Master’s Thesis
The Wall in German Minds
A Mixed-Method Approach to Elaborate on the Effect of Relative Deprivation
as a Barrier to the German Reunification.
by
Helen Krueger-Janson
Student:
Helen Krueger-Janson Student No.: 12475122 Course: Civil Conflicts
Master of Science in Political Economy Department of Graduate Social Sciences Universiteit van Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Mike Medeiros Department of Political Science Universiteit van Amsterdam Second reader: Tom van der Meer Department of Political Science
East German protesters after the reunification in 1991 on a Monday protest with a banner saying, “We were working people, now we’re people without work”.
Abstract __________________________________________________________________ 6 1. Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 7 2. The Current State of Research ___________________________________________ 9
2.1. Non-Violent Conflicts _____________________________________________________ 9
2.2. Post-Communist Countries ________________________________________________ 10
2.3. Reference Groups _______________________________________________________ 11
2.4. Relative Deprivation _____________________________________________________ 12
2.5. Case Presentation ________________________________________________________ 18
2.5.1. The German Reunification: Product of a Peaceful Revolution __________________________ 18 2.5.2. Post-Reunification: Non-Violent Conflicts _________________________________________ 19 2.5.3. The End of the Euphoria ________________________________________________________ 21
2.6. Research Gap ___________________________________________________________ 25
2.7. Research Question _______________________________________________________ 25
3. Theoretical Framework ________________________________________________ 26
3.1. The Theory of Relative Deprivation ________________________________________ 26
3.1.1. The Relative Deprivation of East Germans _________________________________________ 29
3.2. The Theory of Social Identity ______________________________________________ 31
3.2.1. West Germans as Reference Group of East Germans _________________________________ 32 3.2.2. The Challenged Social Identity of East Germans _____________________________________ 33
3.3. Hypotheses _____________________________________________________________ 34 4. Research Design _______________________________________________________ 36 4.1. Quantitative Data ________________________________________________________ 36 4.1.1. Independent variables __________________________________________________________ 37 4.1.2. Dependent variables ___________________________________________________________ 39 4.1.3. Control Variables _____________________________________________________________ 42 4.1.4. Data Strategy ________________________________________________________________ 44 4.1.5. Sample _____________________________________________________________________ 44 4.2. Qualitative Data _________________________________________________________ 45 4.2.1. Sample Strategy ______________________________________________________________ 46 4.2.2. Sample _____________________________________________________________________ 46 4.2.3. Interview Design ______________________________________________________________ 47
4.2.4. Ethics ______________________________________________________________________ 48 5. Results ______________________________________________________________ 48 5.1. Quantitative Data ________________________________________________________ 49 5.1.1. RD of East Germans ___________________________________________________________ 49 5.1.2. Life Satisfaction ______________________________________________________________ 50 5.1.3. Alignment Progress ___________________________________________________________ 51 5.1.4. Government Efforts ___________________________________________________________ 53 5.1.5. Alignment Satisfaction _________________________________________________________ 54 5.1.6. Attitudes Towards Socialism ____________________________________________________ 55 5.1.7. Democracy Attitude ___________________________________________________________ 55 5.2. Qualitative Data _________________________________________________________ 57 5.2.1. RD of East Germans ___________________________________________________________ 57 5.2.2. Life Satisfaction ______________________________________________________________ 60 5.2.3. Alignment Progress ___________________________________________________________ 60 5.2.4. Government Efforts ___________________________________________________________ 61 5.2.5. Attitude Towards Socialism _____________________________________________________ 61 5.2.6. Democracy Attitude ___________________________________________________________ 62 6. Discussion ____________________________________________________________ 62 6.1. Implications ____________________________________________________________ 65 6.2. Limitations _____________________________________________________________ 65 7. Conclusion ___________________________________________________________ 67 Bibliography _____________________________________________________________ 69 Online sources _________________________________________________________________ 80 Appendix ________________________________________________________________ 82
Krueger-Janson, Helen (2020): The Wall in German Minds. A Mixed-Method Approach to Elaborate the Effect of Relative Deprivation as a Barrier to the German Reunification. Master of Science (Political Economy), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
This paper targets the scientific explanation of the relationship between relative deprivation, social identity management and the perceived progress of the German reunification amongst East Germans in 1991. Relative deprivation (RD) amongst East Germans was expected to cause a lack of social reunification due to the expectation that RD clouds the view of East Germans on real alignment progress which can worsen the progress of a social reunification. In fact, individual RD has a moderate negative effect on how East Germans evaluate the progress of the reunification, a weak effect on how East Germans assess the government alignment efforts and a moderate effect on how satisfied East Germans are with the alignment progress. No matter how deprived East Germans were in 1991, no one wished for a return of socialism. But RD does have a moderate negative effect on how East Germans evaluate democracy. A sense of resentment towards the system regards a very critical examination of the new system which is praised by politicians. In total, the effects of individual RD were stronger than of group RD. KEY WORDS: Relative Deprivation, East Germany, Reunification, United Germany, Socialism, Democracy, Social Identity, Upward Mobility
1. Introduction
Physically divided by a wall, East Germany as German Democratic Republic (GDR) was run by a socialist regime under the supervision of the Soviet Union, West Germany as Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) by the allies of UK, France and US in the capitalist system with a social market economy. “According to most sociologists and political scientists, the desire for better material living conditions was the most important motivation for East Germans to stand up against the socialist regime of the former GDR in 1989” (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 321). The transformation of the wish of East Germans to exit the GDR system into the wish to unite with West Germany was symbolized with the “shift of sloganeering in the winter of 1989 from the notion ‘We are the people’ to ‘We are one people’” (Middel 1996: 61). When the reunification finally came in 1990 after 40 years of different political systems, it left the two Germanies with an invisible social wall. Wagner (1991) describes “West Germany as more Americanized, hedonistic and individualistic; whereas the East has retained more traditionally German characteristics (reliance on tradition, moralistic, community oriented) as well as being more egalitarian oriented” (Fischer et. al. 2007: 164). The former Wall allowed little to no cross-border contact between East and West Germans which led to considerable cultural differences between both populations (ibid.). The identity of Germans was divided into two possible categories with East Germans being Ossis and West Germans being Wessis (cf. Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). The Ossis were thought of with a certain “East German particularism’ and the practices of Ostalgie” (i.e. Eastalgia, a nostalgia for the East) likely to wish back for socialism (Gallinat 2008: 665). This rhetoric division didn’t stop with the reunification but was kept as the main categories for statistics, political campaigns and media coverage (ibid.).
East Germans had to adapt to an awful lot of things as “political, legal, and economic unification was and still is a one-sided assimilation of former East Germany to former West Germany” because West Germany provided the standards for East Germany in many aspects (ibid.). Suddenly work was not generated by the state anymore but has to be earned under the rule of competition on the free market. East German companies and industries were being closed by West German authorities as they are seen as non-compatible in the capitalist market, leading to East Germans losing their jobs and suddenly having to integrate into a system that couldn’t be more contrary to the one they grew up in. Ironically the pursuit of a monetary, economic and social union was planned to be conducted through the alignment of East Germans to Western standards (N.A. 2001: 219).
average amount of savings was three times higher in West Germany, and the unemployment rate was twice as high in East Germany (cf. Schmitt, Maes 2002: 321). According to Liebig et. al. (2014: 106), even by 2014 East Germans didn’t feel paid justly for their work compared to West Germans. And East Germans were “confronted with the better living conditions in West Germany and other parts of the world” (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 321). These “rising aspirations fuelled by politicians and the media, and subsequent negative comparison processes” worsened the regional mood (Koschate et. al. 2012: 304; Haeger et. al. 1996). It left East Germans feeling deprived compared to West Germans, who become their ‘standard of reference’, but weren’t expecting to be put in a social comparison that made them feel permanently inferior to West Germans (Koschate et. al. 2012: 304). This seems “to have created a sense of relative deprivation (RD) and negative identity in the East German population” (ibid.). Consequently, East Germans entered a non-violent conflict protesting in Montagsdemonstrationen (Monday protests) trying to play an economic and social role in united Germany.
All this left its mark on the reunification progress. Throughout academic literature the effect of relative deprivation (RD) and a negative East identity is considered inhibitory to the German unification, research highlights the part of blended emotions in this, even though it was never tested (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 3; Howard 1995: 129, Gallinat 2008: 665). How strongly is “the continuation of the ‘[Berlin] wall in people’s minds […] delaying the ‘growing together’ of the nation” (Gallinat 2008: 665)? Following Gallinat’s (2008) question, the following research question was postulated: Does the continuation of the Wall in German minds separate the German nation? Can Relative Deprivation be the Source of a Social Reunification Impediment? The main argument of the thesis is that RD clouds the view of people on how well the German alignment progresses, i.e. that the biased perception of the alignment evoked through RD hinders the affected to correctly re-evaluate the actual deprivation.
The mixed-method approach with qualitative interviews with East Germans and a quantitative data analysis with a pre-existing data set on East German sentiments in 1991 showed that individual RD has a moderate negative effect on how East Germans evaluate the progress of the reunification, a weak effect on how East Germans assess the government alignment efforts and a moderate effect on how satisfied East Germans are with the alignment progress. No matter how deprived East Germans were in 1991, no one wished for a return of socialism. But RD does have a moderate negative effect on how East Germans evaluate democracy. A sense of resentment towards the system regards a very critical examination of
the new system which is praised by politicians. In total, the effects of individual RD were stronger than of group RD.
To present the results of this mixed-method analysis, first, the current state of research will present the nature of non-violent conflicts, briefly present the circumstances of post-communist countries, highlight the scientific importance of reference groups in social situations and explain the literature status on relative deprivation. Afterwards, the case of East Germans in the process of their non-violent conflict with uniting with West Germany will be presented and the social conflicts that resulted from this social merging. Then the disadvantages in the East will be presented. After the case presentation, the research gap will be pointed out and the research question located therein.
With the research question in mind, the chosen theoretical framework of Relative Deprivation Theory and Social Identity Theory will be presented as their relevant findings on the East German case. Then, the hypotheses will be laid out which lead to the research design of this analysis. Here, the quantitative and qualitative research designs will be elaborated individually. Afterwards, the results of both analyses will be presented in the chronology of the hypotheses, and then elaborated in the discussion as well as located in the field of research, list limitations and present an outlook for the findings. The conclusion will summarize the research results.
2. The Current State of Research
The current state of research will present a short insight into general aspects on non-violent conflicts and about the conflict potential of post-communist countries in the transition to democracies. This leads to the overall aspects of regional dissatisfaction, the role of reference groups within that and subsequently the concept of relative deprivation.
2.1. Non-Violent Conflicts
Day et. al. (2015: 129) emphasize that the absence of violence is not equivalent to the absence of a conflict. “Nonviolent action as a distinct category of behavior, which refers to civilian-led action in which unarmed persons confront opponents using coordinated, purposive, sequences of nonviolent methods” such as distributing pamphlets, protests, and strikes (ibid.). “It is […] crucial to distinguish between the simple lack of violence, spontaneous protests that happen to
because scholars often conflate “spontaneous protests that happen to be non-violent and strategic non-violent actions” (Day et. al. 2015: 129).
Sharp (2011:159) marks that a “nonviolent revolution is a whole almost ideological approach”, a violence free behaviour to achieve goals of social change, “to diffuse power and empower the population that has been repressed” by an authoritative leadership or through class struggle. Sitton (1996: 18) defines class struggle by three components: “by the nature of the agents in conflicts, by the objectives of the conflict, by the effects of conflict”. Opp (2000: 30) marks other reasons of political protest as „general discontent (i.e., political, social, and economic discontent and alienation), perceived personal political influence, moral incentives (i.e., the felt moral obligation to protest), and social incentives (integration in protest-promoting social networks)”.Discontent can be defined by the lack life satisfaction and is “an outcome of an evaluation process including social and material aspirations and achievements” (Hadler, Haller 2006: 169). Opp (2000: 29) distinguishes the three aspects of felt discontent: “a resource deficit such as unemployment, discontent with a resource deficit, and the perceived obligation of the state to provide resources”. He argues that deficits in these living conditions “directly affect protest” (ibid.). Stephan & Chenoweth (2008: 7) consider non-violent actions to be more effective in achieving policy goals – contrary to the public opinion.
2.2. Post-Communist Countries
Regional dissatisfaction often takes place in “transition countries” and “transition economies” (Arampatzi et. al. 2015: 2; Easterlin, Plagnol 2008: 433). The second half of the 19th century was marked with post-communist countries transitioning into democracies which “gave rise to new opportunities for political participation” (Opp 2000: 29). People were at last able to express their discontent “without the threat of repression” (ibid.). And the trauma of real socialism’s oppression and the magical aura of the West produced a very special kind of non-critical, affirmative hope (Buck-Morss, Kusiak 2014).
However, the transitions “also brought dramatic changes in factual conditions” (Opp 2000: 29). „Under communist rule, everybody had a place to work and the comprehensive welfare state took care of almost everything. Transition to democracy and the market generated unemployment and the loss of the social security of a planned economy. And „these conditions were created by political decisions”, i.e. either the voters electing a certain party were to blame or the government authorities that installed these (Opp 2000: 29f.). Hence, the former state
apparatus against which one couldn’t rebel against collectively for decades and had to simply accept suddenly became flexible and criticisable. „The transition to democracy spawned a whole complex of changes” that affected all the aspects elaborated in the previous chapter (Opp 2000: 30). Post-communist countries are usually „not in any immediate danger of reverting to authoritarian rule. At the same time, the progress of political and economic transformations has been uneven” (Ekiert, Kubik 1998: 547). Also, a regime change such as from communism to capitalism, “a situation, which seldom occurs in Western democracies, offers a new opportunity and a new challenge to address the question of how deteriorating or adverse living conditions as well as discontent with these conditions affect political protest” (Opp 2000: 30). Interestingly, “resource mobilization and opportunity structure theory suggest that resource deficits decrease protest, but after the collapse of communism it is plausible that they raise protest” (Opp 2000: 29).
2.3. Reference Groups
The concept of reference groups was first addressed by Robert K. Merton (1950) and targets the concept “a group or collectivity that is used as a standard or frame of reference by an individual in evaluating his or her own abilities, attitudes, or beliefs or in choosing a behavior” (Kuipers 2010: 684). “These groups […] exert their influence as reference group in a purely passive way, simply by being thought of” (Johnson 1960: 39). Reference groups help people orientate and “may comprise noninteracting individuals, status categories, or members of social groups” (ibid.). “Those groups may be positive (used to provide standards of comparison or as sources for values, norms, and attitudes) or negative (used to provide standards of comparison in direct opposition with those of the group or as sources of values, norms, and attitudes formed in direct opposition to the group)” (Kuipers 2010: 684). Kuipers (2010: 684) and Hyman (1949) highlight the “distinction between objective and subjective status” regarding the personal position compared to the reference group, as “it is a person’s conception of his or her own position in comparisons with others”. Hereby, people “rarely used the total population as a reference group but rather used smaller, more intimate groups” (Kuipers 2010: 684). Following Johnson’s (1960: 39f.) framework, another group is a reference group if either of the following circumstances prevail:
1. Some or all the members of the group aspire to membership in the second group 2. The members of the group strive to be like the members of the reference group
of the reference group
4. The members of the group appraise their own group using the reference group as a standard for comparison
Group members aspiring the membership in their reference group (1.) often chose to exit their own group. This is also considered as Upward Mobility and one of the identity management strategies of the Social Identity Theory (SIT) (cf. Koschate et. al. 2012: 293). Upward mobility is often connected with prejudice, because people who wanted to move upwards in a higher social class “distinguish themselves more sharply from the class they were striving to leave” (Johnson 1960: 41). Knowing of a social group or class that is worse off, often gives people a higher sense of appreciation for their own lifestyle, i.e. it made them feel “better off” than people without a reference group that was “worse off” (cf. Johnson 196: 43).
Sherif (1956: 56) discovered that the efforts of highly regarded members of a group are usually overestimated whereas the efforts of the members with low social standing are usually underestimated. “Conflicts among groups are often rooted in a collective sense of injustice” and can be intensified can be intensified through the “separation of their goals” which increases in-group solidarity whereas a “series of cooperative acts reduced friction and conflict”, as the researcher bore out in a practical experiment (Schmitt, Maes 1998: 60, Sherif 1956: 57f.). The enhancement of one’s group identity in distinction to the reference group as mentioned in point 4. is also theoretically covered by the SIT as ingroup bias: enhancing one’s groups social identity in dimensions that aren’t as easily measured as e.g. economic success “depends longitudinally on prior relative deprivation as a source for negative social identity” (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 322; Haeger et al. 1996; Reichl 1997; Kanning, Mummendey 1993; Mummendey et. al. 1998, Blanz et. al. 1998). Cooperation on the other hand takes away prejudice of the other group: when in simple social contact without a common goal, favourable information on outgroup members is ignored or reinterpreted to fit stereotype notions about the group (cf. Sherif 1956: 58). When working together towards a common goal, favourable information is seen in a new light (ibid.).
2.4. Relative Deprivation
In 1950, Stouffer, Merton and Kitt used the concept of Comparative Reference Groups to explain Relative Deprivation (RD) with their founding study “The American Solder” (cf.
Kuipers 2010: 685; Johnson 1960: 40). The researchers observed that „men in the military used different reference groups as a source of comparison and, depending on which group they used, reported feelings of satisfaction and deprivation, feelings that were often inconsistent with their actual levels of suffering” (Kuipers 2010: 685). The military police were actually “more satisfied with their slow rate of promotions than were air corpsmen with their rapid promotion rate” (Smith et. al. 2018: 1183). Hence, the reference group clouded the soldiers’ judgement. “Only when they thought that their suffering was relatively greater than others’ did they express dissatisfaction”, meaning the relative position of theirs compared to a nonmembership reference group was pivotal to the assessment of inferiority (Kuipers 2010: 685; Crosby 1976: 86f.; Johnson 1960: 39; Kitt, Merton 1950). The “judgment that one or one’s ingroup is disadvantaged compared to a relevant referent, and that this judgment invokes feelings of anger, resentment, and entitlement” is called Relative Deprivation (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 1; Walker 2010: 694; Crosby 1976: 88; Smith et. al. 2012: 203; Halevy et. al. 2010: 686). Hirschman (1973) explains the changing tolerance for inequality with the Tunnel Effect. The effect “occurs in situations similar to a traffic congestion in a tunnel where one of the lanes starts moving while the other lanes are still jammed. The people who are still stuck initially feel hope as the end of the traffic jam seems to be in sight. After some time, though, if their lane remains blocked, hope will give way to envy and frustration. In response, these drivers will – perhaps against the law – try to change lanes“ (Arampatzi et. al. 2015: 2f.). This visualizes the concept of Status Inferiority – further explained by the SIT – and manifests when inequality is translated into grievances (Walker, Smith 2002: 12). The counterpart of relative deprivation is relative gratification, the feeling of being entitled to one’s privileged status, a newly established theory (cf. Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 5).
RD is a social psychological concept, based on the assessment through comparison and explains “how people subjectively interpret their (and their reference group’s) position in the larger society that shapes their emotional and behavioral reactions” (Smith et. al. 2012: 203; Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 1, 6). It is a concept “extensively used in social psychology, sociology, and other social sciences for more than half a century” as well as highly utilized in questions of social justice (Walker, Smith 2002: 3; cf. Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 1). A person feeling relatively deprived doesn’t see “oneself responsible or to blame for the deprivation” and the situation is valued as illegitimate e.g. the person feels entitled to be in a different situation (Smith et.al. 2012: 205, 208; cf. Halevy et. al. 2010: 686; Crosby 1976: 88). Here, the comparison with a better-off reference person or group is a necessary but not a sufficient determinant for RD.
operating are:
1. A person makes cognitive comparisons
2. The person makes cognitive appraisals that they or their ingroup are disadvantaged 3. The person perceives these disadvantages as unfair
4. The person resents these unfair and undeserved disadvantages and feels anger/resentment.
As de la Sablonnière et. al. (2015: 104) differentiate, RD involves “two main potential references for comparison: social and temporal”: The RD assessment can be conducted through people’s comparisons of their present situation with their past, future, desired or deserved selves (cf. Smith et. al. 2012: 204; cf. Crosby 1976: 86).
The distinction between individual (‘egoistic’) RD and group (‘fraternal’) RD was first made by Runciman (1966; Smith et. al. 2012: 203; Halevy et. al. 2010: 686; Crosby 1976: 88; Koschate et. al. 2012: 292). When individual RD operates, people feel individually deprived compared to another member of their own group, called an ingroup member or a member of another group, called outgroup member. Group RD operates when people feel that the group of which they are a member of, is deprived compared to another group. Group RD “results from an unfavourable comparison of the ingroup’s social, economic, or other status-relevant outcome with a relevant outgroup’s situation. Thus, group relative deprivation is both a subjective and relative assessment of group inequality” (Koschate et. al. 2012: 292). Examples for these are Afro-Americans in the US and East Germans in the reunified FRG (cf. Halevy et. al. 2010: 686; Crosby 1976: 86; Caplan, Paige 1968.). A requirement for individuals to feel group RD is their self-identification as a group member.
The feeling of entitlement draws the distinction to the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis often connected to the RDT. When RD operates, a person has lack of sense of responsibility for failure to possess the desired X (cf. Crosby 1976: 89). So, if a person doesn’t acquire the desired X, but doesn’t blame himself, RD is very high (cf. Crosby 1976: 91). On the other hand, if a person determines object X not to be feasible or blames himself, RD is very low (cf. Crosby 1976: 91). “Relative deprivation does not always reflect the objective situation but results from an unfavourable discrepancy between the perceived actual situation and an imagined alternative situation” (Koschate et. al. 2012: 291). Research highlights the part of blended emotions in this, an aspect often neglected by researchers and shows how complex the
“relationship between objective deprivation and the subjective experience of disadvantage is” (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 3; Smith et. al. 2012: 207).
Actual and not only perceived disadvantages are easiest assessed through income inequality. Jasso developed the measure J to distinct between actual and as ‘just’ perceived earnings (Figure A). Osborne et. al. (2015) determined that New Zealand citizens that lived in neighbourhoods with larger income inequality reported higher RD levels which predicted lower self-esteem.
Figure A. The distinction measure J between actual and as “just” perceived wages, developed by
Guillermina Jasso.
Smith et. al. (2012: 208) calculated a strong correlation “between subjective measures of relative income comparisons and income satisfaction” which also regards the effect of individual RD on life satisfaction.
Once the judgement of injustice is made, a person will likely feel anger and resentment (cf. Smith et. al. 2012: 203). RD is always due to a subjective assessment and is especially likely to occur, when a person feels that without an intervention, the deprivation couldn’t and wouldn’t change for the better. As a result, RD can lead to certain behaviours: stress symptoms, self-improvement, violence against society or constructive change of society (cf. Crosby 1976: 89). It can also have significant effects on a person’s mental health. Anger in particular can predict engagement in future political protests, as Grant et. al. established with testing deprived immigrant Canadians. “Psychological stress, depression, and personal responses to disadvantage were more closely related” to individual RD (Smith, Ortiz 2002: 92). RD as an explanation for collective action hasn’t been fulfilled (cf. Smith, Ortiz 2002: 91)
Research (Van den Bos, van Veldhuizen 2015; Smith et. al. 2018) on individual RD and group RD shows stronger effects for individual RD, however, this varies throughout research. As seen in the research of Smith et. al. (2018) and van den Bos et. al. (2015), “the antecedents and the consequences of RD are the product of specific historical, cultural and […] experimental contexts” which explains why “the same disadvantage framed in different ways will lead to different reactions” (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 2). “The relative distance between the positions of the perceiver and the target” and “the role of blended emotions in people’s
3).
In the academic literature, individual and group RD lead to different outcomes. Individual RD can lead to a decrease in mental health, life satisfaction and prejudices against other social groups (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 2). ‘Generalized prejudice’ as a concept first uncovered by Hartley (1946) and Allport (1954). Smith et. al. (2018: 1198) establish the surprising results that increased individual RD “more strongly predicts increased negative attitudes toward immigrants” for students from more collectivistic countries (i.e. more altruistic) in comparison with students from more individualistic countries (i.e. less altruistic). RD can also impact the satisfaction with a government as a cross-level impact of individual RD on a collective entity (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 2).
But RD can result in more than prejudices and attitude changes. “It is feelings of Group RD, not personal RD that promote political protest and active attempts to change the social system” (Smith, Ortiz 2002: 92). Also, the strongest results in academia so far are on group RD i.e. when an authority represents an important reference group, “unfair treatment is related to decreased feelings of respect and self-esteem” (Smith, Ortiz 2002: 92). Also, group RD predicted political trust more strongly for students who lived in countries marked by lower power distance than with authoritative regimes (cf. Smith et. al. 2018: 1183).
Any moderating variables of RD “specify the contingencies by which felt deprivation is translated into the various resultant behaviours” (Crosby 1976: 90). Osborne & Sibley (2015) underline further the importance of emotions as mediators of RD effects. The researchers focus on group RD and “show that it predicts increased warmth toward the ingroup and reduced warmth toward the outgroup” (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 3). De la Sablonnière et. al. (de la Sablonnière et. al. 2015: 103) determine times of social change as a moderator of RD. Dramatic social change can entail earthquakes, “the Fall of Apartheid and the breakdown of the Soviet Union” or the Arab Spring. “All these examples illustrate a rupture in the equilibrium of social structures” (ibid.). Social change makes people re-evaluate their situation. Thus, it can abate or enhance former levels of RD. The research group (2015: 102) further argues that “during times of profound change people’s psychological well- being is related to their assessment of their path from the past to the future”. A concept called ‘temporal relative deprivation’. So far, research on temporal deprivation (Walker 1999; de la Sablonnière & Tougas, 2008; Zagefka & Brown, 2005) has been very inconsistent and usually focused on only one single comparison point rather than multiple ones (cf. de la Sablonnière 2015:103). Using multiple comparison points, de la Sablonnière et. al. (2015) show that “members of disadvantaged groups […] who
harbored expectations for low future RD had higher levels of well-being” (Smith et. al. 2018: 4). But advantageous groups “reported higher levels of well-being if they believed that RD levels would remain steady (and low) than if they thought high past RD levels might decrease over time” (ibid.). Here, the preference of advantageous groups for a status quo and the preference of disadvantageous group for betterment become salient.
Also, Role expectations have to be considered as a mediator because in any social situation, people have “some kind of awareness of the group expectations as to an act affecting the group” (Stouffer 1949: 710).
Cultural differences can also moderate the effect of RD. Smith et. al. (2018: 1183, cf. 1185; Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 3) tested the effect of national cultural differences (individualistic, collectivistic) and power distance (low, high) on RD. “Members of individualistic cultures tend to define their self-image in terms of their unique qualities and focus on individual achievement and autonomy”, whereas “members of collectivistic cultures tend to define their self-image in terms of their important reference groups and focus on the extent to which their goals and achievements reflect their interdependence with important others” (Smith et. al. 2018: 1185). The researchers (Smith et. al. 2018: 1183) evaluated that “RD is more likely to motivate reactions within individualistic countries that emphasize individual agency and achievement as a source of self-worth” ranging from life satisfaction to collective action rather than in collectivistic countries that emphasizes community. This traces back to individualistic cultures judging “wider variety of resource distributions as unfair” because they “prefer equal treatment and consistent justice rules” and collectivistic cultures are viewing “tenure, relationships and social skills as appropriate criteria for outcome distributions” because they are “more willing to accept rules and hierarchies based on group attributes and particular relationships” (Smith et. al. 2018: 1185; Silva, Caetano 2016). Also ingroup bias, the enhancement of a deprived group’s social identity on social dimensions, is considered a moderator of RD (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 321).
RD is prescribed a lack of explanatory power on post hoc explanations for unexpected relationships such as the results from The American Soldier (Smith, Pettigrew 2015: 5). Stouffer reasoned that the lack of explanatory power was due to the fact of local comparisons: “satisfaction is relative to the available comparisons that we have” i.e. not people we rarely interact with (Smith et al. 2018: 1183). Smith et. al. (ibid.) conclude that “social judgements are shaped not only by absolute standards but also by standards set by social and temporal comparisons”. Smith & Ortiz (2002: 92) assume that non-linear analysis levels of RD, i.e. testing individual RD on group outcomes and testing group RD on attitude changes in
a person who feels deprived won’t engage in collective action, “but only if the person feels deprived on behalf of a relevant reference group” (ibid.).
2.5. Case Presentation
East Germany at the height of the reunification was a perfect example for a profoundly transitioning country with a socialist-collectivist culture merging with a capitalist-individualist culture. All under the unique circumstance that East Germany was closed off from the West and was then annexed to exist under the same polity with a formerly other nation that was behind guarded borders for 40 years. This isolation allows a quasi-experiment on how much the perceived disadvantages with this new-found reference group clouds the perception of East Germans on how well the alignment of East-West conditions actually proceeds.
The fact that all these institutional changes were conducted by a foreign-felt government could direct the feelings of anger and resentment towards the West German authorities, i.e. government rather than West Germans who possess these advantages (cf. Opp 2000: 30).
This chapter presents the peacefulness of the German unification and the followed non-violent conflicts that the unification measures inflicted on East Germans. Then the resulting disadvantages of East Germans will be presented and finally, West Germans elaborated as their reference group.
2.5.1. The German Reunification: Product of a Peaceful Revolution
The regime change of the East German region from the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) regime into a parliamentary democracy was a peaceful revolution (Hadjar 2003: 107). East Germans did engage in non-violent behaviour such as the Monday protests from 1989-1990 demanding “Keine Gewalt (no violence), Freie Wahlen (free elections), Freiheit (freedom) or Die Mauer muss weg (the wall has to go)” (N.A. 2010). The demonstrations were an approach to actively address their demands for a peacefully introduced new democratic order of the state and the end of the SED regime through non-violent contentious actions rather than passive submission (cf. Day et. al. 2015: 129; Sharp 1973: 65). The Monday protests weren’t spontaneous or occasional incidents but had a strong organisation behind them. “By the mid-1980s, a number of groups, structured according to the principles of grassroot democracy, existed under the roof of the Protestant church”: peace groups, civil rights groups, and
environmental groups organised peace prayers, human chains, appeals, distributed pamphlets, and released manifestos (Hadjar 2003: 109, cf. 107; Findeis et. al. 1994). “The task was to carry on political aims without giving the GDR state any reason to take action against the protesters” and the slogan “Wir sind das Volk” (we are the people) rose to the motto of the revolution (Hadjar 2003: 111; cf. Gröschner 2009: 1025.). Slowly transforming into the slogan “Wir sind ein Volk” (we are one people) to express the wish to unite with West Germany. The oppressive SED regime had led objectors of the state to gather at the church, which explains the religious origins of the opposition.
When the Stasi (State Security Service) intensified their actions out of fear for a fall of the regime and deployed the army and additional police forces using water cannons and arresting countless protesters, other protestors damaged property and threw stones (cf. Hadjar 2003: 118). With such few exceptions, the Monday protests remained non-violent (cf. Gröschner 2009: 1025). Which was in line with the declared intention of the Monday protestors to renounce violence and thus to demonstrate “peacefully and without weapons” in the sense of the constitutional freedom of assembly (Gröschner 2009: 1025). In the literature (Hadjar 2003; Gröschner 2009), this is explained through the “internalisation of particular religious and pacifist values” amongst East Germans and highlights the “the revolutionary potential of protest” (Hadjar 2003: 108; cf. Hadjar 2003: 109; Gröschner 2009: 1025). Overall, the GDR opposition movement was a pacifist peace movement that values high levels of humanism and peacefulness but were also peaceful due to fear of the regime (cf. Hadjar 2003: 126f.). The non-violent protests made a significant contribution to the peaceful revolution of 1989 and subsequently, the opening of the Wall and the worldwide trend of the collapse of communism (cf. Hadjar 2003: 108).
2.5.2. Post-Reunification: Non-Violent Conflicts
Post reunification, the expectations of the population were strongly oriented towards a growing ‘uniformity of living conditions’ (cf. Huschka 2002: 6). Under the Unification Treaty, the FRG took over the assets and liabilities of the GDR in October 1990 (Augstein 2010). The West German Treuhandanstalt (Privatization agency) handled the transformation of the East German planned-economy companies into the capitalist free-market economy. West German investors and their know-how was necessary to make the jump from a planned economy structure into the free market. In total 85 percent of the companies went to West German investors and the remaining 15 did not stay with the East Germans but went to foreign investors (Adler 2019).
liquidated by the agency and famously sold for 1 Deutsche Mark (DM)1 (NDR Nordmagazin 2020; Adler 2019). The agency run by West German managers, although two thirds of the agents were East Germans and one third West Germans (Adler 2019). The privatization agency deindustrialised East Germany on a large scale and has thus set back the East to this day (Adler 2019). It directly affected the monetary misery of many East Germans and in a way, the criticism of the agency overshadows the public discourse on the East German hardship being rooted in the SED-led government and the planned-economy until today. It wiped out the GDR economy, so the public discourse, a public rhetoric that deepened the rifts between East and West (Adler 2019). To East Germans this portrayed the image of being run over and captured. In Saxony, comparisons of the East German situation to Germany post-war made their way into the public rhetoric (Adler 2019).
The agency’s measures led to many protests in East Germany and what followed was an immediate labour conflict (cf. Turner 1998: 3). “With 40 percent real unemployment and massive job insecurity in the East”, the German metalworkers’ union IG Metall announced warning strikes, marches, and demonstrations to reach better working conditions (Turner 1998: 4). On April 1st, 1994, the first organized warning strike took place against the employers’ union Gesamtmetall – whose leaders were convinced that East Germans “had no stomach for a real strike” and couldn’t hold out in a protracted conflict – participating over 5000 people in Rostock and was followed by the like over the next six weeks (Turner 1998: 5; cf. Turner 1998: 8f.). According to Day et. al.’s (2015: 131) framework of event types, these actions can be defined as a coordinated campaign as the strikes were organised and took place over a time span longer than one week with more than 10.000 protestors in total. Now, the agents of this conflict were the East Germans and the West German authorities with East Germans finally being part of their society which they had wanted for so many years. This certainly played a role in the non-violent nature of the East-West German conflict which was not critical enough to engage in a violent conflict.
Socially, the conflict was of a different nature. Teachers from East Germany that were qualified under their system had to go through additional training which implies a lack of qualification (cf. Feffer 2014). Common goals for East and West Germans could have been set in a workplace but the regional division and the unattractive East German region for workers from the West inhibited a fast fusion of the societies. And East Germans having a lower social
and perceived educational standards as additional training was necessary certainly felt like they just had to adapt to the Western standards.
In 1993, 60,4% of East Germans (especially in East Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) do see conflicts between both citizen groups, a perception 50,1% of the West Germans (although many in West Berlin) agree with (Huschka 2002). By 1998, the opinion of East Germans had loosened a little and dropped to 57.6%. Among the West Germans, there was a considerable drop to 39% (Huschka 2002: 19). On the whole, the assessment of public cohabitation has improved. Hence, the post-reunification period consists of two major non-violent conflicts: the social conflict of East Germans feeling deprived towards West Germans due to the social and economic gap and the conflict of East Germans feeling neglected by West German authorities because of their disadvantages.
In the end, the demonstrations, strikes and the resentful bicultural realisations remained peaceful which determines the reunification period of the 1990s as a peaceful conflict between the East Germans and the authorities and West Germany and a peaceful social conflict between East Germans and West Germans – more strongly emanating from the East Germans due to the resentment triggered by the feeling of being second class citizens.
2.5.3. The End of the Euphoria
The revolution that was this eagerly desired was accompanied by a great deal of euphoria (cf. Fischer et. al. 2006: 164). East Germans were finally freed from the oppressive SED regime, the wall along the Oder-Neisse line came down, families and friends were able to reunite, the former GDR territory became part of the FRG’s parliamentary democracy, and a German unity was finally formed. The big goal of the reunification in 1990 was to form a monetary, economic and social union from the formerly divided states.
And with the unity of the two German peoples and the urge of “social blending” came the realisation of the social and economic differences between them even though “the political guideline aimed and still aims at transferring West German living conditions to East Germany” (Mummendey et. al. 1999: 262; Middel 1996: 55). Harenberg (1991: 10) describes East and West Germans as “united and different” in line with the distinction that it is a Gesellschaft (society) but not yet a Gemeinschaft (community). First of all, the West German legal and institutional system needed to be transferred to the territory of the former GDR and citizens of the new federal states had to find their way in a new system. West Germany provided, in many ways, the standards for East Germany (cf. Mummendey et al. 1999). Here, infrastructural deficits had and still have to be overcome through financial aid of hundreds of billions of
D-many East Germans, it also conveys dependency and symbolizes inferiority in economic, technical, and scientific performance” (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). Then, the planned economy of the GDR had to be transformed into a market-oriented, social one (cf. Huschka 2002: 3). Economically, in 1989/1990 was a productivity gap of 85% with East Germany lacking drastically behind (cf. Blum 2011: 22). Overall, the “political, legal, and economic unification was and still is a one-sided assimilation of former East Germany to former West Germany” (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310).
For once, this led to a dramatic restructuring combined with massive layoffs, the phase-in of wage parity ruphase-ined employers of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) economically and led to bankruptcies of the regional companies and finally the economic collapse of East Germany also because of “the demise of communist trade unions in East Germany” (Turner 1998: 2, 3f.). What was first expected to lead to a second Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), led to the realisation that East and West have distinctly different growth paths (cf. Blum 2011: 5). The regional division of East and West Germany was the largest gap in economic performance in Europe, together with France (Huschka 2002: 19, 36). Six out of ten industrial jobs were lost after the reunification and unemployment is only the most important dimension in which the unification has left an even larger gap between East and West Germany than in separated times (cf. Deutsche Welle 2019; cf. Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). Unemployment was an unknown phenomenon in the formerly socialist state, by then it occurred on a dramatic scale.
In the FRG and its federal system of 16 states, it’s the responsibility of the states to use that motor for circumstantial alignments (cf. Huschka 2002: 6). Huschka (2002: 41) compared some social and economic denominators of all the German states in 1993 to 1999. In East Germany the unemployment rose from 15,8 % in 1993 to 19% in 1999, especially in the states Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania it was significantly high (Huschka 2002: 16). The fear of becoming unemployed, however, sunk accordingly from 24,1% in 1993 to 19,4% in 1999. Best off are the West German states Baden-Wuerttemberg (“Baden-Württemberg”) and Bavaria (“Bayern”) with a 6,3% and 6,4% unemployment rate in 1993 and 7,3% and 7,4% in 1999. In West Germany, the fear of becoming unemployed sunk, even though the unemployment rate rose. Maybe the gratitude due to the East-West comparison had an effect here. One could assume, that the unemployment rate and fear of becoming unemployed have an asymmetric relationship. Overall, the unemployment in reunited Germany rose from 9,8% in 1993 to 11,7% in 1999. Interestingly, the satisfaction with the current work occupation in
East Germany was at 7,2 on the 1-10 scale in 1993 and rose to 7,4 in 1999. In the West, the satisfaction remained at 7,7 points. However, the satisfaction with personal health declined in East Germany and accordingly, did the intake of medicine magnify. In West Germany, also more people started taking medicine on a regular basis, but the satisfaction with the personal health rose 0,1%.
In 1991, East Germans earned 41% lower wages than West Germans and stayed 35% under the German mean (Statistisches Bundesamt 2010: 52). And the wages remained asymmetric. As Liebig et. al. (2014: 107) examines, “after the initial wage rises, which were rapid and, measured by productivity, excessive, the process of wage adjustment has almost stagnated since the mid-nineties”. If a worker in East Germany had a job at the end of the 1990s, he still earned less for the same work than workers in West Germany. Over the years the gap became smaller but remains until today. Middel (1996: 60) highlights that with the collapse of old industries the social tensions rose.
The GDP per capita in East Germany was 1995 at 8.598€ and in the West at 25.160€ (Blum 2011: 22). In 1998 the GDP per capita in the East was much lower than of the one of West Germany and among the final lights in the European comparison (Huschka 2002: 42). First, East Germany experienced an economic boost, but that “growth stalled in 1997” (Blum 2011: 6). Until 2000, the gap between East and West has become narrower but remained distinct.
Figure B. East-West divide in GDP per capita, 1991-2010.
In the West German states, 40 years of federal policy resulted in more or less equal living conditions. Despite differences in size, population and birth rates, but also structural preconditions, it has been possible to secure economic and social unity in the long term (cf. Huschka 2002: 5). However, this doesn’t translate to the newly annexed East German states.
situation (cf. Huschka 2002: 7). One indicator of Huschka (2002: 1) on the East German social situation is the satisfaction of having close friends besides one’s family. Here, Lower Saxony, Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate mark the top of the list. East German citizens have gained closer relationships in the decade after the reunification, especially in Saxony, East Berlin and Brandenburg. One indicator that shows no East-West distinction, is the satisfaction with one’s family life. When it comes to life satisfaction, East and West Germany align more within the time span, but on a 1-10 scale, West Germans meet at 7,7 and East Germans at 7,3 – so there is still a gap in 1998, even if smaller than before (Huschka 2002: 19). We can therefore assume, that the Wall had an effect on the social life rather than the family life.
Additionally, East Germans were then at the mercy of the seductions of advertising, tailored for a West German audience with appropriate economic resources. Most obvious became to East German the poorer equipment of their households with high-quality consumer goods.
In the end, the conditions of lower wages, lower wealth levels, less career opportunities, a very limited supply of employment and less luxury led to a mass exodus to the West, especially of the young, well-educated people (cf. Huschka 2002: 4; cf. Wagner 1999). Since 1991 (as of 2008) 2.7 million East Germans had moved into the West, annually, between 24.929 and 90.337 East Germans, whereas 1.6 million West Germans relocated in the East (cf. Statistisches Bundesamt 2019). 43 percent of whom were between 18 and 25 years old (ibid.). This tendency had a peak in 1992, a dip in 1996 and then increased rapidly again (ibid.). West Germany became the new destination for the young East German elite, depriving East Germany of a future generation.
A toll on the East-West German relationship took the official obligation of the Solidaritätszuschlag (solidarity tax) for West Germans which is a reunification tax to support the infrastructural reconstruction of East Germany (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). The tax has repeatedly been criticised by West German politicians and societies. Another stress factor for social tensions is the Länderfinanzausgleich (inter-state fiscal adjustment), a German mechanism to support economically disadvantaged states (measured with the GDP) with financial aid from economically successful states. Usually Hessia, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria are the main giving states that pay the equalization payments of 2-3 percent of their state income (Zimmer 2014: 20). On the receiving end are usually East German states and especially Berlin due to the East-West gap in economic power of roughly 50 percent (Zimmer 2014: 12f.). Publicly there’s a lot of disagreement on this mechanism and many states have
issued legal actions which was possible due to the federal system and expressed their efforts to terminate this constitutional obligation. And the social climate between the East Germans and their reference group starts to take a negative turn. “Existing differences are selectively used and publicized in public discourse and the media, while ignoring communalities and similarities. […] This contributes to a climate of mistrust, misunderstanding and alienation” (Fischer et. al. 2006: 165).
Stipulating that, the effect of the reunification was stronger for the adapting minority group of the East Germans rather than the majority group of annexing West Germans (Fischer et. al. 2006: 163). Overall, East Germans are living in the disadvantageous region of United Germany – suffering from it economically and socially. Until today, a majority of Germans considers the differences between East and West Germany as stronger than their commonalities (Statistisches Bundesamt 2010: 7). It is not obvious which of the individual indicators is responsible for lower life satisfaction, but it is to assume that the combination of deprived conditions leads to a lower life satisfaction.
2.6. Research Gap
<The literature is based on the fact that relative deprivation is subjective, a social psychological concept. Scholars have proven that relative deprivation exists amongst East Germans. They have proven that they use West Germans as reference group and that they thus, suffer from a negative social identity. No research has ever considered if relative deprivation among East Germans due to the comparison with West Germans of a capitalist past and not with fellow post-communist cultures is the reason for a less unified Germany. What if the relative deprivation amongst East Germans can explain the slow social reunification progress of Germany? How strong is the relationship of relative deprivation and the perceived progress of the reunification? Until now, there has also not been an analysis of RD after the reunification that examined RD as a possible source of social a reunification impediment. This study intends to fill that void.
2.7. Research Question
Regarding the current finding in the literature and the lack of German unity, the following research questions guides this study:
Does the continuation of the Wall in German minds separate the German nation? Can
Relative Deprivation be the Source of a Social Reunification Impediment?
The following chapter will present the pillars of the RDT and the findings in the East German case in order to form an elaborate answer to the research question.
3. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework presents the Theory of Relative Deprivation (RDT) and afterwards examines how East Germans suffered from RD. Afterwards the hypotheses are presented.
3.1. The Theory of Relative Deprivation
The RDT addresses an individual’s feeling of unjustly treatment compared to another individual or as a member of a group, compared to another group (Stouffer et. al. 1949; Crosby 1982; Mummendey et al. 1999; Walker & Pettigrew 1984 etc.). It is closely knitted to the Theory of Social Justice and patterns of evolution as in social equity and frustration-aggression (cf. Crosby 1976: 87f.). Gurr (1970) proposed the fitting equation shown in Figure C. to understand RD as one’s expectations without the capabilities to attain these expectations.
Figure C.1. Gurr’s equation of relative deprivation.
Gurr (1970) also introduced three patterns of deprivation: “aspirations of deprivation”, when value expectations rise but value capabilities remain the same; “decremental deprivation” when value expectations remain the same, but the capabilities decline; and “progressive deprivation” when value expectations arise while capabilities decline (cf. Crosby 1976: 89). Finally, Crosby (1976) created a system to integrate all the various theoretical approaches in one inclusive system. The result of her work is the founding stone of today’s RDT. According to Crosby (1976: 98), RD operated when a person has lack of sense of responsibility for failure to possess
the desired X. So, if a person doesn’t acquire the desired X, but doesn’t blame himself, RD is very high (cf. Crosby 1976: 91). On the other hand, if a person determines object X not to be feasible or blames himself, RD is very low (cf. Crosby 1976: 91). Runciman’s (1966) here adds the distinction between daydreams, unrealistic hopes, and actual reality-based aspirations. Based on Crosby’s system, Smith et. al.’s (2012) composed their model as shown in Figure C.2.: RD can be divided into the antecedents, three steps of RD and the outcomes of RD. The antecedents describe personality traits, personal past, the immediate environment, societal dictates and biological needs (cf. Crosby 1976: 89). The first step contains the cognitive comparison of an individual or the member of a group with their own past/future; with ingroup individuals; with outgroup individuals; their ingroup with an outgroup; or their ingroup’s situation with their ingroup’s past/future. In the second step, the individuals recognize a disadvantage and in the third step, the individual’s/ingroup position is perceived as unjust and feelings of anger and resentment occur. After the third step, certain outcomes form due to the RD. These can entail attitude changes and behavioural changes such as stress symptoms, self-improvement, violence against society or constructive change of society (cf. Crosby 1987: 89; Smith et. al. 2012. 203). The outcomes of RD are usually constituted in a way to change the individual or group situation for the better, once the injustice is perceived, however, they can also take a negative turn.
Figure C.2. The Three Steps of Relative Deprivation, its Antecedents and Possible Outcomes.
Individual attitude changes can include stress and mental health decline, or induce behavioural changes including infringements or propensities to delinquent actions, absence from work, bullying, denial actions and escapism; or take a more positive turn to engagement in academic activities, activities for church committees and the engagement with career prospering activities; or stay in the grey area between wanting to achieve betterment and infringement such as moonlighting (cf. Smith et.al. 2012: 208). These individual changes can of course have an effect on people connected with the individual such as family members or friends and induce sympathy and imitations.
Group attitude changes include prejudice against outgroups and stereotyping of outgroups, attitudes towards political policies such as affirmative action or immigration, ingroup identification, nationalism and bias (cf. Smith et. al. 2012: 208). Intergroup attitude changes “include attitudes toward political policies such as affirmative action and immigration, prejudice toward out- groups, and ingroup identification and bias” (Smith et. al. 2012: 208). Group RD can lead to a change of intergroup behaviour, e.g. protest behaviour (cf. Smith et. al. 2012: 208; Koschate et. al. 2012: 292). Once the relative deprivation is experienced due to a
comparison with another group, the attitudes and collective action usually address the advantageous group (cf. Smith et. al. 2012: 209). Forms of group protest entail self-reported rioting, intentionally sabotaging job-performance, readiness to block a road, readiness to block bulldozers or spike trees, readiness to approve violent politics or civil obedience, the willingness to sign petitions, join strikes, or shop electively (Smith et. al. 2012: 208). Just by the size of participants, group RD shows a larger bandwidth of outcomes than individual RD.
3.1.1. The Relative Deprivation of East Germans
The RDT has already been used by various scholars (Haeger et. al. 1996; Kanning, Mummendey 1993; Mummendey, Kessler et. al. 1999; Mummendey et. al. 1999; Schmitt, Maes 1998; Wenzel 2000 etc.) to examine the situation of East Germans being deprived of the West German standards after the reunification (cf. Schmitt, Maes 2002: 309). Mummenday et. al. (1999; cf. Koschate et. al. 2012: 291) argue that it is the reunification that leads to RD, especially among East Germans. In the case of East Germans in united Germany, we can observe all the RD steps of the Smith et. al. (2012: 205) model as well as several outcomes.
The fall of the Wall and the communist GDR introduced extremely rapid social change among primarily East Germans who had to go through the alignment to the West (de la Sablonnière et. al. 2015: 102). As RD “develops from an unfavourable intergroup comparison that should be experienced as unpleasant and aversive”, the reunification made it sheer impossible for East Germans to avoid unfavourable social comparisons with West Germans as ‘East’ and ‘West’ Germany became chronically available social categories in German minds, consolidated in the terms Wessies for West Germans and Ossis for East Germans (Koschate et. al. 2012: 293; Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). The permanent availability of these social categories is often referred to by scholars as the continuation of the Berlin Wall in people’s minds, “a psychological barrier that is delaying the ‘growing together’ of the nation” (Gallinat 2008: 665). This leads to East Germans comparing themselves mainly with West Germans, as they are their main group of reference, and not with other pre-socialist regions adapting to capitalism(Haeger et. al. 1996; Mummendey et al. 1999). West Germany provides, in many ways, the standards for East German perceptions. The distinction is most salient when members of both groups visit the other region or meet outgroup members, in public statistics and their cultural portrayal in the mass media (ibid.). “Due to the asymmetrical nature of the assimilation process almost every comparison with them results in a negative outcome” (Mummendey et. al. 1999b: 263). In the inevitable comparison, East Germans especially perceive their economic disadvantages (Schmitt et. al. 1999). As Liebig et. al. (2014: 108) show, the continuing
income inequality in the East”. According to their regression analyses (ibid: 106f.), the hourly wage is the key element of the perceived injustice. And East Germans do perceive their wages as more unjust than West Germans and assess this as illegitimate and not deserved (Mummendey et. al. 1999). Higher wages are considered more just, and the higher the wages, the more can people afford, and the more others feel deprived of their advantages. Hence, the higher the wage gap between East and West Germans, the higher the RD. The lack of economic success of the East Germans is regarded in the literature as the most important gravitational factor in the uneven reunification process (Liebig et al. 2014: 108).
East Germans felt relatively deprived throughout the post-reunification decade, whereas West Germans never felt relatively deprived (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 317). Schmitt & Maes (2002: 323) demonstrate that the deprivation of East Germans is the highest in the domain of prosperity and labour, and lowest in the domain of humanity and environment. Interestingly, their depression level, self-esteem, mental health and emotional well-being is marginally better if not equal to the West Germans (ibid.). Considering the negative effect of RD on the mental health, the authors refer to the effect of ingroup bias, an identity management strategy explained by the SIT. Concerning the development over time, Koschate et. al (2012: 296, 299) measured clear group RD of East Germans with a decreasing trend. Schmitt & Maes (2002: 323) come to the same conclusion, but an overall increasing RD in the domain of labour.
And finally, the unjustly assessed disadvantages have an effect on the internal states of East Germans. They have higher levels of envy, anxiety, moral outrage, and hopelessness concerning the East-West differences than West Germans (Schmitt, Maes 1998: 69). West Germans have higher levels of guilt, gratefulness and pride (ibid.).
The solidarity payment (Soli) by the West German states (paid with additional income taxes for West Germans) provides East Germany with the necessary financial aid in order to improve the infrastructure, economy and living conditions (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310). But it also leads to a more negative social identity of East Germans as being the dependent group in need (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 311). In most media contexts, East Germans are even portrayed as inferior to West Germans, promoting an asymmetric social image (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 310; Gallinat 2008: 681). After all, people want to be characterized positively and a main source for self-evaluation “is the relative status position of the groups people belong to and identify with” (cf. Mummendey et. al. 1999b: 229). “News, talk shows, etc. often implicitly or explicitly show the relative advantage of West Germans over East Germans (in terms of wealth, opportunities, social status, possession of luxury goods, etc.)” (Fischer et. al 2006: 165f.). East Germans
“perceive their status inferiority as considerably illegitimate” (Mummendey et. al. 1999: 276). As Blanz et. al. (1998: 704) point out, “East Germans meet all of Tajfel’s (1978) criteria for a disadvantaged social group with negative social identity”.
East Germans wish to better the situation for themselves (Mummendey et. al. 1999; Schmitt et. al. 1999; Wenzel 1996, 2000; Haeger et. al. 1996). To Mummendey et. al. (1999: 280) several strategies in line with the SIT engaged by East Germans are a sign of wilful recategorization of their own cultural society.
Schmitt & Maes (2002: 317) tested weak group RD for East Germans in 1996 and 1998 compared to West Germans who didn’t feel deprived. Over time of the decade of the reunification period, group RD of East Germans diminished slowly (Schmitt, Maes 2002: 317). Interestingly, East and West Germans have similar levels of self-esteem, emotional well-being, mental-health and depression, even though West Germans didn’t suffer from deprivation. Hence, the mental effect of RD on East Germans should be questioned.
What now remains is to note that East Germans feel socially and materially deprived towards West Germans on important life dimensions, leaving East Germans feeling inferior in all spheres in United Germany (cf. Schmitt, Maes 2002: 309). Economic success is amongst the most important dimension where East Germans feel deprived to West Germans which will further on play a role in the calculation of RD in this analysis (ibid.: 310).
Worth noting is that even though group RD exists among East Germans, they do not show violent intentions towards West Germans which marks the nonviolent character of the East-West-German conflict. They also don’t engage in independency actions along the lines of the Czechoslovak model or regional conflicts of a similar magnitude as in Italy, Great Britain or France which is mostly due to the intensively repressive regime under the SED party (see Hadjar 2003: 109).
3.2. The Theory of Social Identity
The SIT was introduced in 1979 by Tajfel & Turner and concerns the strive for a positive self-concept of people (cf. Mummendey et. al. 1999: 260). The assumption that “people like to think positively about themselves, they prefer to be evaluated positively, be it by themselves or others” is a core element of the SIT (Mummendey et. al 1999: 260; Mummendey & Brown 2001: 159). This also translates to the group a person identifies with (cf. Mummendey et. al. 2001: 259; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The SIT postulates that “one’s social identity stems from the comparisons between the own category (ingroup) and the category of relevant others
