Tierrechte, Spezies-Subjektivismus, Protest

Wenn Ihr die ökologische Bilanz menschlicher Zerstörung mitverbucht bei der nackten Existenz von Tierkörpern, indem Ihr aufrechnet, wieviel ökologische Schäden durch Tierkörper entstehen, dann macht Ihr Tierkörper verantwortlich für menschliches Handeln.

Weshalb sprecht Ihr nicht von Ungerechtigkeit, die diesen Tierkörpern widerfährt? Meint Ihr ökologische Zerstörung hätte nichts mit einer menschlich-destruktiven Haltung gegen nichtmenschliche Räume zu tun? Ihr sprecht zumindest nicht von Unrecht gegen nichtmenschliche Tiere.

Ethik ohne (Tier-)Rechte ist eine Farce.

Antibiologistische Tiersoziologie, Gruppe Messel

Tierrechte, Spezies-Subjektivismus, Protest

Repost des Eintrags vom 25.07.2021 aus fortlaufend gegebenem Anlass: Das Headquarter der Gruppe Messel zieht zur Zeit sehr aufwändig um – mit 200 Quadratmetern an Kunst- und Buchbeständen – daher die längere Pause hier. Die Pause ergibt sich aber auch deswegen, weil wir gegenwärtig beobachten, wie tief die Mehrheit von ‚fellow activists‘ in der deutschsprachigen Tierrechts- und/oder Tierbefreiungsszene noch ihre mentale Grube völliger Agrarfokussiertheit graben wollen, in denen alles Platz finden soll, was Tierlichkeit von sog. Farm-Tieren anbetrifft, statt anstelle dessen Räume ökosozialer Schnittmengen zu erkennen, zu benennen und somit darauf deutlich hinzuweisen. Wer sich in Richtung ‚artgerechter Ansätze‘ einengt in seiner Betrachtung von tierlichen Interessensbereichen, der erkennt keine ökosoziale Komplexität an, sekundarisiert die politische Relevanz dessen, dass tierliche Diversität mehr als Artenschutz ist, und dass tierliche Diversität eher Tierkulturen statt Tierspezies bedeutet. Wer sog. Farmtiere immernoch in ihren Interessen beschreibt, als hätte er/sie gerade einen Zoologie-Kurs bei Konrad Lorenz oder Professor Grzimek besucht, der sollte vielleicht nochmal überlegen, ob es sich nicht lohnt als Tierverteidiger*in auch mal seine eigene Thinking-Cap aufzusetzen und weniger chauvinistische und spezies-objektifizierende Haltungen gegenüber tierlichen Individuen und Gruppen einzunehmen.

Wessen Rechte sollen eigentlich so unwesentlich sein, dass man auf sie grundsätzlich verzichten könne?

Es gibt meines Empfindens nach viel an geistiger Sterilität unter Kulturschaffenden. Im gleichen Maße gibt es daneben auch eine Menge an geistig relativ sterilen politischen Graswurzel-Aktivist*innen. Hier eine wohlgemeine Kritik an solchen in der Tierrechteszene im deutschsprachigen Raum.

Mich wundert die aktivistische vereinfachende Gebetsmühle an der festgehalten wird, dass

a.) Umweltschutz plus Tiere die Gleichung nach einer Forderung einer sog. Argarwende ergeben müsste. Hier findet eine Verschiebung von Tieren und ihren Geschichten auf Orte statt, in die Tiere gezwungen wurden. Tiere haben nur gezwungenermaßen etwas mit dem Thema Agrar zu tun. Zudem: Eine vegane ‚Agrarwende‘ hat erstmal nichts mit der Schaffung neuer Lebensräume für Tiere zu tun und auch nicht mit der Adressierung von Tier-Objektifizierung in der Menschheitsgeschichte, die aber der unbedingten Adressierung bedarf, um so Systeme, die industrialisierten Mord überhaupt am laufen halten, logisch, ethisch zu dekonstruieren.

Etwas zu ändern an der Situation der zahllosen Tier-Individuen, die gezwungen sind in Menschengemachten agrarindustriellen oder sonstigen Agrareinrichtungen geboren zu werden, zu leben und zu sterben, ist ein tierinklusiver soziologischer Prozess und keiner, der die Thematik pflanzlicher Anbaustätten zum Primärnutzen für Menschen anbetrifft. Themen können nicht allesamt in einem simplen Aufwasch gelöst werden. Weder das der Situationen, die Tiere betreffen, noch menschliche Verhaltensweisen in ökologischer Hinsicht im Anthropozän. Ernährung, Fragen, die die Flora betreffen und dann wiederum wirtschaftliche Monopole, politische und gesellschaftliche Dis-/Funktionsweisen … das alles ist nicht einfach so als „Wust“ anzupacken, am Ende derer, die dadurch am existenziellsten Betroffen sind – und dann noch indem man das Thema Unrecht im Bezug auf diese Betroffenen ausklammert.

und

b.) dass Ethik ein von Rechten entkoppeltes Paralleluniversum sei – wie so einige Leute in der deutschsprachigen Tierbefreiungsszene argumentieren.

diesen Leuten, denen das eine oder das andere Argument bekannt ist, möchte ich folgende Punkte zu bedenken geben:

Nicht allein der industrialisierte Tiermord ist Tiermord …

  1. Ethik und Rechte sind voneinander nicht trennbar. Denkt mal an Eure eigenen Rechte und die Ethik, die Ihr für Euch in Anspruch nehmt. Stellt Euch mal vor wir hätten ethische Ansprüche und stellten Forderungen aufgrund ethischer Leitsätze, auf die wir uns geeinigt haben, aus denen dann aber keine rechtlichen Konsequenzen sich herleiten und entwachsen würden. Wir fändet Ihr das für Euch? Nebenbei: Rechte sind etwas Grundsätzliches, wodurch die Integrität eines Wesens als Ende in sich selbst anerkannt wird, generell gewisse Eigenschaften anerkannt werden müssen, um so dem Wesen einen legitimen Schutz gewährleisten zu können – vor menschlichen dritten Interessen, die die Integrität des Wesens nicht grundlegend berücksichtigen wollen im Interesse des durch die Rechte geschützten und der sich so über die Speziesgemeinschaft hinweg konstituierenden sozialen Gemeinschaft. Bei der Diskussion über Rechte abzulenken mit Partikularismen wie irgendwelche spezifischen Rechtspraktiken – wie Verkehrs- oder Wahlrechte, etc. und dann zu behaupten, das seien doch „Rechte“, die ja Tiere nicht haben könnten – geht dem Ursprung und den Fundamentalfragen von dem was ein Recht überhaupt konstituiert, nicht auf den Grund.
  2. Wenn Ihr implizit sagt: der Mord beim Biobauern oder der Hausschlachtung ist weniger relevant, dann zählt für Euch nicht das einzelne Leben und die Würde des einzelnen Wesens, Ihr vermittelt, dass Gewalt ein Problem der Quantität wäre. Wenn es Euch aber mehr um die Folgen der kapitalistischen (globalen) Märkte auf die Ökologie geht und ihr meint, dass Tiermord vornehmlich ein Problem ist, dass in der Quantität an Relevanz gewinnt, dann möchte ich fragen, was ihr eigentlich meint wie das ganze Problem überhaupt erst begonnen hat und warum Euch die Geschichte so wenig interessiert? Ich hätte da allerdings auch noch etliche andere Fragen.
  3. Und: Wenn Ihr die ökologische Bilanz menschlicher Zerstörung mitverbucht bei der nackten Existenz von Tierkörpern, indem ihr aufrechnet wieviel ökologische Schäden durch Tierkörper entstehen, dann macht Ihr Tierkörper verantwortlich für menschliches Handeln.

Ohne Rechte ist Ethik eine Farce. Weder in Sachen natürlicher Mitwelt noch im Bezug auf tierliche Subjekte sprecht Ihr von einer Ethik, die faktische und direkte Rechte konstituieren können muss. Aber wenn es um Eure eigenen Interessen geht – und diese können natürlich auch die Mitwelt berühren – dann wisst Ihr wie Ihr Rechte als Eure Domäne schützen wollt. Als menschlicher Schutz vor dem Menschen und Garant zur Durchsetzung kollektiver menschlicher ‚speziessegmentgebundener‘ Eigeninteressen. Das Kastensystem zwischen Mensch – Tier – und natürlicher Mitwelt, begründet auf einem „Recht“ und einer „Würde“, die mit Ausschließlichkeitsansprüchen operieren.

Rev. 26.08.2022

Versuche in Spezies-subjektiver / Spezies-subjektivistischer Dichtung

Offenkundig fällt der kritischen Beobachtenden auf, dass gerade, wenn Leute sich selbst auf kleinster Ebene subjektiv beschreiben, wie in Gedichten, Nichtmenschen ganz besonders als ‚aus objektifizierender Perspektive wahrnehmbar‘ angenommen werden. Ich möchte hier ein „ich“ und ein „du“ und ein „wir“ beschreiben, dass Menschen und Nichtmenschen auf anderer Ebene betrachtet.

***

Wir sind

Als erstes muss ich mich demontieren, nicht vor Euch, nicht vor Dir, aber von dem kollektiven Menschen – er lässt kein ganzes Ich zu, das außerhalb von ihm ist.

Sie sagen also Du seist nur ein Nebenschauplatz. Du seist schön, hässlich, ganz, Opfer, aber Dein Du gäbe es nicht.

Sie sprechen Dich nicht als Du an, außer sie übertreten Deine Grenzen.

Was für Ein Du bin ich dann für solche Exkludierenden – wo Du aber mein Du bist? Ich bin ein Du mit Dir.

Dir, der bei dem Kollektivmenschen wie er jetzt ist, nur das Du ist, dessen Grenzen übertreten werden.

***

Unsere Liebe zu Erkenntnissen

Es muss deutlich werden. Deren „wir“ muss nicht Eures sein.

Mir ist das klar und ich mache es deutlich.

Es gibt menschliche „du‘s“ die immer um ein Zentrum kreisen, das ein Bündel „Mensch“ einpackt.

Es gibt menschliche „du’s“ die mit ihrem Intellekt Dein und Mein „du“ in unserer Liebe zu Erkenntnissen nicht wahrnehmen.

Sollte ich ein Du mitansprechen in meinem Gedicht, dass jemanden einbezieht der ein Du plus Liebe in die Ecke von Sexualisiertheit packt? Warum sollte der Mensch mein allgemeines Du sein hier, auf das ich intimsten Bezug nehmen darf, ohne dass das ein Problem wäre? Warum meint der „gebündelte Mensch“ zwischen uns gäbe es kein poetisches Du? Zu Gott darf es das geben. Zu Dir nicht, meinen sie. Warum sollte unser per Du immer gleich okkupiert werden durch fremddefinitorische Deutende. Wir sind in keiner dieser Gemeinschaften einzugemeinden.

Wir sind gemeinsam und wir sprechen die Sprache, die jenseits von allem stehen kann. Und dies ist unser Banner im allgemeinen Raum.

***

Liebesgedicht

Schöne Worte sind nur für wen? Schöne Worte, die nichts sagen außer, dass da noch einer ist, der Euch verneint. Ein schönes Wort, das für mich Gift ist, wenn nicht bedeutungslos, weil Du darin nicht vorkommen darfst.

Wir sitzen hier zu dritt. Dort der Jäger oder die Jägerin, dort Du, der Xar-Gush (Hase) und hier ich. Wir befinden uns nicht in einer Fabel. Spreche ich zur Jägerin über Dich? Das ist schwer, denn sie negiert Dich. Ich schaue, ob Dein Ohrenspiel und Deine Gestik mir zeigen, ob wir vielleicht diesen Raum lieber verlassen sollten. Mich will die Jägerin physisch nicht jagen, aber sie macht unser Leben draußen kaputt. Wir wollen mit ihr also auch nicht diesen „geschützten Dreier-Raum“ hier drinnen teilen. Wir gehen raus. Zusammen.

***

Zeichenlexika

Der „abwesende Referent“ ist niemals abwesend. Sprache und Zeichen sind überall und universell. Es gibt keine Barriere ist den Codizes und den Hauchen … manche Menschenwesen nummerieren diese. Wir tun das nicht. Du tust es nicht, ich nicht. Dennoch wirst Du und werde ich mitgezählt. Wir zählen anders.

Manche Menschenwesen erleben die Börsen als Ersatznatur. Wir sehen den Wert in der Substanz von Leid, das Denken ist und Materie, die Sein ist, das wir teilen, Und das ist unsere Liebe. Und nicht die zu Euren Phantomen.

***

Steinliebe

Ich verehre Dich, weil ihr Euch ehrt und weil Du und Du ihr achtsam und zugewendet seid. Ich könnte Euch nicht verehren, wenn unsere Verehrung nicht im Großen voller Achtsamkeitswarnungen wäre. Dort fangen Liebes-Geheimnisse an.

***

Kriege

Ich spreche zu Dir und wir beide sprechen verschiedene Sprachen. Wie Musik. Mit Schnittmengen, mit losen Enden, wir binden sie zusammen. Ich spreche mit Dir damit wir uns beschwören können, unsere Zauberei machen können, unsere gemeinschaftlichen Gesänge und Feste. Du singst in Deiner Sprache, ich in meiner.

Da hört uns jemand zu, der meine Sprache spricht. Er bindet mich ein, sagt, war plapperst Du da. Ich spreche seine Sprache, aber spreche zu Dir, nicht zu ihm.

Höre, der du meine Sprache sprichst. Wir sprechen alle verschiedene Sprachen! Da bist nicht nur Du und ich!

Wir aber gehen und wir wenden uns im Geiste ab. Lass ihm seinen Bannkreis. Daran erkennen wir ihn.

Wir zelebrieren, tod oder lebendig, ohne diese anderen.

***

Ideen

Da hocke ich nun in dem Club von „Homo genius“, umgeben, von einem Wissenschaftsgemäuer auf Logiken und Thesen bauend.

Ich bin immernoch verneinbar. Ich teile auch deren Träume nicht. Ich will sie gar nicht teilen. Deren Logik teile ich nicht.

Wir denken an Blätter, an lange Geschichten, an die Freunde, die Tiefseefische.

Schon wird gemeldet, dass das artenfremde demonstrativ hinausgeangelt wird.

Man macht das alles einfach.

So regiert man.

 

 

Liste TH und TOS, Punkt 05: Religiöse Tierobjektifizierung


Religiöse Tierobjektifizierung >
Geht davon aus, dass menschliche Spiritualität eine Basis dafür bildet, tierliche Verschiedenartigkeit, Pluralität und Multiplizität zu entwerten.
Punkt 5; Liste über Formen des Tierhasses und verschiedener tierobjektifizierender Spezifika.
Antibiologistische Tiersoziologie, Gruppe Messel

Liste TH und TOS, Punkt 07: Die tierobjektifizierende Ideologie der Jagd

Die tierobjektifizierende Ideologie der Jagd  >

Die Herrschaft und Dominanz über „die Wildnis“ postulierend, durch völlige Lebensraumkontrolle; das erste Erscheinen des Erklärens von Nichtmenschen zu menschlicher Nahrung – als eine angenommene relative Gleichheit mit Raubtieren.

Punkt 7; Liste über Formen des Tierhasses und verschiedener tierobjektifizierender Spezifika.

Antibiologistische Tiersoziologie, Gruppe Messel

Netze des Homo sapiens mit denen anderer Animales sapiens

Netze des Homo sapiens mit denen anderer Animales sapiens

Inwieweit ist das menschliche Subjektsein dem Anthropos-Sein unterworfen
und in welchen Punkten ganz genau?

Ließe sich seine Soziologie untergliedern

  • als zwischen Subjekten liegend

oder

  • alleinig dem Anthropos-Sein zuzuordnen?

Bestimmte Handlungsebenen finden unter bestimmten Bedingungen statt. So gibt es Handlungen, die Subjekte untereinander in verschiedener Weise trennen oder zusammenbringen.

Kann ich den Anthropozentrismus annehmen als ein ‚Eigenzentrismus der Gruppe Homo sapiens‘, die im Punkte ihrer Subjektivität stärker an Handlungsebenen, etc. gebunden sind mit anderen Homo sapiens?

Behauptet Homo sapiens gar deswegen, dass nur er/sie ‚denken‘ würde und nur deswegen unter ihm Diskurse, also Erwägungen, stattfinden können und er/sie legt fest was und wie „Komplexität“ zu definieren ist?

Gruppe Messel, antibiologistische Tiersoziologie

Rituelle Herabsetzung


Ritual physical degradation
Die rituelle physische Herabsetzung tierlicher Integrität als Kunst ist gleichermaßen menschenverachtend. Das tierliche Opfer kann, als rechtloser Geisel, von seinen menschlichen Verteidiger*innen nicht durch deren rechtlichen Status geschützt werden. Kunstschaffende, -fördernde und -rezipierende können so juristisch legal Ohnmacht generieren und multiplizieren. Bei Menschen sowie bei Tieren.
Gruppe Messel, 2022

Buchprojekt in Kooperation mit Syl

Liebe Freund*innen,

ich bin zur Zeit beschäftigt mit einem neuen Projekt, das ich zusammen mit Syl Ko durchführe und über das ich mich außerordentlich freue. Ein Buch mit Illustrationen, bei dem der Text von Syl stammt und die Illustrationen von mir. Wie Ihr Euch denken könnt, wird es ein Tierrechtsbuch. Hier ein kurzer Blick auf einige der Protagonist*innen:

Der Eintrag vor diesem ist Passwortgeschützt, da ich hier Entwürfe teile, die aus ziemlich großen Bilddateien bestehen und die wir der Einfachheit halber lieber online teilen. Also, nicht irritiert sein. Danke!

 

Von Fleischgläubigen und Relativierern

Spezies-subjektive Prosa; Traktat.

Von denen, für die Fleisch ein anzubetendes Kulturgut darstellt, und denen auf der Gegenseite, die aus irgendeinem nicht nachvollziehbaren Grund begonnen haben, die Aussage „Meat means Murder“ zu relativieren

Manche meinen sie könnten ernsthaft eingefleischte Fleischfetischist*innen von einer anderen Lebensweise und einer damit einhergehenden anderen Haltung der nichtmenschlich-tierlichen Mitwelt gegenüber überzeugen, indem sie sagen: „Das mit den ‚Rechten‘ an und für sich, und genauer das mit den Tierrechten, ist so eine Sache. Die können wir ja diskutieren, aber ich überzeuge die von manchen von uns liebevoll als “Fleischi” bezeichneten Mitbürger, indem ich ihnen sage, wie wichtig so eine veränderte Lebensweise, die Tiere ethisch mitberücksichtigt, vor allem für die Umwelt und für unsere menschliche Zukunft in Hinsicht auf das Ressourcenmanagement ist … .“

Und man beruft sich dabei gerne, als den praktisch-ethischen Ansatz, den man verfolgt, auf seinen Veganismus, indem man diesen aber primär auf die pflanzliche Ernährung und -Anbauweise reduziert, und dabei geflissentlich dessen große Hoffnung auf eine aufgeklärtere Haltung im Bezug auf die Mensch-Tier-Beziehung unterschlägt.

Ja, der Veganismus hat sich aus wirklich tierethischen Gründen vom Vegetarismus bewusst abgespalten. Das war der Hauptmotor der Anfänge dieser Bewegung. Watson, Morgan, Shrigley und Co. schafften es, das Wesentliche zu fokussieren. Trotz aller vorteilhaften Begleiteffekte des Veganismus ging es ihnen in erster Linie darum, wie genau es den nichtmenschlichen Tieren geht. Full stop.

Man darf nicht vergessen, dass die ethische Debatte pro- und gegen Tiere keinesfalls neu ist.

„Nein, das glauben wir ihnen nicht!“ Doch, bitte! Denn schauen Sie sich mal die Entwicklung der vegetarischen Bewegung über die Geschichte hinweg an. Wer hier nicht das eigentliche Motiv erkennt, der ist dabei das Wichtigste in der Entwicklung zu unterschlagen. [1]

Fleischverzehr und die dazugehörigen Vorgänge des Mordens von nichtmenschlichen Tieren werden von vielen Menschen in unserer Kultur als, ihrer Meinung nach, ganz wichtige ‚Traditionen‘, ‚kulturelle Leistungen repräsentierend‘ und ‚Kulturgüter‘ betrachtet, die sie niemals in irgendeiner Weise aufgeben wollen würden und vehement verteidigen. Menschen, die solche Haltungen haben, können bezüglich anderer Themen durchaus recht aufgeklärt sein. Der Punkt aber, dass Tiere für sie in jeglicher Hinsicht da zu sein haben, in wirklich jeglicher Hinsicht, is so deeply engrained – you can’t pull it out of their mental frameworks. Und sie stoßen ja auch bequem immer wieder auf bequem zu ignorierende defensive Haltungen bei der „Gegenseite“.

Jetzt kommen manche wichtigen tierethisch-argumentierenden daher und verwässern das, wo eigentlich die klaren und normalen Zusammenhänge zwischen Rechten und Ethik bestehen, indem sie eine Reihe sophistischer Nebenschauplätze eröffnen, mit dem Argument, eine ethische Beziehung müsse bei Tieren doch auch ohne die ach so anthropozentrischen „Rechte“ möglich sein. Das heißt, wenn Menschen Tiere doch ethisch berücksichtigen würden, dann bräuchten wir doch gar keine Tierrechte und der Begriff Tierrechte würde zudem ja auch inzwischen von Leuten verwendet, die Tieren offensichtlich schaden … .

Denn was sind schon Rechte, solange es nicht die eigenen sind. Man könne ja auch für Tiere sein, indem Tiere weiterhin für uns da zu sein haben – als die, für die wir sie erklärt haben – siehe Zoologiebuch Seite XY (mit Homo sapiens on top).

Für manche Expert*innen der gesellschaftlichen Mensch-Tierbeziehung werden Schlachthausarbeiter so auch problemlos einfach nur zu einer Art Menschen, die in rationalisierter Form Tiere morden können. „Sie morden doch nicht, sie haben Gründe für das, was sie für richtig halten. Da es keine Tierrechte gibt, gibt es schlichtweg auch gar keinen Tiermord. So einfach ist das!

Diese Expert*innen suggerieren, Tiere seien so, dass man im Bezug auf sie wohl rationalisiert morden können müsste. Sonst würden Menschen das doch nicht tun?

Das Recht des Menschen mit einem humanistischen Ideal betrachtet zu werden wiegt für manche höher als Tierrechte, die man ja erstmal etablieren müsste. „Wozu denn die Mühe?“

Tiere brauchen auf einmal keine Rechte – „denn das ist ja viel zu anthropozentrisch gedacht, Rechte brauchen doch nur wir in-allen-relevanten-Dingen-begabten Wesen. Sie benötigen lediglich eine Befreiung aus den engen Haltungsbedingungen, dabei aber bitte doch ohne ein Recht auf LebensRaum und Leben, und ohne lästige Begründungen für sowas. Bloß keine Tierrechtssicht einnehmen – … und es wird stattdessen an den Symptomen aus vermeintlich tierethischer Sicht herumoperiert.

Es tut mir leid, aber die Tierethik selbst ist wirklich auch nicht mehr als das, woraus sie zumindest in Academia geboren wurde: ein Unterfach der Bioethik. Sie erscheint wie ein defensiver Ableger der Bioethik, weil aus ihr immer nicht die Tierrechtsethik werden will.

Nein wir Menschen sind aber doch kein Unterfach der Bioethik, das würden wir doch nicht dulden können. Wo bliebe denn da unsere Evolution als Homo sapiens? Manche durch uns marginalisierbaren Menschen können wir ja bioethisch diskutieren, aber uns selbst doch nicht. Und wir möchten bitte aber auch alle Rechte genießen, selbst die, vorzugeben wer Rechte haben darf und welche und wann, und wer, wann, wie und wo eben nicht. Zum Beispiel eben auch das Recht, Rechte zu haben.

Der rechtebesitzende Mensch will also keinesfalls anderen Menschen vorschreiben was sie zu essen haben und zu tun haben, weil das ein Eingriff in verbriefte Rechte wäre. Wie schnell alle denunziativ “hier” schreien, wenn sie sich auch nur ein Iota in ihrem persönlichen und kollektiv empfundenen Recht verletzt oder gar bedroht fühlen. Aber Tiere, sind eben „zu blöd“ nach Empfinden dieser Leute, als dass sie Rechte haben sollten.

Ein Recht vor uns geschützt zu werden? Vor unseren Übergriffen? „Nö, wieso denn. Das müssen wir erstmal tierethisch analysieren ob das überhaupt nötig ist“ … .

Diesen Leuten, egal wie sie sich titulieren, sind diejenigen Anderen, die eben bislang noch keine verbrieften Rechte haben, auf theoretischer Ebene so gleich, wie dem „Fleischi“ die Kluft seiner ethischen Vernunft im Bezug auf Haus-, Hof- und Wildtieren und sich selbst.

[1] Zur Geschichte des tierrechtsethischen- und Tierrechts-Denkens im Vegetarismus und Veganismus:

Ein rebellischer Dichter: der Syre Al-Ma’arri (973 – 1057 n. Chr.), https://simorgh.de/about/al-maarri/

Der vegane Prototyp des 19. Jahrhunderts, https://simorgh.de/about/der-vegane-prototyp-des-19-jahrhunderts/

Eine Übersetzung der ersten Vegan News aus dem Jahre 1944, verfasst von Donald Watson, https://simorgh.de/about/vegan-news-no-1/

Ästhetik zum Zersetzen, https://www.simorgh.de/own_public/aesthetik_zum_zersetzen.pdf

The Quest – list of quotes regarding animal ethics … https://www.simorgh.de/thequest.html

The Orphic vegetarian lifestyle in ancient Greece, Frugivore civilizations unknown, and new perspectives on the “history” of the religious murder of nonhumans, https://www.simorgh.de/objects/orphic-vegetarians/

Miriam Yegane Arani: NS racism as a visual ideology

kts8

Jahrgang 7, Nr. 2, Art. 1, ISSN 2363-6513, Dezember 2020

NS racism as a visual ideology

This text as a PDF

A presentation by Miriam Yegane Arani

Background: This presentation by Miriam Yegane Arani of an introductory iconographic analysis of National Socialist racism, provides a good entry point to Yegane’s basic research on sociological and photo-historical methodology of analyzing visual materials, in particular photographic sources, from the Nazi era. It is striking that the images published under the Nazi regime followed a certain program that polarized between idealized body norms and deviations from them. The Ministry of Propaganda presumably controlled the photo-publication to ensure that only photographs that conformed to the racial ideology were published. It can be assumed that under the Nazi regime there was an increasingly rigid polarization between the guiding and enemy images within the government-controlled image program. During the pre-war period, the focus seems to have been on propagating the “Nordic” model, whose visual counterpart is expressed in the “racially” pejorative enemy images of the war years. Particularly noticeable is the practice of distinguishing between people according to their outward appearance in pairs of pictures typical of the period, which were intended to illustrate “racial” antagonisms.

Tags: NS racism, National Socialism, propaganda, sociology of images

TIERAUTONOMIE, Jg. 7 (2020), Heft 2.

NS racism as a visual ideology

Contextual infos

The pagenumbers in the brackets all relate to: Miriam Y. Arani: Fotografische Selbst- und Fremdbilder von Deutschen und Polen im Reichsgau Wartheland 1939–45 (2008).

After 1945

Race-ideology did not disappear after 1945, partly because of personal continuities that were possible to remain in German society after the Second World War and partly because of the long-term effects this thinking-model had in the everyday conceptions of the vast majority. (426)

From a strictly scientific point of view, race theory had already longer been considered untenable. (426)

Soon after the Second World War, the physical anthropologist Juan Comas clarified on behalf of the newly founded UNO in a paper entitled “Race as a Myth”, that the National Socialist racial teachings were factually incorrect. Human heredity has nothing to do with the blood. (426) Furthermore, the findings of physical anthropology in no way lead to the conclusion that “racial purity” causes cultural development while “race mixture” would cause cultural decay. (427) The results of international anthropological, social and historical research allow much more to conclude that not it’s not different body shapes, skin colors, etc. that are causes of conflicts, but rather conflicts of interest between different social groups, through which visible variedness (body, clothing, religious customs etc.) first become significant as signs of difference. (427)

In particular in biology, the classification of human races is scientifically obsolete, since it’s not a suitable concept for describing the variability of Homo Sapiens. Human populations can’t be adequately classified with the category “race”. A correct biological classification as a “breed” [in German the term race and breed are the same: ‘Rasse’] is not even applicable to natural populations of animals, since an exclusive allocation to a single “race/breed” would be necessary, which is not possible in the case of humans. The only area in biology where “races/breeds” are spoken of now, is in the breeding procedures that affect domesticated nonhuman animals. Only in context with nonhuman animals domesticated by humans the ‘biologically correct’ zoological forms of “breeds” exists. (427)

Racism as a visual ideology

It is noticeable that the pictures published under the NS-regime are subject to a certain program that polarizes between idealized body norms and deviations from them.

The Ministry of Propaganda most likely controlled photojournalism to that effect, that only photographs were published that corresponded to the racial ideology. (430)

I suspect that under the NS regime there was an increasingly rigid polarization between the guiding- and enemy images of the government-controlled image program. During the pre-war period, the propagation of the “Nordic” model seems to be in the foreground, whose visual counterpart becomes expressed as the “racially” pejorative enemy images in the years of war.

Especially striking is the practice of differentiating between people according to their external appearance in pairs of pictures typical of the time, which sought to demonstrate a racial antagonism. To narrow down the high relevance of these “contrast images” more precisely it is helpful to remember that Adolf Hitler, in his time in Vienna became acquainted to the Ostara booklets of Adolf Lanz that contained a Christian religious racial doctrine which described a “racial conflict” between blond-blue-eyed “Ario-Heroicists” and dark “Sodom monkey-likes”. (408)

The NS-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg claimed that the creative power of Europe was to be traced back alone to the Germanic tribes and that their greatest threat were the “mudflows of Mongrel from Asia, Africa, the entire Mediterranean basin and its foothills”. (408)

The precursors of the NS race ideology

The racial ideology was not a new creation of the NSDAP, which merely brought together the already existing racisms in the human sciences and then put it with an incredible radicalism into practical politics. (381, 382)

Since the 18th century and throughout the 19th century, the people of the world have been classified by European anthropologists predominantly on the basis of external, visible characteristics such as skin color, body type, shape of skull, hair color and texture, eye shape, nose shape, etc. On the basis of visible characteristics scholars formed “race-types” and interpreted their outward appearances as signs of moral, emotional and intellectual qualities. (381f., 394)

In the 19th and early 20th century, scientific anthropology was for large parts racial anthropology. (395) At the end of the 19th century racial theory achieved the rank of a scientifically legitimized dogma, that tried to justify political domination with “scientific” arguments. European Scholars mainly used visible characteristics, which usually only change over a long-term (behavior patterns, clothing, traces of specific living conditions), as indicators for the construction of different “races”. (382) The characteristics ascribed to other races usually corresponded to the social prejudices of the involved researchers towards the foreign peoples. (382) The European anthropologists routinely ignored empirical facts in favor of the norms of their own socio-cultural milieu, and the characteristics attributed to the other “races” legitimized above all the claim to leadership of their own “white race”. (395)

Until the end of the 19th century, the racial anthropological model of order was based on a selection of externally visible characteristics (skin color, physique, shape of skull, etc.). With the beginnings of modern genetics at the turn of the 20th century the biological theories about humans detached themselves from the visible exterior. The visible appearance was now called “phenotype” and was attributed to the interaction of hereditary factors and environmental influences. The hereditary factors that are not directly perceptible were called “genotype”. This also meant that human-biological race theory became largely detached from the concrete appearance in favor of abstract considerations, that could no longer be traced by the general public. (395)

Since the middle of the 18th century, European scholars have classified and hierarchized humans as “races” within an anthropology that was understood in terms of natural history, and they interpreted the physical appearance of a person as an exterior indicator of certain mental and spiritual characteristics, which were considered to be hereditary and unchangeable. (391) “Race” became a political term of struggle in the context with the aristocratic counter-revolution at the end of the 18th century in the conflict of the “two races”, in which the “purity” of “race” was first used to serve as a basis of legitimacy for the aristocracy’s claim to power. (391)

Race theory had become an elite ideology already in the German Empire. (390) Around the beginning of the 20th century, race theory developed into the elite ideology of the German academic middle classes. Among their most important supporters were biologists, anthropologists and physicians. In the period between the wars, the number of the followers of ideas of “racial hygiene” (eugenics) increased. ( ) Race theory was a thinking model represented by renowned German scientists during the Nazi dictatorship, from which by no means all of them moved away after 1945. This is also related to the fact that this thinking model was also established in other Western societies. (426)

In the Nazi state, eugenic ideology was propagated as “hereditary and racial hygiene”. (430) In addition, the argumentation of racial ideology was connected with the theorems of the eugenic movement, bringing forth a fearsome horror scenario of the imminent extinction of the “nordic race”. (430)

Content of the NS race ideology

According to the NS racial ideology, based on their outward appearance people could be divided into “races”, which would bequeath not only physical characteristics to their descendants but also a “racial soul”. (380)

Within the Nazi racial ideology, it was assumed that there was a direct relationship between certain physical and psychological characteristics and that a person’s physical appearance could be used to draw conclusions about the individual’s soul and behavior. (381)

The racial theory referred not only to the visible body, but also to the visible behavior. (430)

The Nazi race ideology amounts to a complete biologization of the socially and culturally acquired characteristics of a human. Characteristic is the representation of social conflicts of interest as a violation of a “naturally given” social order. The biologistic view of humans negates the historical, cultural and social influences on human existence. (380)

Racial theory reduced the diversity of humans to a few, statically conceived “racial types”, so that very large numbers of people could be thought of as summarizable and international political conflicts could be rationally explained with supposed biological tendencies of the “races” involved. (382) “Races”, as an absolutized supra-individual structure, became the presumed subject of history (382).

The “Nordic race”

The Nazi dictatorship elevated the “Nordic race” to the physical and mental ideal for the entire German people. The characteristics ascribed to the “Nordic race” were propagated as exemplary: a slender and strong body, a long narrow skull, blond hair and blue eyes. The rosy-white skin was considered the lightest of all the “races” and therefore only it should be called “white”. (405)

According to Nazi race theory, the “German people” consisted of 6 races, whereby the “Nordic” portion was to be increased to 50% by “racial care”. For this purpose, the most valuable “racial” components were to be collected from the population and brought into dominant positions. (380)

Already at the beginning of the 20th century, parts of German society perceived Northern Europe as an untouched counter-world to the modernizing society in their own country. Northern Europe became a projection screen for a racial-biological utopia: the peoples of Northern Europe were declared “Germanic blood relatives” and “noble people”. (405)

The glorification of the “northern race” did not only refer to the physique type of a human being, but also to its allegedly directly connected “racial soul”. (406) The racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther described the following mental “leader-qualities” of the “northern race”: the “ability to judge, truthfulness and energy (‘Tatkraft’)” were outstanding. The “Nordic” human controls him/herself and shows “an objective, prudent attitude that often makes him appear cool and stiff”, his “sense of reality” in combination with his “energy” drives him to great undertakings. He unfolds “objective passion, while passionality (…) is far from him”. In social interaction he/she showed “little inclination to empathize with the nature of other people”. (406) Günther thus described a contemporary bourgeois German habitus and placed it in direct relation to a certain type of physique, which was judged to be exemplary. (407)

The equation of “Nordic” and “Aryan”

The Nazi ideology combined the visual idea of the “Nordic race” with the race-theoretical view of history in the tradition of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, which interpreted both the culture of Greek antiquity, which was regarded as exemplary by the German elites, as well as the “Aryans”, which had been suspected even longer ago, as “Nordic”.

Although the origins of the Aryan language are undoubtedly to be found in the Middle East, the term “Aryan” had already been a synonym for “Christian-German” since the imperial period and was explicitly limited to Nordic-Germanic racial types in the encyclopedias of the Nazi era. (407)

During the Nazi dictatorship, a distinction was made between superior and inferior human races and it was claimed that only “Nordic” people had intellectual and creative cultural potential. The other “human races” were more or less clearly denied a cultural capability. (380)

Hitler attributed the majority of progress in art and science to the “Aryans” as the only culturally creative race; he considered all other races to be uncultured and culturally destructive. Like the race-theoretical ‘pioneers’, he claimed that the culture-creating potency of the “Aryans” was threatened by “racial crossbreeding” and “blood mixing”, because this lead to degeneration and cultural disintegration. (407)

The NSDAP ideology explained more precisely that ancient Greece as a “Nordic” high culture had disintegrated due to the “racial mixture” between Greeks and Turks. (408)

Hitler believed that German “blood” must be kept “pure” because “blood mixing” would lead to a “lowering of the racial niveau”. (407)

Race mixture

In the middle of the 19th century, the French Count Arthur de Gobineau, in his essay “On the Inequality of the Races of Man”, took the view that people in the world were divisible into three main races and the “white Aryan race” was the crowning glory of creation. “Race mixture” would lead to cultural decay, because a “mixed race” was not capable of higher cultural achievements. He thought the “Germanic peoples” were the last “purely preserved branch” of the “Aryans” and threatened by “mixing” with foreign peoples. (391f.) The German Gobineau Society, founded by Richard Wagner, supplemented these assertions with the idea of being able to counter the supposed decline of the “Aryan race” by “breeding”. (392)

Following on from Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain claimed in “The Foundations of the 19th Century” (1899) that the “Aryans” were “pure-bred” cultural carriers and had been in a “racial struggle” with the “Jews” as a “mixed race” since antiquity. His racial-theoretical historical misrepresentation became widely effective in the German Empire, and Kaiser Wilhelm II made Chamberlain’s publication mandatory reading in the training of German senior teachers. (392) At this time, racial ideology was also a constitutive element of the German Emperor’s worldview. (392)

Finally, under the Nazi dictatorship, schoolchildren were taught that the culture of a people depended on its “race” and that German culture was in the tradition of the Germanic peoples, to whom the “Jews” were completely foreign in nature. (358)

The German-Germanic “People’s Face”

In the public visual world of the Nazi dictatorship – as in the associated politics – the focus of attention was not the individual, but rather the supposedly typical physical and psychological characteristics of large groups. (430)

Erna Lendvai-Dircksen’s books on the “German People’s Face” connected with the agrarian-romantic and anti-metropolis ideas, that became known under the slogan “blood and soil”, that were supported by the “völkischen” [Editor’s Note: a homogenous concept of “people” and “state” as an organic unity] groups of the Weimar Republic and the agricultural political apparatus of the NSDAP. Behind this was the idea of a social and biological unity of the Germans an based on a “piece of agrarian homeland” that was threatened by ”deracination”. (358)

Already in the last third of the 19th century, the “völkische” understanding of the German nation became the dominant ideology in the Prussian-dominated German Empire. (359)

The “völkischen” groups in the Weimar Republic also clung to the idea of a “racial hierarchy” associated with the “Volksgemeinschaft”-ideology [Editor’s Note:: unity of the ethnically homogenous ‘own’ people]. (379)

The “völkische” understanding of the German nation contradicts the democratic republican concept of nation, according to which “nation” is a political and “people” an ethnic category, so that from a democratic republican perspective a nation can also be composed of several peoples. (359)

The “average image” as a precursor of the “people’s face” (“Volksgesicht”)

The iconological roots of the German “people’s face” propagated in the Nazi era are to be found in the imperial era and the at that time still elitist racial anthropological-eugenic world of ideas. (430) Lendvai-Dircksen’s “people’s face” was preceded by the “average pictures”. (386)

The Prussian government established a non-democratic state in 1871 in the form of an empire. Now the elites involved in the rule “from above” made a supposed “essence” of the German people the nexus of national identity formation, and sought this in Christian, Aryan-Germanic and biological terms. (396)

Since the end of the 19th century, “illustrations” of a new way of thinking of the Western elites have been found in the form of “average pictures” or “composite photographs”. They were discussed within a transnational network of scholars around 1890-1920. What has come down to us is, among other things, an average image of Saxon soldiers, which belongs to the legacy of the first professor of photography at the TH Dresden (Robert Luther) at the beginning of the 20th century. He had received the picture from the art historian Georg Treu, who tried to prove that Classical Greek art had the purest ideal of beauty that was valid regardless of time and place. (385) For his research he also used average pictures, which he had become aware of through publications by Henry Pickering Bowditch of the Harvard Medical School. In the 1890s, Bowditch had been given with Saxon soldiers as photo objects by General von Funcke in Dresden. From numerous photographs of different individual heads, an average photo of the soldiers was finally produced by multiple exposures of these photographs on one and the same surface. (386) The average photograph of Saxon soldiers was to be compared with an “average face” of Slavic soldiers produced in the same way. Treu and Bowditch claimed that the “Germanic” head was rounder and the “Slavic” head was more angular. (386)

In the second half of the 19th century it became more common in Prussia to assume that the Germans were superior to the Poles. At the end of the 19th century, especially the Poles in Poznan became objects of an increasingly colonial self-image of the German Empire. (396) The continuing migration from divided Poland westwards into the German Empire and beyond became a political issue, which racial-theory-arguing-Germans portrayed as a “flooding” of the Germans by “the Slavs”. (398) The German Empire strived for an imperial world status and pursued a colonial policy both internally and externally. (399) The polarization between “Germans” and “Slavs” that began in anti-Polish journalism during the imperial era was a mental abstraction and imagination that did not do justice to the political realities on the ground. The “average photographs” of Saxon and Wendish soldiers were not only a synthesis of “scientific” images of humans with aesthetic values. They also represent an abstracting pictorial conception of the imperial elites of their “people” in a racial-ideological-eugenic context. (402)

The inventor of the average picture method was Sir Francis Galton, who also came up with the hypothesis, adopted by the previously mentioned two, that average pictures would lead to conclusions about the nationality, the “race” and the intelligence of the group in question. (386)

Galton is considered the founder of “eugenics”. He wanted to use quantitative methods to create the basis for the social selection of people in order to improve the quality of the “British race”. With his publications on the heredity of intelligence and talent, he laid the scientific foundations for a concept for the “ennoblement” of society, which he called eugenics from 1883 onwards: the allegedly too high birth rates of the weak, sick and poor were to be reduced and the allegedly too low birth rates of the intelligent, healthy and rich were to be increased. (386f.) Eugenics gained in importance above all because of the new, “biological” perspective on human beings. (387) It completed the arsenal of arguments put forward by the Social Darwinists who sought to apply Darwin’s theory of evolution to social life and who held the view that human beings were biologically determined to occupy certain positions in society. (387) Towards the end of the 19th century the eugenic movement also established itself among the economic and political elites of the German Empire and was institutionalized at German universities under the term of “racial hygiene”. (390)

The defining power of a minority of scientists became an instrument of power to control a majority. (388)

Visual enemy images

Physiognomics provided in particular explanations for the internal structure of the Germans, who were outwardly quite different. (361) Race theory, on the other hand, served primarily to scientifically rationalize the exclusion and devaluation of “Jews” and “foreigners” („Fremdvölkischen”). (361)

Enemy images of “the degenerated”

Since Darwin’s theory of evolution, the line between “human” and “nonhuman animal” seemed to become more fluid. European racial anthropologists took up this idea, arguing that the non-European “races” had not yet completed the process of becoming human and that Europeans too could “degenerate” and sink back to “animal” life forms. The “mentally ill” were now settled at a level of development between ‘humans’ and ‘animals’. (387f.)

The National Socialist “hereditary and racial hygiene” amounted to a breeding concept affecting German society. Initially, “hereditary patients” (“erbkrank”), “asocial” and “Jews” were to be excluded. The corresponding laws to legalize state exclusion measures were passed in the mid-1930s (Law against Habitual Criminals 1934, Inheritance Health Law 1935, Blood Protection Law/Nuremberg Laws 1935). (428)

During the Nazi dictatorship, the process of visual exclusion even became part of the state health care system. In the context of state-“hereditary and racial care”, the “foreign” and “sick” were excluded by aesthetic taste judgements in the guise of medical expertise. “Aryanised” German doctors judged the people entrusted to them in relation to a model of the “inherited healthy” (“erbgesunden”), supra-individual German “people’s body” (“Volkskörper”) with a “Nordic race ideal”. In the medical field, the aesthetic taste judgement about the body of a person became a medical judgement about the “racial” inheritance-value (“Erbwert”) of a person for the “people’s body” (“Volkskörper”) and a right to life based solely on this. (409) These processes are also reflected in visual communication: under the Nazi regime, visual representations of “abnormal” or “degenerated” human bodies were repeatedly used to evoke fear, disgust and contempt in viewers. The “abnormal” body was considered a sign of a “sick” mind. (409)

The iconography of the “abnormal” human being, popularized under the Nazi regime, was in line with the view held by the Italian doctor Cesare Lombroso as early as 1876 that there were “born criminals” who differed from other people in their physical build. His student Hans Kurella declared in 1893 that people “born to crime” had typical physical characteristics: a skull that was too small or too large, thick and dark hair, an asymmetrical face, deformed ears, large and wide or long and thin noses. (409)

Under the Nazi regime, aesthetic taste judgement, “racial hygiene” and criminal anthropology merged seamlessly. (409) Accordingly, the prisoners of Dachau concentration camp were presented in the NSDAP party magazine “Illustrierter Beobachter” as “deformities” (“Missgestalten”) with deep-set eyes, hollow cheeks, crooked mouths, protruding ears, scars etc. (410).

Enemy images of “foreign peoples” and “foreign races”

Of significance for the intended iconography of the “völkische” portrait photography is the exclusion of “un-German” physiognomies, which was also intended by the manufacturer. (364) In 1933 Erna Lendvai-Dircksen expressly advocated the exclusion of aesthetic figures of “foreign style” from the German pictorial world, because this would “not allow a national community”.

Images of the enemy / Jews

The government-controlled visual self-image of the Germans under the Nazi regime is primarily revealed in relation to the visually expressed image of the enemy “Jew”. During the Second World War, Nazi press propaganda used Jews as a central enemy image, with which other enemy images were associated. For example, anti-Polish Nazi propaganda was repeatedly closely linked with anti-Semitic propaganda. (384)

Enemy images / Polish

In order to understand the visual representation of the Poles in the National Socialist imagery of the Second World War, it is useful to be aware that at the beginning of the Second World War the mental border between Europe and Asia was moved by the Nazi regime to the western border of the Soviet Union – and thus ran through the previously Polish territory. (420)

“Racial science” (“Rassenkunde”)

In the Nazi state, racial research scientifically underpinned the ideology and policies of the NSDAP. The Polish civilian population also became the subject of German-language race research. (420)

In the Reichsgau Wartheland in particular, a professionalising and radicalising centre of racial selection of people was established. Experts of the SS on race and folklore tried to put their “folklore” political (“volkstumspolitischen”) measures on a scientific basis, in cooperation with the German civil administration and the Reichs-University of Poznan. (422f.) With the introduction of the DVL-procedure (Deutsche Volksliste) in all “incorporated eastern territories” in 1941, a “racial patterning” of the inhabitants in accordance with the SS’s RuSHA (SS Race and Settlement Main Office) was enforced in the Warthegau, which was also applied in other German-occupied territories in Eastern Europe and came to a provisional conclusion in the Warthegau in 1943. (426) The anthropologists Egon von Eickstedt and Ilse Schwidetzky used “racial formulae” to calculate allegedly exact percentages of “racial proportions” of individuals in the incorporated eastern territories. (420f.)

At the “Reichs-University of Poznan”, application-oriented race research was conducted for the Nazi dictatorship. Here, for example, the “Völkerpsychologe” Rudolf Hippius and the biologist Konrad Lorenz carried out race-relevant studies on the civilian population in cooperation with SS functionaries. This included, in particular, “Mischlingsforschung” (“mixed-race-research”) as a special branch of research which would have had no right to exist without the race ideology. In 1942, Rudolf Hippius carried out a psychological study of German-Polish “half-breeds” in order to prove that the degree of “racial mixing” had an effect on the psychological structure of a person. He assumed that Germans and Poles had fundamentally different personality structures and that German rule over Poland was legitimate because they were only prepared to “use their forces regularly and in an orderly manner” under duress. He came to the easily predictable conclusion that “racial mixing” between Germans and Poles would lead to “character disharmonisation”. (421, 422)

Heinrich Himmler believed that “Nordic” children were more creative than “racial mongrels” and that the Poles had only joined Europe through “Nordic” Germans. He fantasized that “inferior foreign host peoples” such as the Poles would want to drain “Nordic blood” from the Germans, because all cultural and state-forming achievements would go back to the “Nordic race”. (421)

National Socialist racism as a visual ideology; picture panels

Table of nations, middle 18th century.

The term “racism” describes a specific relation of social oppression and violence in which the ruling groups differentiate a very large number of people according to physical and cultural characteristics. Allegedly typical character and behavioral traits are attributed to them, which imply an alleged “natural” hierarchy of people. The “racial” attributions of characteristics serve to justify unequal treatment of people in economic and political life.

From: Eugen Fischer, Grundlagen der Humangenetik und Rassenhygiene (1921/1923).

With regard to National Socialist racism in particular, there are certain communication problems due to the different perspectives on the facts. For most Germans under Nazi rule, racial ideology seemed to be insignificant, as people were not consciously aware of the resulting unequal treatment. From their perspective, the theory and practice of Nazi racial ideology seemed to diverge widely. Accordingly, a German whisper joke of the time said: “What does the ideal German look like? Blond like Hitler, tall like Goebbels, slim like Göring (…)”. The racial ideology in the Nazi state before the Second World War affected mainly minorities and marginal groups in German society. With the beginning of the war, however, racial ideology became more relevant for numerous people in German-occupied foreign countries, who were now declared “racially” inferior by the Nazi state. In occupied Poland in particular, it became apparent that it was directed not only against the Jewish minority but also against the Christian majority of the population. The racial ideology was of central importance for the moral legitimization of the NS crimes of murder against millions of people and formed the ideological core of the National Socialist policy of extermination.

Hitler Youth learning the definitions of “full Jew”, “half Jew” and “quarter Jew” (Nuremberg Laws), 1938.

Racial studies for school assistants, 1943.

[Plates 3, 4; Heredity and Racial Studies].

The concept of “race” is one of the core elements of Nazi ideology and was propagated linguistically, primarily in the guise of a scientific theory of heredity. In addition, the race ideology was also visually popularized to a considerable extent during the Nazi dictatorship. During this period, masses of widespread pictorial representations of so-called Nordic people and their supposed enemies, scientific racial anthropology and the “völkisch” utopia of a “racially pure” German nation merged into one another. The historian George Mosse described racism as a “visual ideology” and saw visuality in particular as one of its greatest strengths. However, the specifics of this visual ideology have not yet been sufficiently researched in relation to National Socialism.

Cover of the magazine “Neues Volk” with “Nordic” ideal types, 1938.

Poster of the exhibition “The Eternal Jew”, which was shown in several German cities in 1937/38.

[Plates 5, 6; “New People” and “The Eternal Jew”]

The Germans under the Nazi regime were educated in educational institutions and through the mass media controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda to a folkish-racial vision standard. They were to view their own nation in a “racial” way. They were continuously given a conventionalized visual idea of what Germans should look like by the government and the feeling that they should stay away from “foreign”, supposedly inferior “blood”.

Touring exhibition “Degenerate Art” (“Entartete Kunst”) – defamation of modern art with racist slogans.

Cover of the publication “Entartete Musik” 1938 on the occasion of the eponymous exhibition against “the penetration of brutal jazz rhythms into the German world of music”.

[Plates 7, 8; “degeneration” through “niggering” (“Verniggerung”)]

By means of Nazi pictorial propaganda and racial education, in which the use of pictorial material was common, an emotionally guided distinction between “Germans” and “foreigners” (“Fremdvölkischen”) was practiced, which further spread and consolidated the Nazi racial ideology.

From: Illustrierter Beobachter, July 1933, showing the scientists of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute Otmar von Verschuer (above) and Wolfgang Abel (below). [The title says: “The racial image in the family tree”.]

From: Märkischer Adler, 7 June 1936, comparison of antique and contemporary heads. At the top: Equating Augustus with the “Nordic race”. [The title says: “Race, unchanged throughout centuries”]

[Plates 9, 10; “Racial studies in the press”]

Looking at other people was broadly coupled with a process of distinguishing between “own” and “foreign” physiognomies, between norm and deviation, good and bad. The processes of exclusion initiated at the visual level related to easily recognizable external characteristics such as physical appearance, clothing and behaviour. On the basis of published photographs, aesthetic taste judgements about people of different cultural backgrounds were practiced, which were transferred to the social interaction with real people.

I would like to try to illustrate the self-image of the Germans propagated under National Socialism by means of Erna Lendvai-Dircksen’s “völkischen” portrait photographs. The photographer achieved a relatively high level of recognition under the Nazi regime through her photo albums on the “German” or also the “Germanic folk face” (“germanischen Volksgesicht”).

Erna Lendvai-Dircksen, photographs from the years 1933-1945.

[Plates 11, 12, 13; Lendvai-Dircksen]

Her “völkischen” portrait photographs have also been published since the 1930s in large mass magazines and racial-political journals in hundreds of thousands of copies. Lendvai-Dircksen’s portrait photographs usually follow a consistent concept: they show close-ups of faces, with all socio-cultural contextual information about the person in question being blanked out. Her photographic models were usually German farmers, initially older ones with faces marked by wind and weather, later younger ones with smoother faces. The photographer depicted the faces of the individual people like light, rigid masks against a dark background. Often they are photographed from a slight view from below, so that they appear slightly raised to the viewer. With her subject matter and stylistic features of the picture design, which were intended to remind of old German and folkloric-realistic paintings, the photographer underpinned the idea of a centuries-long “German” community of descent. Lendvai-Dircksen’s illustrated books, in which she summarized these portraits, served to illustrate a biologically and socio-culturally homogenous German or Germanic “Volkskörper”. The faces she presented met widespread ideas of the appearance of the Germans. At the same time, they were consistent with the National Socialist ideas of the “Nordic race”.

 

Winner of the competition for the best Nordic breed head of the magazine “Volk und Rasse” (1926).

[Plates 14, 15, 16, 17; winner of the competition for “Nordic heads”]

Lendvai-Dircksen’s portraits of German farmers and Nordic people [plates 11, 12, 13] corresponded to the preferences of the “völkischen” groups and the romantic agricultural and anti-government “blood and soil” ideology of the Weimar Republic. Under the Nazi dictatorship, the term “völkisch” denoted a “racially” understood national feeling, according to which Germans were a “blood and ‘species’ community” (“Bluts- und Artengemeinschaft”).

Lendvai-Dircksen’s photographs and illustrated books [plates 11, 12, 13] gave the public an aesthetic model of what a “German” physiognomy looks like and a visual sense of the so-called “German way”. According to the Physiognomy of the Zurich vicar Lavater, the head and face were the external expression of a person’s soul and morality. This idea from the 18th century was increasingly combined with the search for anthropological types in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, therefore, pictorial representations of individual people often did not have the purpose of showing a particular individual, but were intended to represent an anthropological type. This led to the endeavor to identify a specifically “German” type of person. Erna Lendvai-Dircksen stylised a non-representative selection of German faces in the “völkisch” sense into a superordinate, de-individualised “folk face” (“Volksgesicht”). She illustrated physiognomies in the sense of a community that extended beyond Germany into northern Europe.

Legend of the race map (1925): pink “Nordic or white race”, brown “Westic or Mediterranean race”, orange: “Eastern Baltic race”, olive green “Ostic race”, yellow “Mongolian race”, light blue “Dinaric race”, violet “Armenian race”, dark blue “Arab or Oriental race”, at the bottom “Negro or Black race”.

[Picture plate 18; “race map” (“Rassenkarte”)]

The Nazi state saw itself as a “völkischer” state, whose basis was to be a “social unit” founded “in blood”. Hitler wrote in “Mein Kampf” that the “völkische Weltanschauung”, the “völkische” worldview, denied the equality of people and assumed the existence of higher and inferior human “races”. He interpreted world history as a “racial struggle”.

At that time, people with the same physical and psychological characteristics were considered a “race”. In the tradition of European racial anthropology and against the background of Gobineau’s and Chamberlain’s racial theories, the outward appearance of a “race” was directly inferred from a supposedly “racially” conditioned mental and spiritual state and a certain cultural status. The National Socialists elevated the so-called “Nordic race” to the physical and mental ideal for the entire German people. In the tradition of the racial theoreticians, the so-called “northern race”, the “Germanic” and the “Aryans” were equated, because the Germans, and before them the Germanic people, were said to have preserved the “blood” of the “Aryans” in the purest possible way.

Adolf Hitler: “The ‘völkische Staat’ must place race at the center of general life”

Information- and Worksheets for ‘Reichskunde’, Magdeburg 1941.

[Plates 19, 20; worksheets on “racial studies”, Hitler quote: ethnic national state – race]

Information- and Worksheets for ‘Reichskunde’, Magdeburg 1941.

[Plates 19, 20; worksheets on “racial studies”, Hitler quote: ethnic national state – race]

German children in the Nazi state were taught “racial studies” (“Rassenkunde”) from adolescence onwards, and the use of visual material was common practice. I show two pages here from the “Merk- und Arbeitsblätter für Reichskunde” (Information- and Worksheets for Reichs-Studies) from 1941, which were aimed at young vocational school pupils. Why lessons in racial studies were given is clear from the Hitler quotation in the first line: “The entire educational work of the ‘völkische’ state must find its crowning glory in the fact that it burns the sense of race and racial feeling instinctively and rationally into the heart and brain of the youth entrusted to it.”

The text of the worksheet stated that all European peoples would be made up of six races, with the proportions of “races” varying in each case. Peoples would be always made up of several “races”, with one or two “races” leading the way. In the case of the German people, the “Nordic” and “Faelic” (fälische”) races would be dominant and decisive. The proportion of “Nordic” people would be higher among the Germans than among other peoples: 10% of Germans were “pure Nordic” and the majority of Germans had “Nordic blood”.

A table on the worksheet is to represent the six European “races”. Each one of the so-called “races” is assigned a portrait. In the following rows of the table you find information on the physical appearance of the “races”. Remarkably, only the skin of the “Nordic” and the “Faelic race” is described as light and rosy and the eye colors as “blue to grey”. All other “races” are described as more colorless or darker. The worksheet contains no information about the alleged “mental characteristics” of these alleged “races”. However, they can be found, for example, in Hans F.K. Günther and a devaluation of all non-“Nordic” and “non-Faelic breeds”. The text for the pupils is limited to the statement that in Germany “pure-bred” representatives of other European breeds were rare.

The authors emphasize that people of the “Nordic race” have excellent qualities and are therefore particularly promoted by the Nazi state. They were “gifted with imagination”, had a “sharp mind”, had a “sense of responsibility” and were “born to be leaders”. They had a “matter-of-fact and sober view”, a “good organizational talent”, “drive to action” and “creative urge”. In conclusion, the authors emphasize that it is not only physical appearance that is decisive for the assessment of a person, but also the “attitude” and “sort of display of oneself”, which would indicate the “racial soul”. Thus, even a person who looks “Ostic” (“ostisch”) could be “Nordic” in thought and action.

This restriction was necessary in order to be able to relativize the appearance of the Nazi top officials by referring to their “racial soul”. At the same time, however, the relativization of the visible appearance of a “race” also meant the opening of infinite discretionary scope for the so-called race experts of the Nazi regime. For the assessment of the relevance of the visible exterior of a human being was ultimately withheld from these racial experts in individual cases, which the “völkisch” state produced. For in the case of people discriminated against and persecuted by the Nazi regime, the racial argumentation modules were used specifically against those affected. For example, Poles could look “Nordic”, but in cases of doubt, the “racial soul” attributed to them was always considered “foreign”.

Another worksheet presents “The three race circles” and is introduced with the Hitler quote: “The völkische state must place race at the center of general life.” The text that follows explains that the people of the earth could be divided into three “race circles” “purely outwardly”: “whites, yellows and blacks”. The subgroups of these “racial circles” would be called “races”. A “race” would be a group whose members display a large number of the same physical and mental characteristics that were equally present in their descendants.

The three “race circles” are presented in tabular form for comparison. They are distinguished according to the criteria: “important representatives of the race circle”, “physical characteristics” and “mental characteristics”. In the line “important representatives” the faces of a “White”, a “Yellow” and a “Black” are shown. The “White” is represented by a young man in a white shirt, tie and suit jacket; he looks – photographed from a slightly lower perspective – beyond the viewer into the distance. The “Yellow”, on the other hand, is depicted as a male child in nature-loving and poor-looking clothes, looking past the viewer at the side of the picture. The “Black” is presented as an adult man without clothing. His head is photographed from above, so that it appears that the man is looking up at the viewer. In the next lines the “race” subordinated to the “race circles” and their “residential areas” are listed: The “white race circle” is assigned the supposed six European “races”, the “yellow race circle” is assigned the Chinese and Japanese, Lapps, Eskimos and Indians, as well as Turks, Arabs and Iranians. The “black race circle” includes Africans and Afro-Americans, Australian natives and South Sea Islanders.

In the line on “physical characteristics”, there is surprisingly little information on the “white race circle”, which is only described as “fair-skinned”, and relatively much information on the other “race circles”. However, these only mention characteristics of individual sub-groups, which are then transferred to the entire “race circle”. Accordingly, “the Yellow” have a yellow to reddish skin color, a flat, broad face, “slit eyes”, a stocky figure and “short limbs”. According to this, “Blacks” have a “broad, flat nose”, “bulging lips”, curly hair, a “slender figure” and “long limbs”. The implied hierarchy of the “racial circles” among themselves is mainly based on the “mental characteristics” attributed to them. The “Whites” would be “spiritually” leading, “cultural creators” and “state-forming”; the “Yellows” were “empathetic”, “stuck on old cultural levels” but receptive, and the “Blacks” were “little capable of development” and had “low intellectual abilities”.

After confrontation with this table, students should apply what they have learned in an exercise and draw the distribution areas of the three “race circles” on a small map of the world. Those who do this will inevitably get the impression that the “yellow ones” pose a threat to the “white ones” because of their spatial extension and developmental capacity.

Anti-Semitic graphics in “Stürmer” style.

Jews in Poland, before 1939.

[Plates 21, 22, 23, 24; NS graphics “Jews” and photos of Polish Jews before 1939].

The doctrine of race offered a pattern of interpretation of apparently great explanatory power, as it provided a key of interpretation for the different manifestations of people in the world. Interestingly, the two sheets just presented do not contain any statements about Jews, who during the Nazi dictatorship were often classified “racially” as “Middle Eastern” types, although they had lived in Europe since Roman times at the latest. One reason for this is that the National Socialists propagated the principle of “racial purity” (“Rassereinheit”) and stylized Jews into a counter-principle of “racial mixing” (“Rassenmischung”). This figure of thought was not new, but already pre-formulated by Houston Stewart Chamberlain. On the visual level, the Nazi state produced various enemy images of Jews, some of which propagated the supposedly “Middle Eastern” (“vorderasiatisch-orientalische”) appearance, others the danger of “racial mixing” and others anti-Semitic fantasies. In addition to the very striking images of the enemy, relatively subtle photopublicistic depictions were also created, whose contemporary anti-Semitic significance is difficult to recognize for today’s viewers without knowledge of Nazi racial theory.

Photofreund-Yearbook 1939: “Work Break” (“Werkpause”).

Photofreund-Yearbook 1939: “Philosophers of doing nothing” (“Philosophen des Nichtstuns”).

[Plates 25, 26; picture pair “Photofreund” 1939]

An example of this are pairs of pictures consisting of an “Aryan” and a “Semitic” page, which appeared repeatedly in the yearbooks of the magazine “Photofreund” at that time.

As a generalization of the racial ideological Nazi image propaganda, it can be said that it linked an aesthetic judgement of taste about the appearance and visible behaviour of people very closely to political meanings.

Photofreund-Jahrbuch 1942: “Study” (“Studie”).

Photofreund-Yearbook 1942: “The Thoughtful One” (“Der Nachdenkliche”).

[Plates 27, 28; picture pair “Photofreund” 1942]

The conformity of a person’s appearance and behaviour with the “Nordic” racial ideal was considered “beautiful”, whereas the deviation from this ideal was considered “ugly”. All physique types and mental impulses considered “foreign” were to be intuitively and emotionally excluded by the German “Volksgenossen”. Under the Nazi dictatorship, the so-called “instinctive” recognition of the “foreign folk” (“des Fremdvölkischen”) was regarded as proof of the so-called “healthy folk soul” (“gesunde Volksseele”). The process of social exclusion under the Nazi regime, which was initiated on the basis of aesthetic taste judgements about the visual appearance of a person, can also be partially proven existent in the scientific-medical field. The biologist Konrad Lorenz, for example, wrote in 1940 that the so-called “species-specific (‘arteigene’) perception of beauty and ugliness” allows a correct distinction between valuable forms of life and so-called “degenerative mutations”. The term “degeneration” leads into the field of eugenics, which unfortunately cannot be dealt with further here for reasons of time. Eugenics, like racial ideology, attributed all violations of the normative concepts of the ruling elites to supposed biological deficiencies of the ruled, which were regarded as hereditary and unchangeable. Also in the context of National Socialist “hereditary and racial hygiene”, “the sick” and “the foreign” were excluded by aesthetic taste judgments in the guise of medical expertise. The overlap between the eugenic and racist dimensions of National Socialism is also reflected in the pictorial world.

Press photo of the propaganda companies of the German Wehrmacht, 14.8.1941. Caption: “The Soviets used such criminal types to fight German soldiers.”

“Scum of humanity” (“Abschaum der Menschheit”). Page from the report by Jürgen Stroop on the suppression of the 1943 uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.

[Plates 29, 30; Soviet war prisoner of war / Hähle, and “degenerated” Jewish bodies / Stroop].

Under the Nazi regime, visual representations of “abnormal”” or “degenerated” human bodies were repeatedly used to evoke fear, disgust and contempt in the viewers.

The propagandistic success of the dissemination of the Nazi racial ideology is partly due to the fact that it was an elite ideology that was already widespread among many German and “Western” academics before 1933. The widespread effect of the racial ideology is – apart from the aforementioned school indoctrination of German youths – very probably due to the aggressive image propaganda of the Nazi regime. In the 1930s, the number of photographs published in newspapers, magazines and books increased in Germany.

Press photo of the SS propaganda company (“SS-Propagandakompanie”) of the German Wehrmacht, no date, caption: “On the Soviet front. The gaze of this Kradmelder, a young Dane who fights as a volunteer in the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front, is clear and certain.”

Press photo of the propaganda companies of the German Wehrmacht, 7.6.1944, caption: “The battle rudder man has a very important function to fulfil on the ship. He cannot and must not leave his place during an attack. (…).“

[Plates 31, 32; press photos of “Nordic” soldiers]

While the Germans and their supposed “Artverwandten” were stylized in the visual mass media of the Nazi state towards the so-called “North-Racial” (“nordrassischen”) ideal, Jews and Soviet Russians in particular were presented as unhuman-like enemies who seemed to be standing on a lower level of cultural development. The Germans, on the other hand, were portrayed in the photojournalism of the Nazi state as “sympathetic” as possible in the sense of the racial ideology.

Two German press photos of the propaganda companies of the German Wehrmacht, ca. 1941/42, caption:

„Figures from the ‘Sowjet-Paradise’. In the prison camps, the types of criminals we remember from the worst times of the ‘commune’ are now multiplying. Among the Jews in uniform of the Soviet Army there are also types who are seen to be capable of all kinds of murder, but who nevertheless fail as soldiers at the given moment. – On the right, a pockmarked Mongolian who fits worthily into the ranks of the Bolsheviks.”

[Plates 33, 34; press photos “Asians”]

German press photographs of Russians from 1941 onwards show them in a way that the German public was supposed to find “unsympathetic”. Very interesting and so far unexplored are the iconographic parallels between the anti-Soviet and anti-American Nazi image propaganda of the last years of the war. The Nazi regime accused both states of being a “mixture of races” (“Rassengemisch”).

Press photograph of the propaganda companies of the German Wehrmacht, 6.3.1944, caption: “As prisoners in Rome! Chicago and New York types in Rome as prisoners of German paratroopers and grenadiers.”

Press photograph of the propaganda companies of the German Wehrmacht, 5.7.1944, caption: “After a short fight in German captivity. The American soldiers in a collection camp are glad to have escaped from the ‘hell of the Atlantic Battle’ at least with their lives. (…)“

[Plates 35, 36; press photos “Americans”]

This accusation can only be understood if the Nazi ideal of “racial purity” is included in the analysis.

In the course of research for my dissertation I was able to prove in regard to Poles in the Reichsgau Wartheland, that German Nazi photojournalism did not produce a tangible visual image of the “Pole” in this area, which would have visualized deviating human physique types. If possible, the Poles in this area were not depicted at all. In this way, Nazi propaganda informed the Poles in the Gau non-verbally: you do not exist. What is interesting in this case is above all the political tactical use of National Socialist race research. For during the non-aggression pact with the Nazi state, the Poles were characterized by German race researchers as rather “Nordic”, whereas after the beginning of the war, German race research tended to judge the Poles as “instinctive” and “uncultured” and brought so-called “Ostic” and “Mongolian” race shares of the Poles to the foreground. During the war and occupation years, the tenor of German racial researchers was that no predominant “racial types” could be identified among the Poles, but only a high degree of “mixture” of many “races”, whereby the negative influence of “Asian races” was particularly emphasized.

Wolfgang Abel, picture panel on research into “mixed-race”/”hybrids” (allegedly physically and psychologically “degenerated” Moroccan-German and Vietnamese-German people), 1937.

Alphonse Bertillon (Paris Police Prefect), survey of physiognomic features, around 1895.

[Plates 37, 38; photos Mischlingsforschung / “mixed-race studies“]

The Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler believed that “Nordic” children were more creative than “racial hybrids”. In order to give this belief greater prominence, the Nazi regime produced numerous German contributions to “research into hybrids” (“Mischlingsforschung”), which would have had no right to exist without the racial ideology. Such research was carried out on various people from bi-national couples. In 1942, German-Polish “Mischlinge” amongst others, were psychologically researched in the Gauhauptstadt of the Wartheland Posen, to prove that “racial mixing” led to psychological instability. Empirical data were interpreted in such a way that the political cause of the discomfort of those people who were now classified as “half-breeds” was completely ignored. And this was due to the fact that the National Socialist occupying power subjected the multi-ethnic population of Poland to a radical segregation according to “völkisch-rassischen” criteria, thus constructing a supposed “mixed race” problem.

A large amount of research has shown that in the case of “racially” motivated discrimination, it is not the actual characteristics of the person discriminated against that are decisive, but rather those characteristics that are ascribed to him or her by the discriminator – depending on his or her self-image. From a scientific – and especially biological – perspective, racial theory is obsolete. It would be very desirable if the historiography of National Socialism would emphasize more strongly that racial theory does not say anything reliable about the people defamed by it, but primarily something about the political strategies and methods of legitimation of such elites who systematically mistreated and murdered other people.

About the author

Miriam Yegane Arani did her doctorate at the UDK in Berlin under the supervision of the photo historian Prof. Diethart Kerbs. Her work focuses on the survey and analysis of photo-historical materials from the NS period. Her dissertation dealt with the Reichsgau Wartheland, where the Nazis implemented “exemplary” oppressive measures against the native Polish population, which were soon to be used in the old Reich territories in further increased brutality against the antagonized parts of the German, especially the German Jewish population.

Tierautonomie

Publisher: www.simorgh.de – ‘Open Access in animal-, human- and the earth liberation’. Revised 12/2020. Published with the kind permission of the author and the Edition Farangis.

Citation

Yegane Arani, Miriam (2020). Presentation: NS racism as a visual ideology. TIERAUTONOMIE, 7(2), http://simorgh.de/tierautonomie/JG7_2020_2.pdf.

(Rev. 07.12.2020)

TIERAUTONOMIE (ISSN 2363-6513)

by-nc-nd.eu

Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung – Nicht-kommerziell – Keine Bearbeitung 3.0 Deutschland Lizenz.

Leser_innen dürfen diese Publikation kopieren und verbreiten, solange ein Verweis auf den/die Autor_innen und das Journal TIERAUTONOMIE gegeben wird. Die Verwendung ist ausschließlich auf nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke eingeschränkt und es dürfen keine Veränderungen am Textmaterial vorgenommen werden. Weitere Details zu dieser Creative Commons Lizenz findet sich unter http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Alle anderen Verwendungszwecke müssen von dem/den Autor_innen und den Herausgeber_innen von TIERAUTONOMIE genehmigt werden.

Speziesismus ist … Wertung

Speziesismus ist … Wertung

… all das, womit der Mensch meinst sich “positiv” vom non-human (…) zu unterscheiden, gleich einer speziesistischen Wertung.

Diese Grafik stammt aus einer persischen Geschichte über einen Vogel  und ein Samenkorm “Morgh va Tokhm”. Farangis hat die Geschichte illustriert und wir planen sie demnächst online zu veröffentlichen – hier ist ein Preview: https://farangis.de/edition/preview-morgh-va-tokhm/

Mittagshitze

Farangis G. Yegane

In das Land der MITTAGSHITZE
bin ich schattenlos gesetzt
meine zarten Daunenflügel
sind versengt und ausgefallen
in groben Stricken eingenetzt

über Liebesglitzersteinen
fließen träge schwarze Fluten
tragen früh verblühte Rosen
jung vermählte Menschenpaare
Fallenstellers Beuteleichen
Dichterbücher eingefetzt

Mondenlied – ich wollt es singen
hat ein Sonnenblitz verletzt

Dieses Gedicht ist erschienen in der Edition Farangis im zweiten Band der dritten Lyrikreihe: Weltenrätselbaum, https://farangis.de/edition/dichtung-und-buchkunst/lyrik-3-farangis/