Berlin, Germany, Summer 2015- Reenacting German and American Identities
Reflection #1- April 10, 2015
The readings we had for today circled around the idea of globalization and the Berlin Wall. Pertaining to “The Ghosts of Berlin” reading, I was struck by how many of Ladd’s statements echoed those of Marion Niles, my German instructor when I took extracurricular language classes in high school. I remember particularly one day, when classroom discussion turned to World War II and it’s ramifications on the German people. Marion seemed to physically turn away from the subject, obviously wishing not to speak about the atrocities that stained German history. She simply said, “It is in the past, and Germans do not want to talk about it. They want to move on.” I saw a similar theme in Ladd’s writing, especially from his introduction. “There are, of course, Berliners who would like to forget. They think they hear far too much about Hitler and vanished Jews and alleged crimes of their parents and grandparents—not to mention Eric Honecker and the Stasi and their own previous lives” (1). Ladd repeatedly highlights the struggle between Germans over the wall—between those who wanted to tear down the ugly structure and all the memories it represented, and those who wanted to keep the wall as a reminder of the lessons of a divided Germany, and in memoriam of those who fought to get from East to West, and lost their lives in the process.
Ladd, on page of 28 of Chapter 1, also brought to light the differences between the depiction of Berlin between East and West Berliners through the variations in their maps of the city. I found this a particular interesting point I hadn’t considered before. Maps define the perimeters of a city, and often emphasize the sights the people deem important to the regions identity and history (could be a tourist attraction). But when it came to the Wall, the GDR left West Berlin as a blank space on the map. West Berlin, on the other hand, depicted the city as neither East nor West Berlin, but as Berlin, a unified city (the outline of the Wall was hard to distinguish, simply resembling a line separating districts of the city). I would be interested in using the maps as a primary source when researching, as a map truly represents what a regions people want foreigners and outsiders to see when they come to their home.
In terms of the Matthew Sparke “Introducing Globalization” reading, and the information provided about the European Union, both reminded me of my JSIS 201 class I took Winter Quarter 2015. We covered many topics that overlap with these readings, such as the origins of the EU, the sources and growth of neoliberalism (“globalization” as Sparke refers to it), the role of the IMF and World Bank in the global economy and politics, etc.
Reflection #2- April 17, 2015
Berlin, or Germany as a whole, is haunted by the walls of its past and present. Obviously there is the physical Berlin Wall that used to divide the city (and continent) into East and West, and its permanence as a preservation of history obviously still bothers many Germans. I understand wanting to remove the wall, as an ugly reminder of a horrific past, but removing the wall completely seems to insinuate that this scar in German history has been covered up. I also see the wall the German government has put up to prevent immigrants from settling within its borders, one that only seems to grow stronger.
“The establishment of the EU in 1993 was designed to create a unified labor marker, with all EU citizens having full rights to take up employment and to obtain work-related social benefits in ant member country. At the same time, entry and residence have become more difficult for non-EU nationals, especially those from outside Europe” (Castle and Miller, 224). If this was why the EU was established, then according to Castle and Miller, Berlin is a city of the European Union. Castle and Miller’s explanation of the increased globalization and economic integration since the 1980’s has led to mass migration from the global South to the North, especially to Germany. It therefore makes sense that the European Union makes it difficult for foreigners to assimilate within it’s borders, not only to protect cultural identity, but also economic stability (the high cost of housing refugees/immigrants and providing social services). I believe this ties directly into Germany’s emergence and influence as a global city. Thousands flock to Berlin, as it is a cultural, economic and political epicenter. One cannot open a newspaper and not run across a story involving Berlin and the German government. Berlin has a reputation for innovation and power, which makes it an attractive choice for those seeking a better life. But that does not necessarily mean Germany welcomes foreigners with wide open arms.
I believe these narratives we have read reflect German identity as something sacred by those who have it, and something foreigners want a piece of (though not necessarily want to assimilate into). I believe much this, at least today, is attributed to Germany’s immense economic power and influence globally, as, especially during the economic crisis of 2008, attributed to the Euro staying somewhat a float and not completely collapsing under the burden of Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Foreigners want access to the wealth of German culture, and Germans (among many other nations) try to protect this identity with restrictions on immigration.
The American and German identity is masked by similarities in relation to immigrants. Both countries are known for restricting immigration to certain groups in an attempt to preserve cultural identity (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States). However, the U.S. is historically a nation of immigrants, while that is not necessarily true for Germany. For centuries, Germanic people have settled the modern state, speaking similar languages and looking related in skin color and features. The US, however, has a much less matured historical identity, one mixed with slavery, Native American violence, and mass immigration from all corners of the globe following the beginning of the 20th century under industrialization. The United States, from its earliest establishment, was not a place of shared culture, language, or ethnicity, but rather a “melting pot” of diversity. For this reason, I think one must carefully examine the differences in German and American history in relation to immigrants.
Reflection #3- April 24, 2015
Response to "Identity and Poststructuralist Theory in SLA" by Bonny Norton
There were several pieces of Norton’s piece that peaked my interest. For example, this quote from page 62: “As I have argued in previous research, an imagined community assumes an imagined identity, and a learner’s investment in the target language can be understood within this context.” This argument is quite intriguing; as it makes sense that a person contrives a false identity to appeal to a false audience. This is similar to Erving Goffman’s belief that people put up a “front,” as if they are acting in front of an audience, in order to convince an argument to accept and play along with the identity they are presenting. Also, it is interesting to look at language as a tool for self-improvement and personal growth; instead of within it’s classical definition as a form of communication (assumed between two or more people).
Bakhtin’s poststructuralist theory is one aspect of this scholarly work that I struggled with. Bakhtin argues that the historical significance of language is carried out as a tradition today, which constrains modern user. I understand the constraints of language on a person. We have all been in a situation where words fail us, not because we aren’t reacting to the situation at hand, but because words or communication in general simply cannot encapsulate our true feelings. However, Bakhtin’s argument implies language is stagnant, and cannot change with the population that uses it. Bakhtin mentions the “constrains” on the modern user, yet time and time again slang comes about, creating a new vocabulary to reflect the values and concerns of the populace, while simultaneously words become “out of date.” While most language is recycled, communication continues to expand daily, and I believe it is an unfair assumption to classify language as constraining the user.
I was struck by Bourdieu’s argument in particular, that the value associated to a speaker impacts our language and communication. I believe this is true, as when I talk to someone, I perceive who he or she are before I judge what they are communicating. This makes sense, as once you have developed a history with someone, your connection to those historical ties will undoubtedly impact your attitude and perception of the exchange. Bourdieu continues with that the idea that “dominant usage is associated with the dominant class” (64). Now this is a topic I have never considered, but I would love to delve deeper into, as I can see some truth to this statement. In what ways does the majority suppress the minority)? How does this suppression compare along different forms of communications? Along different minority groups? How does your identification with a group impact your ability to communicate?
Reflection #4- May 1, 2015
I am quite intrigued by the issues brought about by the readings this week, namely “European Others” and “What Does It Mean to be a German.” Both bring to light the very modern struggle of identity in German culture, especially between ethnic Germans and “migrant Germans,” meaning groups that have grown up in Germany and by all accounts are German, but are the descendants of immigrants from several generations back. In these reflections, I often refer back to my German instructor, Marion Niles, and relate details of German culture she told our class about. While she never explicitly spoke on the topic of German race or race relations, I remember completing an assignment once through Deutsche Welle (www.dw.de), and one of the videos linked to my assignment was an interview with a Turkish-German woman living in Berlin. Intrigued, I clicked on the video. While I can’t remember the exact details of the woman’s name or what she was wearing, one thing she said stuck with me, even after all these years. This woman, in a perfect German accent and grammar, mind you, reflected on how often she is asked, “Where are you from?” Each and every time she responded, “I am German,” as she was born and raised in the country, and by all means is German. However, she added that this was not accepted by most, as she did have a Turkish complexion, and the follow question was, “No, where are you really from?” As we have been reading about the struggle of identity in Europe, this moment keeps coming back to me, as I viewed this video several years ago, yet this topic is still an issue in contemporary German society. I didn’t really hit me until these readings how deeply rooted this hard-to-talk-about subject is for Germans and migrants alike. To tie to American culture, I know we also have our own problems with race relations, for instance, look at the recent events in Baltimore. However, how do the race relations of Germany and America compare? Is one “worse off” than the other? On what grounds or criteria can one determine if the race relations are “worse off?”
In terms of a project, I still want to explore street art and graffiti in Berlin, and my primary research method will be carefully crafted interviews built on interpretation of pieces. I would be interested in comparing the art in one neighborhood to the art (or possibly lack of art?) in another. One of these neighborhoods would a predominately immigrant community, while the other could be a more classical “German” district.
Reflection #4- May 8, 2015
I apologize for the late response, three midterms last week left me a little brain dead.
Interview Observations: This was actually quite difficult. Michaila and went up to three different people, asking them their opinion on racial tensions spanning the US, from Ferguson to Baltimore. The first two people, while polite in their response, declined to comment. This is an understandable response, as we were two random people asking for a person to comment on an extremely emotional and deep rooted issue. We thanked them for their time, but walked away empty handed. The third person we approached, a girl, was willing to talk to us, but it was instantly clear that she was very guarded in her response. It was obvious she didn't want to say something that could induce a confrontation. In all, I feel this exercise taught us the importance of crafting questions in an interview. I believe more people would have been willing to help us should we have approached them, stated we were students, and asked them a thought-provoking, though non-confrontational question about the racial tensions in the US.
Observation Notes:
whistling wind
keys jangling
typing across the room
a small, distant bird chirping
scent of a freshly cooked burrito
dusk setting outside my window
rustling of my roommate as she makes dinner
green, green leaves of the trees surrounding my window
faint laughing as people on the street walk in groups towards dinner
intense bright glow of my desk lamp illuminating my unfinished homework
With this exercise, I honestly had trouble writing down continuous observations for two minutes. I believe this was because I wrote this from my dorm room, and many of the sights and sounds I experience there are almost second nature- I barely notice them, so when observing my room, they seem almost too obvious to mention. However, many of these observations are specific to my dorm room, as, in comparison to my room at home, I would not be able to hear people laughing on the street, or my roommate moving around (as I do not have a roommate at my parents house). I learned from this exercise to simply absorb- don't think, just observe. There are some judgment's attached to these observations, as sounds are my biggest irritation when in my dorm room (they can be distracting!) so that is why I believe I listed some many "sounds" in my observation list. The feelings that came up in this exercise was actually one of peace of mind, as I realized how in those two minutes, my room was quite mellow, a place of zen.
Gentrification Response:
Webster defines gentrification as: "the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents." I certainly agree with this within the context of Seattle, as I have seen the gentrification of not only Capitol Hill, as stated in the Seattle Times article, but also the Belltown and Seattle. With the influx of tech jobs in the recent years, especially around the relocation of Amazon to downtown Seattle, rent prices have skyrocketed not only in South Lake Union, but also Queen Anne, U District, and pretty much any area that can easily access South Lake Union (I definitely felt this crunch as I searched for apartments in the U District earlier this year only to be met with constant availability of new high rises that were far out of my price range).
However, after reading the Guardian article on Berlin and the removal of pieces of the Wall for high rise apartments, I was questioning if that is what would truly be called "gentrification." Yes, a rich population was moving in on an area in search of high-priced apartments, but were they truly displacing a poorer group? Or were the rich rather threatening a piece of shared German culture? Not every luxury high rise is directly causing gentrification, so I question if this Guardian article does due diligence to the issue of gentrification in Berlin.
I believe gentrification ultimately leads to divides among social groups, as there comes to light a clear line between those who can afford to live there, and those who no longer can. However, for long time residents of a neighborhood, I can see a community becoming a part of their identity. Often, I don't say I'm from Seattle to other Seattlites, but rather that I live in Broadview, a neighborhood in North Seattle near the border with Shoreline. In this way, I identify with my neighborhood rather than my city. I believe this is the connection between gentrification and the program aims, as gentrification leads to a questioning of identity, and the displacement of groups based on there lack of socio-economic influence.
Reflection #5- May 15, 2015
After having a short meeting with Manka and Julie about my project, I feel more confident that my research has a direction. I want to compare and contrast the perceptions of Berliners perceptions of the memorialization that dots their city, and the vivid street art throughout the area. Specifically, I am looking for how these forms of expression and the messages these pieces hold make Berliners feel about their identity. (Do Berliners feel their identity threatened by street art giving voices to minorities? Do Berliners agree/not agree with the presentation of painful historical moments (i.e. the Holocaust Memorial) within the walls of their city, a constant reminder of their ugly past? Why do these art pieces stir up such feelings?) It is along these lines I hope to really understand if Berliners, and Germans as a whole, feel their identity changing in fast paced 21st century, and why.
The majority of my research will be interviews with carefully constructed questions as to avoid confrontation and anger that could arise from asking painful questions. In addition, I will need to scope out some street art pieces and memorials I want to focus on in particular, as to avoid generalizations in my questions, and as a result, undefined answers. This will require taking photos and presenting them during an interview.
While I have the basis for research project here, I have included some basic links to sources I will reference when setting up my project. Currently, I am still searching for references that I can use to define what I mean by “street art,” “memorialization,” and “identity,” as these are crucial pieces to my question, but are concepts that carry several different meanings. I believe the article Julie sent to us on “Creative Activism” by Eva Youkhana could help me to define “street art,” and I feel Brian Ladd’s “Ghosts of Berlin” book could help me define “memorialization” as well as give me ideas for “un-memorialized memorials” (think of Nazi era architecture that still stands today). In addition, I found a link to a course taught at non other than Humboldt University (!) called “Nation and City: Changing Identities in Changing Berlin” instructed by Dr. Christian Wicke, so I would be interested in possibly connecting with this professor once in Berlin (thought this was taught Winter 2013/2014).
http://www.visitberlin.de/en/see/museums-art/memorials?page=1
http://www.visitberlin.de/en/see/museums-art/street-art
https://bolognalab.hu-berlin.de/institutions/administration/bolognalab/projekte-des-bologna.labs-en/berlin-perspectives/kursprogramm/wintersemester2013/nation-and-city/nation-and-city
http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/en/memorials/the-memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe.html#c694
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/germanys-lingering-id.pdf
Reflection #6/7- May 29, 2015
Last week and this weeks blog posts are a response to the scholarly article “Creative Activism and Art Against Urban Renaissance and Social Exclusion-Space Sensitive Approaches to Study of Collective Action and Belonging” by Eva Youkhana
The arts, particularly street art, as a form of social activism and the focus of Youkhana’s paper tie directly to the research I hope to pursue in Berlin. I am extremely interested in how street art is perceived by Berliners, and Youkhana certainly gave me some things to think about in terms how I define not only “street art,” but also what defines “Berliner” and “Berlin identity.” One of the main ideas of Youkhana’s paper focused on street art giving a voice to those on the outskirts of the larger society, a group whose perspective and needs are often ignored by the greater population. “The political and social nature of the creative acts are often ignored in debated about the function of graffiti and urban art beyond its recognition as a product of youth culture” (Youkhana, 175). I found this statement powerful, as Youkhana makes a clear distinction between the function of graffiti and street art by the artist and the community they represent, and the viewers that take in the art. The purpose behind the piece, the issue an artist is attempting to bring attention to, is often disregarded as the viewers focus on the functionality of graffiti and street art. I find this disheartening, as I have seen this exact situation play out throughout Seattle. Graffiti and street art are often debated based on the merits on their aesthetics and how they are assessed by visitors rather than the on the legitimacy and importance of the issues being expressed by the community. Youkhana mirrored this in her example of Brazilian street art maintained prior to the World Cup/Olympics taking place not to respect the issues presented by the artists, but to meet the expectations of visitors who saw Brazil as a “colorful and creative society.” For this reason, if I want to study street art in Berlin, and how it perceived by groups, I need to not only interview the ordinary citizens and curious viewers, but also the artists creating these pieces, and members of community they represent.
One other idea Youkhana presented that caught my attention was the clear distinction between commissioned and noncommissioned street art. “According to the critics, urban art in its commissioned appearance becomes an affirmative instrument for the dominant class, serves as city branding and for the interests of a society that leans on consumption and passive citizenship rather than participation and protest” (176). I know that while Berlin is world-renowned for its street art, a large portion of that street art is commissioned, especially around the Wall. I want to explore this topic further, in particular, how people respond to commissioned and non-commissioned street art (can they even tell the difference between the two? Who can tell the difference? How can those people tell the difference? Does knowing a piece is commissioned impact their overall perspective of the piece? In what way?) I would love to ask non-commissioned street artists their perspective on this topic- do they feel their art/their voice/their identity/their community is being threatened, as some their unorthodox medium is being accepted (others are commissioned) but their message isn’t (their particular pieces have not been commissioned). In the end, I believe this perspective will add to my overall examination into a changing Berlin identity, as Berlin becomes an increasingly globalized city in the 20th century. Using street art as a way to give a voice to the voiceless, does this deepen the “belonging/un-belonging” dichotomy that exists within the city? Of those who live in the Berlin, do they identify themselves as a “Berliner”? Why/why not? How does street art support or challenge these perspectives?
The readings we had for today circled around the idea of globalization and the Berlin Wall. Pertaining to “The Ghosts of Berlin” reading, I was struck by how many of Ladd’s statements echoed those of Marion Niles, my German instructor when I took extracurricular language classes in high school. I remember particularly one day, when classroom discussion turned to World War II and it’s ramifications on the German people. Marion seemed to physically turn away from the subject, obviously wishing not to speak about the atrocities that stained German history. She simply said, “It is in the past, and Germans do not want to talk about it. They want to move on.” I saw a similar theme in Ladd’s writing, especially from his introduction. “There are, of course, Berliners who would like to forget. They think they hear far too much about Hitler and vanished Jews and alleged crimes of their parents and grandparents—not to mention Eric Honecker and the Stasi and their own previous lives” (1). Ladd repeatedly highlights the struggle between Germans over the wall—between those who wanted to tear down the ugly structure and all the memories it represented, and those who wanted to keep the wall as a reminder of the lessons of a divided Germany, and in memoriam of those who fought to get from East to West, and lost their lives in the process.
Ladd, on page of 28 of Chapter 1, also brought to light the differences between the depiction of Berlin between East and West Berliners through the variations in their maps of the city. I found this a particular interesting point I hadn’t considered before. Maps define the perimeters of a city, and often emphasize the sights the people deem important to the regions identity and history (could be a tourist attraction). But when it came to the Wall, the GDR left West Berlin as a blank space on the map. West Berlin, on the other hand, depicted the city as neither East nor West Berlin, but as Berlin, a unified city (the outline of the Wall was hard to distinguish, simply resembling a line separating districts of the city). I would be interested in using the maps as a primary source when researching, as a map truly represents what a regions people want foreigners and outsiders to see when they come to their home.
In terms of the Matthew Sparke “Introducing Globalization” reading, and the information provided about the European Union, both reminded me of my JSIS 201 class I took Winter Quarter 2015. We covered many topics that overlap with these readings, such as the origins of the EU, the sources and growth of neoliberalism (“globalization” as Sparke refers to it), the role of the IMF and World Bank in the global economy and politics, etc.
Reflection #2- April 17, 2015
Berlin, or Germany as a whole, is haunted by the walls of its past and present. Obviously there is the physical Berlin Wall that used to divide the city (and continent) into East and West, and its permanence as a preservation of history obviously still bothers many Germans. I understand wanting to remove the wall, as an ugly reminder of a horrific past, but removing the wall completely seems to insinuate that this scar in German history has been covered up. I also see the wall the German government has put up to prevent immigrants from settling within its borders, one that only seems to grow stronger.
“The establishment of the EU in 1993 was designed to create a unified labor marker, with all EU citizens having full rights to take up employment and to obtain work-related social benefits in ant member country. At the same time, entry and residence have become more difficult for non-EU nationals, especially those from outside Europe” (Castle and Miller, 224). If this was why the EU was established, then according to Castle and Miller, Berlin is a city of the European Union. Castle and Miller’s explanation of the increased globalization and economic integration since the 1980’s has led to mass migration from the global South to the North, especially to Germany. It therefore makes sense that the European Union makes it difficult for foreigners to assimilate within it’s borders, not only to protect cultural identity, but also economic stability (the high cost of housing refugees/immigrants and providing social services). I believe this ties directly into Germany’s emergence and influence as a global city. Thousands flock to Berlin, as it is a cultural, economic and political epicenter. One cannot open a newspaper and not run across a story involving Berlin and the German government. Berlin has a reputation for innovation and power, which makes it an attractive choice for those seeking a better life. But that does not necessarily mean Germany welcomes foreigners with wide open arms.
I believe these narratives we have read reflect German identity as something sacred by those who have it, and something foreigners want a piece of (though not necessarily want to assimilate into). I believe much this, at least today, is attributed to Germany’s immense economic power and influence globally, as, especially during the economic crisis of 2008, attributed to the Euro staying somewhat a float and not completely collapsing under the burden of Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Foreigners want access to the wealth of German culture, and Germans (among many other nations) try to protect this identity with restrictions on immigration.
The American and German identity is masked by similarities in relation to immigrants. Both countries are known for restricting immigration to certain groups in an attempt to preserve cultural identity (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States). However, the U.S. is historically a nation of immigrants, while that is not necessarily true for Germany. For centuries, Germanic people have settled the modern state, speaking similar languages and looking related in skin color and features. The US, however, has a much less matured historical identity, one mixed with slavery, Native American violence, and mass immigration from all corners of the globe following the beginning of the 20th century under industrialization. The United States, from its earliest establishment, was not a place of shared culture, language, or ethnicity, but rather a “melting pot” of diversity. For this reason, I think one must carefully examine the differences in German and American history in relation to immigrants.
Reflection #3- April 24, 2015
Response to "Identity and Poststructuralist Theory in SLA" by Bonny Norton
There were several pieces of Norton’s piece that peaked my interest. For example, this quote from page 62: “As I have argued in previous research, an imagined community assumes an imagined identity, and a learner’s investment in the target language can be understood within this context.” This argument is quite intriguing; as it makes sense that a person contrives a false identity to appeal to a false audience. This is similar to Erving Goffman’s belief that people put up a “front,” as if they are acting in front of an audience, in order to convince an argument to accept and play along with the identity they are presenting. Also, it is interesting to look at language as a tool for self-improvement and personal growth; instead of within it’s classical definition as a form of communication (assumed between two or more people).
Bakhtin’s poststructuralist theory is one aspect of this scholarly work that I struggled with. Bakhtin argues that the historical significance of language is carried out as a tradition today, which constrains modern user. I understand the constraints of language on a person. We have all been in a situation where words fail us, not because we aren’t reacting to the situation at hand, but because words or communication in general simply cannot encapsulate our true feelings. However, Bakhtin’s argument implies language is stagnant, and cannot change with the population that uses it. Bakhtin mentions the “constrains” on the modern user, yet time and time again slang comes about, creating a new vocabulary to reflect the values and concerns of the populace, while simultaneously words become “out of date.” While most language is recycled, communication continues to expand daily, and I believe it is an unfair assumption to classify language as constraining the user.
I was struck by Bourdieu’s argument in particular, that the value associated to a speaker impacts our language and communication. I believe this is true, as when I talk to someone, I perceive who he or she are before I judge what they are communicating. This makes sense, as once you have developed a history with someone, your connection to those historical ties will undoubtedly impact your attitude and perception of the exchange. Bourdieu continues with that the idea that “dominant usage is associated with the dominant class” (64). Now this is a topic I have never considered, but I would love to delve deeper into, as I can see some truth to this statement. In what ways does the majority suppress the minority)? How does this suppression compare along different forms of communications? Along different minority groups? How does your identification with a group impact your ability to communicate?
Reflection #4- May 1, 2015
I am quite intrigued by the issues brought about by the readings this week, namely “European Others” and “What Does It Mean to be a German.” Both bring to light the very modern struggle of identity in German culture, especially between ethnic Germans and “migrant Germans,” meaning groups that have grown up in Germany and by all accounts are German, but are the descendants of immigrants from several generations back. In these reflections, I often refer back to my German instructor, Marion Niles, and relate details of German culture she told our class about. While she never explicitly spoke on the topic of German race or race relations, I remember completing an assignment once through Deutsche Welle (www.dw.de), and one of the videos linked to my assignment was an interview with a Turkish-German woman living in Berlin. Intrigued, I clicked on the video. While I can’t remember the exact details of the woman’s name or what she was wearing, one thing she said stuck with me, even after all these years. This woman, in a perfect German accent and grammar, mind you, reflected on how often she is asked, “Where are you from?” Each and every time she responded, “I am German,” as she was born and raised in the country, and by all means is German. However, she added that this was not accepted by most, as she did have a Turkish complexion, and the follow question was, “No, where are you really from?” As we have been reading about the struggle of identity in Europe, this moment keeps coming back to me, as I viewed this video several years ago, yet this topic is still an issue in contemporary German society. I didn’t really hit me until these readings how deeply rooted this hard-to-talk-about subject is for Germans and migrants alike. To tie to American culture, I know we also have our own problems with race relations, for instance, look at the recent events in Baltimore. However, how do the race relations of Germany and America compare? Is one “worse off” than the other? On what grounds or criteria can one determine if the race relations are “worse off?”
In terms of a project, I still want to explore street art and graffiti in Berlin, and my primary research method will be carefully crafted interviews built on interpretation of pieces. I would be interested in comparing the art in one neighborhood to the art (or possibly lack of art?) in another. One of these neighborhoods would a predominately immigrant community, while the other could be a more classical “German” district.
Reflection #4- May 8, 2015
I apologize for the late response, three midterms last week left me a little brain dead.
Interview Observations: This was actually quite difficult. Michaila and went up to three different people, asking them their opinion on racial tensions spanning the US, from Ferguson to Baltimore. The first two people, while polite in their response, declined to comment. This is an understandable response, as we were two random people asking for a person to comment on an extremely emotional and deep rooted issue. We thanked them for their time, but walked away empty handed. The third person we approached, a girl, was willing to talk to us, but it was instantly clear that she was very guarded in her response. It was obvious she didn't want to say something that could induce a confrontation. In all, I feel this exercise taught us the importance of crafting questions in an interview. I believe more people would have been willing to help us should we have approached them, stated we were students, and asked them a thought-provoking, though non-confrontational question about the racial tensions in the US.
Observation Notes:
whistling wind
keys jangling
typing across the room
a small, distant bird chirping
scent of a freshly cooked burrito
dusk setting outside my window
rustling of my roommate as she makes dinner
green, green leaves of the trees surrounding my window
faint laughing as people on the street walk in groups towards dinner
intense bright glow of my desk lamp illuminating my unfinished homework
With this exercise, I honestly had trouble writing down continuous observations for two minutes. I believe this was because I wrote this from my dorm room, and many of the sights and sounds I experience there are almost second nature- I barely notice them, so when observing my room, they seem almost too obvious to mention. However, many of these observations are specific to my dorm room, as, in comparison to my room at home, I would not be able to hear people laughing on the street, or my roommate moving around (as I do not have a roommate at my parents house). I learned from this exercise to simply absorb- don't think, just observe. There are some judgment's attached to these observations, as sounds are my biggest irritation when in my dorm room (they can be distracting!) so that is why I believe I listed some many "sounds" in my observation list. The feelings that came up in this exercise was actually one of peace of mind, as I realized how in those two minutes, my room was quite mellow, a place of zen.
Gentrification Response:
Webster defines gentrification as: "the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents." I certainly agree with this within the context of Seattle, as I have seen the gentrification of not only Capitol Hill, as stated in the Seattle Times article, but also the Belltown and Seattle. With the influx of tech jobs in the recent years, especially around the relocation of Amazon to downtown Seattle, rent prices have skyrocketed not only in South Lake Union, but also Queen Anne, U District, and pretty much any area that can easily access South Lake Union (I definitely felt this crunch as I searched for apartments in the U District earlier this year only to be met with constant availability of new high rises that were far out of my price range).
However, after reading the Guardian article on Berlin and the removal of pieces of the Wall for high rise apartments, I was questioning if that is what would truly be called "gentrification." Yes, a rich population was moving in on an area in search of high-priced apartments, but were they truly displacing a poorer group? Or were the rich rather threatening a piece of shared German culture? Not every luxury high rise is directly causing gentrification, so I question if this Guardian article does due diligence to the issue of gentrification in Berlin.
I believe gentrification ultimately leads to divides among social groups, as there comes to light a clear line between those who can afford to live there, and those who no longer can. However, for long time residents of a neighborhood, I can see a community becoming a part of their identity. Often, I don't say I'm from Seattle to other Seattlites, but rather that I live in Broadview, a neighborhood in North Seattle near the border with Shoreline. In this way, I identify with my neighborhood rather than my city. I believe this is the connection between gentrification and the program aims, as gentrification leads to a questioning of identity, and the displacement of groups based on there lack of socio-economic influence.
Reflection #5- May 15, 2015
After having a short meeting with Manka and Julie about my project, I feel more confident that my research has a direction. I want to compare and contrast the perceptions of Berliners perceptions of the memorialization that dots their city, and the vivid street art throughout the area. Specifically, I am looking for how these forms of expression and the messages these pieces hold make Berliners feel about their identity. (Do Berliners feel their identity threatened by street art giving voices to minorities? Do Berliners agree/not agree with the presentation of painful historical moments (i.e. the Holocaust Memorial) within the walls of their city, a constant reminder of their ugly past? Why do these art pieces stir up such feelings?) It is along these lines I hope to really understand if Berliners, and Germans as a whole, feel their identity changing in fast paced 21st century, and why.
The majority of my research will be interviews with carefully constructed questions as to avoid confrontation and anger that could arise from asking painful questions. In addition, I will need to scope out some street art pieces and memorials I want to focus on in particular, as to avoid generalizations in my questions, and as a result, undefined answers. This will require taking photos and presenting them during an interview.
While I have the basis for research project here, I have included some basic links to sources I will reference when setting up my project. Currently, I am still searching for references that I can use to define what I mean by “street art,” “memorialization,” and “identity,” as these are crucial pieces to my question, but are concepts that carry several different meanings. I believe the article Julie sent to us on “Creative Activism” by Eva Youkhana could help me to define “street art,” and I feel Brian Ladd’s “Ghosts of Berlin” book could help me define “memorialization” as well as give me ideas for “un-memorialized memorials” (think of Nazi era architecture that still stands today). In addition, I found a link to a course taught at non other than Humboldt University (!) called “Nation and City: Changing Identities in Changing Berlin” instructed by Dr. Christian Wicke, so I would be interested in possibly connecting with this professor once in Berlin (thought this was taught Winter 2013/2014).
http://www.visitberlin.de/en/see/museums-art/memorials?page=1
http://www.visitberlin.de/en/see/museums-art/street-art
https://bolognalab.hu-berlin.de/institutions/administration/bolognalab/projekte-des-bologna.labs-en/berlin-perspectives/kursprogramm/wintersemester2013/nation-and-city/nation-and-city
http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/en/memorials/the-memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe.html#c694
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/germanys-lingering-id.pdf
Reflection #6/7- May 29, 2015
Last week and this weeks blog posts are a response to the scholarly article “Creative Activism and Art Against Urban Renaissance and Social Exclusion-Space Sensitive Approaches to Study of Collective Action and Belonging” by Eva Youkhana
The arts, particularly street art, as a form of social activism and the focus of Youkhana’s paper tie directly to the research I hope to pursue in Berlin. I am extremely interested in how street art is perceived by Berliners, and Youkhana certainly gave me some things to think about in terms how I define not only “street art,” but also what defines “Berliner” and “Berlin identity.” One of the main ideas of Youkhana’s paper focused on street art giving a voice to those on the outskirts of the larger society, a group whose perspective and needs are often ignored by the greater population. “The political and social nature of the creative acts are often ignored in debated about the function of graffiti and urban art beyond its recognition as a product of youth culture” (Youkhana, 175). I found this statement powerful, as Youkhana makes a clear distinction between the function of graffiti and street art by the artist and the community they represent, and the viewers that take in the art. The purpose behind the piece, the issue an artist is attempting to bring attention to, is often disregarded as the viewers focus on the functionality of graffiti and street art. I find this disheartening, as I have seen this exact situation play out throughout Seattle. Graffiti and street art are often debated based on the merits on their aesthetics and how they are assessed by visitors rather than the on the legitimacy and importance of the issues being expressed by the community. Youkhana mirrored this in her example of Brazilian street art maintained prior to the World Cup/Olympics taking place not to respect the issues presented by the artists, but to meet the expectations of visitors who saw Brazil as a “colorful and creative society.” For this reason, if I want to study street art in Berlin, and how it perceived by groups, I need to not only interview the ordinary citizens and curious viewers, but also the artists creating these pieces, and members of community they represent.
One other idea Youkhana presented that caught my attention was the clear distinction between commissioned and noncommissioned street art. “According to the critics, urban art in its commissioned appearance becomes an affirmative instrument for the dominant class, serves as city branding and for the interests of a society that leans on consumption and passive citizenship rather than participation and protest” (176). I know that while Berlin is world-renowned for its street art, a large portion of that street art is commissioned, especially around the Wall. I want to explore this topic further, in particular, how people respond to commissioned and non-commissioned street art (can they even tell the difference between the two? Who can tell the difference? How can those people tell the difference? Does knowing a piece is commissioned impact their overall perspective of the piece? In what way?) I would love to ask non-commissioned street artists their perspective on this topic- do they feel their art/their voice/their identity/their community is being threatened, as some their unorthodox medium is being accepted (others are commissioned) but their message isn’t (their particular pieces have not been commissioned). In the end, I believe this perspective will add to my overall examination into a changing Berlin identity, as Berlin becomes an increasingly globalized city in the 20th century. Using street art as a way to give a voice to the voiceless, does this deepen the “belonging/un-belonging” dichotomy that exists within the city? Of those who live in the Berlin, do they identify themselves as a “Berliner”? Why/why not? How does street art support or challenge these perspectives?