T
HE
A
RT OF
A
GITATION
Master Thesis
Daria Hartmann
(12287989)
MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance Supervisor: Dr. Martijn Dekker Second Reader: Dr. Floris Vermeulen
June 28, 2019 Word Count: 28,796
The memory of humanity
for sufferings borne is astonishingly short. Its gift of imagination for coming
sufferings is almost even less. It is this callousness
that we must combat.
For humanity is threatened by wars
compared to which those past are like poor attempts and they will come, without any doubt,
if the hands of those who prepare them in all openness are not broken.
– Bertolt Brecht, “The Memory of Humanity” (Des films et leurs sites, n.d.)1
1Translation of the poem “Das Gedächtnis der Menschheit” (see Unseld, 1993, p. 2).
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who helped me make this thesis a reality:
To my supervisor Dr. Martijn Dekker. Thank you for your valuable feedback, your supportive words, your positive attitude, and your endless enthusiasm. You believed in me, even when I did not. To Dr. Floris Vermeulen. Thank you for being my second reader. Your thought-provoking comments helped me find my vision. To Lianne and Tessa, for being the best study buddies a girl can wish for. You kept me sane. And to everyone I met through the Conflict Resolution and Governance program. Thank you for your help, kindness, and patience. To my family and friends, for helping and supporting me, even from afar. Most importantly, to my mom and my grandmother, who always have my best interest at heart, wherever I am. And to Hansjörg and Miri, for providing me with a warm soup and a much-needed break when I was at my lowest. Thank you all for being there for me.
And finally, to Leo, for being my pillar of strength. Your relentless support made it possible for me to do this. Thank you, I love you and I like you.
Abstract
Art activists use art to intervene into the public sphere, creating new spaces for action and imagination by showing alternatives to the status quo. Ideas of dramaturgy can be used to understand this political potential of art activism. Hence, this research examines the performance Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen by the Center for Political Beauty, a German artist collective, from a dramaturgical perspective to understand how art activists partake in processes of meaning-making by means of performance. Their performance can be understood as a direct response to the rise of right-wing populism and attempts by a specific signifying agent, the politician Björn Höcke, to deliberately shift the focus of Germany’s memory politics. To understand the artists’ work from a dramaturgical perspective, a multiperspectival framework is employed that blends elements of discourse analysis, multimodality, and dramaturgy. The analysis focuses on the dramaturgical categories of scripting, staging, performance, and setting to assess the role of dramaturgy in the work of the ZPS. The study concludes that the ZPS effectively deploy dramatic tactics to participate in the discursive battle over meaning, thereby maximizing the impact of their framed version of reality. Moreover, the performance of the ZPS functions as a counter-hegemonic intervention because it creates agonistic spaces where hegemonic understandings can be openly discussed and contested.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical Framework ... 4
2.1. Critical Art in the Antagonistic Space ... 4
2.2. Framing ... 8
2.3. Dramaturgy ... 12
3. Research Design ... 16
3.1. Multiperspectival Framework ... 16
3.2. Analytical Structure ... 23
3.3. Selected Data and Qualitative Coding ... 24
3.4. Ethical Considerations and Limitations ... 27
4. Background ... 29
4.1. Erinnerungskultur ... 29
4.2. Rise of Right-wing Populism in Germany ... 31
4.3. The Center for Political Beauty ... 33
5. Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen ... 37
5.1. Act I: The Björn Show ... 37
5.1.1. Act I, Scene 1: The Dresden Files ... 38
5.1.2. Act I, Scene 2: The Great Pretender ... 43
5.2. Act II: The Bornhagen Diaries ... 45
5.2.1. Act II, Scene 1: Lost in Preparation ... 46
5.2.2. Act II, Scene 2: Last Tango in the News ... 51
5.3. Act III: The Memorial that Fell to Earth ... 57
5.4. Act IV: Who Framed Landolf Ladig? ... 65
5.5. Act V: The Imaginarium of Doctor Ruch ... 68
5.6. Epilogue: The Populist’s Advocate ... 71
6. Conclusion ... 74
6.1. Answering the Research Questions ... 74
6.2. Limitations ... 78
1
1.
Introduction
In November 2017, an entire nation’s attention is on a small village of approximately 300 souls in Thuringia, Germany. Journalists travel there amidst public outrage over alleged “Stasi surveillance tactics” (Zentrum für Politische Schönheit, n.d.b, “So lobt die AfD die Aktion”),2 tasteless art and the perceived
political instrumentalization of the victims of the Holocaust. One person is at the center of this turmoil, presumably the victim of a moral witch-hunt: the politician Björn Höcke who lives in Bornhagen. From his house he can clearly see the small monument built ‘in his honor’ on the neighboring property. This new sight is a direct response to a speech Höcke gave ten months prior in which he called the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin a “monument of shame” (Nowotny, 2017, no. 278) and rejected Germany’s Erinnerungskultur, calling for a 180-degree change. His speech was widely condemned but it incurred no significant political nor legal consequences for Höcke. An art collective therefore decided to respond to Höcke’s speech in their own way: by building a replica of the Holocaust memorial right outside of his home, silently mocking him. While the community of Bornhagen is still reeling from the shock, the media machine starts moving – as planned by the artists. After all, their performance has just begun…
This group of artists are at the heart of this thesis. They adhere to the principle “art must provoke and rise in revolt” (Zentrum für Politische Schönheit, n.d.a, para. 2), aiming to inform, to expose, and to provoke thought and debate. Every action of the Center for Political Beauty (Zentrum für Politische Schönheit [ZPS]) is staged as a dramatic performance, which combines agitation with humor and illusion, leading their audiences astray time and again. This is proof of both their creativity and of their work ethic. The action Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen, which is the primary focus of this thesis, took almost one year to prepare as the ZPS planned each move carefully, mapped out possible outcomes, and managed to complete their preparations without anybody noticing before the memorial was unveiled.
2 “Schäbiger Angriff mit übelsten Stasi-Methoden” (Zentrum für Politische Schönheit, n.d.b,
2 The performances of the ZPS can be understood through an analysis of the dramatic techniques they employ. This is related to the notion that politics as well as political art should be understood through the theater as a metaphor. Seeing performance as an essential dimension of politics provides a way of understanding the complex relationship between these concepts. Therefore, this thesis approaches the performance
Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen from a dramaturgical perspective to study and understand
how the ZPS partake in processes of meaning-making by means of performance.
Notably, the ZPS use various semiotic resources and stages in their performances. For example, the fierce public debate focusing on the alleged surveillance of Höcke and his family is as important for the performance as the memorial itself. The reception of and discussions about the performance give insights into its discursive impact, which is related to the ZPS’ ability to influence public discourse and, potentially, to challenge the “common sense” (Mouffe, 2013, xvii).
In summary, the research questions state: (1) Which dramatic techniques were employed in the performance Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen by the ZPS and in what manner? (2) Is this performance an example of art as a counter-hegemonic intervention? By focusing on these questions, this thesis aims to investigate the dramaturgical side of activism and to illuminate the political potential of performance art. With respect to the themes of this performance, this thesis also considers this action as a creative and critical response to both the rise of right-wing populism and the memory politics in Germany. Considering the political rightward shift that has swept European countries and initiated increasing challenges to hegemonic politics of memory, these topics are very relevant and contemporary issues that should be investigated further.
First, this thesis starts with the theoretical framework, which focuses mainly on the complex relationship between art and politics, performance, framing, and dramaturgy (Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework). The next chapter presents the research design, which combines elements of discourse analysis with dramaturgy and multimodality, before discussing selected data, research limitations, and ethical considerations (Chapter 3: Research Design). The thesis then provides contextual information, which is necessary to understand the performance of the ZPS, focusing on three important topics: the German
3
Erinnerungskultur, the rise of right-wing populism in Germany, and the ZPS themselves
(Chapter 4: Background).
The dramaturgical analysis is, based on Freytag’s pyramid, divided into five acts (Chapter 5: Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen): Act I focuses on Björn Höcke’s self-portrayal as well as the speech he gave in Dresden in January 2017, which is regarded as the catalyst for the performance of the ZPS. Act II covers the preparations for the performance, specifically focusing on how it was scripted and staged by the ZPS. Act III is the climax, which unfolded in various settings. By releasing a promo video and unveiling the memorial, the performance was expanded onto new stages, amongst others the parliaments, the courtrooms, and the newsrooms. Act IV focuses then on Landolf Ladig, Björn Höcke’s alleged pseudonym, which he supposedly used to write for neo-Nazi magazines in 2011 and 2012. In Act V the performance reaches its conclusion by revealing most of it to be an elaborate hoax: the surveillance of Höcke never happened. While this marks the end of the official performance, the implications of this stunt are far-reaching. In light of recent developments, the epilogue discusses the criminal investigation against the artists, which spanned 16 months and caused a public outcry, with many speaking out against the criminalization of art.
Finally, the last chapter provides a conclusion, which includes a discussion of the findings and elaborations on the limitations of this research (Chapter 6: Conclusion).
4
2.
Theoretical Framework
To analyze the performance Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen from a dramaturgical perspective, the research questions first need to be situated in a theoretical framework. Since the ZPS’ work is to be located somewhere between art and activism, it is helpful to approach it from an interdisciplinary perspective, which combines various theories and methods. This provides an opportunity to engage with the various facets of the ZPS’ style. The theoretical framework is therefore based on a literature review of different theories on art and politics, framing and dramaturgy. At the heart of this framework are theories by Mouffe, Hajer, and Benford and Hunt. On the one hand, Mouffe’s theories on agonistic pluralism and critical art are crucial to understand the ZPS’ unique approach to art activism and to evaluate their performances’ discursive impact. On the other hand, drawing on insights from dramaturgy, Hajer as well as Benford and Hunt analyze the practices of “signifying agents” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 613), such as social movements, activists, and other actors, as dramas that challenge existing structures of power. Their perspectives are useful to understand the ZPS as both performers and strategists who use the combination of art and activism to challenge the status-quo.
2.1.
Critical Art in the Antagonistic Space
There have been many critical discussions of the work of the ZPS since they have performed their first action in 2009. These discussions draw on a long tradition of discourse related to the autonomy of art and the relationship between art and politics. Particularly the notions of political art and art activism have been a catalyst for debate as they are located somewhere in the intersection between art and politics, which is an extremely contested territory. The manifold of understandings of the political potential of art shows that the role of art in society is still uncertain.
5 Adorno has been one of the most vocal critics of political art.3 He was very critical
of artworks trying to achieve a political goal and emphasized that art needed to preserve its autonomy to have any social or political power:
That artworks intervene politically is doubtful; when it does happen, most often it is peripheral to the work; if they strive for it, they usually succumb to their own terms. (Adorno, 1970/2013, p. 328)
Adorno’s concept of aesthetic autonomy is closely linked to Kant’s (1790/2007) account of aesthetic judgement according to which the beautiful has a “purposiveness without a purpose” (p. 227) and does not rely upon any interest to give a “feeling of delight” (p. 130). This is where Adorno sees the political potential of art: by rejecting a definite purpose, art defies conventional conduct, and manages to stand “in opposition to social domination” (Adorno, 1970/2013, p. 225).
Rancière is another important theorist who has reflected on the relationship between aesthetics and politics in his writings. Similarly to Adorno, he criticizes political art and argues that “art cannot play the part of political action” (Papastergiadis & Esche, 2014, p. 32). He sees art as something that exists between artists and spectators, as a third thing “that is owned by no one, whose meaning is owned by no one, but which subsists between them, excluding any uniform transmission, any identity of cause and effect” (Rancière, 2009b, p. 15). He further argues that by trying to achieve political ends, art eliminates itself as art:
A contrast is thereby formed between a type of art that makes politics by eliminating itself as art and a type of art that is political on the proviso that it retains its purity, avoiding all forms of political intervention. (Rancière, 2009a, p. 40)
Art can be political through its ability to break the consensus of the public sphere with acts of “dissensus” (Rancière, 2010, p. 139), which deconstruct stabilized identities and introduce new modes of perception. In this way, art functions as a dissensual aesthetic experience, which changes “the cartography of the perceptible, the thinkable and the
3 Van den Berg (2018) notes that one of his main targets was the German playwright Bertolt
Brecht, who used the theatre as a place to explore political ideas. Interestingly, the ZPS seems to have been influenced by Brecht’s work as one of his poems, “Das Gedächtnis der Menschheit” [The Memory of Mankind], was used in their play 2099 in 2015. An extract from this poem can be found at the beginning of the thesis.
6 feasible” (Rancière, 2009b, p. 72). According to Rancière (2009a), it is the experience of art that is political as it carries a “promise of emancipation” (p. 36) to the spectator.
Both Adorno and Rancière are very critical of artists who want to use art to achieve a political effect. Their writings are consequently referred to when criticizing the approach of artists like the ZPS. However, there are scholars who argue that this type of art criticism reveals that critics have lost all touch with political reality. For example, Malzacher (2015) points out that by constantly quoting theorists whose works are based on their own personal experiences in the 1960s, a “homeopathic, second-hand idea of political philosophy and art has become a main line of contemporary cultural discourse” (p. 20), which seems to be disconnected from present political reality. Focusing too much on Rancière’s concepts of aesthetics and politics, which are based on a wide definition of the political, has led some to a strange place where “everything is political [and] nothing is political anymore” (Malzacher, 2015, p. 20).
In contrast, Mouffe is a theorist who has paid very close attention to recent political developments. She has discussed the current state of politics in depth and noted that the rise of right-wing populism in Europe should be understood as a reaction “to the lack of agonistic politics in liberal democracies” (Mouffe, 2013, p. xvii). Mouffe (2013) advocates for an agonistic model of democracy in which the public space is the battleground “where conflicting points of view are confronted without any possibility of final reconciliation” (p. 92). Providing an area for conflict is crucial as she sees human beings as ultimately mobilized by passions, which need to be directed towards “democratic designs” (Mouffe, 2013, p. 9). A functional democracy must legitimize debate and dissensus to ‘tame’ political passions (Mouffe, 2013, p. 9).
Mouffe (2013) acknowledges that her concept of an agonistic public space is different from the one postulated by Jürgen Habermas, who has envisioned public space as “the place where deliberation aiming at a rational consensus takes place” (p. 92). She distances herself from his understanding of public space, cautioning that overemphasis on consensus might even lead to political apathy:
Too much emphasis on consensus, together with aversion towards confrontations, leads to apathy and to a disaffection with political participation. This is why a liberal democratic society requires a debate about possible alternatives. (Mouffe, 2013, p. 7)
7 Mouffe (2013) points out that conflict can be harnessed in a productive way because within agonistic pluralism “others are not seen as enemies to be destroyed, but as adversaries whose ideas might be fought, even fiercely, but whose right to defend those ideas is not to be questioned” (p. 7). Adversaries are then embroiled in discursive battles over meaning trying to establish their specific interpretation of reality (Mouffe, 2013, p. 7). Once a perspective becomes dominant, it can be referred to as hegemonic. Every hegemony is then the result of a manifold of complex discursive practices, even though it appears to be ‘natural’:
What is at a given moment considered as the ‘natural’ order - jointly with the ‘common sense’ which accompanies it - is the result of sedimented hegemonic practices; it is never the manifestation of a deeper objectivity exterior to the practices that bring it into being. (Mouffe, 2007, pp. 2–3)
However, there is a “lack of a final ground and the undecidability which pervades every order” (Mouffe, 2013, p. 2), which means that the hegemonic struggle is never finished completely. Any order is temporary, contingent, and based on a particular set of power relations that excludes other possibilities (Mouffe, 2013, xi). Thus, even orders that appear ‘natural’ can be challenged (Mouffe, 2013, p. 2).
Coming back to the role of art in society, Mouffe (2007) states that artistic practices can play an important role in this hegemonic struggle as they are important for the creation and deconstruction of a ‘common sense’ through which a specific social order appears to be ‘natural’ (p. 5). This is also the reason why she does not distinguish between political and non-political art as artistic practices always have this political dimension:
There is an aesthetic dimension in the political and there is a political dimension in art. This is why I consider that it is not useful to make a distinction between political and non-political art. From the point of view of the theory of hegemony, artistic practices play a role in the constitution and maintenance of a given symbolic order or in its challenging and this is why they necessarily have a political dimension. […] Critical art is art that foments dissensus, that makes visible what the dominant consensus tends to obscure and obliterate. (Mouffe, 2007, p. 4)
Critical artistic practices have thus the ability to open up spaces where hegemonies can be challenged, which makes them an important part of democratic politics (Mouffe, 2013, p. 104). Focusing on this ability of critical art, public space is then not just a staging ground for contestation but also a “frequent stage or canvas for unauthorized interventions by a range of creative trespassers” (Johnson, 2019, p. 246). Artists like the ZPS are
8 operating in this agonistic public space and use art to bring attention to topics and issues that are not talked about. In this way, they can function as catalysts for social and political change.
Trying to effect change is characteristic of art activism (Serafini, 2018, pp. 2–3). Duncombe and Lambert (2018) have focused in their work on the nexus between activism and art, noting that art activism is to be situated somewhere in between (p. 62). While art is about moving people emotionally, activism is about reaching specific goals and bringing about change (Duncombe & Lambert, 2018, p. 63). Therefore, art is about generating affect whereas activism is about generating effect (Duncombe & Lambert, 2018, p. 63). This is why the combination of both works so well:
In order for the emotional affect of art to have political effect, art needs to be combined with activism. Activism can bring people together, harness their power and transform society. But it can only do this if people are moved to participate and can imagine an alternative. In order for the political effect of activism to have an emotional affect, activism needs to be combined with art. Artistic activism is neither art nor activism; it is a dynamic hybrid which exists in the creative space between art and activism, and this is its power. (Duncombe & Lambert, 2018, p. 64)
By combining art and activism, artists as well as activists can open up new spaces for action and imagination, show alternatives to the status quo, and introduce the possibility “to imagine things that are otherwise unimaginable” (Duncombe & Lambert, 2018, p. 59). In this way, a bridge between ideas and actions is created, which might lead to real change or at least to the revival of an exchange of points of view (Cohen-Cruz, 1998, p. 1).
2.2.
Framing
Framing practices are an essential part of the discursive battles over meaning that Mouffe describes. The concept of framing is a very important concept that has been used by scholars to explain how meanings and narratives are constructed and how our perception of reality is shaped and influenced by frames (Benford & Snow, 2000; Entman, 1993; Gamson, 1985, 2004a; Goffman, 1974; Kuypers, 2009; Ryan & Gamson, 2006). Ryan and Gamson (2006) argue that a frame can be defined as a “thought organizer, highlighting certain events and facts as important and rendering others invisible” (p. 13). In his writings on framing, Entman (1993) similarly emphasizes the importance of selection and salience:
9
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a form of communication, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. (p. 52)
The idea of framing as it is used in, for example, social movement research has been mainly influenced by the work of Goffman (1974). He defines frames as “schemata of interpretation” (p. 21), which help us to make sense of the world we live in even though we might not be aware of them. He argues that frames play an important role in every kind of social interaction and communication as they enable individuals “to locate, perceive, identify, and label” (p. 21) experiences and information according to cognitive categories. This influences greatly how certain issues are interpreted and perceived, leading to a reduction of complexity that allows us to act (Kuypers, 2009, p. 181).
While there are differing views, some scholars argue that framing might be used strategically to influence the way other people perceive reality (Benford & Snow, 2000; Lindekilde, 2014). Movement theorists like Benford and Snow (2000) have called attention to the strategic efforts of social movement actors to actively shape people’s perception of reality through various discursive practices:
Movement actors are viewed as signifying agents actively engaged in the production and maintenance of meaning for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers. They are deeply embroiled, along with the media, local governments, and the state, in what has been referred to as “the politics of signification.” (p. 613)
All of the actors embroiled in the “politics of signification” (Hall, 1982, p. 64), the discursive struggle over meaning, are therefore signifying agents who deliberately deploy frames for specific strategic purposes (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624).
There are many challenges activists must confront when participating in this battle over meaning, which means “that activists are not able to construct and impose on their intended targets any version of reality they would like” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 626). In fact, framing activities are very highly contested processes. Ryan (1991) has argued that different groups are entangled in framing contests in which the goal is to make their framed version of reality the dominant one (p. 75). This does not only involve a myriad of actors but also takes place in very different areas (or stages) such as streets, courtrooms, parliaments, mass media, and so on (Rucht, 2004, p. 200). Particularly mass media has
10 become an increasingly important arena of contention as it plays an influential role in framing public issues (Ryan, 1991, xii).
Many scholars have focused on the media’s involvement in the hegemonic struggle (Anderson, 2014; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Gitlin, 1980; Ryan, 1991). Benford and Snow (2000) claim that media framing might be the most-well-studied topic related to framing contests (p. 626). Due to the media’s ability to disseminate information and influence people’s perspectives, all signifying agents try to use the platform it provides to their advantage (Rucht, 2004, p. 201). From this point of view, “what gets in the news and how news is portrayed is a product of struggles between groups who hold competing definitions of reality” (Anderson, 2014, p. 37).
However, the mass media is neither a neutral mirror nor an impartial information intermediary (Rucht, 2004, p. 211). News frame reality in a highly interpretive and selective manner. Ryan (1991) acknowledges “the media as an agent whose tasks include winning, or at least neutralizing, the hearts and minds of various audiences” (p. 23). Gitlin (1980) came to the same conclusion when he used the concept of framing to explain the interaction between the New Left movement and the news media in the 1960s. He makes the distinction between individual frames and media frames, which he defines as “persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual” (p. 7). While media frames are “largely unspoken and unacknowledged,” they “enable journalists to process large amounts of information quickly and routinely: to recognize it as information, to assign it to cognitive categories, and to package the information for efficient relay to their audiences” (p. 7). Media framing thus refers to principles of selection that increase the salience of specific aspects of a news story, thereby making the rest seem less important.
Gamson and Modigliani (1987) assert that a media frame is a “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events” (p. 143). Story lines are important because meaning is mostly conveyed in form of narratives instead of just ‘facts’. Ryan (1991) stresses that “facts are not the driving force of these contests. Facts are tactical weapons in an ideological struggle” (p. 79). In this way, journalists turn pieces
11 of information into coherent stories, which are designed to move readers in a specific way (Ryan, 1991, p. 75). Media frames are the core of an interpretive package that give meaning to an issue (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3). Besides the frame, a package also offers an array of symbolic devices that carry the frame such as metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, and so on (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, pp. 3–4; Ryan, 1991, p. 56). In addition, signifying agents draw from existing cultural resources, such as “meanings, beliefs, ideologies, practices, values, myths, [and] narratives” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 629), to engage with different audiences:
Cultural resonances are used to shape generally recognizable plots (rags to riches, power corrupts). They offer easily recognized social/cultural stereotypes of characters (evil villains, honorable victims, noble heroes and heroines), and they reinforce general social goals, i.e., the underlying or implicit values that shape the way the mainstream media organize their impressions of society. (Ryan, 1991, p. 79)
By appealing to broader cultural themes, frames become more powerful because they appear to be familiar and ‘natural’ (Gamson, 2004a, p. 254; Ryan, 1991, p. 80). Gamson (1985) focuses on the way media frames often remain implicit, stating that “they do not appear to either journalists or audience as social constructions but as primary attributes of events that reporters are merely reflecting. News frames make the world look natural. They determine what is selected, what is excluded, what is emphasized. In short, news presents a packaged world” (p. 618). In this way, media frames contribute to the creation and maintenance of hegemonic meanings and, thereby, a ‘common sense’ (Carragee & Roefs, 2004, p. 222). This also means that journalists are not only gatekeepers of the media, an important arena of the hegemonic struggle. They are in fact players in the discursive battles over meaning who actively frame and shape the discourse, especially through the way they portray other players (Gamson, 2004a, p. 243; Ryan, 1991, p. 79). Thus, media agents and agencies “take an active role in the reality construction business” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 49).
Other actors are aware of this power of the media and try to use it for their own ends. Activists must garner media attention to be recognized as legitimate players and to reach wider audiences. This means that “no news is bad news” (Gamson, 2004b, p. 94). However, they are not performing on a level playing field as they cannot control how they are framed by media agents. The internet has shifted this power imbalance to an extent
12 since it allows less powerful players to bypass gatekeepers and to take control of the way they are framed by writing the ‘news’ themselves (Anderson, 2014, p. 50). Nevertheless, media agents still have the upper hand, at least for now.
2.3.
Dramaturgy
Activists must find ways to counterbalance existing power inequalities when engaging in battles over meaning. As explained before, art activism is effective because it combines the political effect of activism with the emotional affect of art. It must be noted though that affect is not only an important factor for art activists. Emotions are important for activism in general as people need to be inspired to join or support a cause (Benford & Hunt, 1992, pp. 50–51). This is where dramaturgy, theatricality, and performance are brought into the equation.
Performance might be one of the most important tools of activists. In general terms, a performance is simply an action. Schechner (2013) argues that “there is no historically or culturally fixable limit to what is or is not ‘performance’. […] The underlying notion is that any action that is framed, enacted, presented, highlighted, or displayed is a performance” (p. 2). Performance enacts a particular version of reality by framing it in a way that emphasizes selected aspects while simultaneously ignoring others. There are some scholars who point out that reflexivity is another key component of performance as to perform is “to be aware of the act of doing something, and to show doing it” (Reinelt & Rai, 2015, p. 4). Moreover, each performance requires the presence of performers and of audiences (Parkinson, 2015, p. 24; Sindoni, Wildfeuer, & O’Halloran, 2016, p. 331).
Performance is an interesting object of investigation since it illustrates the nexus between art and politics. Different aspects of performance such as “timing, surprise, strong visuals, compelling characters, dynamic tension, specificity, discipline, and rehearsal” (Bogad, 2016, p. 45) are important for both politics and theatre. While some scholars like Serafini (2018) argue that performance as form of live art lends itself to political action, others like Hajer (2005a) utilize the notion of politics as performance to recover “a sense of politics as an artistic endeavour” (p. 449).
13 Benford and Hunt (1992) have developed a dramaturgical framework that can be used to analyze how activists use performance as a means to participate in battles over meaning. Drawing on Goffman’s (1956/1959) idea of dramaturgy, which describes life as a play to explore everyday life and social interactions, they understand social movements as “dramas in which protagonists and antagonists compete to affect audiences’ interpretations of power relations in a variety of domains” (Benford & Hunt, 1992,
p. 38).4 They identify four dramatic techniques that activists employ to engage in
discourse: “(1) scripting, (2) staging, (3) performing and (4) interpreting” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 36).
First, scripting outlines appropriate behavior, composes dialogue, identifies the performers, and casts them in roles (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 38). The dramatis personæ of the performance generally include “antagonists, victims, protagonists, supporting cast members and audiences” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 39).
Second, staging refers to the preparation of the performance, which requires the management of various resources such as time and funds but also audiences and the settings in which performances take place (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43). Besides these important logistical matters, other important staging tasks include promotional activities since any performance requires an audience (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43). Finally, activists must attend to the “interrelated issues of audience segregation and backstage control” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43). These ideas are again based on Goffman (1956/1959), who distinguishes between different kinds of performing regions (such as backstage and frontstage) to explain changes in the behavior of performers (p. 66). He cautions that these regions must be segregated, otherwise a performance might experience “dramaturgical trouble” (p. 82). It is therefore important to conceal backstage activity that could undermine the message or image presented on the frontstage (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 44).
Third, performing refers to the collective actions of activists through which the performance is enacted, enabling them to participate in the struggle for hegemony
4 Focusing on the individual as a performer, Goffman (1956/1959) uses a dramaturgical
perspective to investigate how people’s actions are influenced and restricted by their role, the audience, and the overarching context or setting.
14 (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 45). This involves the coordination of different dramatic techniques, which include dramaturgical loyalty, discipline, and circumspection (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 45). Dramaturgical loyalty is about sustaining a unified image by remaining loyal to a group’s vision, norms, and scripts (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 45). Moreover, it is important to exercise dramaturgical discipline that maintains the group’s existing public image (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 46). Finally, activists perform dramaturgical circumspection, which means that, while most of the performance is prepared in advance, they are still able to anticipate unforeseen surprises, adjust to changing circumstances, and manage (disruptive) counter-performances by opponents (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 46).
Fourth and lastly, interpreting constitutes the basis for any kind of action (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 48). As a dramatic technique, it is significant in two ways: on the one hand, performances mirror the activists’ interpretation of reality. On the other hand, interpretations “are the very object of those productions. Performances seek to affect audiences’ interpretations of reality” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 48). This is important because changes in the perceptions of audiences could lead to the discursive change activists are aiming for. Therefore, activists must anticipate how performances will be received and reacted to, both by audiences and other performers (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 48). If they play their cards right, performances can work as effective counter-hegemonic practices because they are capable of expanding their stages “far into the realm of news and other media, where discussions about politics as well as art are continued” (Malzacher, 2015, p. 27). At the same time, activists must stay aware of context factors that can influence and distort audiences’ perspectives:
First, events may occur that undermine the empirical credibility of movement claims. Second, audiences filter such evidence through an interpretive screen based on their personal experience. […] Finally, an audience’s cultural heritage, that is their folk wisdom, narrations and myths affects their interpretations. (Benford & Hunt, 1992, pp. 48–49)
Moreover, other players like the media might also influence the interpretations of audiences by framing activists in a certain way (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 49). Activists can try to counterbalance negative effects, but the way other signifying agents react to performances are usually beyond their control.
15 While Hajer (2005b) draws on Benford’s and Hunt’s (1992) ideas to analyze policy discourse,5 he focuses more on how performances are influenced by the particular
settings in which they take place (p. 626). Based on the works of Burke (1969) and Edelman (1964),6 Hajer (2005b) claims that performances have to be analyzed in relation
to the physical, technical, [and] theatrical” (p. 625) conditions in which they take place. This is also related to his understanding of performativity, which “suggests that language does something while performance conveys the understanding that certain meanings constantly have to be reproduced, that signification must be enacted, and that this takes place in a particular ‘setting’” (Hajer, 2005a, p. 448).
Hajer’s (2005a) dramaturgical framework is closely modeled after the one by Benford and Hunt. However, while his definitions of scripting and staging are very similar to Benford’s and Hunt’s,7 he adds the notion of setting, “the physical situation in which
the interaction takes place, including the artefacts that are brought to the situation” (p. 449), and a somewhat different definition of performance as “the way in which the
contextualized interaction itself produces social realities like understandings of the problem
at hand, knowledge, [and] new power-relations” (p. 449; emphasis in original). Moreover, Hajer (2005b) points out that a performance should be viewed as a “shared production in which actors might be positioned in the role of audience for a while but nevertheless always contribute to the performance” (p. 630). From this perspective, drawing a distinction between active performers and passive audiences becomes problematic, if not impossible.
In conclusion, using a dramaturgical perspective can help explore the ways art activists engage in discursive battles over meaning, focusing on performance as a means to challenge and disrupt specific discourses.
5 Hajer (2005b) applies a dramaturgical perspective because he sees “political processes as sequences
of staged performances” (p. 624).
6 Like Goffman (1956/1959), Burke perceives life as drama, arguing that a dramaturgical
perspective enables an analysis of the way social relations are construed and evolve over time. Meanwhile, Edelman (1964) understands politics as drama and defines the setting as one of its key elements.
7 Hajer (2005b) defines scripting as “those efforts to create a setting by determining the characters
in the play and to provide cues for appropriate behaviour” (p. 631) and staging as “the deliberate organization of an interaction, drawing on existing symbols and the invention of new ones as well as on the distinction between active players and (presumably passive) audiences” (p. 631).
16
3.
Research Design
The analysis of the performance Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen by the ZPS (1) focuses on its dramaturgical dimension (scripting, staging, setting, and performance) and (2) explores the question whether this performance can be understood as a counter-hegemonic intervention. Studying performances requires an interdisciplinary approach that draws from different fields of knowledge (Johnson, 2019, p. 251). Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) argue that it is possible to create a unique approach, which combines elements from different discourse analytical perspectives (p. 154). Therefore, instead of doing a conventional discourse analysis, a multiperspectival framework was employed that blends elements of discourse analysis, multimodality, and dramaturgy to capture the ZPS’ unique and creative style of activism and to produce a broader understanding of the political potential of art activism.
3.1.
Multiperspectival Framework
In many disciplines discourse analysis is used to study the way meaning is constructed (Gee & Handford, 2014, p. 5).8 However, to understand what discourse analysis does,
one needs to give a definition of discourse first. Very generally speaking, discourse can be understood as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect
of the world)” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 1; emphasis in original). Hajer (2005a) gives a more specific definition by defining discourse “as an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categorizations through which meaning is allocated to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduces in an identifiable set of practices” (p. 447).
As method and theory are closely interlinked, discourse analysis can only be used if certain philosophical premises have been accepted (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 3): First, discourse analysis has a social constructionist epistemology meaning that knowledge is understood as subjective, historically and culturally specific, socially constructed, and
8 Important examples include history, anthropology, sociology, political science, religious studies,
17 contingent (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 5). Thus, knowledge is never the reflection of an objective truth but a subjective product of attempts to categorize and understand the world (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 5). Second, discourse analysis is based on a structuralist or poststructuralist conceptualization of language as a means through which we access what we perceive to be reality (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 3).
Related to this, Hajer argues that language is not a neutral medium mirroring reality since language is used to shape and create the social world (Hajer, 1993, p. 44, 2006, p. 66). Our ways of talking about the world do not only affect our perceptions of reality but change and thereby create the social sphere in very tangible ways: “Different social understandings of the world lead to different social actions, and therefore the social construction of knowledge and truth has social consequences” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 6). Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) therefore argue that the “the functioning of discourse – discursive practice – is a social practice that shapes the social world” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 18).
Considering how differently people perceive and interpret reality, it can be argued that different discourses are engaged in a struggle for dominance (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 6). Scholars like Hajer (1993) thus deliberately speak of plural discourses because “discourse is not a uniform whole” (p. 46) and different perspectives are constantly at odds with one another.
In the last two decades, the field of discourse analysis has seen new developments. In light of an ever-changing semiotic and discursive landscape, various scholars have expressed the need to account for meaning created by a combination of multiple forms of communication deployed in various forms of media (Hart, 2016, p. 336; Jewitt, Bezemer, & O’Halloran, 2016, p. 56; O’Halloran, 2004, p. 121). This has led to the multimodal turn in discourse analysis (Hart, 2016, p. 335):
Multimodality is used to refer to a theory, a perspective, and methodological application or a field of enquiry. It attends to the full repertoire of resources that people use to communicate and represent phenomena and experiences including speech, sound, gesture, gaze, body posture and movement, writing, image and so on. Thus language/talk is not the given starting point or anchor for meaning. (Jewitt, 2015, p. 127)
In contrast to other forms of discourse analysis, multimodality is based on the notion that language only partially contributes to the construction of meaning as it is one of various
18 semiotic resources that are utilized (Gunther Kress, 2014, p. 38). A multimodal discourse analysis hence “extends the study of language per se to the study of language in combination with other resources” (O’Halloran, 2013, p. 120).
There are several different approaches to multimodal discourse analysis (Hart, 2016, p. 336).9 However, instead of strictly following one of these approaches, some key
notions of multimodality, which are relevant for this research, were incorporated into the multiperspectival framework of this thesis:
First, multimodal research focuses on multimodal phenomena, which are constituted by a multiplicity of modes or semiotic resources. Semiotic resources can be understood as “the resources (or modes) (e.g. language, image, music, gesture and architecture), which integrate across sensory modalities (e.g. visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, kinesthetic) in multimodal texts,10 discourses and events, collectively
called multimodal phenomena” (O’Halloran, 2013, p. 121; emphasis in original). These resources produce meaning in conjunction with each other, coming together as one “integrated, multi-modal whole” (Jewitt et al., 2016, p. 2; emphasis in original). Modes should not be studied as independent parts because meaning is not simply the sum of individual semiotic choices but the product of a complex interplay between various resources (Bateman et al., 2017, pp. 16–17; Jewitt et al., 2016, p. 39).
Second, modes require materials or media on which meaning-making practices can be inscribed and distributed to achieve various signifying purposes (Bateman et al., 2017, pp. 123–124; van Leeuwen & Gunther Kress, 2001, p. 22). For example, whereas writing and speaking are semiotic modes, a book or a newspaper is a medium. This can
9 Two important examples are (1) systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA)
and (2) social semiotic discourse analysis. First, drawing on Halliday’s theory of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) in which language constitutes a resource for making meaning, various scholars have focused on the communicative function of different semiotic resources by analyzing the (ideational, interpersonal and textual) meanings that are constructed when different semiotic choices combine (van Leeuwen & Gunther Kress, 2001; O'Halloran, 2004; O'Toole, 2011). Second, a social semiotic approach to multimodality, as developed by Hodge and Kress (1988) and then extended by Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), studies how semiotic resources are used by different people in specific social contexts, thereby focusing on the semiotic choices that are made, the influence of the context, and the agency of social actors (Jewitt, 2015, p. 133).
10 Scholars still use the term text to refer to multimodal phenomena even though linguistic modes
only partially contribute to the making of meaning. The reason for this is that the notion of text highlights that all kinds of communicative acts share “the property that they are structured in order to be interpreted” (Bateman, Wildfeuer, & Hiippala, 2017, p. 132).
19 be specified further by introducing the notion of canvas, which is the material potential of a medium that is actually realized in a specific act of meaning-making (Bateman et al., 2017, pp. 123–124): “Canvases are the locus of semiotic activity: they present the interface that a medium provides for the interpreters of the ‘messages’ that the medium carries” (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 101). In complex communicative situations (like performances) it might prove helpful to distinguish between different subcanvases with specific materialities and qualities, which have to be taken into consideration (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 101). Webpages and monuments are two examples of very different media that can serve as subcanvases.11
Third, framing is an important principle in multimodality since meaning is constructed through the deliberate selection and configuration of semiotic resources (Constantinou, 2005, p. 608; van Leeuwen & Gunther Kress, 2001, p. 3). This is emphasized by the notion of design, which focuses on the combination of modes in particular ways for specific purposes (van Leeuwen & Gunther Kress, 2001, p. 3).
Multimodal discourse analysis provides a viable perspective to analyze and understand the richness of modes that is incorporated in performances to produce meaning (Sindoni et al., 2016, p. 326). Performances can be understood as multimodal phenomena that establish “a semiotic space which brings about both an act of performing as well as acts of viewing and understanding. This paves the way for approaches to performance that ask for their meaning-making potential on several canvases” (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 251). A performance is therefore a multimodal whole constituted by different subcanvases or stages, which all contribute to meaning-making processes.
A central feature of performing arts is the notion of mise-en-scène,12 which focuses
on the design or framing of a performance, utilizing a great range of semiotic resources to achieve a particular purpose. This includes the stage design, costumes, make-up, various
11 On the one hand, webpages are multi-semiotic documents that employ a range of different
semiotic resources (such as linguistic, visual, and aural modes) to fulfill various functions (Djonov & Knox, 2015, p. 172). On the other hand, monuments are material objects, which are often created in public spaces and employ semiotic resources (such as iconography, form and space, dimensions, and materials used) to communicate specific meanings (Abousnnouga & Machin, 2011, pp. 180–182; Abousnnougga & Machin, 2015, p. 327).
12 Mise-en-scène is a French expression, which can be roughly translated as “putting into the scene”
20 props, and much more (McIntyre, 2008, p. 313; Sindoni, Wildfeuer, & O’Halloran, 2017, p. 4). These framing activities influence the perception of the audience and thereby the way they interpret the performance (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 255). However, there is clearly a shift to experimental forms of performance influenced by an increasingly digital participatory culture that, as previously argued by Hajer (2005b), blurs the constructed lines between active performers and passive audiences (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 260; Sindoni et al., 2017, p. 2). This highlights the need to draw on more sophisticated multimodal frameworks to study and understand increasingly complex meaning-making processes (Bateman et al., 2017, p. 260).
Due to the complexity of meaning-making processes in this performance, different elements of discourse analysis, multimodality, and dramaturgy were incorporated into one overarching multiperspectival framework, allowing a more in-depth analysis. Focusing on the way meaning can be constructed and challenged by means of performance, four principal analytical categories were constructed. These categories were originally modelled after Benford’s and Hunt’s (1992) concept of dramatic techniques and then expanded by Hajer’s (2005a) ideas of setting and performance and general notions of multimodality as explained above.
The first category is scripting. Scripting involves the casting of the main cast of performers (dramatis personæ), the writing of the plot (in form of narratives and storylines) and dialogue, and the direction of appropriate performance and behavior through strategies that influence the story flow.
The second category is staging. Staging refers to the management of various resources (such as time, funds, audiences, and settings), promotional activities, and backstage control, meaning the deliberate concealment of certain activities.
The third category is performance. On the one hand, this category focuses on the actions of the performers, such as spoken language (intonation and linguistic choices) and bodily presence on stage, which can be analyzed by focusing on kinetic features, such as gaze, gestures, and body posture. On the other hand, performance also includes how other actors perform in response to the performance. This includes a diverse range of activities, such as interpreting and reacting.
21 The fourth and final category is setting. This category is the one that is the most influenced by principles of multimodality as it focuses on the semiotic resources and canvases or stages that were used as part of the performance.13 Semiotic choices are used
by various actors to frame themes, topics, and narratives in certain ways that suggest specific interpretations.
Linguistic modes are among the semiotic resources that were used in this performance. To study and understand choices on the linguistic level, it is useful to adapt discourse-analytical principles of textual analysis. Critical discourse analysis is one approach of discourse analysis that offers several analytical properties that can be used for this purpose. Locke (2004) compiled a table that gives an overview of these properties as defined by Fairclough (1992).14 It was modified to suit this research by exchanging the
analytical property of text structure for intertextuality:
Table 1
Textual properties in critical discourse analysis
Vocabulary Grammar Coherence Intertextuality
- Wording - Evaluative meaning - Metaphors and other figures of speech - Modality
- Transitivity - Connectives - Argumentation - Sentence structure
- Quotations - Allusion - Juxtaposition
Note: Based on Fairclough (1992) and Locke (2004).
An important focus of textual analysis is vocabulary, i.e. the choice of wording. Meaning can be worded in a variety of ways, which informs a specific way of understanding the world (Locke, 2004, p. 50). Words with evaluative meaning can influence how certain aspects of reality are perceived, for example when used in the description of others (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 38).15 Vocabulary as a category also includes metaphors,16
13 In this context, canvas or stage can be understood both as a physical location (such as the village
of Bornhagen) and as media in general (such as websites, videos, newspapers, and so on).
14 “Table 4.1. Fairclough: Text analysis” (Locke, 2004, p. 46).
15 Specific adjectival and verbal choices can support processes of polarization and othering through
which certain groups of people are being framed as inferior to create a positive self-image for the rest.
16 Fairclough’s (1992) category of metaphor also includes other, similar stylistic devices, such as
22 which constitute important framing devices because they “structure the way we think and the way we act, and our systems of knowledge and belief, in a pervasive and fundamental way” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 194). Over time, metaphors might become naturalized, making them tacit (Locke, 2004, p. 51). From a multimodal perspective, metaphors are used in linguistic and visual modes (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 44).
Besides vocabulary, textual analysis also focuses on grammar. Two of the most important grammatical aspects are modality and transitivity. Modality refers to the conviction or strength with which certain statements or propositions are supported by the author or speaker, thereby showcasing the level of certainty, commitment, and affinity (Locke, 2004, p. 47). For example, truth or doubt are forms of modality. Modality affects the extent to which interpretations are portrayed as facts and ‘common sense’ or as uncertain and ambiguous (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 84). Modality is signified by the use of modal verbs and adverbials (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 42). Transitivity on the other hand refers to the manner in which events and occurrences are described and connected to subjects and objects: “Who does what to whom, and what happens without intervention from actors” (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 41). This can influence the framing greatly since, for example, passive verb constructions remove an active agent and portray something as true, inevitable, and ‘natural’.
On the level of text, coherence is an important property, meaning the way sentences relate to one another and form argumentative and meaning-making structures (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 42). This is done through the use of connectives (such as because, therefore, and thus), referring to other parts of the text, and text-connecting features, such as ellipsis, parallelisms, and repetitions among others (Locke, 2004, p. 48; Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 43).
Finally, intertextuality deals with how one particular text relates to other texts and discourses (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 7). Actors draw on existing texts when interpreting and reacting to other framed interpretations of reality (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 7). Therefore, by focusing on the aspect of intertextuality, one can study the reproduction and modification of discourses (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 7). Markers
23 of intertextuality are quotations, references, and allusions as implicit or hidden forms of referencing.
Other stylistic devices that are of importance are juxtapositions to compare and contrast two different concepts, ideas or elements, hyperboles to exaggerate and add emphasis, euphemisms to de-emphasize and divert attention, and the use of rhetorical questions (Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008, p. 43).
3.2.
Analytical Structure
The analysis of the performance Holocaust-Mahnmal Bornhagen is based on the model for
dramatic structure developed by the German dramatist Freytag (1894/1900),17 which has
become known as Freytag’s pyramid. While some scholars like Pfister (1988) criticize Freytag for supposedly attempting to “turn what had already become a historically rather restricted method of composition into a normative absolute” (p. 240), others have emphasized that his model has proven to be useful to analyze plot structure and development. Relating this to the case in question, his model provides the opportunity to analyze a performance as a coherent story. Freytag describes the plot of dramatic narratives as based on a pyramid-like structure consisting of five acts:
It rises from the introduction with the entrance of the exciting forces to the climax, and falls from here to the catastrophe. Between these three parts lie (the parts of) the rise and the fall. […] These parts of the drama, (a) introduction, (b) rise, (c) climax, (d) return or fall, (e) catastrophe, have each what is peculiar in purpose and in construction”.
(Freytag, 1894/1900, pp. 114–115; emphasis in original)
According to Freytag, the (a) introduction usually consists of three parts. First, it includes a prologue presupposing the action (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 115). Second, the exposition introduces the setting, the dramatis personæ , and the initial conflict. Third, a moment of “exciting force” (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 120) occurs at the end of the exposition that intensifies the conflict and provides the central motive for the rest of the story (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 121). In the second act, the (b) rise, the action set in motion in the first act picks up pace (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 125). A set of events occurs, building towards the
17 In his book, The Technique of Drama (1894/1900), Freytag analyses and discusses various dramas
(examples include works by Shakespeare, Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller) to identify patterns of dramatic narratives.
24 climax. The third act, the (c) climax, marks a turning point in the story where the results of the events of the previous act are experienced by the characters (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 128). It is also the moment of greatest tension and uncertainty. This leads to the fourth act, the (d) return or fall, in which the conflict unravels dramatically (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 133). Usually a new source of drama in form of a moment of final suspense is introduced to maintain the interest of the audience and to create doubt about the final outcome of the story (Freytag, 1894/1900, pp. 135–136). Lastly, the fifth and last act, the (e) catastrophe, serves as the conclusion of the story, which restores a state of normality. Most often the characters have to face the consequences of their actions (Freytag, 1894/1900, p. 139). In some cases, this is followed by the story’s denouement that showcases the aftermath of the events.
3.3.
Selected Data and Qualitative Coding
The performance comprises of a variety of multimodal documents that must be included in the analysis. Due to the considerable number of sources used in this research, the selected data was arranged similarly to the analysis to provide a clear overview:
Table 2
Selected sources of data
Act 1 Björn Höcke’s speech
- Speech by Björn Höcke, Dresden, January 17, 2017 (V) (T)a
- Statement by Björn Höcke, January 18, 2017 (T)
- Letter by Björn Höcke to members of the AfD, January 18, 2017 (T) - Various news articles
Self-portrayal
- Interview with Björn Höcke (V)
- Article focusing on Björn Höcke’s public image (T)
Act 2 Making-of
- Radio documentary about the staging of the performance (A) - Article about the staging of the performance (T)
- Presentation by the ZPS at the Chaos Communication Congress 2017 (V)b
Act 3 Material released by the ZPS
- Promo video (V)
- Webpage: deine-stele.de (W)c
- Presentation by the ZPS at the Chaos Communication Congress 2017 (V)
25
Reactions
- Various news articles (T) - Various opinion pieces (T)
- Statement by Christian Carius, Thuringian State Parliament, November 22, 2017 (V)
- Statement by Björn Höcke at the Compact Conference, Leipzig, November 25, 2017 (V)
Legal consequences
- Various news articles (T)
- Verdict, Cologne District Court, March 14, 2018 (T)
Act 4 - Webpage: landolf-ladig.de (W)
- Analysis by Andreas Kemper (T) - Various articles (T)
- Presentation by the ZPS at the Chaos Communication Congress 2017 (V)
Act 5 - Reveal video by the ZPS (V)
- Various news articles (T)
Epilogue - Federal press conference, April 5, 2019 (V)
- Various news articles (T) - Various twitter messages (T) - Statement by the ZPS (W)
- Statement by the Maxim Gorki Theatre (T)
- Open letter by various German artists supporting the ZPS (T)
Note: Audio (A), Text (T), Video (V), Webpage (W).
a (T) only refers to written text in this table.
b The ZPS used a variety of semiotic resources in this presentation.
c Webpages (W) are multimodal documents, meaning they not only contain written text, but also videos,
images, audio files, and so on.
About 95 written texts (news articles, opinion pieces, statements, twitter messages, and so on), eight videos, three webpages, and one radio program were analyzed as part of this research.
Print media was one of the key data sources since news articles were used to reconstruct the performance. Moreover, one part of the analysis specifically focuses on journalists as signifying agents who participate in the discursive struggle over meaning by framing the ZPS and the performance in a certain way (Mautner, 2008, p. 32). However, this entails a significant challenge as the amount of relevant data that has been produced by media outlets is huge. For this reason, representative sampling was carried out (Lindekilde, 2014, p. 212). When doing representative sampling of politically polarized
26 topics, the data needs to reflect the entire political spectrum (Mautner, 2008, p. 37). Therefore, the following five daily newspapers were selected: (1) die Tageszeitung or taz (green/new left), (2) Frankfurter Rundschau or FR (left-liberal), (3) Süddeutsche Zeitung or
SZ (center-left), (4) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or FAZ (center-right), and (5) Die Welt
(conservative). 18 Other selection criteria were: (1) a circulation at a minimum of 50,000
copies, (2) quality journalism, and (3) at least one opinion piece that was written about the performance. Opinion pieces are an important data source to analyze framing practices by media agents. The selected data was then coded according to the following categories:
Table 2 Dramaturgical categories Scripting Staging - Strategies - Narratives/Storylines - Purpose
- Roles (dramatis personæ)
- Management of resources (settings, audiences, funds, people) - Backstage control - Publicity activities Setting Performance - Canvases/Stages - Semiotic resources o Imagery/Cinematography o Sound/Music o Costumes/Make-Up o Props - Spoken language - Kinetic features - Performance of audiences o Interpretation o Reaction - Tactics
Note: Based on Benford and Hunt (1992), Hajer (2005a), and multimodal principles.
This was done with the help of software for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. The program MAXQDA was used to code the data according to the pre-established categories.19 The analysis is based on these coding results.
18 Eilders (2002) confirms this in her study in which she analyzed the political positions of these
daily newspapers between 1994 and 1998. She locates the FAZ and Die Welt at the right side of the political spectrum, the FR and the taz at the left side, and SZ in the middle (p. 48).
27
3.4.
Ethical Considerations and Limitations
Regarding ethical considerations, when conducting a critical discourse analysis there seems to be a “risk that the results may be used as a resource in social engineering […] whereby discourse research is employed to alter discursive practices and also to train people to use new forms of discursive practice” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 88). While it is debatable to what extent this concern is applicable to this research, this research was conducted reflectively of the way this thesis could impact the lives of other people, both directly and indirectly. Not inflicting harm on other people in any way is an important part of maintaining one’s integrity as a researcher. With that said, only publicly available sources were used in this research. For this reason, there are no considerable ethical considerations related to the research design that has been outlined. There are a few potential limitations though that will be addressed now.
First, developing a multiperspectival framework can be useful to study certain topics. However, when combining different perspectives, the researcher has to ensure that the basic ontological and epistemological premises are consistent and compatible with each other (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 154). Therefore, the theories and methods used in this thesis were all chosen carefully from a social constructionist perspective. Moreover, this form of research requires awareness that the knowledge that can be produced with the help of multiple perspectives may be broader but remains contingent, specific, and context-bound (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 155).
Second, and this is related to the inherent perspectivism of social constructivism just mentioned, discourse analysis and multimodal discourse analysis are both commonly criticized for being highly subjective methods of research as they have a strong interpretive component. Thus, the analysis always seems to be influenced to some extent by the individual perspective of the researcher. This has two far reaching consequences: first, this means that other interpretations can be drawn based on the same data, and second, this problematizes the generalization of research results.
While this point must be conceded, it can never be prevented that the research will be influenced to some extent by the researcher’s perspective. Researchers are part of the societies and cultures they study and therefore share some of the ‘common sense’
28 understandings that exist in these contexts (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 21). Therefore, researchers consciously need to cultivate critical distance. Discourse-analytical approaches can help with that and, at the same time, provide explanations of how meaning is created and challenged (Lindekilde, 2014, p. 211).
Despite these limitations, which are not neglectable and must be reflected upon critically, the presented methodological framework still appears to be the best way to approach and answer the research question. Moreover, the combination of different discourse-analytical approaches might prove to be fruitful. This is related to the production of new knowledge, emphasizing the need to promote new understandings in a field that is at least partly governed by conservatism (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 172). To minimize possible drawbacks inherent in the chosen methods, the analysis will be made as transparently as possible so that others can come to their own conclusions based on the data and interpretation that this thesis presents (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 173).
