed in this way, the subject of waste separation offers us fundamental insights into the issue of how others and selves—and ultimately society—are challenged and constructed on shaky, globalising ground.

Data and Methods The underlying empirical study is based on participant observations complemented by some ethnographic interviews that started in January 2015. Here, we focus on the period until September 2016. During this period I interviewed 31 persons, including volunteers, refugees and various functionaries from administration, church and politics in the region. I participated in 18 meetings and festivities of various kinds. The material is complemented by 5 recordings of group discussions, including training sessions specifically for volunteers who work with refugees. The main reasons for my focus on participant observation are that, first, I know the participants well, and they know me. With the support of one insider and ‘door opener’, and applying the snowball principle, I opened up the field step-by-step, benefiting from quite close relations among the various actors. With most of them I have met and exchanged ideas several times, have been invited to many homes and reciprocated many invitations. Therefore, I could also participate in various group activities. Second, for this particular subject, it was especially interesting and important to see the actors in actual interaction with one

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

87

another. How are relations concretely established via communications and practices? What role do definitions of dirt and cleanliness play in this? With this interest in mind, I then addressed concrete situations of social exchange, supported by substantial background information.

Main Theoretical Links As the focus in this text is on an empirical setting and related findings, this section is kept to a minimum, aiming only at indicating various options for entrenchment in theory. In addition to my general theoretical starting point (see the Introduction to this book and Krossa 2013), the concepts stranger and derivable concepts of self/ selves are of particular interest here. First and foremost there is Georg Simmel’s classic text on the stranger (Simmel 1992), whose general ideas have been taken up and discussed many times, recently also in the context of globalisation (Rumford 2013; Krossa 2015; from a system theoretical perspective: Stichweh 2010). Robert Park’s concept of the marginal man (e.g. Park 1928) and Elias and Scotson’s study on the established and the outsiders (Elias and Scotson 2012) are other well-discussed examples in sociology. This is complemented by research on stigma (starting out with Goffman) and by a number of anthropological studies (classical: Barth 1998). A more explicitly process-orientated perspective is usually offered by social psychology studies on racialisation. Omi and Winant focus on the symbolic dimension of race and the process of racial formation as “a process of historically situated projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized”, linked to “the evolution of hegemony” (2008, 124; italics as in the original), as “having descended from previous conflicts” (ibid., 127) Accordingly, these processes are part of the everyday, as Essed describes: “Racism is […] inherent in culture and social order […]. As a process it is routinely created and reinforced through everyday practices” (Essed 2008, 177) and thereby linked to ‘common sense’ and interpretations of normality and deviation. More specifically, discourse analysis and social psychology offer insights into details of such processes, such as Wetherell and Potter’s book (1992) that

88

A. S. Krossa

combines theoretical–conceptual considerations with a concrete empirical case study. They shift the attention from classic, rather static ideas such as prejudice to more flexible concepts, e.g. discourse and representation, thereby not only making this more a social than an individual theme (ibid., 59 and 75ff ), but also genuinely and interestingly merging fundamental conceptual and methodological aspects (see also Wetherell and Potter 1987).

Facets of Waste Disposal With two core aspects, dirt and environmental impact, waste is ambivalent and carries various heavy moral weights. Ways of dealing with it are a basis for judgements of individuals and collectives. Being dirty or not, taking over responsibility for the community in a broad sense or not, etc. are powerful categories of social order. The relation between morals and pollution can be clarified further with recycling. While recycling in this symbolic dimension does not necessarily refer to something dirty as such, it is linked to pollution in a social sense via its strong moral aspect. Those who refuse to play according to the recycling rules quickly come to be seen as threatening social order, as being utterly alien, and as being dirty in a moral sense. In this sense, the stranger who has the disadvantage of not necessarily knowing the definitions and rules of that specific place has a double pollution potential, via socially incorrect interpretations of waste as dirt and via dealing with it ‘wrongly’, that is, not recycling according to the respective rules in the specific place. For example, Dürr and Winder (2016) look at a neighbourhood in Mexico City and relations between more established citizens and citizens who have more recently moved in, particularly Chinese and Korean vendors. One of the Mexican vendors comments: “We have more garbage today than ever because of the people who come from outside to work in Tepito. They leave their rubbish there. The ones from the outside. Because we, from the inside, take a small bag to put our rubbish in and the ones from the outside who come to sell here leave their garbage just everywhere” (ibid., 63). She continues with a generalisation about antiorder behaviour of ‘the others’ and thereby manifestly goes beyond the

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

89

immediate subject: “They also sell drugs” (ibid.). The authors comment: “As Douglas would have it, identities are related to place in this discourse, and garbage is construed as the result of unwelcome alien behaviour, so that it is in fact not the garbage per se but the stall owners from outside of Tepito who are unwanted” (ibid., 64). In Europe, waste separation is relatively common, but it appears that in Germany it plays a particularly important role. Without going into too much detail here, environment-related values have become part of an identity for many. It does not seem exaggerated to claim that, in Germany, environment protection and the separation of waste as part of it come close to the status and function of a civil religion: “For many Germans, the separation of waste is the epitome of ecological awareness (and this awareness is an important moral value as such, A.S.K.). When asked what they do personally for the environment, 65 percent name the separation of waste in first place. The separation of waste gives a good feeling” (Der Spiegel 2010). Germany and Austria have the highest recycling rates: “Germany is frontrunner regarding recycling in Europe. Nearly half of the municipal waste was recycled in Germany in 2010. The European average is only 25 percent” (European Commission 2012), and in 2016 the recycling rate in Germany had gone up to 66% (European Environmental Bureau 2017, 4). The UK is catching up, though, as it is the country whose rates are the ones rising most quickly in the European Union. The specific German interest in, or obsession with, the subject can be illustrated by looking at some of the numerous and variegated websites on the subject. We can often find ‘informative’ overviews: “We give you leads how to separate your waste simply and thereby to make an important contribution to maintaining the precious natural resources of this earth” (Ökokosmos 2003; see also Ökokosmos, n.d.). You can test your new knowledge, then, with a ‘Recycling-Quiz: Are you a good dustman?’ (Spiegel online Wissenschaft, n.d.). This extends to children. Waste separation for children (Youtube 2014), work material for primary schools (Grundschule Arbeitsblätter, n.d.), and of course they can test their knowledge on the subject, too (Geolino, n.d.). Language students are also being informed. The Deutsche Welle, section Learning German,

90

A. S. Krossa

writes: “The Germans are internationally known for their waste separation. But what belongs where? What do you do with an old toothbrush, for instance? Many Germans do not know that” (Deutsche Welle 2013). This is followed by a short text, a glossary, quiz questions and finally a task: “Is there waste separation in your countries? What are the differences to the German system? What would you adopt from the German system for your countries? What could the Germans do better?” (ibid.). This attitude towards the separation of waste seems to have only one, quite specific limitation. Apparently, many Germans dislike sorting organic waste. The reason typically given is that organic waste was disgusting, in other words, ‘too dirty’.3 Interestingly, in that case the problem of dirt is given priority over the moral problem of contributing to the common good by recycling. Against this background, it is not surprising that German volunteers consider it important that newcomers learn fundamental rules accordingly. In practice, however, the German system is quite detailed and rather challenging, and therefore forms a specific basis for exchange between volunteers and refugees when negotiating difference and cohabitation.

In the Field This section is based on empirical work and is subdivided into two parts. In the first, I describe a situation in which volunteers try to teach refugees about waste separation rules, including various comments and reactions. The second part focuses on different types of reflections of a volunteer and a social worker on how refugees deal—inappropriately, according to their interpretations—with waste, taking place in the same empirical context. Different types of ambivalences come to the fore as well as construction processes of ourselves and others, normality and deviance, etc. 3 In

comparison, the proportion of recycling organic waste is particularly high in poorer, more agriculturally orientated countries of the EU, where the percentage of recycling other waste is comparatively low (Eurobarometer 2011). There, the definition of dirt seems to be a little different.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

91

Instructions and Reflections In March 2015, the group meets to discuss the topic of waste separation. According to one social worker, this is a ‘gigantic issue’ in volunteer–refugee relations in general: “We really have volunteer groups who grow desperate, because again and again the (contents of the) boxes are mixed. But this is a problem of the German population, too; it has been established that people simply do not comply (with the rules)”. In all witnessed conversations between volunteers and refugees, however, difficulties regarding sorting waste on the side of the volunteers have never been openly displayed. Waste separation had already been the topic of two other meetings a few weeks earlier, but the explanation of applicable rules was repeated because, as some volunteers explained, there were ‘still problems’, even leading to situations where waste had not been collected at all because rules of separation had been ignored and there was the threat (or the actual problem, I could not determine which) of pest infestation by rats.4 The fact that this is the third time the topic is being explained seems to indicate that, with respect to the refugee home, the label of dirtiness, the stigma of being dirty in both practical and in symbolic sense, has already started to solidify. The setting of the meeting is as follows. It is a late Thursday afternoon and we meet in a large room that is a community hall of the small, local Protestant church. There are many chairs and tables, the latter are laid out with tea and biscuits. At the official starting time, no refugees are present but several of the volunteers are.5 4This aspect appears to be an equivalent of the ‘open-concealed’ reference to drug-dealing strangers in the example of Dürr and Winder (see section “Facets of Waste Disposal”). Both apparently point to a behaviour that exacerbates the consequences of not adequately dealing with rubbish and that risks a further and more serious harm to the community, by stigmatising the others beyond the immediately experienced behaviour. 5 Another theme that emerges from the material is punctuality—with similar patterns of reasoning as in the case of waste separation. It is a stereotype of the Germans, though one that is reflected in everyday life. When one of the volunteers is late this is commented on by another one who indignantly says: “Now even the volunteers start coming late!” Even more drastically this is illustrated by the practice of volunteers of whom several go repeatedly to the refugee’s home to ‘pick them up’, by knocking on the doors of their personal rooms and ‘collecting’ them.

92

A. S. Krossa

Gradually, some of the refugees arrive, both grown-ups and children. One of the volunteers takes care of the children. Eventually, one of the volunteers starts explaining to the refugees which waste needs to go into which container.6 The refugees are then asked to allocate images with different types of waste to various sections on a whiteboard, and they do so with little enthusiasm. A lot is obviously guesswork; every success is commended by the German volunteers. Some images could be interpreted as offensive to some of the refugees in the room, though, especially the image of a sanitary pad. I wonder if no thoughts have been given to that or if, indeed, this is intentional, with some idea of direct acculturation in mind, forcing ‘normality’ upon others. The volunteers take part in allocating the various examples of waste, attempting to ‘help’ the refugees, but, in fact, not a single person is able to allocate all examples properly to each waste box, which results in serious confusion among them. Again and again, the German volunteers puzzle over what needs to go where: “Pots go into the black bin”—“I never would have guessed”—“Yes, this is what the brochure says, I looked it up specially”. Then they start to discuss regional differences within Germany: “Here, at least we don’t have to rinse the plastic waste. My friend in Böblingen needs to do that”. Importantly, all this is discussed in German which means that the refugees do not understand the insecurities of the volunteers themselves regarding the subject. Only when informing the refugees on what is right and what is wrong, i.e. with an apparently unequivocal opinion, do the volunteers switch back to English. Thereby, the alleged coherence and superiority of the German group is maintained towards the outside. The refugees’ feelings to this approach of ‘we are trying to teach them’ and to the subject of waste separation itself are ambivalent, as becomes clear in interviews later. In a nutshell, and it is all too apparent, the refugees are often traumatised, generally occupied with existential problems and therefore usually far from being interested in things such as waste separation (though there are exceptions to this rule, as Chapter 5 will illustrate). One refugee from Syria comments: “People worry about 6 In

my notes, I find: “I can’t help laughing. The German system of waste separation is absurdly complicated”.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

93

other things. They always need something. Most of them have one (rubbish) bag and put everything inside. They worry about other things, they cannot think about rubbish”. With respect to the volunteers, he adds: “They help a lot. But they cannot see things from our perspective. They see us with their eyes”. While for many people in Germany the subject of waste and waste separation is defined as fundamental, even existential, as described above, it is usually not for the refugees. Two fundamentally different interpretations clash—with social consequences. As mentioned already, by the end of the year, the weekly meeting does not take place anymore because fewer and fewer refugees participated in them. One of the very few reasons given openly to me by a small group of refugees is that they have been instructed three times about the same subject, waste, in which they are not interested anyway. This has cleared the way for new forms of cooperation and indeed often more individualised, tailored support.

Constructing Social Order: Volunteers’ Reflections on Refugees’ Waste Behaviour Two examples are discussed in more detail now. The first is a straightforward comment, made to me by one of the volunteers while we were waiting for refugees to arrive for the waste separation session just described. He says: “The neighbour has chickens, they eat salad. And yesterday, I saw again that they (two refugees who live in his house, A.S.K.) have thrown salad on the compost. I don’t understand that. That much is clear, that it is something good when the chickens get that”. In these few sentences, we find characteristic constructions of right and wrong, of what is considered normal and what is not, we see outright noncomprehension and even helplessness vis-a-vis an alleged stubbornness, resulting in quite clear-cut constructions of us and them, all via a dislike of an allegedly displayed lack of solidarity with the environment, with the chickens and with the common good as such—or simply with ‘the rules’. Despite the fact that on the part of the volunteers there is a general acceptance that most of the refugees have far more urgent problems

94

A. S. Krossa

than waste separation, the predicament arising from this issue is rather serious, as it carries a reference to a more fundamental and inescapable matter. By not recycling (properly), refugees seem to demonstrate how they are not in solidarity with the society as shared point of reference, with us ‘all’. Generally speaking, in this context, the suspicion that a person impairs others in whatever way is seen as a deal-breaker, as this goes directly against the self-image of the volunteers as ‘helpers’. So, from the point of view of the volunteers, such behaviour illustrates that some, or even many refugees expect solidarity apparently but do not give it, as they do not contribute to the so-defined common good. This common good relates to the immediate community that suffers, for instance, when waste is not being carted away, but via the facet of environmental protection—and that potentiates the problematic character of this subject—it also concerns the whole world, humanity per se, i.e. universal values. By not showing solidarity themselves, which is seen as being their own conscious decision, their fault, as they have been taught about it and therefore must know, they risk withdrawing the very basis for the solidarity they expect (or are assumed to expect) from their new immediate community. And—even worse—they undermine the credit they are being given from the outset as human beings like you and me. To boil this down to an essence: if you do not take care of our shared world (as I do and in the way I do which I know is practically and morally right) your integrity and position are in doubt, you carry a risk of pollution and I distance myself from you. These values are only interpreted on the side of many volunteers as universal ones, but are in fact locally or maybe nationally influenced. On the one hand, this means that a principle of equality, that would be useful for cohabitation and its negotiation, is not inherent to the structure of the situation per se. The rules of conduct that are expected to be followed by the refugees within the corresponding new society are being taught by the German volunteers, and it is exactly this teaching structure that manifests a hierarchical gradation between longer-time residents and newcomers. On the other hand, however, the comment about where to discard salad is obviously based on the assumption that the newcomers can understand and behave accordingly, with at least a potential to achieve or manifest an equal footing with the volunteers. This means that

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

95

the openly expressed emotion is incomprehension, but the perspective is generally one of potential, and even expected, equality or, more precisely, a similarity of practices at least. This stands in contrast to the second example of reflection on newcomers’ waste-related behaviour. In a way, the following instance displays the converse structure. On the surface, it is directed towards connectivity while on a deeper level essential difference is being constructed. While one of the social workers explicitly expresses sympathy for ‘them’, he criticises ‘their’ behaviour, noting that apparently the refugees cannot but practice what they are familiar with. During the session on waste separation, he comments: “The separation of waste is not common in countries the people come from. That’s a fact. That means they are used to leaving (the rubbish) where they have (produced) it. Partly, however, they have products that are not lastingly durable, but these are natural products that are there for the process of decay (…). And of course you know it yourself: if for eighteen, or twenty years you have learned to throw something out of the window, out of the car, you can’t change that overnight”.7 This, however, is only a positive and supportive sentiment towards the refugees (addressed as a collective again) on the surface. In fact, this attitude may lower unrealistic expectations towards ‘them’ but carries the risk of deepening perceived otherness and, consequently, of further distancing. This type of understanding can ultimately have discriminatory consequences; after all, it confirms that they do not belong—simply because they cannot belong. Based on an essential interpretation of culture and difference, this is about setting a relation between us and them in stone. This situation can only be freed up if the relation is explicitly seen as a process. The same social worker goes on to elaborate: “This (waste 7I

was struck when I heard this in nearly identical wording again at a completely different occasion. In a background interview I held with the author of a leaflet that is subject of Chapter 8 (with another focus there), she said (1.02.21): “(…) for instance the rubbish – they have thrown it out of the window. And here it is simply clear: one has to throw rubbish into the bin. But how is one supposed to know, if one has always thrown the rubbish out of the window. That is simply something different”. And she adds (59.01): “Yes, this throwingrubbish-out-of-the-window simply is, then rats do come (…) (I ask ‚did you see any¿). Yes, yes, the doors (of the portable buildings) were always open (…).Well, it was not much, now, but it also was not high summer yet”.

96

A. S. Krossa

separation) is conduct that needs to be learned. They have to be taught what sense it makes (…). You have to know that you can partake in the cleanliness (…), that it does something for you (…), that separating waste does something for your health (…), you have to experience that. And not only being told (…). It fails because they (the volunteers) obviously say ‘do this, do that’, but the effect, the click, is not there”. Here, the situation becomes more flexible. Because of the introduction of a time variable, an interpretation of cohabitation as process, a potential for integration arises. This quote, however, also illustrates quite well two interesting stumbling blocks. The first one is the reference to sense that appears to be universal anyway and therefore to open a ‘naturally’ shared space for equitable negotiation and cohabitation. In fact, and as mentioned in principle before, it relates to a specific sense allegedly preset by German society. This opening up clearly follows the principle of one-sided acculturation. So ‘partaking’, too, is obviously not at eye level. The second interesting aspect becomes discernible by the reference to your health, i.e. to an individual comprehension that separating waste has some kind of—relatively direct, so the message seems to be—impact on one’s personal well-being. Here, an individual interest constitutes the explicit point of reference, not a collective-orientated common good or the like. In a way, the underlying moral expectations that are the source of social pressure on the refugees, as we have seen them, are made invisible here.8 The social worker differentiates the subject further, though, by relativising ‘our’ ideas of cleanliness—and this is a useful empirical illustration of what Mary Douglas suggests in theory. He says: “Anyway, hygiene is also part of the informing group9 : What is hygiene? Why? What is going on here? What are we afraid of? Because we deal very differently with bacteria than (they do) with the ones they grew up with. That’s how it is”. No doubt that this is a far-reaching understanding, as 8 “Factual

statements often display a crypto-normative infrastructure, because they identify ‘normative facts’ which are indirectly productive of reality precisely on account of their subdued and unacknowledged normative tension” (Pels 2002, 80; italics as in the original). 9The German word he uses is Aufklärungsgruppe. Aufklärung has an educational bias and it does not become immediately clear who is supposed to be ‘enlightened’. The groups that have emerged in various places consist of volunteers who are being tutored by social workers. The idea behind this is to train the volunteers for better interaction with refugees.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

97

it acknowledges the fundamental contingency of cultural rules both in principle and of our cultural rules in particular. He does not reach the point, though, where he is willing to call our concrete hygiene practices into question and put them up for discussion. At no point does he suggest negotiating actual hygiene practices. Clearly, the basis is continually an us–them construction, ‘us’ being in the favourable position of setting the benchmark, ‘them’ being in the less favourable position of having to follow because our ideas are as they are and stand as they are.

Conclusions So, how is social order negotiated, under the conditions of glocalisation and an increasing perception of difference? As the material and its analysis have shown, there are two important influencing factors, one relating to form and one to content. Regarding form, it is, in particular, the interpretation of the structure of difference as stably hierarchical and the resulting imbalance of the relation between us and them that pose a serious problem for developing conditions for negotiation that are based on acknowledged co-equality. The declared offers on the part of the volunteers, however, are a welcome culture and integration—both can be interpreted as offering access to what is there already, i.e. offering acculturation. This structure is also reflected in sympathy for the others, in the expectation that they need time to understand. This principally onesided approach is not even called into question when the contingency of ‘our’ cultural rules of dealing with waste is clearly acknowledged. The second, content-related, aspect here is the specific combination that characterises the handling of waste. Joint interpretations of dirt and resource, both linked to moral standards and ideas of social pollution, impact deeply on acknowledgement and social order. These two facets of the theme correspond to one another in being construed as grounded in essential difference, and they are profoundly protected by strict and efficacious rules of normality and non-normality. From what the empirical material shows, they appear practically untouchable, no matter how strong the impetus to understand, mediate and include is. Perceptions of dirtiness, the risk of pollution and being confronted with others who

98

A. S. Krossa

expect solidarity while not being solidary themselves are simply not suitable for aestheticising and thereby reducing the relevance of differences. Acknowledgements I am grateful to my friend and colleague, René Micallef, for some very useful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

References Barth, F. (1998). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Long Grove: Waveland Press. Der Spiegel. (2010). Mülltrennung in Deutschland: Die gelbe Revolution [Waste Separation in Germany: The Yellow Revolution]. http://www. spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/muelltrennung-in-deutschland-die-gelberevolution-a-699781.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Deutsche Welle. (2013). Mülltrennung in Deutschland [Waste Separation in Germany]. http://www.dw.com/de/m%C3%BClltrennung-in-deutschland/ av-17031313. Accessed 22 June 2015. Dürr, E., & Winder, G. M. (2016). Garbage at Work: Ethics, Subjectivation and Resistance in Mexico. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 52–68). London and New York: Routledge. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (2012). The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems. London: Sage. Essed, P. (2008). Everyday Racism: A New Approach to the Study of Racism. In P. Essed & T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race Critical Theories (pp. 177–194). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell. European Environmental Bureau. (2017). Recycling—Who Really Leads the World? https://eeb.org/publications/83/waste-and-recycling/84241/reporton-global-recycling-rates.pdf+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk. Accessed 14 August 2019. Eurobarometer. (2011). Attitudes of Europeans Towards Resource Efficiency. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_316_en.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015. European Commission. (2012). Deutschland spitze beim Recycling [Germany Peaks in Recycling ]. http://ec.europa.eu/deutschland/press/pr_releases/ 10551_de.htm. Accessed 22 June 2015.

4 (Not) Separating Waste: Participant Observation

99

Geolino. (n.d.). Wissenstest: Müll [Knowledge Test: Waste]. http://www.geo.de/ GEOlino/wissenstests/wissentest-wissenstest-muell-67762.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Giesen, B. (2010). Zwischenlagen. Das Außerordentliche als Grund der sozialen Wirklichkeit. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Grundschule Arbeitsblätter. (n.d.). Thema Müll: Mülltrennung [Subject Waste: Waste Separation]. https://www.grundschule-arbeitsblaetter.de/ arbeitsblaetter/thema-muell-muelltrennung.php. Accessed 22 June 2015. Krossa, A. S. (2013). Theorizing Society in a Global Context. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Krossa, A. S. (2015). Andere, Selbste, Grenzen. Momentaufnahme eines Diskurses zur globalen Migration [Others, Selves, Borders: Snapshot of a Discourse on Global Migration]. Culture, Practice and European Policy, 1(1), 16–38. Ökokosmos. (2003). Mülltrennung? Ja, aber richtig! [Waste Separation? Yes, but properly! ] http://www.oekosmos.de/artikel/details/muelltrennung-jaaber-richtig/. Accessed 22 June 2015. Ökokosmos. (n.d.). Was kann ich wo entsorgen? [What Can I Dispose of Where? ]. http://www.oekosmos.de/uploads/media/wo_entsorgen_ deutsch_01.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2008). Racial Formation. In P. Essed & T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race Critical Theories (pp. 123–145). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell. Park, R. (1928). Human Migration and the Marginal Man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Pels, D. (2002). Everyday Essentialism: Social Inertia and the “Muenchhausen Effect”. Theory, Culture and Society, 19 (5–6), 69–89. Rumford, Ch. (2013). The Globalization of Strangeness. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Spiegel Online Wissenschaft. (n.d.). Recycling-Quiz: Sind Sie ein guter Müllmann? [Recycling Quiz: Are You a Good Dustman? ]. http://www.spiegel.de/ quiztool/quiztool-52793.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Stichweh, R. (2010). Der Fremde. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

100

A. S. Krossa

Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Youtube. (2014). Mülltrennung für Kinder [Waste Separation for Children]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-rHL8Gdnps&noredirect=1. Accessed 22 June 2015.

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

In certain respects this chapter is closely linked to the previous one on waste separation. In both chapters there is a thematic focus on waste and the moral aspect of dealing with it, the risks of various manifestations of dirtying the environment. Here, the focus is both broader and more specific. Broader, because more critical materials and issues besides waste are included; and more specific, because it elaborates on the negotiation of relations between volunteers and refugees on the grounds of environmentally (un-)friendly behaviour, which is a theme reflecting a specific link with dirt and cleanliness in its social dimension and one that plays an increasing role as a basis for inclusion and exclusion, and for status in general. As discussed in Chapter 4, behaviour that (allegedly) displays disinterest in environmental issues and related, ‘appropriate’ action has a potential to be dirty in two respects, first, as being dirty materially, and second, as being dirty and transgressive in a moral sense. Both facets come up here quite clearly again but are framed in a methodically very different way, namely in the form of a breaching experiment. A breaching experiment is always about a breach, obviously. Most generally, such a breach is something that happens unexpectedly—at least for one of the participants—, irritates and often provokes reaction. The © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_5

101

102

A. S. Krossa

more obviously such a breach is directed against rules and thereby calls established forms of social order into question, the stronger its effects. On the one hand, this characteristic effect of bringing order and hierarchy to the fore is why the breaching experiment lends itself so much to the subject of this book. Constructions of selves and others via ascriptions of dirtiness and cleanliness, respectively, are both key for order and hierarchy and at the same time are quite easy to challenge, with such challenges usually receiving direct and explicit defensive responses. On the other hand, and especially as this is a rather sensitive subject, one may hesitate to intentionally expose others to a critical situation. Here, during the research process, a serendipity took place, an unplanned and involuntary breach that virtually offered itself for analysis as breaching experiment. In March 2017, a local institution near the German–French border in a conservation area for general environmental education, including a country hostel for students, applied successfully for some funding to offer a programme for newly arrived refugees and volunteers working with them. Together,1 so the original plan, refugees and volunteers were supposed to learn about the region, general environmental issues and more specific subjects, such as waste separation, environmentally friendly household behaviour (e.g. ‘correct’ boiling water for tea, airing) and ‘healthy’ drink and food. Also, they were supposed to undertake so-called land-art,2 by arranging natural materials and discussing the process, its results and meanings. For lunchtime, a vegetarian soup was provided.3 All in all, the programme was offered ten times to various local 1This aspect of ‘learning together’, addressing refugees and volunteers on the same level with environmental education, has been the initial incentive for me to contact the organisers and ask them to grant me access. It became very quickly clear, though, that this original idea had not been realised. Volunteers or even social workers only accompanied ‘their’ refugees, thereby often functioning as informal translators. In all cases, they occupied some liaising role which subverted the initial idea of being on eye level, both as ‘learners’. 2The focus here is on the explicit teaching–learning sessions that took place in the morning, as they are directly linked to the subjects dirt, cleanliness, and ‘correct’ environmental behaviour. The art session, however, has been highly interesting. It focused on creativity and individual expression, i.e. on a diametrically opposed approach to hierarchical teaching. 3 It was emphasised that this soup had been cooked with local ingredients only, and the recipe was given to the participants in writing.

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

103

municipalities that selected about fifteen participants each time and organised their journey there. With this structure and respective learning objectives in mind, a group called teachers here—a core of four people, two women and two men, all of them also active in the general educational services of the institution—approached groups of refugees and their companions, i.e. volunteers, social workers and lay translators. This time, however, things went very differently to the teacher’s expectations. This was due to the participation of a family from Syria—husband, wife and five children between six and fourteen years old. The way they took part in the programme thoroughly irritated those who were supposed to teach them. In practically every instance, this family was better informed and possibly more environmentally conscious than the teachers (and me), in complete contrast to the teacher’s expectations. The resulting confusion led to increasing alienation and awkward defence reactions on the side of the teachers, all reactions that almost invariably illustrate the intention to re-establish ‘the right hierarchy’, with the help of a number of communicative means. As for any breaching experiment, chronology is crucial, so the analysis now follows a strict order, by addressing selected sequences according to their actual succession. Thereby, it can be illustrated how an understanding of ‘the other’ incrementally developed, in parallel with an unwanted questioning of the (teacher) self. Specific reactions to the unexpected unfolded, all geared towards (re-)establishment of the order familiar to the teachers active in these sessions. In this chapter, it all revolves around knowledge related to environmentally ‘correct’ behaviour, to the corresponding underlying understandings of dirt and cleanliness, and the creation of a hierarchy that is being thereby attempted. Before we look in detail into what happened on the day this family took part in the programme, a few more general points will be elaborated on what came up the evening before, when the two female teachers met two of my students and myself at a restaurant and spoke with us for nearly two and a half hours. In this discussion, some general ideas of the two women as main protagonists unfolded that laid the ground for understanding them and their individual situatedness before the actual interaction with the refugees and their companions started the next day.

104

A. S. Krossa

The three sections of the main part are all directly linked to dirt, cleanliness and environmentally ‘correct’ behaviour. First, a general introduction where communicative strategies very clearly indicate the hierarchical interpretation of the situation especially by one of the teachers. Second, a sequence on waste separation, led by a university student as part of the team there. Finally, the part on household behaviour taught by the same teacher who did the introductory part. In the conclusions to this chapter, a summarising interpretation is undergirded by some information generated through a short background interview I conducted with the family in private.

Establishing a Basis: The Expected Hierarchical Order The aim of the meeting the evening before the actual programme was to get to know the organisers and teachers in person to understand their motivation, aims and to learn about experiences they had gained with the programme up to that point. Both women spoke openly, discernibly with the intention of making us understand what the programme is about, and more precisely their views on it. The descriptive parts—how did it all start, how is it structured, etc.—were mostly uncontroversial for them. Differences became quickly apparent, though, when one of them began to elaborate on the underlying sense of the programme and critically reflected on their role as teachers in the context. The first phase of the conversation is characterised by locating themselves in the discourse via various complaints that clearly function as delineations. Refugees are criticised for being unpunctual, having ‘awkward’ family structures, or being complicated to address in the context of ‘trauma’; while in their own local community both women clearly denounce excluding behaviour, e.g. of sport clubs and a general rural mentality of rejecting others. This is followed by expressing some positive links, e.g. with ‘highly motivated children’ or individual refugee women and their striving to find their feet in the new environment. From that follows a summary of what happens during a usual teaching day by teacher A. In the morning it is about the correlation between

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

105

environmental protection and health, “so that I am well” (I 2.07.27). Again, a constructed link between care for the environment and individual health comes up. Towards this end two sessions take place in the morning: on separating waste and on practising some elements of daily household routine in a small apartment on the upper floor of the house. The main themes—‘save water, save energy, save resources, healthy diet, waste’—are summarised in a small leaflet that is coloured in by the children and is for taking home in order to remind the participants then, as “knowing only is not sufficient” (I 2.06.02). With this comment, teacher A rings in a series of remarks that locate her more specifically in relation to the refugees, as being superior in a clearly hierarchically structured situation. In reference to the participating refuges, she says (I 1.49.35): “The experience I have now had during this time, they say about many things ‚I know – no need to tell me, I know that (…)’. Well, today it was really good, but often I sense that they say, ‘oh, got that already, yes, (…) from the waste disposal company, already got leaflets, already done whatever: (with protracted groan) we know that’. And you can tell again and again when then they hold something in their hand and we then have the four dustbins, they stand, stand before them, hm, where does this go now. So this ‘come on, I know it’, and it’s very helpful, then, when volunteers are there, too, saying: (with loud voice) ‘And yesterday, I came to your house again, it was 40 degrees in the apartment, you walked around in flip-flops with short T-shirts, and the window was tilted (short, expectant pause). And now today we have here, yes, we have today, you say you know it all with the airing, so, window open, door open, about five minutes. Now you say you know it all!’”. This comment not only reflects her conviction that the addressed refugees know less (than her) about these subjects, but also that they transgress a second time by acting as if they knew and, on this basis, reject her input. The hierarchy established thereby is further stabilised when the same teacher (A) refers to an assumed limited capacity on the side of her audience as reason for reducing the scope of the subjects taught (I 27.38): “it simply is quite a lot, and partly we realised that they, regarding, regarding their intellect, are not able, or that they stick to some themes, or

106

A. S. Krossa

simply need more, and then we cannot cover everything. Well, in the given time”. Her colleague, teacher B, on the other hand, appears to represent an almost antithetical position to hers. It is described here at some length as it represents an important counterweight, and also because it functions as an obvious provocation to teacher A. At some point in B’s elaboration, A moans loudly, however, she does not verbalise her reservations explicitly. B explains (I 1.44.46): “… so that I do reflect on myself again and again: Hey you, what are you doing here actually? Ultimately, I do not know who really stands in front of me (…). Well, so that, that I think to myself, yes, this, this being-on-eye-level, that really is a fine line, because, what kind of background does this person have, yes, what, how do I speak with him? Well, I, I, I, I, we simply use such a very simple language, that makes sense, but maybe it’s also a bit – infantilisation of the counter…, do you know, what I mean? (…) This is an issue for me from the very beginning, yes, that I think every evening, you, exercise modesty, yes? We here are not the generous benefactors, but, ehm, we, we make a small, maybe more or less elementary contribution so that they (…) can come in here. But we because of that we are not, eh, not one jot better, or, or, on the contrary, on the contrary, yes, so, I have a huge, a huge, eh, respect, I really have a very huge respect, because I think they bring their, their life with them here, and also, and then also their external factors: their education, yes, possibly a medical doctor sits there facing me, like before, an engineer sits there facing me, and (…) I tell him something about where to put his rubbish. (…) I perceive that as a tightrope walk (…). The Germans would maybe refuse to tolerate that, yes, ‚no need to tell me in which bin to throw my potato peels’. Yes, well, that is, ehm, yes, it has two sides to it, right? And so, also this project has two sides for me, it does something with me, too”. With these selected remarks the ground is laid for the meeting with the refugees and their companions the next day. We know already that the two main protagonists on the teaching side differ fundamentally in their attitudes and approaches. As teacher B is active in the afternoon art session, she plays a subordinate role for this analysis from now on, though. Teacher A, with the task of conveying knowledge in the morning session on environmentally friendly household behaviour, is foregrounded.

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

107

Establishing Hierarchy: The Introductory Session In the morning, all participants meet in a large room: four teachers, three interns, two social workers—a young Turkish man and an elderly Syrian woman, both also functioning as lay translators—, and sixteen refugees, men, women and children. Teacher A greets everyone and takes the introductory session. Despite the fact that everything is being translated, she speaks very, very slowly. On the audio document, I comment: “as if talking to three-year olds”. One of the social workers takes over the translation. She has a Syrian background and has lived in Germany for 20 years. Whenever she translates it takes up considerably more time than the original information given by teacher A—who reacts increasingly impatiently. In an attempt that is apparently directed at rebalancing the hierarchy between them, teacher A explains very patiently and slowly ‘difficult’ words, such as sustainable. After a few general aspects on too much consumption harming the environment, she directly addresses the refugees (II 1.35.32): “For now, that is not good news, you came to Germany, and some maybe think ‚Oh, that’s all really great, so many mobile phones, cars, and everything, everything is there, but the way we behave now, it is not sustainable and not good for our earth, we all have to change something about that. Unfortunately, that is the bitter truth”. Not only does she insinuate that there are no or fewer mobile phones and cars and everything in their home countries and they do like this better here, we also see a clearly stereotypical categorisation of ‘the other’ as subordinated because allegedly they are primarily oriented towards consumption which is explicitly judged as wrong—apparently in direct contrast to her ‘right’ consciousness and behaviour. Interestingly she also speaks about truth. After a while, she switches to a children’s game which she introduces, again in a way that underlines she is in control (II 1.33.01): “Ok, well, so, in order to get you moving, we want to play a little game for a start. There is this TV show in Germany, ‚One, two or three, last chance over’ (…). I ask a question and each answer is on one field on the floor

108

A. S. Krossa

(…). And the first question is: ‘how are you?’”. This infantilises the audience on the basis of a clear role distribution between asking and answering persons, with the teacher forcing the others into them ‘moving’ (II 1.30.10): “I want everybody to take part, ehm, well, everyone who is in the room may take part”. A range of questions follow. ‘Where do you come from?’ categorises one into nations. Then, ‘How well do you speak German?’ with four options: ‘not at all’, ‘understanding of German’, ‘speaking a little and understanding well’, and ‘native speaker German or speaking German very well’. Again, we witness a strong and socially critical category formation which she justifies with the necessity of forming groups for the following sections. Ideally, she argues, groups are mixed so that the participants can support each other during the learning phases. In the end, however, the two groups are split into the one family on the one hand and all others on the other hand. Cognisably, the course for the subsequent learning sessions is set. The hierarchical structure as it appears to teacher A at least is clarified, and her allegedly superior position has already been used to categorise the participating refugees, also establishing internal order and hierarchy among them. For what follows now, the focus is on how some teachers try to use the social order that has been established in this first session to structure the rest of the day as much as possible but, as the somehow coincidental breaching experiment will show, with strikingly limited success. While up to this point the leading role and knowledge—e.g. about the sequence or the division into groups—was clearly on the teacher’s side, now interaction with more mutual impact begins, and gradually the breach unfolds.

Meeting the Family: Breach Takes on Forms Throughout the morning, each group goes through two thematically designed rooms, one on the subject of how to deal with waste, the other on household behaviour. I accompany the Syrian family—wife, husband and five children between six and fourteen years—through the course, starting at the room designated for showing how to deal with waste in

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

109

an environmentally responsible way. In the second half of the morning, the two groups change rooms and subjects respectively; we then go to the upper floor of the house and speak about how to perform selected household tasks.

Dealing with Waste The first theme is taught by a university student, here named teacher C, who leads the group from one station to the next, all set up in one large room on the ground floor. It begins with various information boards, continues with several tables where recyclable, cleaned waste is prepared to be sorted, and ends with a short film on a waste recycling plant where people can bring specific waste, such as bulk and electronics. Dovetailing almost with the hierarchical approach of teacher A, teacher C greets the group by saying (II 1.15.38): “So, now (incomprehensible), feel free to come a bit closer, I do not bite”. By giving the impression of perceiving shyness or timidity on the side of the family towards himself, a timidity he could relieve them from by making a ‘generous joke’, he openly establishes a hierarchy from the outset. This is reinforced by his way of addressing the family. Instead of using the formal form Sie, he opts for the intermediate form Ihr. This is not completely unusual, especially in the region, but nevertheless not fully appropriate. Already in the first section, when looking at information boards together and commenting on them, we can see how the hierarchical order, as established in the introductory section and confirmed in the greeting, is being challenged and meets attempts of re-establishment, over and over again. Teacher C begins the session, then (II 1.14.12): “And now I am asking you, maybe the younger ones, to tell me, what a (incomp.) this is”. He addresses ‘the younger ones’, probably because he insinuates that their knowledge of German language is better, as they must already go to school. Against his expectation or wish, following the translation, the father speaks with the translator, the elderly Syrian women, and it becomes obvious that he is on to the right answer. At this moment the

110

A. S. Krossa

teacher interrupts and gives the answer himself: (II 1.13.43): “350 billion kilogrammes. That means, on earth we produce about one billion kilogrammes of waste per year”. Despite the fact that he simply reads from the board, his quick stepping in appears as if he were imparting knowledge to the others. Although the teacher is still facing the boards and speaks about them, one of the children already wants to know in which box to throw something, pushing the process actively forward and thereby interfering with the sequence as planned and pre-structured. When the father then immediately allocates something to the right box, the translator applauds and emphasises that he has done everything right. This also neatly illustrates her interpretation as being somehow in between the family and the teacher. On the one hand, she is keen to see the achievement of the family being acknowledged, while on the other hand she commends them in an exaggerated, clearly top-down way that makes her appear to be in a superior position, too. Teacher C, however, strives to regain the upper hand, by sticking to his planned succession and speaking about a board again (II 1.12.32): “If we would staple this pile of rubbish (he stops and waits for the speaking translator to listen to him again) all on top of each other and would make an enormous mountain of garbage, this mountain will be bigger than the highest mountain of Africa, that means, it would be higher than the Kilimanjaro”. Possibly also with the help of the dubious use of Africa in this instance, he gains back control by sticking to his course. This is a recurring pattern. Whenever the explanations between translator and family begin to appear to develop a dynamic of their own, he intervenes, often with targeted questions. Another recurring strategy of his is to interrupt their discussion suggesting that something cannot be explained because it was ‘too complex’ (II 1.10.54): “Those are simply numbers, dimensions, those can simply not be grasped”. And over and over again the ‘invitation’ (II 1.10.37): “Feel free to come a bit closer still”. The last subject of this board section is on several waste items and the corresponding time they need for decay. Very quickly, the father of the family—visibly increasingly keen to speak in German himself—rises

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

111

to speak (II 1.02.53): “How much problem, plastic, yes, in the earth”. The teacher replies, with a strong reference to allegedly specific ‘German’ behaviour: “This is why we recycle such things here in Germany”. Discussing returnable bottles, the family very obviously knows the system, but their knowledge is completely ignored by the teacher. He also remains quiet when the translator says about the father (II 1.01.38): “So, he knows very well that plastic is the biggest problem of the world”—a massive assertion with which the father even outdistances the statements of the teacher. The second section starts: how to allocate waste, first by reference to a small leaflet. The translator points out that the family is familiar with it (II 1.01.16): “That is from the town hall”, teacher: “precisely”, translator: “Allocate always, kitchen, kitchen, yes, so, we always hang up sheets in the apartment (…), so, to refugees (…), so, we all know”. The teacher interrupts: “I find that great, because, ehm, that, so far that stuck in the mind of all groups”. For the first time, he appears to recognise their knowledge: “Then we directly go to (the next station)”. There, various cleaned waste items lying on large tables are to be allocated to respective boxes, and the teacher explains (II 59.58): “This you shall sort, I control it, so, you don’t need to ask (…), and then you can start”. For a few minutes, the family sorts the items, with everybody contributing very actively and at the same time discussing their decisions in Arabic. The translator remarks (II 56.29): “But is not bad. As they have only been here for just two months. After two months, is good already, right?”. The teacher takes up the reins again (II 55.32): “We control now. We start with the biowaste. Precisely. So”. During his ‘control’, it remains unclear if any mistake has been made, at least none is explicitly mentioned. Nevertheless, the teacher explains extensively what goes inside the biowaste box, thereby maintaining his allegedly superior status. In its repetition, this strategy becomes really interesting: the purpose of teaching is now very recognisably not about transferring content and enlarging the knowledge of the other, but demonstrating one’s own, allegedly superior position. This is visible also when the teacher—repeatedly as well—acts as if it was about some evolutionary development, something

112

A. S. Krossa

‘we’ know already and ‘the others’ have to catch up (II 54.20): “Do you know already compost? Do you know already compost?”.4 The next subject is waste paper. Teacher C comments (II 49.16): “So, all packaging goes (incompr.). Paper, journals, newspapers, all goes into the waste paper box. Well, there everything super sorted, everything fits”. Again, although the family did everything exactly according to the rules, and he even acknowledged it, he rattles off his lecture on the subject, with the translator commending the family: “Bravo!” Suddenly, however, the teacher detects a mistake he overlooked previously (II 48.58): “But now I see something here!” After some unclear criticism, he expounds (II 48.35): “That’s important. Yeees, there you must pay attention, if that is now coated or not – yes? (Pause) Well, I, I would put it in here”. For the first time and despite the ongoing lecturing tone, we witness a moment of hesitation, even resulting in a half-open wording regarding where he would put something. This is remarkable, as it makes the facade of the omniscient teacher crumble slightly, though with no lasting effect. At the next station—plastic packaging—there is a similar overall picture. Again, the teacher states that everything has been done ‘right’ but reels off an extensive listing of items that go into this bin. After the translator remarks directly to the family (II 46:11): “Super. Very good. Am I proud of you”, and the teacher visibly feels pushed to agree: “I’m now, ehhhh, positively surprised”. This is not only winkled out of him by the translator’s remark, but still he remains the point of reference. This is reinforced when, at the next station—residual waste—he seemingly tries to win the upper hand by explaining something in much detail, apparently intentionally making it complicated. Deliberately slowly— implying that this was ‘really difficult’ for his audience—he elucidates (II 46.02): “Here we have, so, I will take the glue. If it is still full, you can throw it into the residual waste box. If it is completely empty, now, it goes into the plastic waste”. Throughout the translation, the family appears to guess or know right, unfailingly so. He continues: “But you can also go and, if only a tiny weeny bit is inside (…) you can take it out. That means, you also can separate there”. 4The following discussion clarifies the point that for the family this as well as garden work is something that (tacitly the less refined) peasant population does, not them, as they come from a large town.

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

113

While it seems that teacher C does become increasingly aware that the hierarchy of knowledge (and possibly a general one) is not as he assumed, his strategies to fend this ‘imbalance’ off become more and more elaborate. He asks (II 45.10): “Why do you, or do you think, the empty, the broken laundry basket goes into the residual waste?” Following an extensive discussion in the Arabic language, the translator begins (II 44.31): “So, they mean that is large …”. The teacher interrupts: “I have asked a nasty question, it was a trap”. The use of a ‘trap’ illustrates the perceived urgency to stick to his alleged superiority. Apparently, he assumes that he has to apply tricks in order to generate a wished-for insecurity on the side of the others that supports his desired hierarchical order. Their answer, however, is sophisticated. They assume that something that is made of recycled plastic cannot be recycled again—something he does not react to at all. Instead, he wordily lists which wrong opinions he met on this matter previously. At some point, I intervene with reference to their original question (laundry basket in residual waste box) and the family’s answer, saying (II 44.00): “that was correct, right?”. Slightly hesitating, he replies: “It is – right. But you can also, if it is a smaller basket, put it into the plastic waste, no problem”, thereby also indirectly confirming the family’s first idea, namely that it has to do with size. When it comes to the subject of throwing away medication, a lengthy discussion in Arabic develops, following the teacher’s remark not to flush it down the toilet. During this discussion, the father uses the word ‘Kläranlage’ (purification plant) in German, indirectly showing a rather high degree of education and interest. The translator then picks up on a particular aspect (II 30.11): “So, well, he asks now, comes good question, into toilet now, so, medication or syrup, syrups or so, medical ones, not into the toilet”, teacher: “No”. The translator continues: “So. He asks now, the cleanser, the toilet-cleanser, the WC-, eh, cleaning, eh, and odour (incompr.) and all, all that with chemistry inside, and then? So. How, how does that go now?” After a short pause the teacher replies: “That is a very good question”, and after a faint laughter he continues: “Well, what the heck, the, ehhh…”. Following a discussion in Arabic again, the translator specifies (II 29.27): “Because, for instance, if one compares, well, that bit of syrup or residue so, medically, we pour, is less than the toilet, the toilet cleaner. Because that one does maybe either

114

A. S. Krossa

every other day or every day (incompr.) and that is much more, now, in the toilet, right?” After some indecisive consideration of the teacher, interrupted again by a discussion in Arabic, he says (II 29.00): “Well, that, that, that, eh, (‘überfreut mich jetzt’, untranslatable),5 to be honest, because I, I have, ehh (…) no, I did not think that far, ehm, well, I also think that, two to three times a week toilet cleaner, I think that’s quite a lot”. Translator: “Ah, well, at home we do that, too”, teacher: “Well, then one has to diminish that a bit”; translator: “Yes”. When she translates this into Arabic, the group laughs loudly, which may hint at a reversed ascription of dirtiness by the group of Syrians. When it comes to the subject of glass waste, the course of communication changes slightly. It begins as usual, the teacher explains (II 26.29): “You have said really well already ‘bottle bank’ (incompr.). and we also have bottle banks, there are differences, you know, right?” After a short translation, various family members list “white, or red, brown”, to which teacher C replies: “Precisely! Precisely! Great! (Pause) And it’s important that you simply separate them, so that they can be made properly into new glass…”. As usual, he ignores the completely correct answers and proceeds with his prepared speech, but this time, the translator clearly interrupts him and begins to speak again in Arabic with the family who does not react at all to the teacher. This is an exception, though. Overall, all participants go along, in a consistently friendly way. This contribution on the side of the family as an active effort to allow the teacher to keep up appearances becomes once more visible in an even more obvious way when the subject of where to dispose of batteries comes up, which is actually brought up by the family. The teacher elaborates (II 21.27): “But please, never ever go and throw these batteries into the residual waste, because in it is battery acid, that is highly acid and dangerous”. Following the translation, the father says (II 21.00): “It is, there is, or, eh, carbon, carbon, carbon, eh, yes…”. As the teacher, whom he addresses, is not reacting in any way to his knowledge, he identifiably backtracks, half-asking: “So this battery, battery into the cage”, which is then confirmed in a lengthy way by the teacher again. So, when 5This is untranslatable, because he inadvertently mixes two German words: ‘freut’, which means that he is pleased about this question; and ‘überfordert’, which means that he is overtaxed by it.

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

115

the larger, more specific knowledge of the father becomes unmissable, the teacher’s reaction is to simply sit it out by not reacting to it. The father, rightly, interprets that as a kind of rejection and is eager to carefully balance the situation again, allowing the teacher to get back into his allegedly superior role by asking him something. It is only then that the teacher—back in his desired and predefined role—is able or willing to react to him again. Already at quite an early point of time, all participants clearly know that the established hierarchy is false. Evidently, the family is highly educated and often knows in even more detail about the subject of waste separation, visibly with the more particular aim of environmental protection in mind. Not one of them ever openly calls the session into question, though, and neither is the teacher criticised in any perceivable way. The obviously false hierarchy remains untouched in principle, the teacher is allowed to save his face, the family simply deals with being downgraded, obviously for the sake of a functioning communication structure.

Household Behaviour In the second room on the upper floor of the house, we are back with teacher A who previously held the introductory session. Now, it is a session on ecological awareness and household behaviour. She greets everyone in a very friendly way, though in a generally patronising tone, rather as if speaking to children again, and with a strong tendency to immediately commend everyone especially for minor things. At the first station, the family is presented with a choice of drinks: Coke, water and apple juice. Discernibly, the father has developed his self-confidence in the previous session, and immediately takes the floor (III 46.46): “I, eh, always, always say, this not good. For my children. Always. I say this not good, but, as children love Coke, but I say always, always, this not good, this not good, problem”. Following this statement that is obviously hard to beat regarding the expressed determination, teacher A asks why it is not good. The father replies again (III 44.57): “All material not organic, all material, eh, eh, make material, not, eh, not nature”. The teacher agrees and asks again in more detail about the

116

A. S. Krossa

ingredients. While the father tries to list them, she reads the label with one of the children. After his detailed contributions to this subject, the father attempts to go one better and suggests using Coke as toilet cleaner (III 42.24): “Eh, eh, clean toilet at home. Yes, yes! If toilet long time without clean, it becomes (incompr.)”. At the same time, he tries to introduce a grey zone to the discussion, an unusual move for this subject and this group. He is critical of the role of advertising for Coke but, at the same time, apparently considers it wrong to simply forbid it and/or his children to consume Coke (III 41.26): “If they, eh, children see it (incompr.), but all control? Ah…”. Teacher A once more inserts her knowledge about how many litres of water are necessary to produce one litre of Coke and comments (III 39.28): “It’s a terrible world!” whereupon the father differentiates and speaks about the company that controls everything. The pattern of the teacher explaining and the father actually knowing better, or knowing more details, continues on the subject of food. Teacher A lists various vegetables that grow in the region and complements it with a reference to labels that can be found on regional products in supermarkets. This, however, does not go far enough for the father, who asks (III 28.11): “There is supermarket only organic, organic?” With this, he again goes beyond her explanations. Instead of answering his question, the teacher explains where the produce of her local institution, the conservation area, can be bought. Again, the father tries to get more specific information (III 27.28): “farm?” In an exaggeratedly laudatory manner, the teacher replies: “There are, yes, that’s even better, that is even better!” And once more, the father proves his impressively detailed knowledge by mentioning a small village nearby where such a farm shop sells local organic produce, which is confirmed by the teacher. At the next station, on how to make tea, another facet of the relationship evolves: a half-open negotiation on how the teacher treats the family. The teacher commences by addressing the eldest girl (III 25.47): “Ok, I want you to make a cup of tea, or you, do you want? Voluntarily?” A short discussion in Arabic follows, the father makes a comment that is incomprehensible to me, but the teacher apparently understood him, as a contrived laughter reveals (III 25.26): “No, I don’t think so! I want a volunteer who brews a cup of coffee all on his own, you can

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

117

do that”. Especially the last sentence appears massively condescending and obviously functions to re-establish her authority after an apparently quite restrained criticism of her way of communicating. This is further emphasised when she adds: “Who wants me to tell you directly how it works”. When she sees that no one replies but, again, a discussion in Arabic unfolds, the teacher interrupts and insists (III 25.09): “How do you make a cup of tea?” Laughter, more discussion in Arabic, but finally one of the girls makes the tea. Inspecting the teabag critically, the father turns the tables and commends the teacher on her selection of tea (III 24.01): “organic, organic, organic, …, very, very good”, which remains uncommented by the teacher. Suddenly, however, she takes control again, several times loudly exclaiming ‘oooohhh’! A few moments later, she explains (III 21.24): “We have just realised that we often do something without thinking about how to do it best”. It turns out that the girl forgot to fill water in the kettle. Interestingly, the mistake is not openly discussed, but instead the teacher decides to use a patronising ‘we’ and then a strategy of excessive praise (III 20.07): “Never mind, that was very good, that was good! (Pause) Normally, it happens the other way round, you round off the kettle with water and (incompr.), then it boils and one waits (laughs) five minutes”. During the changeover to the next topic—the father says ‘heating’ several times already—she again praises (III 19.21): “Yes! Was good!” Visibly, she reinstates her authority doubly as she commends the girls excessively ‘despite’ her mistake. When arriving at the heating, the teacher explains (III 18.56): “In Germany, in many countries it is not possible to switch the heating warmer and colder. But in Germany it’s possible”. She is gently interrupted by the father: “In my apartment in Syria, I have heating in earth”, translator: “underfloor heating”, father: “modern”, translator: “Modern…, so they do not have to turn”. When this elicits absolutely no reaction from the teacher again, as with the sorting of batteries, the father immediately backtracks, saying: “I know, eh, this heating always needs three, sometimes, very, very cold, so large apartment, needs four”, followed by a combination of commendation and very obviously unnecessary instruction by the teacher, who now is recognisably back on track, after she was addressed as putative expert: “Exactly, exactly. Super. But one can regulate it”.

118

A. S. Krossa

A discussion follows with everybody contributing examples of others who deal wrongly with heating and temperatures, accordingly, thereby establishing a joint other. The teacher starts (III 17.50): “And that is important, because, we, when we, ehm, I often experience that, ehm, my parents have an apartment, and Syrian housemates live there, too, and in winter they sometimes come with sandals, with flipflops (..). Yes, and short shirt, right?”. The translator adds keywords such as ‘sauna’ and ‘utilities’, displaying a remarkably strict attitude that appears to be ‘more German than the Germans’, acting on her own stereotype. The father, then, explains at some length what, according to him, are the reasons for such ‘wrong behaviour’ such as long cooking times, wrong airing. Thereby and coincidentally, he also introduces the next subject, pushing forward the process again. Being called upon to demonstrate how to air correctly, one of the girls tilts the window, then her sister intervenes, switches off the heating and opens the window completely. The teacher cheers, followed by the remark (III 10.48): “Ok, but I think you have understood this”, the ‘but’ being completely incoherent again. Quickly, we change to the subject ‘hanging out the laundry’. The children do it ‘correctly’ and draw praise. The translator passes on the father’s question (III 8.57): “He now asks, what could, now, that something is done wrong”. With this, again, the father goes one step further in his interest, expressing incomprehension of what could possibly be done wrong at all. The teacher passes the question on to the whole group: “What could have been done wrongly?” The group guesses and demonstrates examples, such as hanging laundry over the radiator. The teacher remarks that it is better to dry items on a chair or a cupboard than on the radiator. Again, the father has a better idea and refers to a washhouse (III 7.54): “Sometimes in cellar, there is large room (incompr.), with washing machine, not in apartment, in cellar”. And then, he even dares to admit that he sometimes goes against the ‘rules of drying’: “But sometimes clothes need heating. I say what I do sometimes”. The teacher sticks fully to the rules and cautions against mould and very high energy usage. It is the translator then, again, who puts forward positively the general attitude and the encompassing knowledge of the family by saying (III 3.58): “That has never happened to me before. Such a (incompr.)”. I

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

119

agree with her, to which the father replies: “For the future of my children, not for mine or my wife, yes”. The teacher manoeuvres herself between apparently authentic surprise and, again, exaggerated and somehow patronising commendation: “And I think you are doing that really well. I am totally impressed (…), I am also…., great. It is much appreciated to have such fellow citizens. Truly, really appreciated”. The translator replies: “Well, conversely: so, they are very grateful that they are shown everything and that they can participate, and, well, how Germany makes an effort”. The teacher adds (III 1.27): “And, we had another ten stations, I don’t think we have to do them with you (…), yeeees! It’s fun with you!” It is impressive how the end of this session seems to follow a particular and idiosyncratic choreography. Initiated by the translator, the knowledge and overall behaviour, possibly also status, of the family is being acknowledged to a degree. The teacher cannot help but express some acceptance that appears to be genuine. Still, she sticks to her ‘superior’ role, commending mostly. It is only the term ‘fellow citizens’ that may indicate a slight movement towards meeting on eye level, however, with her last remark—‘it’s fun with you’—she re-establishes her position as the judging one as well as the respective order. Nevertheless, in this final sequence, everyone is trying hard to acknowledge each other. The family even links this with an expression of gratitude and thanks, obviously contrary to the reality They did not (need to) learn anything, in fact they could have taught the teachers some things. Especially the teacher seems to be exonerated.

Conclusions: Interview with the Family and Some Remarks After the first session on separating and recycling waste, and especially after understanding that a kind of breaching experiment was going on, I was keen to understand the background of the family. I wanted to understand what their motives were for delving so deeply into the subject of ecological behaviour, and if they saw themselves as an unusual case.

120

A. S. Krossa

I began to ask why they know so much and how the system here compares with the one in Syria (II 10.16): “My question is, how do you know so much? Why are you interested in this?” The eldest daughter replies (II 9.56): “Because, eh, we come in German, and ehm, we, we must, we must, ehm”. When she continues in Arabic, the father interposes: “Respect”, and the translator adds: “we learn everything and join in”. The father then speaks in Arabic, his daughters comment, and the translator summarises (II 8.27): “He is the person, well, in Syria, when they go on an outing, a family outing, outside of town, right? And they take fruit, food, something with them, ehh, the Dad or the Mom, they always have with them a bag, and throw everything in a bag and take it home with them”. I ask: “So it has always been like that, right?”, and the translator replies: “They are not like other Syrians, who leave the filth where they have had their picnic, and then, eh, drive home with empty hands”. Following further explanations in Arabic by the father, she continues (II 7.53): “And here, because is sorted, then, well, then sort”. To my question if that is unusual in Syria, the eldest daughter replies and is translated (II 7.01): “Yes, well, they are not interested, well, in (incompr.), at home, there is no waste and waste container, and whatever, there are no bin lorries, well, of the, town, well in the villages, all this is left behind. You see, and therefore, that hurts him, when he sees that. Therefore he takes it all with him again, so, so that not, eh, waste flies about in the villages… Is exception, are not all”. After a short discussion with the family, the translator elucidates (II 5.30): “Is a saying, well. I think is even in Quran, so this is not an Arabic saying but it is in Quran, well, the cleanliness comes from God. So one should or by belief. It is, well, attached utmost importance to”. The father emphasises (II 5.05): “In town, if you there a street, if I (incompr.) see, I must take to bin, must, not….”. And finally, even to my relativizing comment that this was a moral discussion in Germany which is a bit exaggerated sometimes, he sticks to the principle, as the translator summarises (II 3.40): “Although this is a bit exaggerated, but nevertheless, the Germans do”. It is against the background of this decisive positioning of the family with respect to protecting the environment with their own ‘correct’

5 Environmental Education: Breaching Experiment

121

behaviour, that the teachers perceived the necessity to cling to the predetermined structure of the hierarchical social order. Throughout, they addressed the family as if they were ignorant. It is the fact that their expectation and stereotyping has been proven wrong in the very first sentences of each session, in combination with their stubborn clinging to it, that offered a unique chance to understand how the social meaning of the endeavour was not to equip others with knowledge but consolidating the hierarchy of that particular social order. Order has been defended by not acknowledging the environmental—and accordingly the moral—‘cleanliness’ of the other. The more obvious their impeccable status became, the more doggedly it has been warded off. The next chapter takes up both aspects that have been the general subject of this and the previous chapter: definitions and consequences of waste and environmental protection, as now viewed through the lens of clothes donations. It also starts with an—involuntary—breaching experiment.

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

For me, there was a key moment (…), in any case, it was winter again and we were here at the (intercultural A.S.K.) café, and a friend accompanied me, ahem, she, yes, she looks a bit more southern, and some elderly woman was here, who somehow held up a jacket to her (…) and wanted to offer her a winter jacket, because she thought she was also, ahem, seeking refuge, well, that was simply, that was a really grotesque situation (the others laugh), all of us involved parties did not know, how do we handle this now, she only said, then, ‘thank you, I already have enough winter jackets’, to somehow bluff her way out nicely. (3, 50:03)

As becomes most obvious with this quote effected by a misunderstanding, donating clothes can by no means be reduced to a somehow neutral, mechanical process of someone giving and someone taking clothes. Much more differentiation is required regarding actors and their practices, as everything in respective processes is fundamentally associated with social meaning. This subject teaches us crucially important things about social order as constituted via hierarchies and morality. It does so on the more general level of mobility. Mobility as the intensified and often enforced circulation of people—refugees and, more © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_6

123

124

A. S. Krossa

generally, migrants—is an important focus of current public attention and political discussion. Migration is obviously based to a large extent on preconditions which are shaped essentially by (post-) colonial structures. Here, it serves as a starting point for looking at subsequently developing forms. In the realm of migration, i.e. mobility of people, how do objects circulate, and how do actors take part in this with specific practices? How are objects, practices and actors equipped and associated with symbolic meaning, and how do they function together? What dynamics, ambivalences and paradoxes can be detected in and arise from corresponding interwoven circulations?

Preparing the Ground In the following three sections, I offer more specific theoretical substance for this chapter, focusing on the concept of society, and I specify the research focus and posit some hypotheses, as well as giving information about the field and the methods applied.

On Circulation and Society: Some Theoretical Considerations Via the lens of concrete situations with central actors as well as involved materials or objects and practices, the formation of order(s) and its potential effects on sociation sense are looked at here. This is closely linked to the already stated broader theoretical interest: how does society emerge and work? What supports processes of sociation, what hinders them? As already stated, broadly understood, social integration depends on interactions that contain a degree of agreement as well as of disagreement, and more precisely, both elements need to be activated in social exchange. The question of activation becomes an issue, however, if conflicts that in fact concern ‘all’ are fragmented into communications within different groups where themes are addressed in diverging ways and thereby withdrawn from an overall discourse. This can compromise the chances

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

125

of sociation considerably against a given horizon, with respective society as point of reference. Here, the concept of circulation comes in. Answers to the question ‘Who circulates what with whom in which ways?’ bring to light borders of collective subjects as they are not only perceived but practically emerging—typically as a side effect of practical performances (see Reckwitz 2003; also Langenohl 2010, 49): “Meaning of collective identity and its borders emerge (…) from practices that are not primarily (…) geared to the production of such meanings but take place on an everyday and highly institutionalised basis”, and “all of them ‘transport’, or more precisely: make specific conceptions of self and other emerge” (Langenohl 2010, 49f, with reference to Pels 2002). The importance of the circulation of material and the generating of collective subjects and their circles lies with the significance and potency of the imaginary. It arises “as by-product of social practices”; its constitutive, imaginary moment lies in a “circular relation between the idea of a collective and practices of circulation of symbols”, which in turn “generates the conviction to be part of a larger, abstract context” (Langenohl 2010, 51). By including the imaginary and its characteristic focus on narratives and discourses, the practice perspective is complemented. Both form a substantial basis for the questions on sociation and society. And more concretely: how do practices of circulation of materials— complemented by occasional reflections—indicate social order, including respective collectives, their borders and relations between them? How do various groups function, also together, in a framework of society, especially if diverging or even contradictory interpretations of objects, related practices and narratives develop in sub-circles?

Research Focus and Hypotheses We witness the following typical process. People migrate, and from the perspective of a specific place and its inhabitants they do ‘come in’ somewhere else, in this case here. Ideal-typically, and therefore necessarily much simplified, a situation characterised by perceptions of meaningful difference, of ‘us’ meeting ‘them’ unfolds and does so on both sides. Thereby, ‘we’, as established residents (and this obviously can be

126

A. S. Krossa

a relative term only), see ‘our’ world being challenged, while the newcomers must usually fundamentally reorientate themselves in the new place. Social order is irritated and (re-)established, with various actors, objects and practices symbolising and transporting respective structuring processes. One example of objects that carry symbolic meaning and structure order by practices are clothes, especially in the process of clothes donations. Thereby the object ‘clothes’ becomes symbolically meaningful by virtue of its material mobility. Ideal-typically again, several actors are involved. First, long(er)-term residents as donors or ‘givers’; second, refugees as beneficiaries or ‘takers’; and, third, volunteers as mediators— of the material as well as the ideational, as we will see—in a position somehow in-between. Here, the initial focus is on clothes as data, though. This means, we look at textile data and follow them as a medium. In the process of changing place, context, association and symbolic character by being given and being taken, clothes shift their points of reference and meaning accordingly. In the very moment when giving and taking coincide, a particular dynamic unfolds. The altering of the view changes the material; it literally becomes something different. And as this process is by no means self-evident or even automatic, the material of clothes is undoubtedly saturated with meaning. This leads us to the ratio, which underlies this analysis fundamentally. It is a twofold issue in fact. Such circulations are both pre-structured by social order, and such circulations have consequences for social order. The concrete question here is this. What precisely do donated clothes trigger in this process with respect to the various actors and their circles? What meanings and messages are transported in the process of clothes circulation? How do processes of including and excluding take place on such grounds, and with what possible effects for society? This analysis targets two levels. The first is structural. Which circulations can be detected, what are their connections to orders? The second level is one of content. Which references to dirt and cleanliness and as a supplement to ecology are identifiable in practices and their reflections? As already mentioned, both the reference to dirt or cleanliness, and the one to ecology, do indeed carry a heavy and multifaceted moral load.

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

127

Morality in turn, is intimately connected to legitimacy and social order. Possibly in all societies, being defined as dirty means being stigmatised, excluded in one way or another. Few attributions function so forcefully towards exclusion and, by implication, inclusion as much as social ‘naturalness’ (see Chapter 2 in this book, Mary Douglas 2002; also Duschinski et al. 2016). As elaborated on in some detail in Chapter 5, in some Western societies (and Germany certainly is one of them), the reference to ecology gradually reaches a similar status and functioning. Not being eco-sensitive is considered a serious transgression, especially regarding liability towards future generations. Both themes also transport an idea of pollution, including a general risk of contamination. Consequently, social order is organised in especially rigorous, forceful and lasting ways via such attributions. How, then, do donated clothes oscillate between ‘waste’ and ‘precious recycling material’ linked to ecological awareness? How are respective labels attributed to clothes (or other materials) and, subsequently, to persons and groups of persons— via both practices and verbal contemplations? How do they thereby contribute in practice to the establishment of inside and outside, hierarchy, selves and others, in a nutshell to social order? And ultimately, coming back to my fundamental theoretical interest, how do respective, empirically observable, practices and documentable contemplations impact on forms of social interaction and chances of sociation (Vergesellschaftung ) and society in a conflict theoretical perspective? The following hypotheses frame the ensuing analysis. Migration as a form of human mobility is a trigger of consequent forms of mobility of things and signs, supporting circulations and subsequently a variety of circles. In the present case, these circles as they appear from the outset are (a) a first sub-circle, combining long-established residents as ‘givers’ and volunteers as ‘intermediate takers’; (b) a second sub-circle, being constituted of (also in this case: mostly long-established German) volunteers as ‘intermediate givers’ and refugees as ‘takers’; and (c) one joint circle of ‘all people being here’, i.e. being locally in a place and forming together society as horizon. These circles are linked via circulations in a variety of exchange processes, all contributing to a constantly emerging joint social order. They are thereby based on the material ‘donated clothes’ and also develop their own dynamic and logic on it. From this suggested structure

128

A. S. Krossa

of various circles stems a variety of underlying criteria of inclusion and exclusion, and ultimately of social order. These criteria are mostly not in accordance with one another but rather in some degree of opposition with one another, at least. The fact of diverging orders in the various circles and their, at least partly differing, logic impacts on conditions of sociation and society. Results are not one-dimensional, though.

Field and Methods This research focus will now be empirically analysed in detail, based on the example of volunteers collecting donated clothes and distributing them to refugees, refugees’ reactions to this activity as well as volunteers’ reactions to the refugees’ practices and verbal comments on the matter. The underlying data stems from two group discussions in 2019 in an ‘intercultural café’ in a rural area of Rhineland Palatinate. Volunteers and refugees were addressed in two separate groups. This main data corpus is complemented by selected comments from more generally oriented qualitative interviews of 2015 with refugees and volunteers that served as stimuli for helping to deepen discussions. In 2015, when exceptionally large numbers of refugees arrived in Germany, donating and distributing clothes was in full swing. In 2019, practices of donating and donated clothes are still important, but less of a core activity than previously and overall more differentiated regarding persons, places and tasks. When speaking to volunteers and refugees in 2019, the emphasis has shifted from general reports to a more focused discussion of practices and opinions concerning donated clothes. I am invited to a small community centre in a village that functions as an ‘international café’, a meeting place for established residents and newcomers. It consists of several rooms, including a smaller office, a corner with a kitchen and a glass counter for cake. The main area is a large room with seating facilities and a play area. On a large shelf that functions as a room divider, a few items are publicly displayed, mostly small household goods and a few pieces of clothing. In reply to my question the volunteers explain that, ‘previously’, they had distributed lots of clothes and

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

129

other things, and that this shelf is a residue of that time, and that visitors can still help themselves to what they need and want. When I arrive, volunteers and refugees are in all areas, except the office where the group discussions take place. As nearly all volunteers are there but many refugees have not yet arrived, we start the discussion with the volunteers. At the start the group consists of four volunteers, and another one joins after about 40 minutes. Except for one, they are all over fifty, and except for one they are all female—thereby largely representing typical characteristics of such activists. After nearly an hour of group discussion with the volunteers, they leave the room and make space for sixteen refugees from various national backgrounds, among them Ghana, Eritrea, Syria and Azerbaijan. The small room is now crowded, as everyone who is there wants to take part. This second group discussion lasts less than half as long, but has contributions from several attendees, even though most of them have only basic knowledge of German language. The majority are young men between twenty and thirty-five, some older, only two are women and two girls, again quite representative of the incoming group overall.

Data Analysis: Circulation of Donated Clothes in Practice How is the material, i.e. the donated clothes actually circulated? How can the overall circle be described on this basis? Which sub-circles become visible from the analysis of our data? And with respect to contents, how are attributions of meaning to both objects and—largely derivatively— people used to generate social order by adducing references to dirt–cleanliness and ecology? How do both forms and contents of circulations impact on chances of sociation? The empirical analysis shows that the clothes undergo a transformation as perspectives on them change throughout their process of circulation. In any case, though, these interpretations of clothes, related attributions to actors in respective social positions and correlating practices include and exclude seminally. After looking at the sub-circles, their practices and (assumed or affirmed) reasoning, we will turn to what could be

130

A. S. Krossa

interpreted as a joint circle or shared horizon of the various actors in the field.

Sub-circle One: Donors and Volunteers Donating clothes is the most popular form of charity in Germany; more than a million tonnes is donated every year. Most of the donors in the two analysed contexts here are long-term residents. Broadly, we can differentiate two fundaments of donating, largely depending on age. While members of an older generation often actively remember being a refugee after the Second World War, being poor and receiving donated things themselves, the younger generation is quite familiar with the practice of buying second-hand clothes for themselves and possibly their children. More specifically, donating as a form of administrating clothes is usually motivated by two ideas. The first is the idea of doing something good for someone poor, obviously also linked to avoiding (or justifying) one’s own profusion. The second aspect is the wish not to throw things away that one does not need anymore, thereby avoiding the production of waste and pollution of the environment. As such and reflected in discourses on the matter, this represents a mixture of altruism and (moral) egoism. Experiences as portrayed by various volunteers, however, show that many of the actual practices do refer to the self. At the same time, wearing used clothes has become more ‘fashionable’ in the past few years. Following the UK, Germany and other Germanspeaking societies also adhere to this trend, especially among the welleducated middle classes, as this segment of the volunteers’ group discussion illustrates (3, 33:04): “I am an absolute advocate of second-hand, I think I haven’t bought anything new for (laughs) a year, maybe a pair of winter shoes or so, but apart from that, ehm”, (4): “Yes, but for different reasons, not because of indulgence, but”, (3), “exactly, on a variety of grounds! For sustainability’s sake, ahem, but also, ahem, because it has a financial advantage for me, so, definitely”. Such appreciation for used things and clothes, in particular, is even more visible with respect to children’s clothes. In Germany, many parents worry about chemicals that are used in the production process of clothes.

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

131

These chemicals need to be washed out, so they believe. This could be seen as verging on a paradox. From this point of view, new clothes are dirty, contagious and dangerous, while used and washed clothes are clean and safe. Hence, to many German parents, the ‘responsible’ decision is obvious: used clothes are superior to new ones, both with respect to their assumed cleaner and therefore healthier status and to the utilisation as valuable, recycled material.1 It is also considered morally right in contrast to throwing away and polluting the environment (3, 35:22): “What lasts, for years (…) are children’s second-hand shops, also here, because I have the feeling that the acceptance and the inhibition level to go in there is much lower”, (2) “also bazaars”, (1) “also on flea markets (…), children’s clothes sell well here”. Especially in the years 2014 and 2015, volunteers received masses of donated clothes and other used things. In some towns, social facilities such as the Red Cross rented additional buildings to store donations as they were unable to sort and distribute everything within a reasonable time and existing capacities. Sorting and distributing clothes (and children’s toys, prams, sanitary products, etc.) became the main and often a challenging task of many volunteers. Again and again, they report that donors simply deposit used clothes at the door of volunteers’ homes without ringing or asking (3, 55:50): “…well, at my place often, because the people knew I am dealing with refugees, clothing donations have be delivered, ahem, sometimes also against my will (laughs)”. This often created serious problems of distribution. Referring to a reception camp for refugees which used to previously exist nearby, a volunteer recalls (4, 53:02): “There were always such completely chaotic scenes, well, they opened for an hour only, came from the camp, waited (coughs)”. Another volunteer continues (2): “Later, they got ration coupons (…). Ration coupons for one or two winter jackets, for two pairs of shoes, for seven underpants (laughs), pretty much like this, so it went”. Since then, however, the task of distributing donated clothes became less important compared to other tasks, although it is still practiced in principle, in more individualised forms. Volunteers put online precisely what is needed (4, 25:00) and also the donors are more specific (2, 1 And

I cannot except myself from that.

132

A. S. Krossa

24:18): “People really come with announcements (…) I have this and this and this and this (…), what do you need, and then we practically write wish lists”. The clothes arrive in very different conditions (1, 14:42): “Most of it is washed, ironed”; (2, 14:28) “I fared a bit differently before (…) you experienced anything. Scrupulously clean clothes – and also – (quieter ) dirty underpants”; “I then got into the habit of wearing rubber gloves” (2, 13:56). Another volunteer adds (1, 13:51): “There are German families, and I do say ‘German’ deliberately, who declutter themselves, they put the sacks in front of the door for us”, and directly supporting this, another one comments (5): “Sometimes, there are things that are clean, however, that could not be given away anymore”. Consequently, every piece is looked at and assessed, as they consistently assert—according to apparently existing criteria of a classification system. The ‘best’ are given to the refugees. Then, a large part of the donated clothes is separated out and allocated to various ends, depending on their condition (1, 13:29): “Then we still put it, if it is possible, in the clothes container, otherwise in the refuse bin, then we have contact with the ‘Rumänienhilfe’, there we also deliver lots of things so that we do not offer anymore”; (1, 54:54) “At the moment, I have 50 pairs of shoes for sure, used shoes standing about, I pick over them (…) and either if it is bad, container, or if it is good, Red Cross”. Another issue that the volunteers have to deal with is that the donated clothes usually do not correspond with the season of the year, i.e. typically, after the winter, when people need spring and summer clothes, donors give away their unwanted winter clothes, and vice versa (1, 58:48): “When summer is over, then clothes come in, and now the winter (is) through, there come slippers in large quantities (laughs), unused!” Also, the size and style of donated clothes often do not match the needs. As early as 2015, two volunteers mentioned the fact that donated women’s clothes are often far too large for arriving refugee women. In 2019, volunteers indicate that they often get donations after people have died. These practices and the related artefacts—often a particular type of clothes, in tatters, wrong season, size and style, or even dirty—indicate to the volunteers that on the side of the donors the aim of getting rid

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

133

of something they do not need or want any more often is at the core of the practice of giving (3, 9:07): “and there is simply the intention ‘I want to be rid of it’ and not ‘I want to do something, something good with it’” (multiple endorsement ), and (3, 56:58) “there were also many things (…) that I separated out at home (again and again affirmation by other volunteers), ahem, because there was much that was good for nothing (…), where I, however, am under the strong impression that the people did not give that to me because they were too lazy to throw it into the container, but because they thought ‘it is still good enough for refugees’. But, well, trousers, ahem, torn open at the crotch, no one can wear anymore”. This critique, however, is mixed with an appreciation of life experiences of elderly donors (2, 8:38): “Born out of bitter hardship. Just saying, after the Second World War it was not better here either. You had really nothing, and you were grateful for everything that there was”, (1, 56:07): “old people are like that, yes”. Although some of these practices can be understood against the background of particular generational experiences, many do point to a structure where the donors take themselves as the starting point, while the other, the refugee, is a mute, a kind of background figure who primarily meets the function of attribution. This, then, is in a way superimposed by ideas of doing something morally right. This puts the volunteers in an ambivalent position towards the donors, as they do know that many things are not wanted or needed but shy away from outright rejection (1, 55:34): “Well, we also have many calls from families where the parents have died, the old people have died, if they can bring the things to us. Ahem, we take that, we have not rejected it in 2015, now, meanwhile, we reject it, ahem, refer to the Red Cross, right (…), there they shall drive to”. References to dirt and respective constructions of others can be detected easily here. We see the ascription of dirtiness to donors by volunteers. And on the basis of apparently existing criteria, volunteers categorise the donated clothes according to cleanliness and dirtiness as well as to various degrees of usability and respective addressees. The rather obvious issue that the process of donating clothes is mainly self-referential (e.g. wrong season) pollutes the material additionally in a moral-symbolic way in the eyes of the volunteers. Discernibly, the donors to an extent

134

A. S. Krossa

hold the position of an other in relation to the volunteers. This is not necessarily the case from the perspective of the refugees, as they usually do not come into direct contact with the most problematic—dirty, mouldy, somehow unusable—clothes nor with the donors themselves. The volunteers clearly understand themselves as mediators, apparently with a function of protecting the refugees and possibly also avoiding (collective) embarrassment. The aspect of ecology is of unclear importance in this context. Obviously, the practice of donating clothes documents a preference for re-using over throwing away. However, the concrete motivations can be manifold such as one’s own experiences of being migrant or refugee, it being easier to donate than to throw away, and donating as being explicitly eco-friendly practice, etc. What are the consequences for the social level, then? We can easily identify that refugees are seen—and constructed—by both donors and volunteers as needy. This corresponds with an image of one’s own superiority on the side of the giver. Clearly, it is this hierarchical structure that enables the practice of giving as a type of helping. And helping always presupposes a hierarchy of someone helping and someone being helped. Undoubtedly, and one can assume in the vast majority of cases, it also expresses solidarity on the basis of a certain proximity to an other, a proximity that manifests itself already in an active cognition of her or him and their—potential—needs. Nonetheless, this practice of giving also creates the other as such. And all practices, that express a focus on the self, weaken the aspect of solidarity and emphasise the element of social hierarchy. This sensitive subject is discussed in some depth when the volunteers themselves slip into the role of a donor (3, 13:07): “But somehow it is also, donating yourself is also always somehow a moral thing. I think so at least for myself. When I sort out and wonder, what would (…), the thought, I would rather throw it into the container, but would someone else still be glad about it? Or is it already so borderline that someone else would feel somehow degraded, because he thinks ‘someone wants to offer me this?’” Another volunteer adds (2, 12:15): “I always think: ‚if I would wear it, then I give it away, and if not, then I throw it away”. This change of roles also prompts a general reflection in which the issue

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

135

of hierarchy is made explicit even, by directly assigning a lower status to the supposedly weaker part (3, 10:41): “I think, this, this imbalance in power occurred to me more. Yes, between donor and receiver, ahem, because there is an intention, well, one attaches intention to what one gives, namely either, I give this to them, the big them, ahem, because they will simply take that, or I really want to cede something hence it helps somebody, yes”.

Sub-circle Two: Volunteers and Refugees After receiving and sorting the donated clothes, a process of selecting and redistributing or throwing away starts. With these practices, the circle of social relations on clothes between volunteers and refugees is activated. Two perspectives are differentiated in the following: that of the volunteers and that of the refugees.

Volunteers’ Perspective As of now, most of the newly arrived (and still arriving) either already have sufficient clothes, etc. or are equipped with a sufficient number without problems, so the whole issue is seen as far less urgent by the volunteers. And they also observe changes in the selection practices of the refugees, and openly address them in the discussion (2, 19:47): “It is simply that again: I select, I do not get something allocated, I choose myself ”. Others confirm (1): “That makes all the difference, yes!” and speak of (3): “self-determination”. Some of the volunteers consciously react to this changed situation (1, 8:38): “No, well, we let them look for things themselves. We say, then: ‘have a look and choose for yourself ’, right. We do not influence that at all”. One of the volunteers, however, presumes a more fundamental hesitation on the side of the refugees (3, 33:20): “Well, I always hear the stupid line ‘I am not cheap, why should I wear cheap clothes?’ (…), somehow the fear to be reduced to that (…) being needy”. Here, the discussion takes an interesting twist, as the volunteers start to contemplate why the refugees may not want to take everything they

136

A. S. Krossa

are offered, since, after all, these clothes have been checked and approved by them as ‘the best’ and consequently appropriate for the refugees. At first one simply mentions (3, 39:50): “this making-oneself-invisible via clothes, ahem, that one wears the same clothes as everybody else”, and adds (3, 39:21): “That is inconceivably important that one, yes (…), that one by no means stands out. That one by no means gets out of line somehow”. Another volunteer takes this argument one step further, by focusing explicitly on an aspect of cleanliness (2, 39:12): “And what also catches my eye, they are all so overly spruce. So, they are all, when they come into the café, they all smell like perfume, they are freshly showered, one notices, the hair is still moist, that (…) maybe follows a similar track, by no means standing out negatively, ahem, well, there is nearly no one who does not smell freshly showered when they come here, well, that’s really… (affirmation from others)”. This is followed by a differentiating and critical discussion on standards of cleanliness of different groups of refugees that allegedly vary considerably. Most importantly, this shows very clearly the tightrope walk between being dirty, being clean and being ‘too clean’. Both so-defined extremes are problematic and certainly raise suspicion. In the final phase of this group discussion, the volunteer who joined the group later, takes up the thought again (5, 6:35): “yes and, and, the line is fine between ‘too well-dressed’ and ‘how do they go about’ (laughing and agreement by the others)”. More specifically, volunteers notice hesitation on the side of the refugees towards donated children’s clothes, and in line with the abovementioned attitude characteristic of many Germans towards used children’s clothes in particular, they consider this ‘strange’, e.g. that refugees do not make more use of second-hand sales where mostly parents sell the clothes their children grew out of (3, 34:58): “… and I don’t know if that was because it was too little publicised, whereas, I have addressed ours individually back then. (…) yes, now, that has not really reached them yet, but maybe one has to really spell that out for them and tell them ‘here, that’s how it goes, why not buy yourself something there’”. More specifically, another volunteer refers to layettes, identifiably with incomprehension and some ironic distance (1, 32:28): “But, what occurs to me, where really nothing used is bought is layettes. All of that must be

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

137

new (laughs)”. After another volunteer voices appreciation—the refugees receive state money specifically for this, and it is much fun to buy things for such small babies, so the argument goes—she continues: “Yes, yes, but then we sometimes have small cots stand about, no, everything must be new”. Another adds (3): “Yes, it has, I think, to do with a feeling of self-worth”, and (2) “My child is worth it to me”, and others agree. Being rather marginalised, she seems to yield: “Yes, is ok, good heavens”, but a bit later adds (1, 26:26): “What I want to mention again is that at the food bank single German mothers with children take a lot of clothes with them”. Another one comments (2): “There, this other conduct is clicked. It takes three more years, then it clicks with the refugees, too”. Here, a characteristic lack of understanding towards the refugees’ practices of ‘not-taking’ what is being offered to them becomes apparent. To the volunteers, the refugees behave irrationally and will simply need time to ‘catch up’. A general tendency of expecting assimilation is unmissable. This supposedly self-evident rationality is based on the preceding practices of the volunteers and their interpretations, of course. From the perspective of the volunteers, the problem of dirtiness seems to be solved in the very moment of selection. As they have sorted out any dirty or unusable items, they see no reason for further disruption, distribute and expect everything to go smoothly. Also, they conflate this with an ecological advantage: they assume that not throwing usable clothes and other things away is rational. In fact, and aside from such rather indeterminate impressions and irritations, what ensues typically is the following. The refugees take the clothes that are offered to them by the volunteers. And then, the narratives of the involved parties diverge. The volunteers on the one hand report several lapses on the part of the refugees. They do, for instance, perceive a problematic egoism with some of the refugees. In 2015, especially women from Eritrea have been seen to ‘grab and take everything’ and to ‘not share’. Along similar lines, also in 2019, sometimes an economic interest (and respective ‘professionalism’) is assumed (4, 47:35): “(…) there were some rumours, they, they stack the living room full with, ahem, cups and plates, and then a dealer comes from Belgium, collects it, or I don’t know now”. And another one says (1, 45:13): “But, ahem ahem, a great experience that we had, I told you,

138

A. S. Krossa

we also get clothes from discounters, ahem, once we got pyjamas and stuff, and then a co-worker of ours has been to a flea market in XXX, and there they stood and sold our things, I mean of the ‘Tafel’. Were wrapped and all, (…), and there they have sold them on the flea market (laughs)”. While these experiences are obviously met with scepticism, another practice is seen with more mixed emotions, i.e. passing on the donated clothes to others. First, the volunteers delineate the situation as they see it (1, 57:33): “We have many, many Russian Germans here, so we have many, many clothes that do not stay here (laughs), let me put it like this, that goes East (laughs)”. Other volunteers amplify this with reference to people from Eastern countries (2, 58:10): “They accumulated materials here and have indeed taken the stuff by the box, in packets, and have sent it home, guaranteed”, and (1, 42:22): “as mentioned earlier, those people who came from the East, they still send parcels to the East, you can tell. Also at our place, they take whatever they can get, right”. Then, the discussion takes a slight turn, when a volunteer indicates her understanding to a degree (3, 42:03): “I think that is similar to the return of remittances back to home, (…) similar with clothes donations”; (1): “It’s ok (deprecatingly)”, (3): “yes”, (2): “well, it’s just, it maybe destroys the industry in the home country or damages it, right, and there, the clothing industry, so they …”, (3): “well, otherwise China comes in…”. What seems like a little detour on a first sight turns out to illustrate an important aspect. For the first time, the volunteers not only have diverging opinions but also utter them directly and risk open disagreement among themselves. While there have been hints of differing positions before, now it becomes visible how their roles are largely allocated: the critical one (1), the understanding one (3)—importantly, she is married to a refugee and holds a specific kind of intermediate position in this constellation—, and the others somewhere in between. At least to a degree, conflict is now activated among them. Directly related to our point of cleanliness and dirtiness is the following comment then (4, 46:36): “In any case, that also plays some role, well that, ahem, that we observed, some take, let me put it this way, a new T-Shirt every day, then they do not need to wash it”, (1): “Yes, that happens”. At least implicitly, we see here a reproach towards some

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

139

of the refugees as being lazy, greedy, etc. Most interestingly, though, the question is if they consider the refugees so dirty that they simply wear (without previous washing) the donated, used clothes, or if they consider their pre-selected clothes to be so clean that they could be worn without any more previous treatment. In any case, it suggests that ‘some refugees’ do not want to or do not wash clothes at all. The same incomprehension can be seen with the following example. In 2015, two volunteers reported that they had found a donated children’s jacket in the dustbin in front of the refugee accommodation, and they commented: “But that coat was still good!” Because of this experience, they were so disappointed that they decided not to collect and distribute clothes anymore. Using this example as a stimulus for the discussion in both groups, volunteers and refugees, very different comments come up. In 2019, the volunteers are recognisably familiar with this pattern (1, 18:43): “Yes, this is always the problem, yes”, and another one supports this by mentioning a refugee accommodation where the dustbins are always very full, also with clothes (4, 17:54). However, there is also a certain degree of appreciation of this practice. One volunteer points to the fact that now many refugees already have a lot of clothes, especially those who arrived in Germany between 2014 and 2017 (3, 17:20): “They have clothes coming out of their ears, because they have been stuffed with them (endorsement by others). At the first moment, they accept everything, many do not say no out of courtesy (1: ‘That’s exactly the point’), and then they inspect and sort out at home. And then, what would be, I don’t know, for me the logical consequence, I bring it back if I don’t need it, then partly ends up in the dustbin, if really no one else wants to have it, it ends up in the dustbin, although it might still be good, because, first, they do not know that there’s a container where it could be thrown in, ahem, and second, returning it would be, it was a present from someone after all, and that would be then – impossible to simply give it back. That creates conflicts”. Here, we encounter a moment of exceptional clarity—however, this position is expressed by volunteer 3, the one with an intermediate position because of her personal situation, as mentioned above. As usual, this tendency of understanding meets an attempt at balancing by a counter argument (1, 16:40): “Yes, this happens at the ‘Tafel’, too, when they move from one

140

A. S. Krossa

apartment to the next, then the town hall calls me, ‘we have so many clothes and so many toys, can you fetch it’, because they simply – leave it, right, and move away. Well, that is indeed, ahem, the feeling, I must have, I must have, I must have, and then they do not necessarily know what to do with it, that is indeed sometimes (…), we also experience that with foods”.

Refugees’ Perspectives Now we turn to the group discussion with the refugees and they draw a very different picture in their narratives. Importantly, it turns out that they are familiar from their home countries with the practice of donating clothes. To my question regarding their country of origin, they reply (A, 8:03): “Yes sure, yes sure, we have that”, and all of them confirm it. Another one adds (E, 7:56): “Helping is helping. The rich give and the poor take”. This illustrates clearly their awareness of the structure and its hierarchy. There seems to be an important difference, though, as apparently in their home countries typically new clothes are donated, not used ones (D, 7:46): “Now, for instance, whoever has no money, he takes that, whoever has money, buys it and then gives it to us”. This is a crucial difference, as such a practice of giving new clothes constitutes a very differently connoted circle of vestimentary mobility, especially with respect to potential processes of polluting, and respective practices of dealing with the material. It also impacts on the effects of social ordering, even if the new donated clothes may be of a different quality than those the givers may typically buy for themselves. In reply to my question, what do they think is the reason why Germans do donate clothes, they react positively throughout (D, 7:28): “Because they want to help that or, and, not throw away, and that they give this other people (affirmation by others)”. Several express gratefulness and acknowledge the help they receive from the donors in this form (A, 21:02): “In my case, for instance, it was good, Yes. Super. Because in these times we had not enough money. We had family in Africa, we also had to send money. For example I get 300, 20 Euro or so. Ok, of these 320, if I buy clothes plus jacket plus shoes, what can my children

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

141

eat? They do not eat that. Best, wearing the old clothes and sending the money to your children”. Also today, several of them emphasise, they are grateful to donors (A, 19:25): “These people have (incomprehensible) done super, respect for these people, much respect”. Others clearly avoid answering anything directly to my questions but smile or laugh. While the endeavour to say positive things about the donors is very obvious, two aspects of ambivalence come up, evidently inadvertently: a reference to the sometimes low quality or status ascribed to the donated clothes on the one hand and the issue of potential pollution and a respective risk of contagion. On the first aspect, the following remark stands out (A, 19:18): “Because, maybe they have no other things to give to us. They want to give us, but they have only these things, and they have given us, that is right”. In other words, it may be old or unattractive clothes, but they, i.e. the donors, do the best they can—not ‘good’ necessarily, though. The second aspect—of potential pollution and risk of contagion—becomes even clearer, for instance in the following contribution to the discussion (A, 19:55): “Today I have work fortunately (…). If is there now, too, I do not say ‘I don’t need that’, whatever. I did that, I am still healthy, nothing happens. It nothing happens because it is old, because a person wore it”. This is a crucial moment of this group discussion. For the first time, though indirectly and via negation, a suspicion of some kind of dirtiness and a related risk of contagion on the side of the refugees surfaces. Clearly identifiably, there is such an assumption, and it separates groups, i.e. the refugees on the one hand and the mostly German donors as potential contaminators and accordingly constructed other on the other hand. When the same person then refers to those refugees who do not want to accept used and donated clothes, he delineates himself against them, too, and rather drastically so, to make sure I understand his rejection, thereby creating a further group of other (A, 19:09): “There are people who say, ‘nooo, nonsense, why do they give such things’, shit people (common assent )”. In this thematic context, the example of the discarded child’s jacket touches a chord (A, 13:44): “For instance, there are also people who think negative and who think positive. Maybe they thought the children were ill or so, they are scared. Or maybe, there are also people that do not want to take from other people. (…) They say ‘yes, why,

142

A. S. Krossa

why is better than me? Why can I wear his clothes?’ There are also such people”. Discernibly, ideas of pollution and ascription processes of status resurface here jointly. Despite the delineation from those who do not accept donated clothes, this does not mean that only used clothes are worn. With many of the refugees having jobs at that point of time and better financial means compared to the period of their arrival in Germany, the practice of buying new clothes generally gains in importance. One of them reports a shopping trip to Frankfurt, where they bought five pieces of clothing, looking for sales. All of them, however, emphasise that today they also keep taking donated clothes. Several complain that in fact too few are offered to them. Only gradually, a grey zone between sheer gratefulness and pure ingratitude as the two extremes on the surface becomes apparent. As early as 2015, refugees explained to me that they do not really want these clothes but ‘take them for the sake of the volunteers’. Results of the group discussion with refugees in the year 2019 confirm this, although it takes a moment to understand the direction of the argument (C, 12:01): “Maybe, they do not like, but when they give that shows they take, therefore, that they are not happy, ahem, (…) they do not want this, they are not happy. Therefore, they take, but really they don’t like. This is respect, ahem, taking for respect. But they do not like. And they do not say, but at home throwing away (laughs) (multiple affirmation). That is normal, that. That has also happened”. Another one agrees (A, 11:09): “That happened to me, too. No idea what, anything, had given to me and (…) (I) say ‘yes, fits, that is right, thank you’, and oh, we have laughed a bit and so, and then I made a week at home, and then I threw away (comment: ‘It is like that with us, yes’.) If I say ‘no’, the man understands – different. He thinks different. But if you say ‘yes, thank you. You did well’, whatever if next time he also comes back again with a good (incomprehensible), one does not know”. This is a particularly nice and detailed example of a typical communication structure of avoiding conflict—by deliberately shifting the conversation towards the harmony pole of the continuum, despite the disagreement that actually exists. Practically, the conflict is not activated and communicative forms like laughing together and explicitly reaffirming and commending the other on his or

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

143

her actions support this. Alongside this kind of politeness stands the fear, of course, of not being asked again if one rejects an offer once (A, 10:21): “No, he does not come back”. Interestingly, one of them continues to convey the impression that this is a weakness on the side of the refugees, not ‘the Germans’ (C, 6:50): “The problem is, German is nice, Germans are nice, therefore directly says, when German does not like that, says no, I don’t want, but we, no, no-one”. To my inquiry, how many pieces, for instance, out of ten are useful for them, they reply, surprisingly consistently (C, 5:50): “Maybe, maybe sometimes two, three (widespread confirmation)”, “really good, yes?” Only one girl, the very first one to reply, visibly still perseveres perceiving me in a specific position of (German) other, answering (D): “All”. Three themes follow on from this information that a comparably small part of the offered and accepted donated clothes are indeed used by the refugees. The first is the question why so many were not useful, and they refer to the type of clothes, for instance (F, 4:30): “Old men’s clothes – XXL (the others laugh)”. The second question evolving from this is what they do with the clothes they do not want. At the outset, they emphasise that they share the donated things among each other (A, 8:57): “If got two, one must have one, too, we did so (…), really good”, e.g. if someone works and cannot be present. Another practice of sharing is just leaving clothes there for others (C, 5:26): “Seven always stay here, throwing there”. Alternatively, they say they throw unwanted clothes into a clothes collection box (F, 5:24): “quite direct put in container, in container for the clothes”. This is remarkable, especially as in 2015 one of the refugees openly stated that people were traumatised and not interested in waste separation at all. In any case, this step of getting rid of unwanted clothes is kept from the volunteers. To my inquiry, if they talk about this with the volunteers, they reply with an unambiguous ‘no’. One comments (C, 3:41): “Simply different”, and another one immediately adds (D): “He asks us: ‘Do you want the clothes?’ we say ‚yes!” The third linked question is what kind of clothes they want and keep. While in 2015, refugees told me that for them new clothes are more attractive than used ones, the group in 2019, by contrast, focuses on

144

A. S. Krossa

branded clothes. There is a strong interest in second-hand shops: “Second hand always washing, because second-hand people good clothes giving, selling that, a little money given (…). I also sometime buy secondhand” (C, 3:19); others agree and seem to report to each other what they have bought there in the past, some refer to brands, I hear ‘Adidas’ several times. In any case, what they unanimously consider absolutely indispensable is washing everything before wearing it. In reply to my question, all talk over each other (9.47): “Yes, sure! Yes! Must, must! Must, must, must! Must, must! Must, must, must, must! That must wash!” This is the issue to which the refugees react with the most obvious correspondence. It could not be made any clearer that they interpret the donated clothes as (potentially) dirty. Then, one of the refugees holds his arm out to me and scratches it, laughing and clearly indicating fear of contagion with skin diseases, with the others laughing as well. Apparently, however, this is not about visible dirt: to my question if the clothes are dirty or clean, they reply, again talking over each other (9:16): “No, clean. No, always clean! Clean, clean”. It is obvious that the circulating material, donated clothes and the corresponding practices somehow link two worlds (at least), especially with respect to their interpretations of dirtiness in connection with a risk of contamination. In the view of volunteers, as mentioned above, in the moment they offer the clothes to the refugees, there is no issue of dirt (anymore). They expect smooth proceedings and are alienated by some practices of some refugees. Examples of actions of refugees that they perceive and interpret as highly problematic are: ‘grabbing’ instead of sharing, taking ‘too much’ and throwing donated clothes away. All such behaviour is interpreted as inappropriate, partly even as overt ingratitude. In their view, this is due to a multiple breach that is based on diverging interpretations of valuable, reusable material or environmental protection, respectively, but also on perceptions of more general ethics that all reflect back on interpretations of the other and impact on social relations. Such interpretations lead either to rejection or to a degree of understanding. The latter, however, is also coloured by a specific type of tolerance towards ‘alienness’. Generally, if a self-image of altruism of the volunteers is allegedly met

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

145

with blatant egoism and unfairness, this is stressful for the volunteers. More specifically, with respect to children’s clothes—in the view of the volunteers—parents carry out a double breach. If refugees do not use used clothes, they endanger both their children and the environment, i.e. the future world of their and our children. Although the data shows that volunteers can become very emotional in this context, they intervene openly only in exceptional situations. One volunteer tells of parents who bought very cheap children’s toys from China (3, 20:07): “but then we stepped in and pointed out that that possibly is, that, when the child puts it in the mouth, that that can be poisonous”. The refugees, on the other hand, assume dirtiness on the side of the (German) donors, and more specifically, a risk of contagion with (skin) illnesses through their used and donated clothes. They try to counter this with washing everything before wearing it—a strikingly consistent result. Ecology could also play a role, but in fact there can be other reasons for throwing clothes into the clothes collection boxes, e.g. solidarity. The circulation of clothes brings the underlying structure of social order to the fore and constitutes it at the same time. Thereby, the various actors are being linked to each other, but simultaneously, differences are brought out and illustrate processes of divergence.

Conclusions The circulating material—donated clothes—recognisably oscillates between ‘useful’ and ‘dirty’, between ‘waste’ and ‘well reusable’, and is linked to ‘health’ and ‘morale’. Its analysis brings out social structures and allows us to see their construction processes, here including some unexpected effects and paradoxes. It illustrates how opportunities of sociation are created (or not) on the basis of various (degrees of ) conflicts and different degrees of activation in social interaction, and in some cases how social convergence and divergence develop at the same time. A core aspect of this example, as of many others, is the issue of social inequality. People meet, occupying different social positions with diverging definatory power, often still broadly representing colonial structures.

146

A. S. Krossa

One side gives, one side takes, allegedly one group aims merely at mediation but clearly holds an elevated position in the hierarchy. This prestructure forms of exchange and social relationships as processes, and as easily to read as telling snapshots in time. This is not the last thing to be said about social structure, though, as the data discloses. A second look establishes how the order that manifests itself on the surface of social relations is being subverted by counterinterpretations of refugees. According to these interpretations, their ‘own’ group and its behaviour are morally clearly autonomous, if not even superior. They are fair, as rules of sharing prove; they are respectful, as they adapt to the expectations of the volunteers and behave accordingly by politely taking everything these offer; and they are extremely clean, evidenced by the affirmation that they ‘always’ wash ‘everything’ and rather assume that ‘the other’ could be dirty or ill, in any sense hazardous for them. Consequently, the established order is being questioned, though not openly contested. In relation to the third circle mentioned above, the one of a joint society of people being ‘here’, in one place, we can establish how on the grounds of these competing self-images and respective narratives, the circles tend to diverge and parallel orders develop, with clearly identifiable practical and communicative strategies of distinction and demarcation on both sides. This equips both parties with a degree of autonomy, but hinders sociation and thereby undermines potential convergence–or ‘integration’—to an extent. At the same time, however, some practices of circulation do align. Here, the most striking example is the use of clothing collection boxes by refugees instead (or in addition to) throwing away, as stated in the year 2019. ‘Alignment’ in this case, however, is more a form of assimilation. As elaborated on in the conceptual Chapter 2 on dirt, the subject is very difficult as a basis for achieving compromise. Although communication practices of both volunteers and refugees are problematic regarding the potential of sociation and society, it is not hard to tell that this split between groups usually is also functional to an extent. Towards their respective inside, their group members, the opposition to an other certainly conveys a sense of belonging together against him/her/them, it equips the respective inside with ontological security— and especially for the lower status groups—some collective power and

6 Circulating Used Clothes: Group Discussion

147

subversive potential. This, however, as Georg Simmel has already stated, is the function of the scapegoat for any group, and that is rather banal. But there is yet another way to look at this. The groups may have different imaginaries and interpret situations accordingly, but are still linked via the circles of material and symbolic exchange. The practices relate them to each other, or, in other words, everybody acknowledges everybody else mutually in practice. And thereby, also a larger, shared framework is acknowledged and put in effect, namely society as point of reference, cutting across the immediate groups. When we take the situation as an example in which one refugee had been offered something that he did not want in fact, but agreed and laughed in a friendly manner and took it anyway, we see that this indicates a shared framework that cuts across the groups refugees and volunteers, precisely because conflict is not activated. This again hints at the importance of keeping a timeline in mind. Especially at the beginning of social formation, it may be more effective to establish a general foundation of trust before exchanging conflictually. In the medium to long term, however, this is sociation-averse, supports a tendency to closure, and is therefore problematic for society as a shared framework.

References Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and Danger. London and New York: Routledge (originally 1966). Duschinsky, R., Schnall, S., & Weiss, D. H. (Eds.). (2016). Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. Langenohl, A. (2010). Imaginäre Grenzen. Zur Entstehung impliziter Kollektivität in EU-Europa. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20 (1), 45–63. Pels, D. (2002). Everyday Essentialism: Social Inertia and the “Muenchhausen Effect”. Theory, Culture and Society, 19 (5–6), 69–89. Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32, 282–301.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

“Toilet habits apparently divide universally into ‘washers’ and ‘wipers’ – and most ancient people were wipers: ‘These words refer to how people clean themselves after they have excreted. Washers use water, wipers use some solid material like grass, leaves, paper, sticks, corncobs, mudballs, or stones’” (Smith 2007, 28; with reference to Winblad and Kilama 1985). This quote probably made you feel some disgust—toilet habits are a sensitive topic. As they are typical of things we do every day, they are not part of our active reflection, let alone our public one. Historically we taboo the subject increasingly and put it behind the scene, onto the backstage. The main reason for this is its recalling of the bodily character of our existence that runs counter to our continuous efforts to repress and cultivate the body and its functions, its ‘banality’ and transience. It’s being taken out of public sight and discourse seems to allocate only subordinate meaning to the subject, though. In fact, it illuminates how seriously the topic is taken. The ‘wrong’ use of the toilet, interpreted as dirty and dirtying, and as posing a risk to oneself and to others, is considered a serious problem. It is typical of subjects that have been declared taboo that, in order to © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_7

149

150

A. S. Krossa

come to the fore, to be openly discussed and reveal their social significance, the usually hidden subject needs to be activated by a perception of a form of crisis to cast off its taboo protecting, allegedly self-evident form and status. As the issue and its pitfalls came up remarkably regularly in interviews and discussions from the very beginning of my research on refugees and volunteers, I decided to dedicate a chapter to the question of how selves and others are constructed via ascriptions of dirtiness and cleanliness against the background of ideas of dirty and clean toilet practices. Despite the fact that the subject has often been mentioned and discussed in reflexive ways, I opted for a different, more practical approach, namely role play. I placed the focus on a group of volunteers I have known from several meetings and discussions since 2015. The initiative makes use of role play as a method itself, when striving to convey ‘basics of German culture’ to newly arrived refugees in a reception camp. During the time of the highest numbers of incoming refugees in the past decades, i.e. in 2015, around 6000 persons were placed in this centre near a mid-sized town with nearly 90,000 inhabitants in the middle of Germany. For my choice of design for this chapter, i.e. using role play as method in reference to this particular group and their approach to volunteer work, three aspects were decisive. First, as the subject is a very practical one, I wanted the focus to be on practices. It is precisely the largely non-reflected character of practices that reveals underlying social ideas to the researcher much more directly, i.e. behaviour and action that are otherwise simply seen as self-evident and normal. Such detachment of any conscious scrutinising indicates a pattern of social protection that societies apply to aspects that are particularly precious to them, and always closely linked to the logic of the existing order. As we are interested in revealing respective structures, patterns and arrangements, a practicebased approach such as role play lends itself to this analysis. On this basis, then, the concrete practices are analysed as incentives and triggers of respective communication. Second, as role play is also the chosen approach of the volunteers to convey knowledge to their audience, i.e. the refugees, they are generally familiar with the logic and identify with it. And third, most of the group members have known each other (and myself ) for several years, so there is a relatively uninhibited atmosphere

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

151

that allows for a higher degree of social exposure, such as that required in role play assignments.

Method and Context As in the previous chapters, before I analyse the actual empirical data, I will give some background information on the layout of this study. First, I explain in more detail the method of role play and the reasoning for applying it here. This is followed by further elaborations on the volunteers’ group and its activities.

Method: Role Play The most important expectation of role play as qualitative method is that it provides us access to complex social situations that are otherwise not easily cracked. It does so by allowing participants to slip into various roles and, by using bodily as well as verbal instruments for communication, to express themselves or the characters they represent in a more direct manner. Ideally, this offers us as researchers the normally invisible information we depend on. Importantly, role play has the crucial advantage of not asking anyone to reveal anything about herself or himself directly. On the surface, the opposite is even the case. People are requested to ‘play’, i.e. to break away from their ‘usual me’. It is exactly this detour, however, that often equips us researchers with more information than we would ever have been able to obtain by asking for it. In the assignments, it is generally key to start out with a task that lies broadly within the ‘comfort zone’ of the participants,1 and then to carefully augment the degree of challenge, step by step. Ultimately, the usual, the ‘normal’, needs to be called into question, by putting the selfevident into crisis. It is a process for all participants including the game master, that is premised on time and sequencing to an extent, depending on the chosen degree of regulation. In my view, it is important to include 1 Of

course, it is important to leave the decision of any active participation to each and everyone in the room, to force no one into any task or role.

152

A. S. Krossa

a section of reflection as part of the course, ideally towards the end of the activity.2 By applying role play to this subject and group, I hoped for significant examples with respect to both content and form. Regarding content, I expected to see and understand what the volunteers considered normal, and if there were differences within their group. Also, I wanted to learn what they assumed the practices of the ‘others’, the refugees, were, and how strongly these presumedly differed from their own normality. Additionally, I was interested in whether they would manage to put themselves in the shoes of the others, switching roles of volunteer and refugee by ‘being placed’ in the other country as refugee themselves and taught by Syrian, Eritrean, etc. volunteers there. With respect to form, I was particularly curious to ascertain whether the volunteers would initiate reflections on their own interpretations of the roles, i.e. if there would be a kind of dynamic process or ‘learning curve’ even, expressed in challenging their own practices, role interpretations, and consequently their underlying assumptions of the other and themselves. And more specifically, I wondered how openly they would express themselves towards each other and myself, how varied their interpretations would be, if and how they would pick up contributions of the other volunteers and comment on them or develop them further, how they would experience their personal limits and express them, if and how they would become aware of their practices and potential impact. Would they actively change behavioural patterns throughout the role play situation, and would they be willing and able to call themselves in question, possibly in quite fundamental ways? Throughout, my aim was not to ‘teach’ anything to anyone, and my focus was not on individuals but on the group and its dynamics.

2 Sometimes,

and also in this instance, participants make some reflections during the process, from time to time also in the middle of a role play sequence. Here, I tried to allow some time for this and only intervened when it became too long and seriously disrupted the course, pointing out that there was to be a session of reflection a bit later.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

153

Context: Group and Activity Having started their activity in fall 2015, the composition of the group is remarkably stable, which is also due to a core team of two (female: A, male: B) who organise all contacts, action and personnel planning for a piece that requires around five active contributors every other Saturday. Their underlying idea is that refugees with little or no German language skills arrive at the reception camp, their first port of call, and have little or no idea of what is expected in most basic respects of them by their new environment. Aiming at conveying some fundamental ideas and rules, and knowing that they cannot rely on verbal mediation, this group of volunteers developed a range of scenes on a variety of subjects they consider to be of immediate use for newcomers. Examples are using the bus, shopping without bargaining, washing dishes and sharing tasks between the genders, or using the toilet. They meet and go on stage, so to speak, in a room in the camp that is provided for them by the camp administration. The typical procedure starts with the volunteers ‘inviting’ the residents of the camp by singing and beating a drum loudly while walking through the hallways. Shortly after, they begin acting the various scenes, mostly with pantomime that is complemented by very simplified verbal explanatory notes. In February 2019, the volunteers and I meet in the room in the reception camp where they usually do their role plays. On this day, four male and five female volunteers are present, aged roughly between 20 and 70, and representing different educational levels. This particular meeting— no refugees are addressed on this day—starts as social gathering; everyone has brought some food that is being shared. After a while, I am asked to say a few words on what I have planned. I explain that I want to focus on their toilet scene, would like them to enact a few variations and then offer to discuss this with them, also as an opportunity for self-reflection. For my research interest, two elements need to be established for a start. First, what is, in the eyes of the volunteers, the usual, the familiar, the appropriate, and second, what are their ideas about practices of ‘others?’ Only on that basis, i.e. in the opened area of difference and possibly conflict that potentially unfolds its dynamic between the two sets of interpretations, can I systematically address how the volunteers deal

154

A. S. Krossa

with perceived differences. I am especially interested in how these are interpreted with respect to their allocated meaning beyond the immediate social situation of a potentially ‘dirty’ bathroom, with what kind of potential social consequences and impact on order.

Role Play Variations Against this background, I designed the following sequence. Firstly, to ask the volunteers to do their usual role play on how to use the toilet as in their regular session with the refugees in the reception camp. Secondly, to ask them to represent how they assume the refugees use the toilet, or more generally, excrete, before watching them and their role play. How they assumedly do this after having seen their role play is assignment number three; and fourthly, to ask them to embody this role play vice versa, i.e. how Syrian or Eritrean or other potential volunteers would— in the volunteer’s view—exercise a role play on this subject if they were those who fled and searched for refuge in that other country. Finally, some reflections on the exercise and themselves as part of it were to be invited.

First Curtain: The Original Version On my request to play the scene ‘Using the toilet’ as they usually do during their standard programme when refugees are present, a woman, here called Clara3 (C), and a man, Daniel (D), stand up and go to a table with soap, a towel and a bowl. Very slowly, loudly and with strong emphasis, the woman says, in German (C 58.05): “Daniel goes to the toilet”. Daniel goes to the door, leaves the room and goes back to the table, standing next to Clara. She continues (C 57.28): “Daniel washes his hands”, and he acts as if he was washing his hands using soap and drying his hands with the towel afterwards. This is followed by a wordless signal to me, indicating that the scene is complete, and I thank the 3 All

names are altered.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

155

actors (57.10). Throughout this first round of role playing everyone is very concentrated, no one says a word, there is no stirring at all. After a moment, Ben rises to speak (B 56.49): “I think that is actually part of the German hygiene, yes, that one washes one’s hands, and it is also a common prejudice of refugees towards Germans, that we are dirty, because we use the toilet differently from (incompr.) for example”. Anna confirms (A 56.34): “Yes, yes, yes, because they (incompr.) know that, that they often with water, with the left hand, clean themselves, and we don’t have all that, and they do actually think that we are dirty, because we don’t do that with water. And therefore have included the water, we do wash ourselves the hands with water afterwards, something happens there”, happens with water also on ‘our side’, she discernibly implies. And continues (A 56.05): “They don’t think at all that we wash our hands, this is why we show that one actually does wash the hands. They assume that we don’t do that. Well, we know that positively, as we hosted people in our, ehm, household, and they have told us that they had thought the Germans were dirty. Because we only use paper”. Up to this point, it appears as if the decision to use the toilet scene—which is not really a ‘toilet scene’ so far, as the main part of activity is being shielded—as part of their programme was based on an explicitly defensive stance. This changes now, practically without any transition, when Anna proceeds: “(Incompr.) also happened, this person who told us that, sometimes came in and smelled really unpleasantly, even the seat where the person was, was unpleasant, because the person only knew cleaning herself with water and not with paper, until I, then, thrusted moist toilet tissues into her hand and told her ‘with this you can clean yourself ’. Mmm. But that was really blatant. And there are, by such experiences, these things developed”. Very quickly, this first round of role play has been used by the participants to convey to me their motives on the basis of underlying experiences they had had. They are also keen, though, to signal readiness to compromise (A 55.15): “What I also do by now, I have a small jug usually in the toilet, a small jug, like a waterp…, well, a watering pot, and that my guests can use then, they know it that way. That’s helpful for them, they can clean themselves with this. If the water does not come out of the toilet

156

A. S. Krossa

itself, with such a little nozzle, like in the Turkish toilets, they take usually also such a small watering pot, I have seen that in the apartment of a refugee, they have a slightly larger watering pot standing there, but that is their way of cleaning (short pause). Well, I see that very often with the Muslims, and this is why I have put this also there at my place, because I frequently have people there (incompr.) can clean themselves in this way”. This detour of a part ‘normalisation’ of the other and even adaptation of the self comes from the main organiser, Anna, a woman who is trained in intercultural courses herself and well aware that the subject holds a number of pitfalls. Knowing from so many interviews that this attitude is not the rule but an exception, however, I am keen both to bring more people into the discussion and to add the aspect that usually forms the core of the subject among volunteers, noting that volunteers sometimes say the problem was that communal bathrooms were flooded and that this was often a mess. Another woman, Emma, agrees (E 54.24), and Ben comments: “They are not unerring, then” to which the others react with laughter. Anna sticks to her course, however, i.e. her perceived role of mediator, and elucidates further (54.06): “(Incomp.) it is quite different, and then one maybe also understands why they have extra-shoes, in the toilets. You may not be familiar with that, but they always have flip-flops standing in the toilet. And one goes, when one comes into the toilet, puts on these thongs and walks so to speak to the toilet, because one often walks on socks or other shoes in the house, just not with real shoes, but when one goes to the toilet, one always wears thongs, even if (incompr.) have lavatory flushing, even if carpets lie on the floor, they always have their shoes with them. This is such a habit, of all families I know. Always the shoes are either directly in front of the door or in the room itself. Because they know, if one makes use of water, it becomes wet”. At this point—seeing that the discussion cannot be opened up at the moment—I interrupt and explain that we will go into a more detailed elaboration later but now come back to the actual role play. Quickly, Clara and another man, Felix (F), take the stage and Clara states (C 53.03): “Everyone does it a bit differently”. She begins (C 52.53): “Felix

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

157

goes to the toilet”. Felix leaves the room, comes in and ostentatiously closes the zipper on his trousers. Clara continues in a narrative and overemphasising way (C 52.31): “Felix washes his hands”, and he ‘washes’ himself extensively and very thoroughly while showing a very relieved expression on his face, while the others laugh and applaud. This is the basis I am equipped with for the methodical role play that is to follow, i.e. the role play as qualitative method for conceiving underlying assumptions and structures. The main problem (as the interested reader has certainly noticed by now) is that the actual toilet practice is not being staged in their usual activity. This leaves me with a double challenge at that point. I need to motivate the volunteers to actually enact ‘the embarrassing part’, and I need them to do so in versions that differ from what they are used to.

Second Curtain: How Was It Before? My input for the second round of role play is, consequently, twofold. I ask them to enact also what happens behind the door, i.e. the actual toilet practice, and to depict it in the way they assume the refugees do it before they have seen their role play (as played just beforehand). Both requests cause irritation, silence, but after a moment, Ben sums up (51.15): “We shall play what they, what we think how they, ehm, refugees use the toilet”; I: “precisely”. Emma insists (E 51.09): “But in that case we have to lower the things”, pointing to the blinds of the windows—outside a larger group of refugees stands and chats and watches us from time to time. And there is loud laughter among the volunteers who immediately start working on the blinds until they are positively protecting us inside the room from any potentially prying eyes. Felix remarks (F 51.05): “Of course that can, that can be very, very variegated, I think”. I agree and ask them not to discuss too much for the time being but to look at some versions first; whereupon he laughs slightly and says (F 50.54): “Oh! Now it becomes delicate here, though!” And it is again Clara who begins by saying (C 50.19): “Then I’d simply say: Felix goes to the toilet!” And so he does.

158

A. S. Krossa

Standing in the Corner Felix acts as if he were urinating in a corner, and I ask “Just like that?” He confirms (F 50:05): “Just like that. Yes, and then I let things take their course”. Laughter, and I ask: “So, here, here effectively anywhere?” to which he replies: “Anywhere. Anywhere where I currently am, in the middle of nowhere, anywhere”. I ask: “and no washing hands, obviously?” and he replies: “nope”. It is probably not completely accidental that the most unregulated and least controlled version comes up right at the start. Immediately, a maximum of othering and distance towards the self is gained, a far cry from the consciously mediating efforts of the previous round of discussion.

Standing on the Toilet Then Ben stands up, laughing. He still sticks to the familiar sequencing and wording but with an ironic overtone this time (B 49.36): “Ben goes to the toilet”. He climbs a chair and hunkers on it, as if standing with two feet on the toilet. He comments: “That is arguably the normal version. Maybe I flush, maybe not, I have no idea. (Short pause, some steps, he looks to one side.) I do also not know what to do with this (laughter ). Ok, with the toilet paper”. Interestingly, here an assumption about the normality of others is made.

Hunkering Down Somewhere, Glancing Around Before The acting gains pace now. Anna takes the stage, looks around and hunkers down. After a short while, she remarks (A 48.50): “Dress”. Then, a reference to gender in general develops into a cross-cutting issue, linking women in principle and independently of their origin. Consequently, the borders of self and other shift for a moment. Felix asks (F 48.36): “Is that so, that one looks around beforehand? Is that so?” And Anna replies: “For a woman definitely. When I go into the bushes and pee, (incompr.) that just no one sees me. I! As a German! Of course!” I laugh and remark that she just did not play herself—or did she? She

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

159

answers (A 48.18): “But also when I do this here, I look, and women anyway”. And then she explains and strives for mediation again: “You must know, ehm, for example in, ehm, Armenia, there are regions where the women, and there are, there live also Kurds, where women go very rarely to the toilet, because there are no toilets on site. And so that the men never see them, they search for completely secret places. Sometimes, they halt in (excrements) for ten hours and more, (incompr.) to go to the toilet, and they have bladder problems and real health problems because they cannot go to the toilet. Because men must not see them at it. And also when they, when they go secretly, a man could observe them, and some actually do! Well, for women very stressful, worse than for men”. Two lines of othering are activated now: volunteer/refugee, possibly summarised as ethnicity in a broad sense, and gender. Felix steps in (F 47.35): “Just a comprehension question: We do now play what we assume, what we assume, and not how we also, yes, maybe, no idea, actually also once in a while, if no toilet is available, yes…”. I agree. At this moment, I ask them to depict what they assume is the usual toilet (or more generally: self-relieving) practice of the refugees. No doubt, however, an element of contingency and hence potentially shifting borders came to the fore.

Hunkering Down, Cleaning with Water with the Left Hand Anna acts again. She acts like opening a door, locks it, hunkers down and then cleans herself with water from a bottle, differentiating between the two hands and using only the left one for cleaning herself. Then, she tidies herself and leaves the toilet.

Intermediate Discussion At this point, however, a more general issue comes up. George, the student, grunts and expresses some discomfort (G 46.06): “Well, to be honest I am a bit open-mouthed at the moment, because these are such things, I never thought about them before. Ehm, above all the notion that someone really knees on the toilet bowl, that someone does that!

160

A. S. Krossa

Me: what?? (Incompr.) I have, I have indeed, ehm, inhibitions, to picture to myself how they could do that, because I, ehm, should not be xenophobic. That made it very, very difficult for me, to put myself into that at all, because I thought, what if I say now, not a hunch, (incompr.), ‘like, like animals’, then I am (short pause) really xenophobic. That’s why I thought ‘whoa, ok, how do I react now? How do I react now?’” In this moment, I am aware that I have to offer a reflective input myself, otherwise the role play may not continue. Therefore, I reply (45.16): “Yes, let’s, let’s put it this way: the problem came up for you, however, only in this moment, as we play it here like this. Not as a perceived problem while you all do the usual role play. Right?” Hesitantly, he answers (G 45.03): “No, in, indeed, well, ehm, well, ehm, during the, during the role play, when I watched that, I thought, I have, indeed I have been completely unconcerned about playing this toilet scene here at all, because I thought ‘yes, ok, there are, there must (incompr.) now simply go to the toilet, yeees? So he must go to the toilet’. That is for me (incompr.). But that in fact different toilet cultures do exist (the others laugh) – that is for me right now just a little (he laughs), yes!” Generally, there is a lot of laughter in the room that visibly forms a strategy to fight feelings of embarrassment and intensifies in moments when embarrassing aspects are spoken out loudly. Once more, I think it necessary to liaise (44.31): “Well, but as you see, it is (useful) (…) to take a look ‘which fee…, attitude do I have towards this at all?’, yes? ‘How do I feel at all? When I see this and that and that’. Now, I find that important, also for me personally, right? (others agree). I see vaaarious versions and dooooo have a bearing and a feeling, well, even if I possibly have not fully reflected on it yet, but that prompts something, right?” This is met with general affirmation. Subsequently, a discussion evolves that illustrates a certain degree of confusion. It seems that for a moment both content—what should be shown?—and form—how should it be played and where is the best placing in the sequence of the usual programme to depict this particular topic?—are up for discussion. Finally, they come back to the very basic starting point of it all that seems to be the really lowest common denominator: everyone needs to ‘take a biobreak’. Felix makes a start (F 44.06):

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

161

“We also cannot evaluate the visitors. We do not know, ehm, which cultures there are (affirmation by Anna). Anna may have another experience, but I would struggle with that still”. Ben steps in (B): “We do not want to ascribe anything to anybody either”, supported by Anna (A): “Precisely, and therefore…”, but Felix interrupts (F): “But that would entail that we needed to play several scenes in this respect, otherwise others would not feel addressed, those, who do not step on the toilet, I’d say”. Anna comments (A): “This is why we do not show it, so that simply no one thinks we do something strange, (incompr.), they depict something in worse ways or so, this is why we have sketched these, this picture, so that they simply know how it is here, no matter where they come from (affirmation)”. Ben then turns to the question when to play the scene in the sequence (B): “We do that at, at the beginning of the day, that means at the beginning of the whole piece, quite close to it, that means, there is not such a relationship of trust as of yet, so that one could depict a difficult scene then, ehm. That might be something different at the end of the piece, yes? Ehm (short pause, he waits for confirmation, Anna says ‘yes’ ), where we’d say, we have been through some peaks and troughs together, they did laugh, we gave them some present and so on, right, then there may be a different bond of trust, so that one could do something like that rather towards the end than at the beginning”. Anna takes up the thread (A 42.57): “This is why we have structured it like this, or have depicted the scenes, so briefly, only with a picture and implicitly, because we have precisely ascertained there is no bond of trust (incompr.)”. Emma appears to capitulate (E): “I think, there is such a point in the course of the day, when everybody, no matter which culture, goes to the loo, one simply needs to”. Ben agrees (B): “Exactly. Exactly. We thought, we thought that was good as entry point, because that, because that simply concerns everybody. Even the emperor, right? Walks there, right? That’s how the German saying goes, right?”

Holes in the Ground Emma gets back to the question about what other forms of using the toilet the refugees may practice, before seeing their role play (E 42.30): “I

162

A. S. Krossa

just thought of a variation from India, (incompr.) are indeed only holes in the ground, too, and they have no use for toilet paper (multiple affirmations), well, I have been once to India for three months”. A discussion follows on how expensive toilet paper is there due to its exotic and luxurious status, and how they had to deal with the matter during their visit: “We were lodged in, ehm, very simple, well, huts, several weeks, and had to collect the paper always, in some jute sack, well, of course we were not allowed to, there was only a hole in the ground, were not allowed to throw the paper into the hole, so that it doesn’t clog, such sort of things. And the sack was burnt every Saturday, with all the toilet paper inside, on the site. And later, I have, when I came home, often caught myself not throwing the toilet paper into the toilet (laughs a little) but in the pail next to it”. Here, Emma refers to a situation where she had been the other, the stranger. Anna takes it up and gives a similar example from Spain. Then, she directly applies this to refugees in Germany (A 41.18): “They also have to learn that here, to do that differently”. And by referring to the size of the pipes and mentioning that in old houses in Germany moist toilet tissue should not be thrown in the toilet either, Emma emphasises further the relativity and cultural contingency of the subject. Sticking to the game form, Anna plays ‘France’ (A 39.14): “I open the door, look around (the others affirm several times). I had to put myself precisely into it and adopt a particular posture and see that I aim for the hole back there and not here in the front, because it possibly does not slide away anymore”. When Ben mentions the state of toilets on camping sides in the evening, everyone laughs, and it seems that the absolute difference between us and other is partly deconstructed into ‘different practices under different circumstances’.

Third Curtain: How Is It After? In the next round, I ask them to act out how their audience, i.e. the refugees, use the toilet after seeing their role play (37.51): “What do you expect? Which influence does your play have on the practices of toilet use on those you perform it to?”

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

163

After a short pause, Felix replies (F 37.25): “Still corresponding to the culture, I think. Ehm, ehm, yes, (incompr.)”. Anna adds (A): “Well, the one who hasn’t looked at the sign4 has not understood so much, except that he washes his hands (low-voiced comments, short pause). And that is the most difficult scene of all, here, to put that across (she walks to the ‘stage’ ). I am neither sitting down, but adopting the correct position; neither sitting, because a thousand people use the toilet\, nor standing on it…”. Ben explains (C): “Well, acting as if one was sitting down, so to speak, but simply not really touching, the…”. Anna interrupts (A): “This scene is the most difficult one that we actually cannot depict at all (affirmation), because that, depending on, an old woman, she may bump down, and the man does not get down at all because he is immobile, or the woman does that in this hold position because she is used to bearing children. That’s not so easy, a challenge, and I don’t know if they really solve it”. Leaving the various slightly stereotyped images aside, more importantly a substantial degree of confusion and cluelessness emerges that opens the discussion up in principle. I try to dig deeper (36.33): “So, what would you imagine? (To Felix:) You already said, it simply grinds on, like before, no, no influence”. Felix explains: “Well, yes, I’d say, most of them aren’t here for weeks or months, we deal with different cultures here, I assume that, well, the people are not under surveillance indeed, but I’d assume that this is not adopted par for par, but (incompr., others agree )”. Anna supports this assessment (A 36.08): “Yes. That may very well be. Depending on educational level,5 they keep that in mind or not. But washing hands, that, as has been said before, that, that is the only (aspect) that probably remains, then”. George differentiates (G): “I could also imagine that, that depending how, how old they are, then, that that could have an influence, because, no idea, a really tiny tot, (incompr.), an elderly woman, an older man of 58 years, who has done it in this way for his whole life already, ehhhhm,

4They have prepared an additional sign with several pictures. It usually is in the room when they stage their play, however, it appears to have no systematic place in the sequencing. 5 Again, another cleavage that comes into play. Also, this comment does not consider the option that not keeping the information in mind could be due to reasons other than the educational level as well.

164

A. S. Krossa

think then, yes! But, now, at about 13 or 14 or (incompr.), they still can (incompr.) some…”. Emma refers to a previous comment of mine (E 35.21): “(incompr.), similar, as you said, it is something so taken-for-granted, one doesn’t reflect on that anymore, because it comes with life, with everyday culture, so that I believe, I also don’t believe that something of that kind (e.g. their play, A.S.K.) changes things (e.g. the refugees’ practices, A.S.K.) fundamentally. Well, it is so intimate, and, ehm, if I say now, here one must pay differently at the cash desk, there is no bargaining, then they realise, ok, I stand no chance, I can’t bargain, no one embarks on that, but what I do to relieve myself when I need to go to the toilet, that is so private; I also don’t think that they say ‘just because I am in Germany now, I do it differently from what I have done for the fifty years before, well, I don’t think that either, indeed. They may look and think ‚I see, the hole is not in the floor (incompr.) such a seat in the hole, and, and then I simply stand over the seat, if they want to’. But really sitting, neither would I on a public loo. I also do that only at home or at houses of people that I …”. We now increasingly see that they develop an empathic understanding for potential non-adaptation of the forms of the others, and apparently progressively link their own attitudes—be it about being in a different country or on the basis of age and simply being used to very private practices—to assumptions about the others. Ben adds (B 34.22): “Well I, I could also imagine, ehm, when they are here in this facility, they won’t change much. Maybe they will take a closer look when they enter the toilet, how does it look there; maybe that contributes a bit to them looking more consciously at that because they realise ‘that apparently is something different in Germany, they (i.e. the group of volunteers, A.S.K.) have even played it, right, maybe I take a second look’. Ehm, I could also imagine that, if they are in a different facility, where that is clean, where they have their toilets more to themselves, that then they do things differently also. I think, though, here it is so dirty and you are so dependent on it, everybody would have to tag along, right? As soon as one stands again with one’s boots on the seat, the others do not feel like sitting on it anymore, right? I think that is such a, such a collective phenomenon in such a communal accommodation.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

165

I would also see, how do I get out of this with, with the least effort of change, right? Yes, if I had my own toilet later, one could, could maybe become a bit more prepared to try something out, because, then it is only up to me how I do that”. Emma is sceptical (E 33.20): “Then, however, it doesn’t matter how a Syrian or an Indian family uses their loo at home, it’s their business, then”; Ben: “yes yes, yes yes!” To boil it down to an essence, at this point the group implicitly acknowledges that it is not practically possible to teach the refugees ‘correct’ toilet behaviour while they are in the camp as the conditions are so bad (they come back to that again a bit later), nor does it make sense to teach it for the time after, as, then, it does not really matter how people use their private bathroom. Explicitly acknowledging it would call the whole endeavour into question—and it does not take place. Instead, in conclusion to this section, Anna summarises thus (A 31.36): “We hope that something sticks in their memory. We cannot give them more to take with them”. Although it does not address the issue directly, this seems a somehow disillusioned résumé of their activity; most certainly it considerably reduces the original, but largely implicit, learning objectives. Nevertheless, throughout this session, the other became considerably less other, mainly due to the volunteers gradually putting themselves into the shoes of the others.

Fourth Curtain: How Would It Be Vice Versa? In the last round now, I ask them how they would imagine the situation the other way round: ‘us’ being refugees from Germany, and Syrians or Eritreans or others receiving us in their countries and trying to convey to us basic rules of their culture, regarding how to use the toilet. After a long pause, I ask again (31.17): “How does it take place?” and, again, a pause follows. Hesitantly, Clara begins (C 31.10): “Yes, what do they act out to us? Well, we do not know the form, how they use the toilet, like them being here. Or would we…”. I confirm: “Exactly, exactly. So, we come to, whatever, Syria or so, because here unfortunately is war,

166

A. S. Krossa

that means simply mirrored, so, what, ehm, precisely the same situation”. Pause, again. It is evident that this is the most difficult task so far. None of the participants seems to have thought of such an option up to this point, and certainly not in any detail. Visibly, the factual contingency of things is usually faded out in day-to-day relations and configurations to a large extent, and they definitely do not call the existing order habitually into question.

Implying Anna starts, taking a bowl from the table. She explains (A 30.40): “I must depict the toilet, they have toilets there, also with water flushing”. Anna points a finger at the bowl/toilet and at the water bottle right next to it and comments: “But they do not do anything else. They point to the things but would not play it. They would not do that. According to my experiences. They only point to things and then – one has to think it for oneself ”. Emma complements (E): “Effort of transfer. (Proud:) And so do we!”; Anna adds: “Yes, them even more. We were very discreet. This is why we did it this way, because we, that the (incompr.) Africans are different, I don’t know, the Africans are more robust”, and she adds: “Well, in that case, probably a man would do it, rather than a woman coming there and showing that. Probably the man”.

Singing and Dancing George comes up with the next idea (G 29.12): “Yes, the Africans would maybe embed it into a story with singing and dancing. Yes, well … (the others laugh). Yes, because, their, their (Anna interrupts: ‘They take a child for that’) theatre culture, right, indeed is a little more, I’d say, explosive, and somehow, they tell also stories about HIV prevention and who knows what with theatre plays, yes, ehm, and with, with dance and music, so that the people do come there, and, ehm, so I would imagine this is being done in Africa”.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

167

Children Anna returns to her interjection (A 28.40): “But actually I really do believe that for these scenes they would take children, for not playing it themselves, because children, one can laugh about it, that is jokey, that is not that serious as a woman”. I ask: “Why do you not use children?” which is followed by short laughter. Anna replies, laughing slightly: “To us, this is serious business!” and Ben adds: “I think we would not get children in here, in the, in the facility”. No one says, however, that for Germans the mere thought of letting children play something like this in front of an audience is simply unthinkable and verges on child abuse. Assuming it would be an option for ‘Africans’, however, contributes again to the various stereotyping statements that came up already.

Not Displaying It at All Clara makes an interesting suggestion, then (C 28.04): “Don’t know, maybe they would not thematise that at all. Because it’s so private, and assume that – anyone simply does it as he does”. This represents a degree of liberality that is unprecedented here so far. Somehow though it is not surprising that it only comes up now, when the tables are turned, so to speak, but still, this comment is obviously a result of the various role play phases and triggered reflections.

Shoes in Hand Anna contributes another idea (A 27.53): “Ahhh, something else comes to my mind: They thrust shoes into the other’s hand! They always do that with me! ‘Look, here are the shoes’, and then I may use the toilet. I always say (hesitation, then mumbling ) ‘not acquainted with it, but…’. That’s it! They thrust flip-flops into the other’s hand (the others laugh), always, always, yes, always, these flip-flops, precisely!” After a moment, she adds (A 27.18): “And sometimes I simply put on these shoes, because I know, I have to do it, even though I have such fat, huge feet and they have such little shoes, I cannot even enter, then I limp to the loo…”.

168

A. S. Krossa

It appears that, in this last section, the most considerable amount of movement has taken place. The self and the other have actually been put in different positions, order and hierarchy have consciously been shifted, and grey zones began to appear. Not talking about it (instead of them teaching it) seems possible, oneself has been experienced as having been ‘forced into’ making compromises, while potential internal differences within the addressed group are assumed and so on. This has shifted the tone of the discussion away from essentialist definitions and towards more relative ones, at least: ‘all people use different practices depending on the circumstances’. And there is also empathy for sticking to familiar practices in other places with other cultural rules, especially when doing something as private as relieving oneself. On this basis of an— at least theoretically—quite comprehensively challenged hierarchy and order, some reflecting now makes sense.

Reflections Felix makes a start (F 27.06): “In fact, we do simply have diverging international experience and, ehm, of course we take our cultural ideas as a starting point, and insofar, so in depth I haven’t been concerned about, ehm, ehm, yes, about 00; that is a place that I do not always enter reading, jokes apart, ehm, yes, one can include a great deal (in the role play, A.S.K.), maybe by, by sounds or whatever, but now the imagination how that, ehm, takes place with other nationalities, is a bit individual, I’d say, right? Who (incompr.) has been abroad, and can emphasise with, with that. So, once again, we do not actually do this with a wagging finger here, (incompr.) just (incompr.) substantiating with such pictures, only supposed to give food for thought”. Several aspects concur here. First and most importantly, the individual is brought up—though only after the positions in the game have been changed with the last role play. Then, a general openness develops for acknowledging the personal, intimate and the private. Also, referring to the individual and its private space now means that the collective that has been the point of reference for this activity, i.e. ascriptions to groups, is

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

169

taken out to a certain extent. That again impacts directly on any hierarchy and order. Then, using the toilet is a private practice, assigned to the individual and taken out of public observation and control. Observing actually becomes illegitimate, and so does the observer and evaluator. Consequently, for order, this de-collectivisation prevents a rather automatic classification and ordering of individuals on the grounds of their (ascribed) group affiliation. Second, the reference to ‘not wagging one’s finger, just food for thought’ is an expression of relativising one’s own learning aims too, and maybe increasing humbleness in general. The attempt at getting their heads around what had just happened in combination with what they usually do continues. Daniel states (D 26.04): “Is a difficult topic, yes, not only (incompr.)”. All speak at the same time, then Ben tries to summarise (B 26.02): “We want, we want, we (incompr.) the educational assignment, not everything perfect and (incompr.), (considerable pause). I think, our theatre rather shows a bit – ‘welcome’, to encounter people on a different level than the usual official setting, and, and shows them that things here in Germany are different, so, what that is in detail, I don’t know, what they uphold. One will take along one thing, another maybe something different, and a third one possibly not much at all, right? Except maybe for some words, well, the people also get (incompr.)”. The reference now apparently shifts to the programme as a whole, away from the particular toilet scene, which none of them assesses directly.6 Instead of digging deeper, the volunteers then address more practical questions of how to possibly change the scenes and their actual role playing with the sound of water or not, or how to design the images–photos or drawings—all accompanied by a lot of laughter. One aspect that emerges from this as a core issue once again is whether to sit down or not. As mentioned before, ideally the volunteers want the refugees to sit down on the toilet seat, apparently mainly because that would prevent them ‘dirtying’ the toilets by standing up in various positions. However, throughout, the volunteers themselves are keen to make clear that they would never sit on a public toilet. This issue becomes 6 And

interestingly, what is missing among the reasons for teaching them anything at all is that the refugees may find German friends and in that case would know what is expected of them when, for example, being invited to their homes.

170

A. S. Krossa

more concrete now, when Anna says (A 22.10): “The problem is, with sitting down, we also did not do it because one will not sit down here, because often there are no toilet seats at all. That also is the problem. They have dismantled the seats because the seats cannot be used. And then they partly have not even put toilet paper there, because they did something stupid with it, so the toilets have no toilet paper…”. Ben admits (B 21.48): “That’s a little bit the problem here in this reception camp, though – although we always say ‘they are in Germany’, that rather is a ‘German special zone’ where many things are not as they are in Germany, right? For instance, over there in house 12, at some point they have introduced the separation of male and female. That is neither typically German! (…) But here it is being done like that, because the people have not really reached the point as of yet, or because of other organisational reasons, right, and then one dismantles toilet seats or does not supply toilet paper, and then, of course, I cannot expect (laughing slightly), also a German would have difficulties going to the toilet”.7 Anna relates these complicated terms to their own approach: (A 21.09): “It has really been a problem to depict that, when we (saw) that over there (…), first we looked at the toilets, then we took the pictures (for the information sign, A.S.K.), right, and thought ‘shit, no toilet paper, no toilet brush – they cannot but dirty them! They have no choice to clean that up’ (…). And we had to adapt a little. Here, also very, very plain people come in who have no previous education at all, and that is why we thought we do that with images that hopefully are somehow unequivocal. We didn’t dare try to do more”. The developing ‘explaining’ approach and its partly apologetic tone is continued by Felix (F 20.37): “The piece also depends on the fact that the scenes are not so lengthy (…). That is the basis of the piece, and has a common thread, of course (…). Yes. So deeply I never thought about

7 At

that point, an analogous example comes to my mind. Also at our son’s primary school, toilet paper is not simply being provided in the toilet rooms; instead, the children need to ask the teacher for it before going to the toilet. It appears that, precisely towards those we want to teach how to ‘properly’ deal with toilet matters and all things related to it, we do not offer the usual conditions but make it difficult for them. Ben admits having crammed a whole roll of toilet paper into the toilet when he was at primary school.

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

171

that, this sh…-subject. So far, I must honestly say. It’s, yeeeees, a good stimulation”. I want to come back to switching positions and briefly refer to their own experiences of adaptation to respective toilet cultures when they were abroad. Emma quickly admits (E 18.13): “Yes, sure, but one really tries as long as possible to stick to your form (Anna supports this: ‘Yes, sure, I also do that in Spain’), even if you go into the Bombay-store and buy a roll of toilet paper for two dollars! And think ‘that is quite – here (whistles)’”. I input, then, that in the second round, when I asked them to enact what the others do before watching their play, they performed quite a lot of versions, but apparently no one has considered that the others could do it like themselves anyway. The reaction is surprise, laughter and confirmation (‘true!’). Felix is the first who finds some words on this (F 12.18): “… it’s true enough, naturally there are, yeeeees, certain – prejudices, yes, partly maybe also, if one hasn’t in the countries oneself, then one simply cannot know it”. After this mix of admitting and excusing, Ben chooses the different approach of ‘professionalising’ and elaborates on how that could possibly be tested scientifically, i.e. by systematically asking people several weeks later what they do remember. Very interestingly, he adds (B 11.52): “And – certainly one would have to ask the people also ‘would you want that?’ well, because, I can evangelise as much as I wish, right (laughs)? If they, if they do not want to adopt anything from it, or say ‘is no problem for me whatsoever’, then – the scene was maybe not the right one, then maybe they have profited from another scene”. Here, we have reached a crucial point. In theory, Ben acknowledges that ‘the others’ could and should be asked if they wanted to be instructed at all. He also acknowledges that they may not want or need their input. Instead of leaving the decision up to them, though, he makes an attempt at saving the project as such by putting the toilet issue in its (allocated) place, as one among many subjects and scenes. He is not willing to jeopardise the whole project. Anna jumps in, coming now straight to the point, offering an external reason and motivation, giving the impression that the necessity for the activity as such is indisputable (A 11.36): “But I remember, ehm, that has also developed – I have been in the refugee residential hostels, and

172

A. S. Krossa

there was war. Among themselves. Because of the toilets. We had to, from outside, before this here has been developed at all, I have been confronted with that. From outside, do something as Germans, so that they do not amongst themselves, do not beat each other up; and they always say ‘the Afghans are dirty’, I hear that so often – still, still, that they cannot use the toilets properly or the showers; when hair gets stuck, they dismantle everything, then it drips through to downstairs; prejudices amongst each other exist, too, and in, that Germany have been confronted with that, too. (…) I have really often enough witnessed that in the residential hostels; then I gave them the images, then I say ‘here, you can at least put them up on the toilet walls, so you do have something, right?’” Felix points out that, in the camp, the security personnel has separate toilets (F 9.36): “Well, that is indeed quite clearly separated (…). I do not want to say ‘for Germans only’ or whatever, but hence there is indeed a clear separation, and I don’t know, what effects that has for the people here”. Ben comments (B): “Two-tier toilets. Although, the fewest of the security personnel here are German (laughs)”. Felix insists (F 9.12): “But there it is stated ‘for hygienic reasons’, there is being insinuated, that there is, ehm, yes, also other use (incompr.), toilet use, right”. And Felix does not let up (F 8.45): “I mean, we, we also read our, our German language and on toilets, at motorway services or in restaurants sometimes, there is a sign saying, that in the toilets, what actually should be self-evident for us, ‘please leave the toilet as you have found it’, well, apparently that is still indicated here and there. Also if, yes, for us, who we use the toilets. (Incompr.), where many people feel unobserved, and, one should not, yes, demarcate it for nationalities”. He explains further: “I’m just saying, toilets are certainly used also in Germany, let me put it this way, by, by real Germans, who, yes…”. He receives a good deal of support from several women who then discuss men ‘peeing standing up’. No contributions on this from the men in the room, and again the main cleavage has shifted from ethnicity to gender. Anyway, it seems that the floor is being opened for a more reflective self-critique and therefore for ideas on how to ‘better’ one’s own practices on the grounds of what may have been learned from ‘others’. Anna reports an adaptation of hers. Since in Turkey or Egypt there is always water right next to the toilet, she has got into the habit of doing the

7 Using the Toilet: Role Play

173

following (A 7.01): “My toilet paper for instance, am, I make, before I use any German toilet, I always make moist. I always take the water. I never understood this system, how that works with all that tilting, with the water and stuff, I simply make my toilet paper moist and then I am also clean, right?” And she adds (A 6.14): “But it’s also interesting that one takes something from these cultures, and meanwhile in Germany more often toilets exist that have this little nozzle where it, when you untwist it, at the toilet, then water splashes upwards and then you can clean yourself. I think that’s great, super, well, at home I will, I find that great, you are clean! And this gains more acceptance also in Germany, very, very slowly. Means, we also take on something from these countries (pause), what makes sense, real sense”, to which the others mutter affirmingly.

Conclusions Here, it is both the breadth of strategies which the volunteers apply and especially the process that develops gradually and their careful approaching towards the other via the reflection of their own practical doing that are particularly telling. It proved to be an advantage to use the very same method the volunteers are familiar with from their activity. It has also been, however, somewhat difficult to take their expectation out of it as a teaching–learning situation, i.e. an analogy to their intention. Consequently, much has been ‘explained’ to me. Despite many attempts at approximation that come up in the data of this study again and again, we do find expressive extremes in their practices and statements that vividly illustrate how difficult it is to distance oneself from what we perceive as valid order and its respective hierarchic allocation of positions. On the one hand, the actors increasingly emphasised with the (individual) other, as it dawns on them more and more what their practical behaviour is when they are an other elsewhere. The acknowledgement of the very difficult institutional conditions in the reception centre, especially the state of the toilets there, also played into this. On the other hand, in the scenes when the discussion comes

174

A. S. Krossa

dangerously (or promisingly) close to the deconstruction of the order as a whole, a protection mechanism seems to take effect. When the issue comes up about whether the refugees could and should be asked if they wanted to be told about such subjects in such ways, the discussion is twisted. Similarly, when the question becomes more explicit, what the refugees ‘get’ from this activity, in any case the assumption is ‘they get something ’. When the going got rough, the activity as well as the order was saved. Period.

References Smith, V. (2007). Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. New York: Oxford University Press. Winblad, U., & Kilama, W. (1985). Sanitation Without Water. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

The data point of reference of this chapter is a leaflet, entitled Healthy Everyday Life in Homes for Asylum Seekers, that has been developed by a counselling centre in Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany. This group usually counsels AIDS patients, with prevention being their main impetus. At that point in time they had decided to address refugees specifically, and right up to now refugees are mentioned as a particular category of addressees on their webpage. An individual Social Work student, who was tasked to ‘do a project’, initiated the idea of the leaflet and was primarily responsible for its realisation. Originally planned as a cooperative task, with refugees being at the core of decision-making and execution, it turned out in the end to be a one-woman project, with only the images being drawn by two refugees, one from Syria and one from Eritrea. On completion, 2000 copies of the leaflet were printed and distributed to refugees living, in particular, in collective accommodations and large reception centres. Although the leaflet is a combination of text (in various languages and graphic characters), colours and images, the focus here is on the images. Several aspects suggest this. First, they are the main element of the leaflet. © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_8

175

176

A. S. Krossa

Explicitly chosen because they appear to promise a more direct and simple access to the content to be conveyed, the images form the core of the approach. Second, while the wording is quite precise and often in a language of command, the images leave more room for interpretation, including grey zones and discussion of ambivalences. This is further emphasised, thirdly, as the images have been drawn by refugees themselves, who expressed and included ideas of their own.1 My focus here is on the presentation and interpretation of gender and sex. This is a subject that cuts across a lot of the discussions in this book so far, but here it is at its most explicit. Generally speaking, two lines of discrimination towards collectives merge: gender and ethnicity, both applied to ‘the refugee’. This chapter is therefore structured as follows: in the first section following this introduction, I look at the leaflet, as a whole, to convey a general impression. This takes selected images into account that feature connections to the subject of gender without being related to sex. The second sub-chapter addresses the depiction of gender and sex in the leaflet in a more targeted way. One page, explicitly on ‘sexuality’, is analysed in detail, complemented by the next page, ‘in case of sickness’, that in fact refers to sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) only. The third sub-chapter, then, takes up ideas and comments expressed by the main author, aiming at some clarification of contents and intentions. The conclusions to this chapter evaluate what ambivalences remain after the analysis, and in which ways they may be appropriate for the project and with respect to the creation of order in general.

Us and Them, Health and Risk: A Leaflet While the reasoning given for the existence of the leaflet is a positive idea of ‘helping’, the analysis is drawn very quickly to the problematic principles that characterise helping: establishing and securing hierarchy and

1I

am grateful for permission to include prints of the images of the leaflet.

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

177

thereby social order. Admittedly, it is a tightrope walk to ‘give information’ in a brief summary and with as few words as possible, but abbreviations of any kind, be they colours, images of scenes, or short (and therefore often sharp) comments, carry a greater risk of appearing as a command, or as being patronising at the very least. This is—clearly unintentionally to a degree—the case throughout the leaflet. And the use of several means and forms of depiction support this impression. Firstly, the leaflet is colour-coded throughout, the sections having either a green background for ‘right’, ‘allowed’, ‘appropriate’ behaviour or a deep red background for everything that is (allegedly) ‘wrong’ and ‘forbidden’. Very occasionally a light red background is used, clearly with a warning purpose. This bold and simple approach is intensified through using a green tick and a red X, respectively. This conveys the impression of completely clear rules, as if virtually no grey zones existed, neither in terms of colour nor regarding the range of behaviours. Several languages are used—German, English, Arabic—which at first sight appears to be a kind of first step towards the refugees as the addressed audience. But as the contents are formulated so onedirectionally, this turns out to be a rapprochement on the surface only. And the fact that the Arabic text is always written as the smallest one catches the eye as well. As already mentioned, probably due to the perceived need to shorten and simplify, the overall tone comes across harshly. The abbreviated wording conveys a commanding tone, and excessive use of exclamation marks as well as formulations such as ‘you must’, ‘you have to’, ‘everything’ and ‘at once’ emphasise it further, just as the many doublings of contents and images do. The fact that all the images are painted adds an element of ambivalence. On the one hand, this practice simplifies and sometimes trivialises the subject. On the other hand, many of the images—and especially those on gender and sex—appear to be exaggerated, sometimes even repressive. Evocation of positive feelings is avoided throughout; the motto is deterrence. And another aspect is puzzling: most images include one or several persons, who are depicted very much in line with a Western mainstream and ideal, with practically no references to heterogeneity. This is particularly surprising, given the fact that the artists are from

178

A. S. Krossa

Syria and from Eritrea. It also prompts the question about who is actually being depicted: those who are supposed to be learning, i.e. refugees, or the ones who are supposed to be teaching (by serving as a model), i.e. the (more) established residents? We will come back to this a bit later in the text. Throughout the leaflet, we find a clearly gendered pattern. Two areas stand out: sexuality—and we will look at this in detail in a moment— and cleaning away dirt. Regarding the latter, again two subjects are noticeable. First, in a picture on page 3, a woman—with long hair and a long dress—wipes dirt off the floor, using dustpan and brush. Probably the most interesting aspect of this is what is not shown at all: on no image in the leaflet is a man cleaning anything. Similarly, on the subject of laundry. On page 5, a woman—again with long hair and a long skirt as if to make absolutely sure that it is a woman and not a man—does the laundry. She is active, deals with clothes and the washing machine, either putting dirty laundry inside or taking out washed clothes. In other words, there is a physical link between the female body and dirt again. On this subject, we find another image with a man who does not touch any dirty or wet clothes but stands at some distance to a washing machine, as if he was uninvolved or possibly just dealing with the ‘technical’ job of switching the machine on or off. While this is just to convey a general feeling that characterises the leaflet, including a fundamental difference between the genders that becomes immediately tangible, the next section will enlarge upon the subject more systematically.

Sexuality and Gender: Ethnosexism Ethnosexism combines two types of group-related misanthropy on the grounds of ascriptive criteria: sexism and racism/ethnocentrism, often also combined with references to (specific) religions. Here, the issue of sexism is very obvious. Throughout, women’s bodies are depicted according to a particular ideal type, i.e. long hair, long dresses or skirts, nail polish and so on. More importantly, though, they are consistently

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

179

represented as subordinated and largely passive. This leaves men stereotyped as very active, sometimes almost appearing sexually aggressive. Before we go into a more detailed analysis of particular images, it is worth elaborating on what the idea and consequent function of sex may be in general according to this leaflet. Without doubt, the leaflet feeds on a fundamental understanding of sex as representing an effective projection surface of dirtiness—both material and moral—as well as constituting a site of wide-ranging emotionality. The nexus of tabooing and (especially) de-tabooing is deployed to create substantial pressure. This general thrust is further emphasised by a formal aspect. Even the scope in which the focus is shown regarding sex seems to suggest sexuality as being a huge problem. Both the unaesthetic, indeed partly even off-putting images and the related words appear to equate sex with illness, i.e. pathologise it. Throughout, there are warnings against bodily fluids and consequently the risks of sharing and using things, especially “towel, washing cloth, bedding, unwashed clothing, razor (electric and wet), tooth brush, nail clipper, nail scissors, dental floss, mouthwash, bath water, sex toys, lube, drug tools” (page 8). Analogously, page 9 on sexuality (see below for the image) declares it safe only to kiss—‘dry kissing’, as the first page specifies, supplemented by a warning against bleeding gum and shaking hands on page 9, where it sits rather awkwardly. In other words, everything beyond shaking hands and ‘dry kissing’ is allegedly already extremely dangerous, as it contains a risk of contamination and illness. As this is very obviously an overstatement of the risks of sexuality, the question regarding its function suggests itself. A closer look at some selected images substantiates this further. In the following part, I refrain from describing the images in much detail, as the reader/viewer can see for themselves. Instead, I offer short interpretations and then return to consider the impression these selected images give as aggregate. Image 8.1 is depicted on both page one and nine, each time under the heading “dry kissing”. In the foreground, we see a woman that looks very serious, possibly unwilling, while a man approaches her from behind. With an evidently open mouth, it is unclear if he is biting her or kissing her on the neck. Clearly the man is playing the active role, while she

180

A. S. Krossa

Image 8.1 “dry kissing”

looks rather ill at ease, apparently trying to evade his approach. As the first image on the subject of sexuality and gender in the leaflet, it not only allocates exaggerated and awkward activity alongside respective passivity to the genders, but also gives rise to the issue of consent. Image 8.2, “wash hands with soap, dry afterwards”, is shown twice as well, now on the same page seven, once for “before sex” and once “after sex”. The repetition appears to underline the alleged urgency. In the image, we see a man and a woman in bed, she is lying on her back and he on his side, turned towards her. Again the activity of the man predominates. In the upper left-hand corner, a running tap is shown, pointing directly to the activity of washing hands. The following Images 8.3–8.8 are all on page nine, plus Image 8.1 of page one again. All images on page nine are to be discussed now. The text related to Images 8.1, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 indicate what is ‘safe’ and ‘should be done’.

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

181

Image 8.2 “wash hands with soap, dry afterwards”

Image 8.3 “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” I

182

A. S. Krossa

Image 8.4 “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” II

The title of Image 8.3 reads: “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)”. Again, a woman and a man are in bed, condoms lie on a small table next to them. This time, the woman is on top. The fact that the active role appears to be allocated to the woman this time is the absolute exception, if we assume that the artist is sticking to his depiction of women having long hair. Image 8.4, under the same heading, shows a man and a woman, both lying on their side and turned towards the viewer, i.e. the man’s front lying pressed against the back of the woman. This again allocates activity to the man and passivity and/or possibly even rejection of the woman. Gradually, the rather uncomfortable atmosphere that appears to be given to the subject of sex throughout the leaflet manifests itself more concretely. Image 8.5, again under the same heading, is sub-divided into four sections. This image is particularly detailed and not easy to understand immediately. All four parts of the image show condoms, three times with hands involved, twice in the activity of placing a condom on a penis. The

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

183

Image 8.5 “Use fitting condoms! Kissing and body contact (shaking hands)” III

most explicit reference to sexism is the fact that, partly, the fingernails appear to be varnished, which is typically allocated to women’s hands. More indirectly, it is again interesting what is not shown or at least somehow referred to: any protection for women. On the same page, Image 8.6, then, has the heading “Changing partners, unprotected sex”. This image is even more explicit than the previous ones, twice showing clearly a man who is being orally satisfied by a woman. The background to this image is of a light red colour and complemented by an exclamation mark, i.e. it is about a warning. More generally, the warning against ‘changing partners’ insinuates frequent changes. On the basis on an assumed libidinality the addressee (i.e. the person who stays in some mass accommodation at that point of time) is being exoticised and othered. Relating more specifically to the question of gender, it is conspicuous that in both graphics the woman is portrayed playing the active role, satisfying the man. This constructs an image of women as subordinate,

184

A. S. Krossa

Image 8.6 Changing partners, unprotected sex

providing a service, and submissive. The man, however, is equally stereotyped as dominant, patriarchal and egoistic. This is sexism in its purest form, also indirectly alluding to female sexuality as ‘dirty’ and ‘dangerous’. It is, and remains, unclear who is actually being depicted throughout the leaflet—the ‘problematic refugee’ and ‘his/her problems’, or the ‘appropriate German’ and his/her ‘right’ behaviour?’ We can assume, however, that this also refers to a stereotype of ‘the Arabic/African man’, including the suspicion of habitually polygamous conduct. Independently of any reality of anyone’s sexual behaviour, this seems to be readymade for furthering the othering process. On the same page, with a dark red frame, and somehow unclearly related to the joint headline “sexuality”, a warning against bleeding gum is placed now. To this purpose, two Images 8.7 and 8.8 are combined under the heading “Be aware of bleeding gums (you and your partner), unprotected sex (vaginal and anal)”. Each of the two images shows a large mouth. One has an excessively bleeding lip while in the other a finger points to the gum only. Here, the

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

185

Image 8.7 “Be careful by (sic!) bleeding gums (you and your partner)” I

Image 8.8 “Be careful by (sic!) bleeding gums (you and your partner)” II

authors and artists are working with the particularly shocking effect of blood and its immediate link with infection and illness. Although these images come across as misplaced, they are surely not to be found quite accidentally on this page. By linking such an, at least emotionally, severe

186

A. S. Krossa

threat, and the disgust and fright it evokes, directly with sex, a considerable shadow is cast on sexuality in general. As the final images on that page, they leave a daunting and unsettling effect on the reader/viewer, fundamentally linked with sex as such. The assumption that the strong and particular link between potential illness and sexuality is not arbitrary is further substantiated by what we find on the very next page 10. Although the heading reads quite generally “in case of sickness”, the images that show any actual sickness refer exclusively to sexual diseases. The headline to the Images 8.9 and 8.10, both on page ten, reads: “If you notice changes in your wellbeing (itchiness, feeling sore, changes on your skin, …) on your body go to the doctor! Inform your doctor of illnesses that you are aware of!” In both the images, a non-specified person is drawn with red colour in the genital region, which is complemented by a red bold arrow pointing directly towards it. While the first image

Image 8.9 “If you notice changes in your wellbeing (itchiness, feeling sore, changes on your skin, …) on your body go to the doctor! Inform your doctor of illnesses that you are aware of!” I

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

187

Image 8.10 “If you notice changes in your wellbeing (itchiness, feeling sore, changes on your skin, …) on your body go to the doctor! Inform your doctor of illnesses that you are aware of!” II

has a hospital in the background, on the second image the person stands in front of a doctor. This constructs sex primarily as posing a fundamental danger—quite possibly for a variety of groups and people. As mentioned before in this chapter, it is surely a delicate balancing act when attempting to convey complex ideas in such abbreviated form. Nevertheless, the illustrations at least in parts appear to be overly detailed and direct—a sledgehammer approach, it seems. And yet, it is unclear who is actually being depicted and why the portrayal is being presented in that way. The persons painted look rather Western, which would be logical from the perspective of the leaflet if the aim was to show how to do things ‘the right way, here’. And while the images on cleaning generally seem to strive to convey a ‘good example’, with the important, but not necessarily inadvertent, constraint that these are so clearly gendered, especially those images on sexuality leave the reader/viewer

188

A. S. Krossa

somehow puzzled. Are ‘bad examples’ shown on purpose, either to signal alleged ‘understanding’ and ‘responsiveness’ to these others (thereby othering them further), or simply to make most of the shocking effects? Or are they maybe not even seen as ‘bad examples’, but as conveying ‘normality’ in any cultural sexual reality? In any case, the equal status of men and women (let alone homosexuals and others) are not effectively communicated, despite the fact that this is an issue that comes up constantly as being of immense importance in discussions with volunteers. The only thing that can be stated on this subject with certainty is that the approach lacks coherence. In a way, this relates to the observation that only heteronormative couples are depicted. Why is that so? Is it because ‘we’ do not expect the others to tolerate homosexuality? Assuming that others are not capable of dealing with this or other subjects is obviously hugely patronising. Or is this about ourselves, in fact, i.e. based on the persistent denial of, e.g. homosexuality in ‘our’ society, and we simply impose our own uncertainties and inhibitions on ‘the others’ by omitting it? It became progressively more interesting to learn more about the background and intention of this leaflet, and so I arranged to meet the main initiator and author for an interview. In the following sub-chapter, some selected passages are used in order to shed more light on how it was meant.

Intention and Realisation In July 2017 I met the main author for a qualitative interview. I did not prepare any special questions and hoped for a very open discussion. However, the leaflet itself gave the interview some degree of direction. Overall, it became obvious that much of the general intention of its main author was different from what I (and most of my students2 ) read from the leaflet. This, of course, is not unusual but a very typical issue in relations between refugees and ‘helpers’ of some kind, as also the previous 2I

want to thank my students in Social Sciences who have discussed the leaflet with me with much interest, enthusiasm and who made a number of important observations on it.

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

189

chapters have shown. Having said this, there were also several aspects and opinions she expressed explicitly or implicitly that illustrated delineating positions. Together, this opens up an interesting space for ambivalence. The selected parts of the interview are largely self-explanatory, and I want to avoid imposing any over-interpretation on the reader. Therefore, I will confine myself mostly to indications of instances of ambivalence, whenever they come up. The beginning of the interview already highlighted a typical aspect. Characteristically, as in factually all the initiatives analysed in this book, the gap between the typically general starting point, just ‘doing something’, and the (overly) concrete execution of the project is large. In this concrete case, the author as a student of Social Work was asked to do ‘a project’. On the basis of a three weeks internship, plus one day per week over three semesters, she wanted (1.30.08) “to so something that makes sense and where usually there is neither time and nor money”. She was convinced, that (1.29.58) “in homes for asylum seekers, health actually comes up much too short”, which she emphasised on the grounds of her own experience. She shared a flat with twenty people and noticed a considerable lack of cleanliness there, so she imagined (sic !) how bad it must have been in those homes for asylum seekers. She elaborates on this (1.29.09): “And I thought, something must be done so that the people have at least the opportunity to keep themselves healthy, because actually one does not know at all how to behave in such a space in order to stay healthy”. Here, a direct link is established between (imagined) dirt and (imagined) health. As I was keen to understand which angle she was coming from, I asked her (1.18.25) “Is there is anything of which you, in hindsight, think, ‘I would do this differently (now’)?” She mentions that it was a pity that they did not include French, and then addresses the issue of involvement of refugees at some length. Although she had originally planned to do it cooperatively, she appears to be convinced that it was better not to develop the contents with refugees (1.14.14): “I thought the contents that I (…) found very useful. And later, I looked over it again with the asylum seekers (…). This is how it was in the beginning (…), we sat down with it and said, then, ok, what fits, what does not fit, and how could we put this into images (…). And then in some places they also

190

A. S. Krossa

told me, yes, they find this useful because, or find it not useful because, but actually they thought everything proper; ehm, they only made some remarks on some things they considered particularly important (I ask: ‘for instance?’). For instance the toilets”. She specifies the nature of the cooperation by showing me some basic keywords (1.12.06): “So, I have only compiled this material, and then this is grown, together with them, ehm, well, I have had a look, of course, how do their images fit, then; well, they have painted the images completely freely, I, I have only said what is written here, and the Syrian, he is also an artist (…). And he was allowed to decide completely freely how he does it. Has asked me sometimes, ‘Well, is that not too open, well, do you want to give me any indication, so’, and I said ‘no, you discuss that’. And they shared a flat in three, with often other asylum seekers visiting, and they have discussed it completely, without me even being there, how to draw these pictures. Ehm, and in the end they also told me that this saved them at that time, because then they simply had something to do, something to laugh about, a meaningful task”. I want to understand better why refugees were not included in the project more, to which she replies with reference to ‘very different’ nationalities that were ‘difficult to get around one table’ (1.10.21): “I could never have included this range (…). And then it would always have been the case that somehow groups would have been excluded. Yes, and so it is simply open for all”. Instead, she discussed it regularly but informally with others, ‘Germans and Non-Germans’. Interestingly, right after these introductory subjects, she directs the discussion to the page on sexuality—apparently also for her a focus of the leaflet as a whole (1.09.10): “In the – home for asylum seekers, I have noticed that many have opened it, coming relatively quickly to the page, for whatever reason, I don’t know, how, why this happens when browsing, came to the page with the – auuu, sexual hygiene (incompr.), ehm. And then that this often was a ‘hehe, oh!’ shut again. There – is actually nothing to be done about it, as it simply happened when browsing. It is rather far in the back, precisely for that reason, so that that doesn’t happen, ehm, (…). That is the second browsing”. It is interesting that she gets to the subject so quickly and talks about it at some length. Her indirect approach and rather indecisive wording illustrate her awareness that

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

191

this is a sensitive subject. Especially the length at which she refers to an allegedly technical problem—how do the pages turn when browsing— clearly points to a different direction, in any case a pressure to justify what she perceives. Referring specifically to Image 8.6, I ask (1.08.24): “Are the active parts here both women?” She hesitates a moment and replies, then (1.08.19): “I would interpret it like that, but that is totally good in principle, because that – is open (short pause). That could be anybody”. I dig deeper: “I think both have breasts? And long hair?” and she answers: “I think so, too. Yes. But this (pointing to one of the passive persons on the image) for instance could also be a woman, I think. Well, from my perspective. But… He said he has done this on purpose. Aha. That he this page …, although, they do actually have faces. But that he did not give them faces, because then one can never say ‘haha’, look, he looks like you!” I direct my next question in a related field, asking why a focus is on STI’s. She replies (1.6.49): “Because that is something one does not talk about, but what should be represented nevertheless. This is why I did not represent it so much in the leaflet. So that this is precisely not deterring. It should not only be about that. Ehm. But it should simply be included, like in normal life, too. But in a home for asylum seekers, I imagine that one talks rather little about it. Ehm, also does not find access easily. Ehm, although this is not always the case, I must say in retrospect now, but… It was also a focus because (the group) was an AIDS counselling centre before. Well, thereby the focus developed also, of course”. Towards the end of the interview, the subject of sexual health and respective behaviour comes up again, when I ask more concretely about Images 8.9 and 8.10. She explains (4.25): “Ehm, if it itches and burns, one goes to the doctor, possibly also with the partner (pause). And we have understood that, yes, as, eh, no matter where – it itches and burns, one should go to the doctor”—a much more open interpretation than the images immediately suggest. I ask her what she perceives to be the biggest issue on the side of the refugees. She mentions cleanliness of rooms, and that much was not known to the refugees. I remark that actually I did not know several things about that section. She makes a point that she clearly considers

192

A. S. Krossa

very relevant, i.e. that the information in the leaflet is specific for people who live in forms of mass accommodation. A thematic focus she finds important is the use of toilets (1.03.40) “And also, that one must wash one’s hands afterwards. If one lives alone in a bush, why should I wash my hands afterwards? First, there is no water, and second – why, if it is only me there?” In connection with her previous reference to ‘normality’ and the respective othering here, this is an interesting comment. It appears to make ‘clean behaviour’ relevant only in a social context. If arguing from a strictly medical point of view of the present day, it would certainly make sense to wash one’s hands after relieving oneself anyway, also when being alone. When I ask her (57.46): “In your view – what is hygiene?” she gives a short laugh and replies after a pause (57.36): “I think for (incompr.), hygiene is very different things. For me, hygiene is actually (pause) to keep myself healthy, well…”. I ask: “How is hygiene related to health?” and she says: “For me totally. Well, for me, hygiene is everything that keeps me healthy, and also, hygiene in everyday life also is for me that it looks nice and tidy (…) more and more since the project (…). Cleanliness and order, but also to keep me healthy, simply, ehm – and to protect others. Well, I would also wash my hands in the bathroom so that I do not infect someone else with something, or so. That would actually also be important to me. Ehm. Yes, that, that… I find hygiene very wide-ranging, though. I think there is a general hygiene and there is a private hygiene. Ehm, and there I see a clear differentiation, because for me my private hygiene is always also my decision. And that is the only thing that I want to achieve with the leaflet somehow, that everyone can decide for themselves about their hygiene. What do I want to do to keep me healthy. To be simply clean and so on”. Her linking of cleanliness and health interests me, so I ask about the relation between the two. She replies (52.08): “Well, from my point of view, it is a fact that diseases are transmitted simply via, eh, via bacteria and viruses and whatnot, funguses, ehm, but also if one has dirt at a place inside, that then is also, that one can become sick, without bacteria and viruses are there. Ehm, and I find, therefore hygiene has, with, with hygiene, well, for me would be something like washing hands, just as an example (incompr.), that I avoid thereby to bring them into contact

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

193

with me and therefore fall ill. Ehm, however, to a certain degree it is also healthy to come into contact with viruses and bacteria of course, right? Ehm, but, therefore, hygiene actually has to do with health for me, and, ehm, it is like that (short laughter ), is not so easy to explain, so (incompr.). That I can infect someone with that, I also would not want, well, to me that is also something which is related to health then, ehm, well, in the sense of (…) health maintenance. Ehm”. Without going too much into interpretative detail, two aspects catch one’s eye/ear here: first, an unclear relation between bacteria and viruses on the one hand and dirt on the other hand, and second, the constant process of balancing her own health and the health of others as motives to ‘keep clean’. At that point, I try to open up the conversation and speak about historical research on ideas and practices of health and cleanliness, emphasising the contingent character of such interpretations in general, despite the fact that we always consider our own rules as absolute. She remains unwavering (48.03): “Yes, that’s true, but when I imagine now, a hundred years ago people did not get as old as today, and I do actually believe that this was also due to the hygiene conditions. Well – yes, I do actually think that also, that one fell ill quicker, and then fell ill quicker and testier, ehm, yes, one did not yet have the medicine of today, ehm, it has to do with that, I believe”. Shortly after, she identifies a problem as specific for the present age (47.28): “Moreover, of course, today other diseases exist simply everywhere. Ehm, well, caused by globalisation, the diseases are simply – spread, just think of the (American) Indians who died of common cold. Because they simply had no immune system, no protective barrier. Ehm. And I want people to pay attention because of that, too. Not, that now…, well, not that I think that terrible diseases are imported there or so, but illnesses simply are everywhere, or HIV came from Africa, yes, but is everywhere now. And against this, one has to be protective, what one did not have to do a hundred years ago or so. That was non-existent then”. This seems to explain much of the general atmosphere of anxiety and intimidation the leaflet carries. In a background text she had sent me before our meeting, however, I had noticed a comment that one should avoid stigmatising the refugees as disease carrier and transmitter. She confirms (42.47): “Very

194

A. S. Krossa

consciously so, yes (…). Well, it actually was obvious to me, for the reason alone that this has been AIDS counselling before, that stigmatisation is a big problem, ehm, and I realised that, because, as soon as one addresses the topic with someone, the reply is always (distorted voice) ‚yees, they bring along diseases, really terrible!’, and so on (…). I have heard that, yes. Hm. This is why I took part in that (medical, A.S.K.) doctoral advanced training, in order to be able to actually prove that properly: no, that is not the case. Doctor-whatever has said. Ehm, and one can check this (…) – is not the case. Or actually, is the case, if it had been the case”. This statement and her effort regarding this particular aspect surprises me to a degree, given her words before and particularly the impression the leaflet itself conveys. What follows is an interesting attempt—or simply an adjustment?— to generalise the statements of the leaflet, away from the impression of a specific problem of and with refugees (38.09): “But I have also addressed that in my oral presentations, ehm, because to me it was actually important to say that it is precisely not the case, and I, I have construed the leaflet, yes, consciously, towards a healthy everyday, and always emphasised ‘I know this from my living community with twenty people, how dirty it can be, and how difficult it can be, simply’, and that I thought of this in that way, and not via the idea that there are diseases (…), Because, I still think, well, would still champion it in this way, that it is not down to the fact that they come from other countries, have more diseases, or anything. But simply, under these conditions – everybody would have a problem (laughs a little)”. I enquire (37.01): “Has it been received like this, eh, by others? Or? Because I could actually imagine that someone also, well, how shall I put it, reacts differently, differently to this and says ‘yes, eh, good that this is taught to them’ or ‘they come here and have no idea about anything’ or something like that”. She replies (36.24): “Yes, in parts also, especially from volunteers who work in homes for asylum seekers. Who said, then (distorted voice): ‘yes, they are so dirty, and they all cannot do these things at all, and…’. It was exactly like this. Ehm, well, then I just said again and again ‘ah, yes, and now imagine you would move in tomorrow’. (Distorted voice again) ‘Oh, ehm, yes, hm, yes’ (laughs). That

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

195

is something really different, then. Because it is simply, there are incredibly difficult conditions. And yes, well, I do indeed believe that it is also due to the fact that that with another origin, ehm, with another climate, one does not know how to air here. Ehm, yes, but many do not know that there one does not have to air. That’s how it is when one comes to a different country, that is simply different. But (…) that was my focus and still is, that it is not for those who have moved out of the asylum seekers’ home and now live in an apartment, but for those who actually live under conditions of mass accommodation”. I return to the subject of sexually transmittable disease. Why is this a focus, i.e. seen as a particular problem of refugees in mass accommodation? She answers (34.16): “At the very beginning of this work, in the (institution, A.S.K.), we got a lot that in the types of mass accommodation, well, sexuality simply is something that is part of life, and what is actually a kind of basic need, so the people act it out also in mass living quarters, ehm. In the beginning, those were designed in a way that they were huge halls with people, really. And then sexuality was acted out in some corners. Ehm, somewhere – at a pinch in the mud, whatever, as long as one could act it out somehow, often of course also with any partners, not with one’s own husband or wife, ehm, someone whom one knows as of very recently and who comes from another country, has experienced a bad escape, ehm, when one’s fleeing one contracts everything, because of that simply, one walks much, one is exhausted, one is, ehm, one is, ehm, one also often has, then, the body is simply also so weak that it can’t fend off diseases anymore, and then one has, from tuberculosis to flu, can have everything. Well, one does not have to, sure, but…, Yes, and the, the prevalence rates of HIV and similar STI’s in other countries simply are different from here, too. And it is mainly men, ehm, and the main area is men, indeed, who are also homosexual (incompr.), seventy or eighty per cent, well, that does occur in society as a whole, but there still is the focus, nevertheless (…). And, in other countries that is very different, though (…). And someone possibly does not know that who does not have such an education. Like I said, there are many illiterates, so, they, how should someone know that, that with someone who comes from Africa, one maybe needs to pay more attention. One must always pay attention, of course, but (breathes in audibly) – yes (…). The odds are

196

A. S. Krossa

simply much higher. And under such conditions as well, where one does not immediately get access to a condom, maybe not even knows where one can buy something of that sort in Germany, how one, that one can buy something like this, that it exists (…). Precisely. And because of that, I also thought that it is particularly important that this is also included”. Without going very deep into interpretive analysis, what we encounter in this discussion on avoiding (or not) stigmatisation of refugees is clearly a particularly ambivalent space. On the one hand, we find attempts at normalisation, especially at the beginning, such as references to her countering arguments of volunteers with information from a medical training, or comparing the living conditions in places of mass accommodation with her experience of living in a shared flat with many, culminating in the statement that ‘anyone would have a problem’. But then, having a different origin and being used to a different climate and behaviour mix accordingly, as well as sexuality as part of life and ‘in the mud’. So, on the other hand, we find a number of detrimental statements, especially in relation to sexuality and health, on acting sexuality out in corners, in the mud, with partners who are not husband or wife but strangers, who one does not really know, and whom one allegedly cannot even weigh up at all, plus references to ‘Africa’, illiteracy and general lack of knowledge. Here too, it is worth noting that these partly contradictory elements are not discussed in regard to their differences or inconsistencies but simply listed next to each other and left as such—ambivalence in a particularly concrete form. To my comment, that this could also contribute to a stigmatisation, i.e. the insinuation the refugees had ‘anarchic sex’ and ruined themselves and us in this way, she replies (30.56): “Yes. This is why I have not included it so intensified in my report. Ehm. But that is not true, well, also in Germany I know that at festivals people are happy to have sex in the mud sometimes, that’s just a fact. And that is also a situation of mass accommodation. Ehm. And it can happen there equally. Just there one maybe remembers to take a condom along”. To my question what she would change about the leaflet from today’s point of view, she solely mentions aspects of form, not of content, e.g. addressing refugees more directly. Overall, though, she expresses the conviction that the contents are ‘right’ (6.34): “Actually, most of the things

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

197

are, really, ehm, I’d say, facts. Ehm, for instance, when one shares these things, of course one can do so, share nail scissors with someone, but, (incompr.) one contracts hepatitis C, for instance (…). Therefore these things for example are pure facts”. And in a later email to me, she emphasises again: “To all points in the leaflet I can give you medical substantiation”.

Conclusions Sexual health is “…a state of physical, emotional, mental and social wellbeing in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled”. (WHO, n.d.)

Several aspects have made this leaflet a complicated and challenging endeavour. First, the context of AIDS counselling has visibly set the course—possibly more so than had been intended—for linking ‘dirty’ behaviour and illness, strikingly making much use of fear and deterrence. Second, being a single-person project largely, it is understandable that differentiation is reflected to a limited degree only. Having said this, the leaflet is so interesting for this book not because it is some kind of exception, but because it is—again, like the previous chapters, each in its own way—an example of the typical, the everyday of us–them relations. Here, the focus is on ambivalence that pervades the leaflet in several respects and forms, especially in combination with the comments of the main author. On a very general level, the images and texts are highly ambivalent. At first sight, they appear to convey unambiguity and selfevidence, but in fact the images are often not clearly identifiable, words present information that lacks background and detail, and, importantly, images and words often do not fit together. Therefore, if we accept that a

198

A. S. Krossa

level of health information as such is relevant indeed, core questions are not being answered. When is something dirty or disease-causing? How can risks be assessed? This lack of detail prompts further questions. Are, for instance, details that shed light upon contingent, but still specific medical rationales left out because they appear self-evident in their ‘own’ cultural context? Or rather because they are considered not ‘reasonable’ for others? It is clearly not about considering taboos and any potential sense of shame. The images are simultaneously too vague and too detailed. They are too vague because knowledge expanding and consequently capacitating background information is not actually given. They are too detailed because bodily symptoms and behaviour especially are partly depicted in potentially shocking detail. If health education as the aim is shifted to one side for a moment, what then is this leaflet about? Very quickly, the concept of order comes to mind. Here it is (re-)created by exaggerated details that symbolise difference against which, powerfully, the ‘right’ behaviour must be set. In close relation with fear as a motivator, we have all the ingredients for a moral panic. That, however, is positioned squarely in opposition to the actually stated aims of orientation support and prevention. Before we look at this in more detail, it is useful to summarise what stereotypes we find of ‘them’ and ‘us’ as well as their relation. Through the leaflets’ representations, refugees typically behave in deviant ways. They are dirty, unhygienic, and—therefore—potentially contaminating and disease-causing. There is, however, no assumption of ill will on ‘their’ side, but rather of ignorance which calls for ‘help’ and ‘teaching’. One could discuss what is more problematic as collective ascription, though; is it ill will or primitiveness, lack of education and knowledge, even savageness? Only the latter ascriptions appear to call for elucidation, however, which immediately locates us in opposition to and/or constructively on the side of an other. Such a supportive impetus can be challenged, though, when accepting the constructed sexual image of the other as overly sexualised and hormone-driven; in other words, as strange, deviant, essentially different, and potentially threatening and dangerously sexual. The constructed self on the other hand stays on the sideline, impacting quite invisibly on the leaflet, namely as allegedly knowing about

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

199

right, hygienic and therefore healthy behaviour, including an enlightened and healthy sexuality. Therefore, it is clearly superior and the exclusive bearer of (definatory) power and respective authority. By creating the other as a needy figure that depends on our knowledge and help, the self is affirmed, while the constructed other disrupts the (allegedly neutral) order. Importantly, these are collective ascriptions: broad-brush allocations of culturalised identities, also of sexually imaged communities (Joane Nagel), are double processes of stereotyping, of others as well as us. How is this being done? Most generally, and I have mentioned it already, threat and fear are at work here. On the surface, the leaflet promises health when following the instructions, and threatens with disease when not. ‘Prevention’ thus takes centre stage, as a continuous defence against imminent danger. The basic structure is danger and protection, accordingly—protection that can allegedly be won by disciplined, controlled behaviour. This is a characteristic structure of a pathological view that triggers fears and leads to the perception of an imperative to act (Foucault3 ). Notwithstanding the fact that every cultural product such as this leaflet transports particular knowledge, experiences and the respective world view, i.e. it is usually substantiated by ‘real’ conviction and rationale, here the function and effectiveness stand in the foreground. More specifically, we can differentiate a number of (certainly not necessarily consciously applied) strategies here, and I have selected some. The main strategy—which is probably typical of most leaflets that strive for ‘quick and simple’ information—is de-individualisation, lumped together by simplifying and ascribing allegedly collective features to people and groups. More problematically, however, is the systematic ascription of negative connotations throughout. Another strategy that takes effect here, especially with images being the basis, is what is shown and how. The pattern is that which is usually 3 Foucault

could be a fruitful theoretical connecting factor, with his ideas on technology of power, dispositif of security and sexuality, including his references to the body as object of knowledge, the imperative of normality, the use of the principle of binarity, effects of disciplining and so on and so forth. Also Norbert Elias and his idea of a civilisation process immediately comes to mind, including the path from external to internal control.

200

A. S. Krossa

private is made public, taboo violation becomes an instrument. Part of the pattern is also what is not shown, though. That is just as effective. Examples in this case are mostly in the area of gender differentiation in the various fields (cleaning, washing, sexuality). Whatever is shown (or not) feeds into the underlying idea that the addressees are different and, importantly, different in collective ways, and so very different that measures are called for. This is very much in line with Said’s assumptions about ‘the West’ that has constructed ‘the Orient’ as its dichotomised other (sexuality and violence, harem and sword). A third strategy is that allegedly the (constructed) deficits shall be countered with assimilation—but is that really the aim? What is suggested to the refugees (living in types of mass accommodation) is regularity, (self-)control and, importantly, an exaggerated regulation. Apparently in order to be on the (very) safe side, the other is asked to be even cleaner and more careful than we are (e.g. with respect to disinfection, change of bedding, washing hands). Why? The suspicion stands to reason that ‘we’ do not really want ‘them’ to be cleaner, better, etc. but to prove to us that they accept our rules—domination and hierarchy again, transported by an overconstructed normality. What are the main effects, then, of such double stereotyping? The refugees are probably often alienated and put off, as the main author described some of the reactions when browsing the leaflet. Volunteers and other more established residents who may happen to get a look at it may take the images in the leaflet as reality and stereotype the newcomers accordingly. Both effects stand obviously in contrast to the aims of the author. A reduction of perceived difference does not take place, but rather a build-up via over-emphasis. And—even more problematically—the leaflet conveys the impression that the ‘knowledge gap’ is actually functional. And a last question to countercheck: would a leaflet for a mostly German audience look similar? That is hard to imagine, except maybe, in a softer version, for children or adolescents—which again emphasises the point of hierarchy and subordination. From the more general theoretical point of view of this book, this is an example of a communication attempt that is not supportive of sociation. The—implicit and explicit—allocation of dirt is a half-concealed

8 Sexual Hygiene: Image Analysis and Interview

201

conflict, as the focus is always on ‘improving’. And both the idea and practice of help express a kind of pseudo harmony that allow the ‘helpers’ to emerge favourably.

Reference WHO (World Health Organisation). (n.d.). https://www.who.int/ reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/. Accessed 21 October 2019.

9 Conclusions

They help a lot. But they cannot see things from our perspective. They see us with their eyes. (quote of a refugee in Chapter 4)

Looking beyond the quirkiness of the individual empirical cases and their immediately fascinating effect, they are clearly all about patterns of social ordering, about society as process. As we have seen, ascriptions of dirtiness and cleanliness, both in the material and moral sense, work strongly in differentiations of inside and outside, establishing us and other. As the analysis of practices on donated clothes showed quite directly, ascriptions of (potential) dirt and a related risk of contamination are not onedirectional but typically mutual, alongside defined group borders. Characteristically, all sides interpret themselves as clean and the respective other as—at least potentially—unclean. Nevertheless, general underlying hierarchical structures and correspondingly varying degrees of definatory power do indeed render some positions systematically more assertive, socially effective, and therefore more successful than others. The only option of those who are in socially disadvantaged positions is to develop subversive strategies, based on definitions of dirt and cleanliness, as an instrument of relative power, and this they do. Examples taken from © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_9

203

204

A. S. Krossa

the studies presented here include: not appearing at all when waste separation is being explained repeatedly; outperforming the teacher again and again; shifting to Arabic language in the session on environmental education; or openly assuming that donated clothes could be dirty and contaminating. In practice, the principle of mutual ascription leads to a highly interesting net pattern of power and emerging definitions, rather than a simplistic ladder structure. For my own general research interest, the selected case studies on relations and communications between volunteers and refugees proved to be genuinely fruitful as specific instances of (conflict) communication in a framework of glocalisation, especially alongside the subject of dirt and cleanliness. And although both the field, refugees and volunteers, and the perspective, ascriptions of dirt and cleanliness, doubtlessly and necessarily are specific, this research does in fact represent characteristic constellations of difference, inequality and related processes of negotiation. Broadly speaking, the research delineates sociation (or non-sociation) under conditions of globalisation, like any other field of society, except it reveals this process in a particularly acute form. And this is what makes this field so attractive for research, namely it offers the intensification, so to speak, of a general perspective. Against this background, I would expect that the empirical studies, beyond the individual insights they offer as such, can substantiate and further the theoretical groundwork I have developed in my book Theorizing Society in a Global Context. My question, then, is this: which forms and contents of conflict communication in both verbal and practical expressions can typically (and atypically) be observed in this field, and which respective implications do they have for chances of sociation both in the field and more broadly as generalised strategies or types? Most generally, the research has shown that, while ascriptions of dirtiness and cleanliness seem to be organised quite clearly on a level of everyday life understanding and are often framed with an entitlement of unambiguity on a communicative surface, we see on a deeper level, in the actual exchange between people, a surprisingly large number and variety of ambivalences, ambiguities and even paradoxes. In most cases— and that is of immediate relevance for the research interest at core here— this is due to some form of non-activation of conflict among the relevant

9 Conclusions

205

actors. This, again, is partly due to various degrees of taboo that are characteristically corresponding with dirt, but only partly, because in our dayto-day life we tend to shy away from activating conflicts on principle. So here too, this specific focus brings out typical reactions and communications in intensified forms, which helps us to see characteristic issues and structures more directly.

Attempting a Typology In the following, I attempt to systematise patterns, i.e. different strategies of conflict communication and their potential for sociation, by drawing on examples from the empirical research in this book. Obviously, there is no claim to completeness, neither regarding the examples I return to, nor with respect to the strategies I carve out. I am interested more in the general breadth of the results with respect to their potential impact on sociation, in particular of mixed and ambivalent forms. For a start, we can distinguish three broad categories. These are forms of conflict communication that hinder sociation, forms that support sociation, and forms that include elements and effects of both, and all in interrelation with the developed continuum and its extreme poles of absolute war and total harmony. This approximate distinction of these three types now prompts the question of their sequence. Although it was tempting to look at types that ultimately support sociation, thereby directing the attention to best practices and somehow offering a conciliatory closure, I have in fact opted for a different approach. I decided to start with those examples that tend to hinder sociation, because they are very close to one of the two extreme poles. This indeed turned out to be the most directly determinable cluster. Secondly, I categorise those examples that appear to have an at least potentially positive impact on chances of sociation. However, their determination has turned out to be more complicated. For supporting sociation, several conditions ideally meet, but in the data usually not all of them are fulfilled and only tendencies can be estimated. This already draws our attention to ambivalences, which is useful for the third and last section, i.e. explicitly ambivalent types. By placing them at the end, I indicate where my main

206

A. S. Krossa

analytical interest lies and on what I wish to suggest focusing further research.

Types Hindering Sociation Most generally, communicative forms that hinder sociation come close to either the one or the other extreme pole of the developed continuum, with either too much or too little conflict, accordingly. Importantly, as has been shown here already, it is not just about a conflictual theme that may exist, but about conflict being activated. Otherwise, the conflict is not compatible with further communication and respective sociation-effective exchange—and therefore non-activated conflict (artificially) functions like a harmony-extreme. This leads us to the question about what supports the activation of conflictual elements in any communication? The empirical examples offer an indirect answer to this, by showing us what hinders activation of conflict, and that is, first and foremost, a strong positing of hierarchy. And in fact, the examples show in much detail and variation how attempts at determining hierarchy—or subversively attacking it—are used to establish order.

The War Pole We start with the larger number of the examples that refer to forms of communication used by the volunteers, or more generally speaking, by the longer established residents. What are the examples of sociation-hindering communication forms on their side? A general—arguably mostly non-reflective—approach is to convey an unchallengeable image of a (pre-)existing social order as stable and ‘right’. This means that the longer established residents try hard to avoid the factual contingency and processuality—underlying constant processes of change—becoming visible, conscious and subject to open discussion. This is further supported by a prevalent tendency to simplify and collectivise the other, while assuming a high degree of difference as being characteristic of the members of one’s own group and their individuality. Such conveyance of normality works mainly by displaying hierarchy, in various gradations.

9 Conclusions

207

Those are not easy to evaluate with respect to their degree of encroaching, though. The most general tendentially sociation-hindering pattern that characterises most situations to various degrees is a fundamental teaching hierarchy. Regarding content, the normal, the right and the wrong are clearly defined; regarding form, there is typically a clear role distribution between asking and answering persons, with often no switches at all, e.g. ‘what are your experiences?’ Again and again, we see in the data how such a teaching structure hinders conflict, because an apparently inbuilt hierarchy prevents open exchange and disrupts any airing of disagreement. This is even more the case when, as in the example of environmental education, several cleavages run alongside each other: teacher–pupil, Germans–others, and often also gender and age cleavages. All the subsequent types seem to feed on this basic structure. Very generally, again, we can see numerous and diverse variations on degrading the other’s knowledge and capabilities, most notably intellectual ones, e.g. in Chapter 4, when one of the teachers tries to justify the limited teaching content with “their intellect, are not able, (…) and then we cannot cover everything. Well, in the given time”. And similarly in Chapter 7: “Here, also very, very plain people come in who have no previous education at all”. This is an obvious strategy of othering: by means of questioning ‘their’ intellect, packaged as an alleged responsiveness to and accommodation of ‘their’ needs, the relation as a whole is called into question because, obviously, in that case one cannot really connect with such a fundamentally limited other. He or she can only be ‘helped’, at best. Identifiably, such an interpretation suggests a particular attitude towards others: consequently, treating others like children recurs as a pattern. One element is language which is rather complicated to interpret, as mutual language skills within groups of volunteers and refugees are limited and simplification is unavoidable. Having said this, there undoubtedly are ways of communicating that suggest infantilisation. Whenever communication does not take place in such constellations, and differences overemphasised, suspicion is indicated. Several examples are offered in Chapter 5, where already in the opening sequence teacher

208

A. S. Krossa

A explains ostentatiously, patiently and slowly ‘difficult’ ‘words’ insinuates that they are ignorant, greedy and naïve. She even informs them that ‘it is a terrible world’ and tells them ‘the truth’. Defining the others as being unenlightened and unreasonable allegedly justifies her not addressing them on eye level. This is obviously pure construction, functional from her perspective, as that secures an even more elevated position for her. She simply must teach them. Another teacher in the same setting is discernibly actively making things ‘too complicated’, seemingly trying to win the upper hand by explaining something in much detail. All such active and hierarchical enlargement of the difference between us and them, me and you, obviously impacts seriously on chances of sociation. This is also reflected in very concrete forms of addressing the other in the actual ‘teaching situations’. Mere repetition—in effect a standstill of the social—turned out to be a popular approach, e.g. in Chapter 4, when waste separation had been explained again and again, or in Chapter 5, when knowledge about environmentally friendly practices has also been given when it was absolutely clear that the audience knew already. Such repetition of learning contents really imposes ‘knowledge of right and wrong’ on the other, but clearly more important than the actual learning contents is the hierarchy that is transported and stabilised in the process. Similar to this in the exchange hindering respect is the strategy to hide differences and insecurities within one’s own group from the others, as discussed in Chapter 4, when the volunteers are unsure about where to put old pots, but lead this discussion only in German, thereby actively keeping the others in the dark about their actual lack of knowledge. When they re-address the refugees with a concerted reply—one solution and one only—the refugees most probably get the impression that there was no insecurity on the side of the volunteers at all. A pretended coherence of the German group is maintained towards the ‘outside’. The strategy of actively hindering or stopping expressions of the other as the repeatedly used strategic form takes this a step further. For instance, in Chapter 5, the father speaks with the translator and is obviously on to the right answer, when the teacher interrupts and gives the correct answer himself. Thereby the teacher hinders the other from coming another step closer to himself, and thus to be too close up. A

9 Conclusions

209

both more invasive and more frequently applied strategy is quite simple commanding. At least on the communicative surface, it leaves no alternatives for the other and is therefore a purely one-sided domination of the social. Most of the examples in this pattern we find in Chapter 5, which is also due to the situation of direct exchange that I was witness to. Submission is secured by imposing bodily movement—‘in order to get you moving’, ‘I want everybody to take part, ehm, well, everyone who is in the room may take part’. The principle of commanding is further emphasised with a few twists in the same chapter. The first is a hugely patronising comment; ‘I want a volunteer who brews a cup of coffee all on his own, you can do that’. She takes any pressure off herself and off the established order (from her point of view) by acting as if the refugees’ increasingly visible unwillingness was in fact insecurity. In this situation, another twist followed quickly: ‘Who wants me to tell you directly how it works’. Noticeably, this does not follow the intonation of a question—one assumes because she is quite well aware that this is a pseudo option that would make the other look even more ‘stupid’ and take even more autonomy and respective power away from them. In the same chapter we saw another teacher adding a control announcement to his command which also further supports a commanding character: ‘This you shall sort, I control it’. The effect of further exchange being hindered can also be found in another strategy, though possibly more indirectly. This is a strategy of not speaking about and exchanging views on contents, in this case by giving images to the others. The main example is the leaflet in Chapter 8, but also Chapter 4, when images are used for explaining waste separation, provides an instance of this strategy. Working with images avoids vocalising issues and thereby may make it easier to impose one’s own ideas and ideals on others. Working with two colours, basically, has similar effects, as it indicates an allegedly clear ‘right and wrong’. Supposedly conveying a materially manifested and demonstrated normality, an activation of conflict is rather difficult. The communicative activity, responsibility and potential guilt and blame would be placed on the refugees if they dared, for example, to call such images into question, forcing the volunteers to justify themselves. A leaflet as in Chapter 8 can easily, however,

210

A. S. Krossa

also be simply ignored or thrown away, etc. by the refugees. Theoretically, it could also be an incentive for further discussion. In all contexts I have been witness to, the use of images has always led to a cutting off of exchange, though. While so far in this typology we have looked at quite directly imposing strategies, we will now shift to forms that increasingly involve the refugees, for example, in the fixing of the traditional order, which is rather more problematic, in my view. The first strategy is asking exam questions, which narrows communication greatly. On the basis of clearly fixed roles, failure looms, or praise—in any case a top-down activity that corroborates the existing hierarchy. Again, Chapter 5 proves fruitful. When the exchange between translator and the family seems to become more autonomous, the teacher repeatedly intervenes with targeted questions in order to maintain control. This is also fostered by tricking the other into making a mistake and by feeding on the generated insecurity or even ‘mistake’ of the other: ‘I have asked a nasty question, it was a trap’. The really big effort he makes here, including risking his own reputation, illustrates how he must feel an enormous pressure. The general idea of this strategy is confirmed when he, upon my request, simply does not admit that the family gave the correct answer, but constructs an alternative answer. The strategy of ignoring knowledge of the other is one of the most frequent ones in the data, and evident again in Chapter 5. It occurs with the subject of returnable bottles, of heating and of airing. Again and again, the knowledge of the family becomes obvious and is completely ignored by several of the teachers, either by simply not referring to it, or by rattling off their lectures anyway. Characteristically teacher A, for instance, counterfactually creates the impression that she has to add something (important): ‘Exactly, exactly. Super. But one can regulate it’, or ‘Ok, but I think you have understood this’. Clearly, this is not just due to some personal inflexibility, but illustrates and establishes a social order with its hierarchy and clearly allocated roles. Discernibly, the strategies become more multilayered and aggressive at the same time, the more the volunteer or teacher feels challenged by the (knowledge of the) refugees. A particularly interesting move to take

9 Conclusions

211

back control is the strategic use of humour, I find. We encounter it in practically all of the analysed situations, e.g. in Chapter 7, where there is a lot of laughter in the room that visibly forms a strategy to fight feelings of embarrassment, intensifying in moments when embarrassing aspects are spoken out loudly. Typically, any direct addressing of the subject is avoided thereby, a general attempt at softening it and hiding insecurity can be witnessed. Additional elements become visible when, in Chapter 5, the teacher creates ‘contrived laughter’. She is clearly not amused. Instead, she tries to use her controlled expression of humour to keep her face in that moment, to smooth things out. She clarifies in this way the hierarchical distance between her and the others. Their half-open criticism is allegedly not taken seriously, and instead it is even publicly interpreted as a joke by them, all a very active move to regain control. As another alleged approximation, exuberant praise is a structurally similar approach. Generally, praise is based on the condition that one is (or feels) able to judge the other’s abilities. Consequently, any praise establishes or confirms a hierarchical structure. When the teacher in Chapter 5 loudly exclaims several times an exaggerated laudatory ‘oooohhh!’ this is hugely patronising. It also suggests a need for her to motivate, ‘push’ the group. By making herself dominant, also through the sound level and by being heard accordingly, she actively directs attention first of all to herself. This is even more apparent when she uses excessive praise after one of the Syrian girls had made a mistake: ‘Never mind, that was very good, that was good!’ Here, a mistake is—counterfactually—represented as ‘something good anyway’. Two interpretations suggest themselves. On the one hand, she could simply expect nothing of them, and someone so clearly lower in the hierarchy to oneself can be praised without any risk. This fixes the other in the appropriately lower position. On the other hand, such praise could be based on the suggestion that the person is so devastated that she has to be comforted. Then, the teacher makes use of it to generate a kind of gratefulness and general emotional obligation—this person has supported me when I was in the wrong—and to a certain degree dependency. Both interpretations are compatible, of course, and in any case, hinder sociation. Supplementing this collection of strategies, I wish to point to the underlying approach of collectivising, i.e. clustering people into groups

212

A. S. Krossa

and categories and allocating them stereotyped characteristics. Such judgemental demarcation of collectives became visible whenever positive references were made to one’s own group: ‘This is why we recycle such things here in Germany’; or when the others are depicted as unenlightened, simply ‘behind’ and with a need to ‘catch up’ as when asked ‘Do you know already compost?’ This distributes collective structural positions on the grounds of a homogenising strategy. Obviously, nowhere near everyone in Germany always recycles everything, and as it turned out, for some Syrians compost is not a cutting-edge invention they still have to discover. An aggravated version of this type is to depict the other typically (i.e. as a group) unwilling to learn, possibly willing to lie, when in Chapter 5, the teacher narrates her experiences with refugees who said they ‘knew it all’ and the translator caught them heating or airing wrongly, and even more so a degrading of the other as dirty and therefore potentially dangerous, e.g. when there is the rumour around about rats and possibly in the refugees’ houses. This cuts off exchange in a different way, though, as it is usually only expressed within one’s own group, when speaking about the other but still leads to distanciation. All such stereotyping most probably has long-term implications for the specific relationship and therefore for the development of society more generally. Consistently, these examples illustrate a strong adherence to hierarchy, striving for rigidity and fixation of the familiar order. No grey zones and nuances are allowed, only activity from top to bottom. This is ultimately defensive, of course, and illustrates the high degree of perceived importance and urgency on the side of those who want to ‘keep’ the order that is familiar and favourable to them. On the side of the refugees, a few examples also fit into this category of sociation-hindrance. They are aligned in a very different way, though. Working in the opposite direction—from the bottom of the hierarchy towards the top—they are not geared to stabilisation of the current order, but to its transformation. Compared to the strategies of the longer established residents, they are also considerably more passive. The first example is their attempts to resist the (often encroaching) exertions of influence of the volunteers by saying one knows it all already, as one of the teachers in Chapter 5 recounts: ‘they say, ‘oh, got that already, yes, (…) from the waste disposal company, already got leaflets, already

9 Conclusions

213

done whatever: we know that’. This, identifiably, is a strategy of resistance, as is switching the language. Also in Chapter 5, when the teacher again ignored the completely correct answers and proceeded with his prepared speech, the translator interrupts him by speaking in Arabic with the family, and no one reacts to the teacher anymore. The principle is furthered when the refugees directly refuse social contact with the volunteers by not appearing at the scheduled meeting. Such total refusal is the most powerful means at hand at that point in time, and its sociationhindering effect could not be more distinct. The fact that far fewer examples are given here on this category of types on the side of the refugees is certainly also due to the main focus of the data material; mostly, however, it is because people who are (allocated) part of the lower status group usually cannot simply afford to make use of means of this kind. The examples that now follow on the other extreme are much more typical for them.

The Harmony Pole We now turn to forms of communication that are not supportive of sociation, however, because they are located too close to the harmony extreme pole of the continuum. Importantly, harmony in this data can generally be classified as ‘simulated’. Although typically both sides work more closely together than was the case in the previous examples, the active part of this category of strategies lies characteristically with the person labelled as subordinate: submissive reaction is the key to all the following examples. The first example selected is when, in Chapter 5, the comment of the father on a particular type of batteries is ignored by the teacher for so long that he decides to react submissively—despite the fact that his comment is correct. Only when he acts as if he were less smart and knowledgeable than the teacher, is the teacher able to react to him again. Being cut off from the communication, the father feels forced to backtrack in order to acknowledge and re-establish roles and hierarchy. On the side of the teacher, this renders a ‘generous forgiving’ possible, which puts everyone back on the traditionally established communicative track. In

214

A. S. Krossa

other words, when the hierarchical order appears to have been disturbed too much, then only by pretending it was not—i.e. by simulating harmony—can save the situation. The pressure placed on the person in the lower social position must be enormous, as the father would rather put up with obviously wrong and unfair forms and structures than risk the whole social situation and relation. Both sides comply actively with this, though. This pattern came up in Chapter 6, too, when a German woman, but ‘a bit more southern-looking’, is offered a winter jacket. The feelings of the non-involved bystander are telling. She describes it as ‘grotesque’ and narrates how the woman even took responsibility for ‘somehow bluffing it out nicely’. This means that instead of addressing the misunderstanding and, in particular, the ‘downgrading’, obviously due to physical features, the victim allows the perpetrator to keep face by taking the shame on to her side. This pattern, and the respective allocation of roles, is further substantiated by taking some direct comments of the refugees into account. In Chapter 6, I represented a strategy of not expressing any criticism to the volunteers, but, on the contrary, of endorsing them verbally and in practice. The refugees accepted anything, showed gratitude and laughed together with the volunteers, then continued giving or throwing by far the largest part away, but consciously not making any of this subject of discussion with the volunteers. Obviously, this is only acting as if everything was good. On the surface there is agreement, being in accordance, mutual confirmation and recognition. Regarding a potential effect on sociation processes, two aspects need to be mentioned here. On the one hand, by making invisible the factual disagreement regarding, for example, clothes, conflict is not activated, and this is problematic. On the other hand, if we include a time dimension, this behaviour illustrates and fosters, in principle, mutual interest in good relations with the respective person. By leaving some space for something better in the future, it offers some options at least for compatibility and exchange in the medium run. Consistently, these forms of simulated harmony involve all positions but ask much more from the lower ones. It is impressive to see to what lengths participants willingly go along in a consistently friendly way.

9 Conclusions

215

When, on the surface, appearances are kept up in order to be able to continue communication in principle, conflicts are not activated and sociation is hindered, akin to Langenohl’s example of polite manners and words prevalent among the town-twinning groups. The fact that the war pole is the preferred strategy to perform antisociation communication for the longer established residents and that the harmony pole is for the refugees illustrates the meta-structure that determines the game before it has even actually started, i.e. before any concrete exchange takes place between the groups. An even more severe, and possibly more precise, interpretation is, however, that both strategies are strategies of the powerful group. They simply force the other group into their submissive behaviour, and despite the relative passivity, this might well be the most pervasive strategy of the powerful ones.

Types Supporting Sociation Three aspects typically support genuine exchange with elements of agreement/similarity and disagreement/dissimilarity. The first is some acknowledgement that the other is not totally, i.e. essentially, different, but, in fact, at least in some respects, similar to me. The greater the perceived degree of similarity, the better the chances of communication on eye-to-eye level. In line with this, non-hierarchical pre-structures constitute the second supportive aspect. The third aspect that fosters chances of sociation is any activation of conflict within the exchange, not to a degree that would be analogous to the extreme pole of ‘absolute war’, obviously, but the aspect of activation of some difference is indispensable as an incentive for exchange. The following selected examples meet these three criteria to different degrees and in varying forms and can be usefully differentiated in relation to them. The first type combines high degrees of perceived similarity and conflict activation, but is weak on the criterion of non-hierarchy. An example, referred to in Chapter 4, is that of refugees who do not allocate limp salad to chickens. Their German housemate is uncomprehending: “I don’t understand that. That much is clear, that it is something good when the chickens get that”. Despite the fact that he expects complete

216

A. S. Krossa

assimilation, it is striking that his comment meets two criteria. First, he unquestionably expects that the others are sufficiently similar to him so that they can understand and practice the ‘common sense’ rules. Second, he activates this conflict by addressing the subject repeatedly, at least in principle offering the opportunity for discussion. The hierarchical structures are clearly present and effective, though, as he is the one who refers to them—again and again. The second type consists of high levels of both similarity and non-hierarchy, but is weak on the conflict activation side. The respective example, also from Chapter 4, goes one step further, by placing us and them on the same level, at least with respect to a particular domain. This is the fact when the social worker remarks that it is not only the refugees who have difficulties in allocating waste to the appropriate boxes: “But this is a problem of the German population, too; it has been established that people simply do not comply”. Regardless of the fact that he does not sustain this approach, this is a telling instance because the whole power structure is being shifted. Both sides go against the rules, both sides need to learn. It entails, however, a tendency to not activate the conflict—a conflict that is actually perceived by many Germans—, as the risk is to discount it as ‘everybody does it anyway’ and therefore ‘it is not worth discussing’. Overall, I would still classify it as potentially supporting processes of sociation, though, because it includes an offer to speak on eye level, as do the following two instances: speaking about the way ‘the Germans’ often use public toilets, and (non-) cleaning practices in a large living community. On the former, we saw the statement on: “a sign saying, that in the toilets, what actually should be self-evident for us, ‘please leave the toilet as you have found it’, well, apparently that is still indicated here and there. Also if, yes, for us, who we use the toilets. (Incompr.), where many people feel unobserved, and, one should not, yes, demarcate it from nationalities”. On the latter, we recall the sentence “I know this from my living community with twenty people, how dirty it can be, and how difficult it can be (…). But simply, under these conditions – everybody would have a problem”. Here again, we have clear statements that point to a basic understanding of the other as being similar or in principle being ‘the

9 Conclusions

217

same’. However, it is certainly questionable to what extent this is openly discussed with those others. And, noticeably, the structural and semantic dualism of us and others is maintained, even in these examples. This is also the case for the next example which takes the form of an acknowledgement that sometimes the others simply cannot do things differently, implicitly saying that no one could. In Chapter 7, the lack of toilet paper in the bathrooms of the reception centre is mentioned: “shit, no toilet paper, no toilet brush – they cannot but dirty them! They have no choice to clean that up”. And the striking change in perspective by putting oneself into the shoes of the other is taken further in the next comment, when another one of the volunteers imagines the impact which obvious degradations have on others, as they might have on himself. Mentioning the separate toilets of the security personnel, he says: “I do not want to say ‘for Germans only’ or whatever, but hence there is indeed a clear separation, and I don’t know what that effectuates with the people here”. Using a variety of mitigations, for example, stating how he does not want to say it but actually is saying it, he emphasises the similarity between us and them, not just on a level of actions, but of feelings, even. Here too, doubts are in order if any of this is ever being activated, i.e. openly discussed between the groups, though. I decided to interpret these instances as having a potential for sociation nevertheless, especially on the grounds that the general bearing they convey could function to gradually open a communicative door, although they do not entail all the core features I have identified so far as being necessary for supporting sociation. A different focus—on actual action—characterises the next example. In Chapter 5, we find a rare instance of the affective acknowledging of the knowledge of the other, followed by appropriate action, i.e. an adjustment of the teacher’s actions by proceeding to the next point. The teacher states: “I find that great, because, ehm, that, so far that stuck in the mind of all groups. Then we directly go to (the next station)”. This is not just assuming a similarity of the other, but acting on it. Although the element of activating a conflict is missing and hierarchy is upheld a bit more in this situation of direct exchange, this can function as a process in a sociation-supporting way.

218

A. S. Krossa

The third type here is high on all three aspects and additionally includes a comprehensive attempt at self-evaluation. The most farreaching example of perceiving the other as not only being similar but potentially even socially superior, including an explicit and deep selfreflection, was offered in Chapter 5. One of the teachers, in the evening before the actual training on environmentalism, made an impressive statement that—against much that has been recorded here—illustrates the possible depth of considerations of relations of self/selves and other/others: “I do reflect myself again and again: Hey you, what are you doing here actually? (…) this project has two sides for me, it does something with me, too”. What this example conveys is not an isolated insight and endeavour, but an encompassing questioning of the self in relation to another. Shortcomings and difficulties are clearly mentioned, such as linguistic limitations and a related risk of infantilisation, but not used as an excuse. Expecting of herself to take the other as seriously as she does herself, she calls the relation between her and the refugees into fundamental question and is unwilling to put up with hierarchy as a prestructured feature of their relations. Even more so, she is open to turning hierarchy around, allowing the other to assume a higher social standing than herself. Thereby, the power structure between them develops from a line into a multilayered and complex formation. Most interesting possibly is her acknowledgement that she is being changed by contact and exchange, turning the very familiar, sometimes even allegedly self-evident structure of learning and teaching, and thereby potentially also helping to change it around. Such a self-understanding doubtlessly opens up considerable space for exchange on eye-to-eye level. And furthermore, I would expect that, on such a basis of openness, subjects can be addressed by the various participants of a conversation that also touches on sensitive themes, encouraging exchange, also—at least in a medium-term— on more controversial subjects. In my view, this approach therefore holds a large potential for sociation, given that it becomes activated in social exchange, and not just formulated in private. One example shall be added here: strong on all three aspects—and initiated by the refugee side. In Chapter 5, already before reaching the respective station, one of the children asks where to throw something, i.e. pushing the process actively forward and thereby interfering with the

9 Conclusions

219

sequence as planned and pre-structured by the teachers. This follows the pattern of all active and open attempts at subversion (e.g. like the father and the batteries), and is to be usefully included as a type in its own right. Importantly, however, the ultimate decision about conflict activation in a sociation-effective exchange is characteristically taken by the side defined as superior in the constellation.

Types in Between Types in-between function in various ways. I use this last category to refer again to some examples I find especially interesting. However, it largely has the character of a somewhat wild collection. Quite different instances are subsumed under this heading, and my aim is more to shift attention to them than to make any really systematic use of them already. Nevertheless, I try to broadly differentiate between them on the level of form, which may equip me with rather more leeway on the level of content. One option to formally differentiate between the instances here is to look, on the one hand, at processes that develop from one type to another, so to speak, and on the other hand to consider types that combine both ends of the continuum simultaneously. In both cases, this characteristically results in ambiguous reflections of selves and others with accordingly mixed potential for sociation. One example in Chapter 4 has already been depicted with an eye to its processual character and the social shifts that potentially arise in its course. It concerns the social worker who first states that ‘we’ cannot expect proper conduct from the others because they were used to different practices—throwing ‘something out of the window, out of the car’. Quickly, though, he shifts to the principle of learning, thereby including a time variable, and even refers to different learned realities of bacteria and hygiene. Although the time variable gives a kind of sequence and order to his comment, the high degree of ambivalence is unmistakeable. In the first step, he combines a kind of understanding for the other, i.e. a kind of responsiveness and accommodation, with the assumption of profound

220

A. S. Krossa

difference, the latter usually working towards clear demarcation and hindering exchange. It is precisely the alleged understanding that puts the other in their (degraded) place and prevents any open discussion. Then again, he appears to speak supportively of them and also opens the process up by referring to learning—an idea that suggests at least a potential for similarity of us and them—but sticks to the teaching–learning nexus which strengthens hierarchy more. Reasoning about clearly collective ideas with reference to ‘their’ individual well-being again is tricky, as it is ultimately based on the traditional power structure—a fact that appears to be almost actively hidden on the communicative surface. Overall, I interpret this instance as highly ambivalent on the surface, but ultimately strongly orientated to the traditional order and therefore tending not to support sociation effects. A second process I want to address here takes place between various participants at the end of the teaching sessions in Chapter 6. In that instance, the teacher struggles to find an appropriate way to express her mixed feelings of authentic surprise regarding the knowledge of the family on the one hand and her strong impetus to maintain the upper hand. It results in a familiar form, i.e. patronising commendation: “And I think you are doing that really well. I am totally impressed (…), I am also…., great. It is much appreciated to have such fellow citizens”. One expression seems to indicate a bit of warming up to meeting on eye level, i.e. ‘fellow citizen’, but that is not confirmed in the further course. Anyway, her tiny step towards the family prompts them to speak joyfully and in confusion to the translator, who replies to the teacher: “Well, conversely: so, they are very grateful that they are shown everything and that they can participate, and, well, how Germany makes an effort”. Now, with all positions in their traditional place again, with order being re-established and acknowledged, the teacher is allowed to save face, and immediately takes advantage of it again with a patronising, infantilizing: “yeeees! It’s fun with you!”. The most interesting aspect of this sequence to me is how everyone is working together on re-establishing the familiar order, now with full awareness about the factual distribution of knowledge of, and on all sides, and all this at the end of the exercise when actually no communicative pathway needs to be paved anymore. This seems to link them to each

9 Conclusions

221

other, though in a static way. And that is not sociation-supporting, perspectivally. The following examples share the feature of simultaneity. They display ambivalent or even paradoxical elements at the same time. This makes their effects less easily determinable, and prompts the question as to what degree ambivalence is actually used to exercise power, possibly even more effectively, precisely because of the indirectness of the strategy. In Chapter 5, we find two examples of pretending responsiveness. First, a teacher invites the family to “feel free to come a bit closer, I do not bite”, combining a directive with a kind of humour by making a ‘generous joke’. Contrary to the typical effect of humour—laughing together and establishing trust—this example clearly illustrates its use for establishing hierarchy, suggesting submissive shyness on the side of the other from which he can relieve them. Typical of this utilisation is that it is a form of ‘controlled humour’. While uncontrolled or at least openended humour, so to speak, opens up the social situation and makes it more flexible and unpredictable, controlled humour is typically used as an instrument of power, to show one’s own superiority, as here. Similarly, the same teacher deploys the strategy of ‘simulated informality’, by using the intermediate form Ihr instead of the formal form Sie. It is a pseudo-obligingness, addressing the others primarily top-down, as he would most probably not address a group of German grown-ups in this way. The effect is slightly degrading, again feeding into the establishment of hierarchy, as in the previous example, forming a pattern together. In an attempt to make an acknowledgement without losing his privileged position—“I’m now, ehhhh, positively surprised”—the same teacher remains the point of reference. On the other hand, however, he discloses his feelings, and this adds openness to any communication. When discussing this kind of ambivalence, the figure of the translator in Chapter 5 represents an interesting personification of the issue. She perceives herself as standing in between the two main groups, volunteers and refugees, switching the focus from time to time. When the father allocates something to the right box, for instance, she applauds and emphasises that he has done everything correctly. On the one hand, she is keen to see the achievement of the family being acknowledged,

222

A. S. Krossa

while on the other hand she commends them in an exaggerated, clearly top-down way that marks her relative superiority. The typology is not yet fully developed but a fruitful start has been made, I think. It will be useful to do more research on situations where volunteers and refugees or similar group constellations are in direct exchange, and especially subversive strategies should be made more concrete thereby. It became quite clear, though, that the typical insecurity, which shifts in social relations create, impacts on social forms that themselves tend to transport and proceed these ambivalences instead of solving them. As this follows discernible patterns, it does not dismiss order as such but changes it constantly.

Society: The Empirical, the Methodical and the Theoretical I want to conclude my investigation by consciously bringing together the various angles that are part of my research on sociation and society and explaining how they can only form a full approach when viewed together. The two books—Theorizing Society and Analysing Society (plus the third one, published in German in 2018 as Gesellschaft with a focus on concepts,)—dovetail regarding the core interest in society. Is it a useful concept that provides important theoretical insights for understanding how we live together? In other words: is it worth adhering to it, or better still re-conceptualising it? This is the shared logic of the three books that have approached the issue from different angles. The argument I will elaborate upon in this section can be summarised thus: it is indeed useful to work with the concept of society as point of reference, with a constantly emerging reality of its own, as explained by the Thomas theorem, and therefore as an horizon with the effect of a highly flexible bond that is able to link people on the basis of difference which persists in principle. In this book, the focus was a micro-sociological one, accompanied by the explicit question: ‘what can concrete situations, on the ground, between people, teach us about our living together – about society, more

9 Conclusions

223

abstractly speaking?’ When I entered the research field, I did so in a theoretically informed way. I knew I was interested in how abstract concepts such as conflict, sociation, globalisation or society manifest themselves in ‘real life’. I never imagined myself working through it from the perspective of ‘dirt’ though; this theme simply came up again and again, making it clear to me that the social and its rules do indeed heavily crystallise around this matter—both literally and figuratively. It was simply impossible to ignore. The immediate task then has been to find suitable methods and to apply them accordingly in order to allow theory-relevant information to emerge out of the respective situation. From this, the added focus on methodological approaches evolved gradually, and indeed very organically in a way. I hope, I was able, by example, to offer some methodological inspiration to my readers who are interested in the negotiation of difference in contemporary societies and respective methodical work. And in fact, by addressing it carefully and systematically, the subject of ascriptions of dirtiness and cleanliness in relations between volunteers and refugees proved fruitful in bringing out, particularly clearly, constructions of self and other, the role of conflict, the critical balancing between the universal and the particular, the global and the local, or the local and the local, and the local, etc. in a global framework. All these and more are concepts on a medium level, located between the micro and the macro, so to speak, and usable for generalisations, at least to a degree. The analysis of the concrete and detailed empirical data has illustrated then a wide range of examples of potential sociation-fostering as well as sociation-hindering forms of communication in a broad sense. Numerous examples arose that approximate to both extreme poles, absolute war and total harmony. Criteria that have to be met in order to have sociation effects were specified and also illustrated with the help of examples. In this way, the methodical work with the empirical material, as systematically summarised in the drafted typology, did provide what I was hoping for: the crucial link between otherwise potentially isolated cases. So, importantly, the empirical studies offered not only a wide array of interesting examples and a general opportunity to diversify the terminology, but confirmed how the theoretical groundwork provides a fruitful

224

A. S. Krossa

conceptual space rather than the basis for a single argumentative line. The carving out of ambivalences that characterise a large share of the examples has contributed substantially to this. Simultaneously, this micro–meso link is a decisive hint in our search for the meaningfulness of society, the core macro-concept of society which is under close scrutiny here. If indeed it is the case that, as we have seen, micro-situations display features that extend beyond the immediate situation as such, then it makes sense to follow them. What are their contents, what are their structures? How do they emerge, and is it possible to understand why? This is the reciprocal formulation of the theoretically motivated search for ‘society in real life’—and separation of the two is artificial, i.e. only analytically possible. Undoubtedly, we as humans strive for logics, structures, order. The use of dirt and its conceptual court has clearly proven that. And the question ‘who are we?’ is far from being abstract only. It is no coincidence that, with an arguably increasingly perceived difference in our immediate environments, the question arises more and more frequently about what our shared framework is. The core assumption here is, then, that society emerges constantly from the micro-practices that form meso logics, largely as frame of reference, as an imagination which we use as grounds to act upon and which is socially consequential. Supporting the general idea that it is of crucial importance for sociology to systematically combine the various levels and to detect overarching logics, Andreas Langenohl, within a discussion of ‘similarity’ (Ähnlichkeit; Langenohl 2015), contributes some very useful ideas to the argument. In a nutshell: he considers it insufficient to produce isolated studies on a micro-level only, he thinks that meso structures emerge via practices and form imaginaries which transport knowledge and social forms in general across the micro–macro divide, and, importantly, he attempts to argue for society on this basis. In more detail, he suggests that tendencies of totalisation, as he calls it, do exist and work towards society in a particular way. Although I am not entirely happy with his terminology in this case, the concept is clearly still helpful. Totalisation, he suggests, are “those processes, which attempt to realise modern features of society – before any articulated claim, comprehensively, but always in specific constellations – and that yield results” (Langenohl 2015, 116f.; on the following pages of his text, he illustrates this

9 Conclusions

225

persuasively with the help of the example of ‘human rights’). In other words: imaginaries (i.e. supra-individual and condensed values, ideas, practical and communicative forms) intertwine through both people and levels of the social. This has consequences for the concept of society—and vice versa: only a particular understanding of society can be the basis for this kind of thinking. Langenohl refers to it as association-theoretical, which he delineates from the (for a long time rather standard) sociological theory of differentiation as the core of modernisation theory and its construction of difference as direct counterpart to identity.1 Association-theoretical approaches in contrast “allow one to think difference without identity and at the same time operate with registers that imply ‘similarity’” (ibid., 106) and dissimilarity. Their most important features are, first, that they relativise: similarity always addresses the “blurring of differences and borders between entities” (ibid., 109). Second, and consequently, they always operate with reference to the ‘other’, as an ongoing process of exchange, rapprochement and demarcation. This refers, third, to the basis of all that: it must be about making contact and exchanging with others, and consequently about the “constitution of an entity via others” (ibid., 111). In my view, one of Langenohl’s main insights in this context is the analogous appearance of the unavoidability of non-essentialism of the social and society as ongoing process: “This means (…) that from the very start any notion of substantiality of a social entity or a social process is hollowed out, because always into any entity or process others flow in constitutively” (ibid., 112). And Georg Simmel clearly is the classic representative of such an interpretation of society—in his case via sociation.2 1 “It

is always about the disambiguation of social processes, respectively, about the crystallisation and sharpening of social logics and about their distance and decoupling of each other” (Langenohl 2015, 109). This means that we would have to operate with two opposed ideal types: total identity, sameness and total difference, respectively. The research question can only be, then: how are these parts (re-)combined to provide functionality? 2 Also Langenohl mentions Simmel as an important representative of this approach, together with other authors such as Tarde and Latour, but remarks critically that such similarity-affine perspectives typically lend themselves to micro-sociological research without daring usually to produce more general derivations. In my view, this is not so much an issue with Simmel, as he strives for systematisation via the concept of sociation very early on.

226

A. S. Krossa

I find Langenohl’s contributions to this discussion, including his implicit reference to the Thomas theorem, most useful. With my interest in elements and forms of conflict, I am possibly even more focused on the open-endedness and potential variety of (always preliminary) outcomes of society as process than any focus on similarity would be. Nevertheless, ‘similarity’ as a concept certainly combines, inherently, elements of accordance and distinctness, therefore the difference between the two approaches is somewhat gradual; their congruities appear to be of much more relevance. To me, this is further encouragement to continue to argue for the usefulness of a procedural, conflict-based interpretation of society. With the combination of my two books—the mostly theoretical one and the mostly empirical one, including some methodological ideas—, I do hope to be offering both a substantial and an interesting point of reference for the further discussion of society in a global context.

Reference Langenohl, A. (2015). Ähnlichkeit als differenztheoretisches Konzept: Zur Reformulierung der Modernisierungstheorie. In A. Bhatti & D. Kimmich (Eds.), Ähnlichkeit. Ein kulturtheoretisches Paradigma (pp. 105–127). Konstanz: University Press.

10 Epilogue

It is mid-March 2020, and it is literally just a couple of days before the book goes into production. Universities, schools and play areas have been closed down all over Europe, and like so many other parents, we too are home schooling and having to find ways of occupying and entertaining our son ourselves. Not all products can be found in the shops and supermarkets, especially those needed for hygienic purposes such as toilet paper and soap. Washing one’s hands is named as the most important strategy for protection against the Corona virus. This book originally set out with the aspiration of understanding society and its reproduction via inclusion and exclusion. More specifically, it utilised interpretations of dirt and cleanliness, hygiene and health, in order to better understand fundamental social patterns. The Corona crisis now adds a whole new dimension to this approach. Quite clearly this pandemic embodies the core interest of the book, including and indeed encompassing all the key subjects that have been analysed and discussed in relation to it—and it thus shifts the issues to a level totally new for all of us. With an eye on one of the main groups focused on in this study, that of the refugees, the newcomers, it was certainly contingent that the virus © The Author(s) 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1_10

227

228

A. S. Krossa

did not start out from, or multiplied in a very early phase within, the positively dreadful conditions in the many camps alongside the EU’s outer borders and elsewhere. One can safely say that in such a case we would have seen an exponentiation of ascriptions of dirtiness, illness, risk and danger to this group of people, who are already being pre-labelled as problematic in this sense, as has been amply illustrated in this scholarly investigation. Although they are not the identifiable starting point, it is clear that this fact will, most probably, not protect especially those people who are currently on their way to Europe from becoming victims again, first of all, due to the increasing indifference of the likely receiving countries, as everyone in those countries is concerned with their own interests at the moment, and, secondly, from becoming possibly victims of the virus itself. And, as we have seen again and again desperate situations, historically, are prone to creating scapegoats, so unfortunately, the last word is probably not spoken for this group, also in relation to this matter, irrespective of where they are. The very current situation is structurally different, though. In the early stages, some Asian visitors who were in Europe experienced harassment and aggression. Now, however, everybody is a potential carrier of the virus and is consequently suspected of being ‘dirty’ in this particular sense, including the suspicion of being contagious. Everybody suspects everybody else, almost in a paranoid way, feelings that have much more readily been displayed towards refugees so far, as we have seen. How will that impact on society, taking into account the results of the analyses presented in this book? Although it is still too early for any comprehensive answer to be given to this question, two aspects are noticeable already, and on first appearance, they present a contrast. On the one hand, the virus and the medically demanded and politically implemented action strategies have a clearly isolating effect. Everyone is suspicious of each other, and we now distance ourselves in many different (and not only purely physical) ways from each other. Home– office working as well as the already mentioned home schooling become everyday experiences. In shops, people are behaving increasingly aggressively, while many appear to worry only about themselves and their immediate families, expressed, for instance, in panic buying and excessive private stockpiling. On the other hand, elements of a community spirit

10 Epilogue

229

are experiencing a revival. Notices are hung up in larger houses, offering help especially to elderly people; smaller shops and restaurants are being consciously supported, while in Italy people are singing together from their balconies, and further examples could be enumerated. In other words, we are seeing a mix of two extremes of social behaviour, now that the ‘normal’ way of life is being taken away from us. What are then the structures that form our social behaviour in this situation, therefore? Distancing ourselves from everyone is an isolating move, clearly, but also has an equalising, homogenising effect. Everyone is at risk, everyone is a risk, but at the same time everyone can potentially become the addressee of one’s support and solidarity. ‘Helping’ suggests itself as a self-evident strategy—with all the risks and side effects that have been discussed here already. For a short time, this can have sociation effects, but at the same time it separates people, potentially quite profoundly. In combination with the widespread feelings of suspicion, this is prompting communicative practices towards both poles of the continuum. This can be expected to impact on chances of sociation in a problematic way, and there is no doubt that this has immediate, as well as long-term consequences for how we live together and how society develops. The subject most certainly deserves and justifies comprehensive analysis in the future. Literally in this very moment of completing an extraordinary epilogue to my book, my mobile phone informs me of the following ‘breaking news’: “Germany stops taking in refugees because of the Corona crisis”. The two themes, that of accepting refugees and that of dealing with the present crisis, are combined—apparently ‘naturally’. Mainz/Germany in March 2020

References

Anselm, S. (1995). Grenzen trennen, Grenzen verbinden. In R. Faber & B. Naumann (Eds.), Literatur der Grenze – Theorie der Grenze (pp. 197–209). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. London: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ashenburg, K. (2007). The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History. New York: North Point Press. Augé, M. (1995). Krise der Identität oder Krise des Andersseins? Die Beziehung zum Anderen in Europa. In W. Kaschuba (Ed.), Kulturen – Identitäten – Diskurse: Perspektiven europäischer Ethnologie (pp. 85–99). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bach, M. (2008). Europa ohne Gesellschaft. Politische Soziologie der Europäischen Integration. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Balibar, É. (2004). We the People of Europe: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Barth, F. (1998). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Long Grove: Waveland Press.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1

231

232

References

Bauer, J. (2005). Corrupted Alterities: Body Politics in the Time of the Iranian Diaspora. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body’s Surface (pp. 233–253). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Beck, U. (1997). Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Blaive, M., & Lindenberger, T. (2012). Border Guarding as Social Practice: A Case Study of Czech Communist Governance and Hidden Transcripts. In M. Silberman, K. E. Till, & J. Ward (Eds.), Walls, Borders, Boundaries: Spatial and Cultural Practices in Europe (pp. 97–112). New York: Berghahn Books. Boddy, J. (2005). Purity and Conquest in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body’s Surface (pp. 168–189). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Bok, E. (1896, November 13). The Morals of the Bathtub. Ladies’ Home Journal. Bös, M. (2001). Zur Kongruenz sozialer Grenzen. Das Spannungsfeld von Territorien, Bevölkerungen und Kulturen in Europa. In M. Bach (Ed.), Die Europäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. Sonderheft der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 40 (pp. 429–455). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Buchanan, W. (1769). Domestic Medicine, or: A Treatise on the Prevention and Cure of Diseases by Regimen and Simple Medicines. London. Bushman, R. L., & Bushman, C. L. (1988). The Early History of Cleanliness in America. Journal of American History, 74 (4), 1213–1238. Campkin, B., & Cox, R. (2012). Introduction: Materialities and Metaphors of Dirt and Cleanliness. In B. Campkin & R. Cox (Eds.), Dirt: New Geographies of Cleanliness and Contaminations (pp. 1–8). London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Child, L. M. (1865/1968). The Freedmen’s Book. New York: Arno Press. Cohen, W. A. (2005). Introduction: Locating Filth. In W. A. Cohen & R. Johnson (Eds.), Filth: Dirt, Disgust and Modern Life (pp. vii–xxxviii). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cox, R. (2011). Dishing the Dirt, Dirt in the Home. In R. Cox, et al. (Eds.), Dirt: The Filthy Reality of Everyday Life (pp. 37–73). London: Profile Books. Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. London and New York: Routledge.

References

233

Der Spiegel. (2010). Mülltrennung in Deutschland: Die gelbe Revolution [Waste Separation in Germany: The Yellow Revolution]. http://www. spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/muelltrennung-in-deutschland-die-gelberevolution-a-699781.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Der Spiegel. (2013, October 8). Asylpolitik: EU-Kommissarin kritisiert ‚Bierzelt-Aussagen‘ aus Deutschland. Deutsche Welle. (2013). Mülltrennung in Deutschland [Waste Separation in Germany]. http://www.dw.com/de/m%C3%BClltrennung-in-deutschland/ av-17031313. Accessed 22 June 2015. Die Welt. (2013a, October 8). Illegale Einwanderer. EU kündigt Großeinsatz beim Grenzschutz an. Die Welt. (2013b, October 9). Flüchtlingspolitik unverändert. Donnan, H., & Wilson, T. (1999). Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State. Oxford: Berg. Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and Danger. London and New York: Routledge (originally 1966). Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Culture and Risk. New York: Syracuse University Press. DPA. (2013, October 8). EU will Flüchtlingspolitik nicht ändern. Durkheim, É. (1984). Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Dürr, E., & Winder, G. M. (2016). Garbage at Work: Ethics, Subjectivation and Resistance in Mexico. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 52–68). London and New York: Routledge. Duschinsky, R. (2016). Introduction. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 1–19). London and New York: Routledge. Duschinsky, R., Schnall, S., & Weiss, D. H. (Eds.). (2016). Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. Eberle, T. (2020). Phänomenologische Ansätze ethnografischer Forschung. In R. Hitzler, J. Reichertz, & N. Schröer (Eds.), Kritik der hermeneutischen Wissenssoziologie (pp. 39–51). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Eigmüller, M. (2006). Der duale Charakter der Grenze. Bedingungen einer aktuellen Grenztheorie. In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 55–74). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

234

References

Eigmüller, M. (2008). Subversionen an Staatsgrenzen – eine Einleitung. In M. Eigmüller & A. Müller (Eds.), Subversionen am Rande. Grenzverletzungen im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert (pp. 13–22). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. Eigmüller, M., & Vobruba, G. (2006). Einleitung: Warum eine Soziologie der Grenze? In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 7–11). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (2012). The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems. London: Sage. Esposito, R. (2004). Immunitas. Schutz und Negation des Lebens. Zürich: Diaphanes. Essed, P. (2008). Everyday Racism: A New Approach to the Study of Racism. In P. Essed & T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race Critical Theories (pp. 177–194). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell. Euractiv. (2013, October 8). Friedrich: Kein Anlass für Neuausrichtung der Flüchtlingspolitik. Eurobarometer. (2011). Attitudes of Europeans Towards Resource Efficiency. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_316_en.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015. European Commission. (2012). Deutschland spitze beim Recycling [Germany Peaks in Recycling ]. http://ec.europa.eu/deutschland/press/pr_releases/ 10551_de.htm. Accessed 22 June 2015. European Environmental Bureau. (2017). Recycling—Who Really Leads the World? https://eeb.org/publications/83/waste-and-recycling/84241/reporton-global-recycling-rates.pdf+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk. Accessed 14 August 2019. Fardon, R. (2016). Purity as Danger. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 23–33). London and New York: Routledge. FAZ. (2013a, October 8). Katastrophe vor Lampedusa: EU uneins über Flüchtlinge. FAZ. (2013b, October 8). Streit über Flüchtlinge: Riexinger nennt Friedrich ‚Hassprediger‘. FAZ. (2013c, October 10). Schwarz-grüne Sondierung: Trittin über Friedrich: ‚Abgrund an Zynismus‘. Forty, A. (1986). Objects of Desire: Design and Society Since 1750. Moffat: Cameron Books. Frankfurter Neue Presse. (2013, October 9). Spott für Friedrichs ‚BierzeltAussagen‘.

References

235

Freitag-comment. (2013, October 9). Ein zynischer Minister. Geolino. (n.d.). Wissenstest: Müll [Knowledge Test: Waste]. http://www.geo.de/ GEOlino/wissenstests/wissentest-wissenstest-muell-67762.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Giesen, B. (2010). Zwischenlagen. Das Außerordentliche als Grund der sozialen Wirklichkeit. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Gifford, P. (2010). Defining ‘Others’: How Interperceptions Shape Identities. In P. Gifford & T. Hauswedell (Eds.), Europe and Its Others: Essays on Interperception and Identity (pp. 13–38). Bern: Peter Lang. Grundschule Arbeitsblätter. (n.d.). Thema Müll: Mülltrennung [Subject Waste: Waste Separation]. https://www.grundschule-arbeitsblaetter.de/ arbeitsblaetter/thema-muell-muelltrennung.php. Accessed 22 June 2015. Hadida, S. (1932). Manners for Millions: A Correct Code of Pleasing Personal Habits for Everyday Men and Women. New York: Sun Dial Press. Han, B.-C. (2014). Müdigkeitsgesellschaft. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz. Handelsblatt. (2013, October 8). Friedrich will Flüchtlingspolitik beibehalten. Hetherington, K. (2004). Secondhandedness: Consumption, Disposal, and Absent Presence. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(1), 157–173. Horn, E., Kaufmann, S., & Bröckling, U. (2002). Grenzverletzer. Von Schmugglern, Spionen und anderen subversiven Gestalten. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos. Hörning, K. H., & Reuter, J. (Eds.). (2004). Doing Culture. Neue Positionen zum Verhältnis von Kultur und sozialer Praxis. Bielefeld: Transcript. Hoy, S. (1995). Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and Social Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Karafillidis, A. (2010). Grenzen und Relationen. In J. Fuhse & S. Mützel (Eds.), Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung (pp. 69–95). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused Ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/20/43. Accessed 21 November 2019. Knowles, K. A., Borg, C., & Olantunji, B. O. (2016). Disgust, Disease and Disorder. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 103–120). London and New York: Routledge.

236

References

Kölnische Rundschau. (2013, October 8). Kritik an Friedrichs ‚BierzeltAussagen‘. Kristeva, J. (1988). Etrangers à nous-mêmes. Paris: Fayard. Krossa, A. S. (2009). Conceptualizing European Society on Non-normative Grounds: Logics of Sociation, Glocalization and Conflict. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(2), 249–264. Krossa, A. S. (2013). Theorizing Society in a Global Context. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Krossa, A. S. (2015). Andere, Selbste, Grenzen. Momentaufnahme eines Diskurses zur globalen Migration [Others, Selves, Borders: Snapshot of a Discourse on Global Migration]. Culture, Practice and European Policy, 1(1), 16–38. Krossa, A. S. (2017). Negotiating Difference and Cohabitation: Global Refugees in a German Village. In M. Caselli & G. Gilardoni (Eds.), Globalization, Supranational Dynamics and Local Experiences (pp. 16–38). Europe in a Global Context Series. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Krossa, A. S. (2018). Gesellschaft. Relevanz eines Kernbegriffs der Soziologie im Wandel. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Langenohl, A. (2010). Imaginäre Grenzen. Zur Entstehung impliziter Kollektivität in EU-Europa. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20 (1), 45–63. Langenohl, A. (2015a). Town Twinning, Transnational Connections and Translocal Citizenship Practices in Europe. Europe in a Global Context Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Langenohl, A. (2015b). Ähnlichkeit als differenztheoretisches Konzept: Zur Reformulierung der Modernisierungstheorie. In A. Bhatti & D. Kimmich (Eds.), Ähnlichkeit. Ein kulturtheoretisches Paradigma (pp. 105–127). Konstanz: University Press. Le Figaro. (2013, October 9). Réfugiés: Merkel attaquée par les Verts. Löw, M. (2012). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Loycke, A. (1992). Der Gast, der bleibt. Dimensionen von Georg Simmels Analyse des Fremdseins. Frankfurt am Main, New York, and Paris: Pandora. Masquelier, A. (2005). Dirt, Undress and Difference: An Introduction. In A. Masquelier (Ed.), Dirt, Undress and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body’s Surface (pp. 1–33). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Matzinger, P. (2007). Friendly and Dangerous Signals: Is the Tissue in Control? Nature Immunology, 8(1), 11–13.

References

237

McClintock, A. (1994). Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising. In G. Robertson (Ed.), Travellers Tales (pp. 128–142). London: Routledge. Medick, H. (2006). Grenzziehungen und die Herstellung des politisch-sozialen Raumes. Zur Begriffsgeschichte und politischen Sozialgeschichte der Grenzen in der Frühen Neuzeit. In M. Eigmüller & G. Vobruba (Eds.), Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes (pp. 37–51). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ökokosmos. (2003). Mülltrennung? Ja, aber richtig! [Waste Separation? Yes, but properly! ] http://www.oekosmos.de/artikel/details/muelltrennung-jaaber-richtig/. Accessed 22 June 2015. Ökokosmos. (n.d.). Was kann ich wo entsorgen? [What Can I Dispose of Where? ]. http://www.oekosmos.de/uploads/media/wo_entsorgen_ deutsch_01.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2008). Racial Formation. In P. Essed & T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race Critical Theories (pp. 123–145). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell. ORF.at. (2013, October 8). Alte Regelungen bleiben. Park, R. (1928). Human Migration and the Marginal Man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Parker, R. (1983). Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Perera, S. (2007). A Pacific Zone: (In)security, Sovereignty, and Stories of the Pacific Borderscape. In P. Kumar Rajaram & C. Grundy-Warr (Eds.), Borderscapes: Hidden Geographies and Politics at Territory’s Edge (pp. 201–227). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pels, D. (2002). Everyday Essentialism: Social Inertia and the “Muenchhausen Effect”. Theory, Culture and Society, 19 (5–6), 69–89. Pries, L. (2008). Die Transnationalisierung der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Pries, L. (2010). Transnationalisierung. Theorie und Empirie grenzüberschreitender Vergesellschaftung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ray, L. (2007). Globalization and Everyday Life. London and New York: Routledge. Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32, 282–301.

238

References

Reckwitz, A. (2008). Unscharfe Grenzen. Perspektiven der Kultursoziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript. Rigo, E. (2006). Trafficking Citizenship. Von der ‚Festung Europa‘ zur Regierung der Zirkulation. In T. Hengartner & J. Moser (Eds.), Grenzen und Differenzen. Zur Macht sozialer und kultureller Grenzziehungen (pp. 161– 174). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Robertson, R. (2003). Religion und Politik im globalen Kontext der Gegenwart. In M. Minkenberg & U. Willems (Eds.), Politik und Religion (pp. 581–594). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Rosenberg, C. E. (1962). The Cholera Years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. Rumford, C. (2013). The Globalization of Strangeness. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Sassen, S. (2013). Analytic Borderlands: Economy and Culture in the Global City. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 210–220). Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Schroer, M. (2012). Räume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raums. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. Oxford and New York: Berg. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Small, S. E. (1979, August). The Yankee Schoolmarm in Freedmen’s Schools: An Analysis of Attitudes. Journal of Southern History, 45, 381–402. Smith, V. (2007). Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. New York: Oxford University Press. Society for Threatened Peoples. (2013, October 9). Versachlichung der Flüchtlingsdiskussion unbedingt notwendig. GfbV warnt Innenminister Friedrich vor Populismus. Speltini, G., & Passini, St. (2016). Cleanliness Issues: From Individual Practices to Collective Visions. In R. Duschinsky, S. Schnall, & D. H. Weiss (Eds.), Purity and Danger Now: New Perspectives (pp. 162–177). London and New York: Routledge.

References

239

Spiegel Online Wissenschaft. (n.d.). Recycling-Quiz: Sind Sie ein guter Müllmann? [Recycling Quiz: Are You a Good Dustman? ]. http://www.spiegel.de/ quiztool/quiztool-52793.html. Accessed 22 June 2015. Stichweh, R. (2010). Der Fremde. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Strüver, A. (2008). Bildbesprechung. Das Mittelmeer als Grenzdiskurs. In H. Bredekamp, M. Bruhn, & G. Werner (Eds.), Bildwelten des Wissens. Kunsthistorisches Jahrbuch für Bildkritik (pp. 66–69). Band 6/2, Grenzbilder. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Süddeutsche. (2013, October 9). Unglück vor Lampedusa: Friedrich sieht keinen Änderungsbedarf bei Asylpolitik. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago: Nelson Hall. The Guardian. (2013, October 8). EU Pressed to Rethink Immigration Policy After Lampedusa Tragedy. Theweleit, K. (1987). Male Fantasies: Women, Floods, Bodies, History (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Theweleit, K. (1989). Male Fantasies: Male Bodies: Psychoanalyzing the White Terror (Vol. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vobruba, G. (2005). Die Dynamik Europas. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. WHO (World Health Organisation). (n.d.). https://www.who.int/ reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/. Accessed 21 October 2019. Wilson, T. M. (2012). Revisiting the Anthropology of Policy and Borders in Europe. In D. Andersen, M. Klatt, & M. Sandberg (Eds.), The Border Multiple: The Practicing of Borders Between Public Policy and Everyday Life in a Re-Scaling Europe (pp. 77–95). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Winblad, U., & Kilama, W. (1985). Sanitation Without Water. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

240

References

Wolkowitz, C. (2012). Linguistic Leakiness or Really Dirty? Dirt in Social Theory. In B. Campkin & R. Cox (Eds.), Dirt: New Geographies of Cleanliness and Contaminations (pp. 15–24). London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Youtube. (2014). Mülltrennung für Kinder [Waste Separation for Children]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-rHL8Gdnps&noredirect=1. Accessed 22 June 2015. Zeit Online. (2013a, October 9). Lampedusa-Katastrophe: Europa kann den Flüchtlingen helfen. Zeit Online. (2013b, October 11). Flickwerk Flüchtlingspolitik.

Index

A

activation 124, 145, 206, 209, 215, 216, 219 ambivalence 7, 10, 13, 26, 27, 51, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 90, 124, 141, 176, 177, 189, 196, 197, 204, 205, 219, 221, 224 ascription 7, 9, 16, 25, 29, 34, 37, 44, 102, 114, 133, 142, 150, 168, 198, 199, 203, 204, 223, 228 assimilation 5, 16, 36, 41, 137, 146, 200, 216

B

body 13, 15–17, 20, 31, 33, 37, 43, 59, 60, 149, 178, 181–183, 186, 195, 199

border 1, 5, 7, 25, 26, 28, 49–65, 67–69, 71–77, 102, 125, 158, 159, 225, 228

C

clean/cleaning 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 32–34, 38, 39, 44, 113, 136, 155, 156, 159, 178, 187, 193, 216 cleanliness 7–11, 13, 15–17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29–31, 41, 44, 83, 87, 96, 101–103, 120, 121, 126, 129, 133, 136, 138, 150, 189, 191, 192, 203, 204, 223, 227 clothes 12, 31, 34, 38, 82, 118, 121, 123, 126–133, 135–145, 178, 203, 204, 214

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. S. Krossa, Analysing Society in a Global Context, Europe in a Global Context, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45578-1

241

242

Index

disagreement 16, 124, 138, 142, 207, 214, 215 discrimination 38, 176, 197 disintegration 25, 81 domination 39, 200, 209

collective 1, 8, 29, 30, 59, 62, 70, 71, 88, 125, 134, 146, 164, 168, 175, 198, 199, 212, 220 communication 2, 5, 7, 16, 30, 61, 63, 76, 77, 87, 114, 115, 124, 142, 146, 150, 151, 200, 204–207, 210, 213, 215, 221, 223 conflict 1–3, 7, 8, 11, 16, 45, 53, 57, 73, 77, 87, 124, 127, 138, 139, 142, 145, 147, 153, 201, 204–207, 209, 214–217, 219, 223, 226 contagion 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 141, 144, 145 contamination 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 42, 51, 63, 66, 77, 81, 127, 144, 179, 203 continuum 2, 7, 8, 13, 142, 205, 206, 213, 219, 229 control 10, 16, 27, 28, 33, 44, 55, 72, 107, 110, 111, 117, 169, 199, 200, 209–211

environment 12, 20–22, 24, 28, 41, 82, 86, 88, 89, 93, 101–104, 107, 109, 120, 130, 131, 144, 153, 204, 207, 208, 218, 224 essential 18, 52, 58, 60, 61, 66, 95, 97, 124, 198, 215, 225 ethnicity 36, 37, 159, 172, 176 ethnography 8, 9 exchange 2, 5, 10, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 75, 84, 87, 90, 124, 127, 146, 147, 204, 206–210, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225 exclusion 11, 19, 42, 85, 101, 127, 128, 227

D

G

difference/differentiation 1–5, 7, 11, 17–20, 23, 28, 29, 49, 53, 54, 56, 58–62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 84, 85, 90, 92, 95, 97, 104, 114, 123, 125, 135, 140, 145, 152, 153, 162, 168, 178, 196–198, 200, 204, 206–208, 215, 220, 222, 224–226 dirt/dirtiness 8, 9, 16–21, 25, 30, 31, 33, 36–38, 91, 97, 102, 114, 133, 137, 138, 141, 144, 145, 150, 154, 169, 179, 184, 197, 203, 204, 223, 228

gender 4, 13, 35–39, 52, 153, 158, 159, 172, 176–178, 180, 183, 200, 207 globalisation 1, 3, 50, 87, 193, 204, 223 glocalisation 1, 3, 97, 204

E

H

harmony 2, 8, 142, 201, 205, 206, 213–215, 223 health/healthy 13, 16, 22, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, 82, 96, 102,

Index

105, 141, 145, 159, 176, 189, 191–194, 196, 198, 199, 227 help 4, 31, 36, 39, 62, 72, 86, 92, 140, 176, 198, 207, 229 horizon 1, 7, 125, 127, 130, 222 hygiene 13, 16, 22, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39–41, 43, 96, 97, 155, 175, 190, 192, 193, 219, 227

I

in-between 18, 19, 23–26, 35, 36, 69, 81, 82, 110, 126, 219 inclusion 11, 19, 42, 85, 101, 127, 128, 227 individual 4, 6, 9, 10, 27–29, 33, 36, 42, 44, 56, 59, 62, 63, 70, 73, 82, 84, 85, 88, 96, 102–104, 152, 168, 175, 203, 204, 220 inequality 145, 204 inside 1, 53, 58, 59, 66, 67, 77, 88, 93, 111–113, 127, 146, 157, 162, 178, 192, 203 integration 4, 5, 43, 69, 83, 96, 97, 124, 146

243

morality 32, 33, 123, 127 morally 70, 71, 94, 131, 133, 146

N

negotiation 1, 11, 30, 57, 94, 96, 97, 101, 116, 204, 223 normal 29, 93, 142, 150, 151, 158, 229 normality 8, 11, 16, 28, 33, 44, 85, 87, 90, 92, 97, 158, 188, 191, 192, 199, 200, 206, 209 normative/normativity 6, 58, 64, 68, 96, 188

O

order 7, 9, 16–19, 24, 26, 34, 45, 74, 82, 108, 109, 121, 146, 150, 168, 169, 192, 199, 206, 212, 219, 222, 224 other/othering 20, 24, 26, 28, 38, 39, 45, 49, 63, 65, 70, 72, 103, 107, 146, 158, 159, 192, 225 outside 1, 19, 28, 58, 59, 63, 67, 68, 77, 88, 92, 120, 127, 157, 172, 203, 208

M

material 3, 5, 7, 8, 15, 18, 20, 23, 29, 34, 35, 49, 55, 57, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 89, 91, 97, 101, 102, 115, 124–127, 129, 131, 133, 138, 140, 144, 145, 147, 149, 179, 190, 203, 213, 223 migration 5, 11, 51, 59, 64, 69, 124, 127 mobility 5, 69, 71, 123, 126, 127, 140

P

paradox 7, 17, 22, 24, 35, 38, 39, 49, 62, 75, 77, 124, 131, 145, 204, 221 pattern 6, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27–29, 44, 51, 55, 59, 63, 91, 110, 116, 139, 150, 152, 178, 199, 203, 205, 207, 209, 214, 219, 221, 222, 227

244

Index

pollution 17, 19, 23, 24, 27–29, 34, 36, 63, 66, 88, 94, 97, 127, 130, 141, 142 power 9, 15, 17, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 43, 69, 70, 135, 145, 146, 199, 203, 209, 216, 218, 220, 221 practice 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–10, 12, 13, 23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40–43, 60, 67, 76, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 95, 97, 123–130, 132–135, 137–140, 142–144, 146, 147, 150, 152, 157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 168, 169, 172, 173, 177, 193, 201, 203, 205, 208, 214, 216, 219, 224, 229 process 2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27–30, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 49, 54, 58, 67–69, 82, 83, 87, 90, 95, 96, 102, 110, 118, 123–127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 140, 142, 145, 146, 151, 152, 173, 184, 193, 199, 203, 204, 208, 214, 216–220, 224, 225

R

racism 43, 87, 178 refugee 4, 12, 57, 62, 68–71, 74, 83–85, 91, 92, 104, 130, 132–134, 138, 147, 152, 156, 159, 171, 176, 184, 218 relation 6, 17, 26, 29, 34, 36, 39, 45, 53, 54, 58, 67, 71, 88, 95, 97, 105, 125, 134, 146, 192, 193, 196–198, 207, 214, 215, 218, 227, 228 respect 5, 10, 21, 23, 35, 37, 38, 58, 60, 66, 68, 70, 72, 82, 91,

93, 106, 120, 126, 129, 130, 140–142, 144, 152, 154, 161, 208 risk 6, 21, 24–27, 29, 31, 45, 59, 63, 73, 77, 81, 91, 94, 95, 97, 101, 127, 138, 141, 144, 145, 149, 177, 179, 198, 203, 211, 214, 216, 218, 228, 229 role 3, 4, 8, 12, 15, 34, 38, 44, 70, 71, 87, 89, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 115, 116, 119, 134, 138, 145, 150–157, 160–162, 167–169, 179, 182, 183, 207, 210, 213, 214, 223

S

self/selves 1, 8, 11, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32, 42, 49–51, 58, 60–63, 65–67, 76, 77, 81, 86, 87, 102, 103, 125, 127, 130, 134, 150, 156, 158, 168, 198, 199, 218, 219, 223 sex 176, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 187, 196 sexism 178, 183, 184 sexuality 13, 176, 178–180, 184, 186, 187, 190, 195–197, 199 similarity 1, 3, 5, 85, 95, 215–217, 220, 224–226 Simmel, G. 2, 36, 49, 52–54, 57, 58, 67, 68, 73, 77, 87, 147, 225 sociation 1, 2, 5–7, 16, 18, 49, 51, 53, 58, 60, 68, 76, 77, 124, 125, 127–129, 145–147, 200, 204–208, 211–223, 225, 229 society 1, 3–8, 10, 16, 22, 32, 36, 44, 49, 52, 53, 59, 63, 86, 94,

Index

96, 124, 125, 127, 128, 146, 147, 188, 195, 203, 204, 212, 222, 224, 225, 227–229 strange 36, 58–60, 63, 65, 136, 161, 198 stranger 25, 36, 37, 42, 44, 49, 58, 87, 88, 91, 162, 196 strategy 68, 70, 75, 110, 111, 117, 160, 199, 200, 207–215, 221, 227, 229 structure 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40, 43–45, 70, 85, 87, 94, 97, 103, 104, 108, 115, 121, 124, 126, 127, 133, 134, 140, 142, 145, 157, 199, 203, 205, 207, 211, 214, 216, 218, 220, 224, 229 submission 41, 42, 209 subversion 219 symbol/symbolic 18, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 39, 49, 68, 87, 88, 91, 124–126, 133, 147

245

tradition 30, 35, 52, 83, 210, 213, 220 type 2, 22, 26, 43, 53, 60, 77, 95, 132, 134, 143, 144, 212, 213, 215, 218, 219, 225 typology 7, 13, 205, 210, 222, 223

U

us and them 85, 93, 95, 97, 176, 208, 216, 217, 220

V

volunteer 4, 6, 11, 12, 38, 40, 41, 83–86, 90–94, 96, 97, 101, 102, 105, 116, 126–139, 143–147, 150, 152–154, 156, 157, 159, 165, 169, 173, 188, 194, 196, 200, 204, 206–210, 212–214, 217, 221–223

T

W

theory 1, 17, 21, 29, 36, 49, 52, 87, 96, 171, 223, 225 Thomas-theorem 7, 52, 222, 226 toilet 12, 13, 29, 41, 113, 116, 149, 153–167, 169–173, 192, 216, 217, 227

war 2–4, 8, 33, 53, 130, 133, 165, 172, 206, 215, 223 waste 6, 11, 40, 41, 81–83, 85, 88– 97, 101, 104, 105, 108–115, 119–121, 127, 130, 143, 145, 204, 208, 209, 212, 216