~4_4 ________________ ~~:oa:.~a:'~G:e~r~"~,a~'~'~S~"~'d~,~·r~s __________________ 1 _____________________________________________________ __ formulicnc.

" . D;~ [eleolo.gisch~, auf ein besrirnmtes Ziel eri chrere feschlc~~mterpretauo~, die uber Jahrhundene hinweg von kler~kaler und d egen:Ohd e~ ~cht betneben wurcic, stellt eben genau das Programm dar von

em ~IC . as urg.enu~ und de: von ihm geu-agene Historismus ab c'Wandl ~ltel urn C

11n ~lgenes, .. hlSt.ollSch rundlcnes BC'Wul1lSein zu entwickdn. g 1,

am h Erhau~~~cred~ Besp~hung des Historumus findet sich be; Riiscn. A!s Quell au Ie ~ elSp~.e Mlcnen die 1819 gegriindetc Einrichrung zur deutschen . Lb:am ung,}e cna.1V'L:t Gemunz:reHlSllJna, some die franzOsist;he IS'}l UlS

d n gerufene E ale ,:,!a~deda. C!>aTti3, die sich dem Erfassen, Katalo ~ier;n

"Qua KII ommen.t~~ren'ddes samthchen, 10 Ihfer nationllien Geschichte noch pJsenten e erunatenaJs WI men.

~ .L I Fur eine ausfUhrliche Aufzahlung samtlicher verarbeiteter QueUen siehe "'Layer. '

Liter.llurverz.e.ichnis

~~her, M({itzet al. Hislorismrs 10rilueransdX!Malerrf!. Tuhingen: Niemeyer 1996 uc ner, ~~~~, i~~;~ un:! BrUfe· Hg. K ad Pornbacher, Cl al. 6. Auf!. Mii~chen;

Goltschni;g, Dietnlllr. !\.141eJialtenZI/T Rezept.m· um lYl"uk,fl7iJfJ3dJlthce r ""--'Biid. ~ro~berg: ScnpLOr, 1974. ~6 Hl!11.

Jaeger, Fnednch und Jorn Rusen. GesdJuhl.e des HlSlOru . E' £;..r.-d. ~Iiinchen; CH Beck, 1991. 1114. ur ","mol?

t.~~~;'h~:~ftL~~ rntt H,~ltpUlw~j?fe BuwofJ)/R. Berlin: UlIste i.n, 1996. , .. ae "g. "u,mlons ,Ul. ~ 810)1"1:.'1": DJntons Tad DII!

rTmllerarhit ImSd.lOIl!J! £ m 7JJeller·L eswllm. Frankfurt· Sch~"sp·,'1 F: .,. un, 1980. 13.7.L . " ~ alLl\.-

Nietzsche, ~rie~rich . . Samlidx ltI'el"ke- KncicheSClldieJllltSf}ll:c in 15 Blinien. Hg. GIOrgIO CoUI und Mattino Mominari Band 1 & 6 M" I d 1980. '. unc len: tv,

Rii~en,Jorn: Kafwrrocvn::ndes HlStalsmlS. Frankfun a.M.: n.p., 1993 TIllers, L~~lSL·A~o~phe.B f/okhtare de 1:, Riuilllicn Fmn;aise 10 Bdt. Pari;: n p 1813.

. . eLpz~: roc aus 18-16 . . , -VLetor, Karl. ~Dle~ellen von Bijchne~ Geschichrsdrama DlI7ta'll' Tr.J« £ _, .

3-1 (1933) : 357.79. ' Ul. 1'1")(»"101 \X'ittkau, Annene. H/jtOlnmlS: li«GesdJu»tedes B~ 1011des Prrii. G'"

Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1992. em. OltUlgen:

D igging D eep: The Pas t Revis ited in Works of

E lfriede Jelinek and Heiner Mi.iller

Dagmar Jaeger

\Vie sind wir so gc,,"urden, ,,"~e wir hculc sind?" (\Xblf 2<1).

U na time that seems obsessed with remen;bering the past by build­ing museums, memorials and monuments,' o ne might as k if tills

obsession works against a time of general amnesia or if this obsession is

lhe very product of allU1esia. In loday's cullure, the construction of Illernory cultivates the past for the present. Questions of n,nioll,d and personal idemity have arisen that are fundamentally bound to .. collective and personal memory. lllUS, the way in which v.-"C organize the pJSt ,1 round us, the content and form of what we remember has to do with who we arc and want to be, both as individuals and as a nalion. That is to sa)\ a COflStruction of PJ.st events for the present that generJtes di:.course.s o f remembr,mce defining and constituting national idemity is not hing less than a political issue.

Questions such as "\'<'ho creates and constnlCts me mor),?" and "For what pmpose?" become important qt1estions to ask in .t lime con­cerned with reorganizing its pJ.St around itself. These ques tio ns, I pro­pose, are esse nt ial questions for the two works 1 would like to

discuss here, WdkenJ-/eimhy Elf riede Jelinek and GeI1lUl'll..1 Too m Be,lm by Heiner Miiller. Both textS were written fo r the thealer and both revisit the Germm pasl. Both te}.1.S reconstruct the past through a collective memory ponra~d in collective subjects. I ask how MUlier and Jelinek te}.walize the past; in other words, willch me mory they aCliv,lte and for what reJ.Son. 1 ultimately argue that Jelinek's and t-.i1i.iller':. reactivation o f memory brings to life a suppressed and repressed collective n-.eOlOI)' Dig­ging deep into two nations ' pasts (East Germanyand AustliJ), which hap­pens in a very literal sense in the two plays, questions a natio nal identity

FoolS (Rl German Sllfdies Volume 8 (200 1)

46 Foclls al German Studies

that for decades freed ilSeU from the fascist past byconstructinga memory that left ou t the links between the past and the present .

David Lovllemhal slales in his book The Pa5l is a F~ Caotry that history and memory may be less distinct as types of knowledge than in their auilUdes lOMrds this knowledge of the past (213). To reevaluate the notion of history and including memorythere-with does not mean that we will have knowledge of the past lim is less value-free or umocem. Ho\'\'ever, doing so problematizes the enUre nouon of traditional histori­cal knov.r1edge. The elevation of memory is not an expansion of the sub. jecuve but rather a conception of the public and the historical; the private and the biographical as indivisibly political.

TItis elevation of private e>,"periences uno the public conscious­ness is what one mighllerm posll11odern historiography(I-futcheon 94). I argue that the postmociem hisloriography that links the personal and col· lective memory to public history and national identity is taken up in the "''arks of bOlh Jelinek and Muller. Both writers speak agamsl a collective memory and nationdl identiry that does not want to expose itS ties to the fAscist past, thus concealing a present fascist identity.

TIle pla}S under discussion were wriuen during different times .md in different countries. GennVlZ..l Taf m &riin was drafted in 1956 and finished U1 1971 in the former GDR U7dkenHeimappeared in 1988 in Austria. Genml1l .. 1 is a series of shorter scenes portraying the so-called fJeJl15dJe Mzst're, Germany's misenble past. These scenes are very often linked to the notion of a failed socialist revolution in Germany in 1918 th,ll brought about the 1949 implementation of socialism in the GDR ·wit hout a m.1SS base (Fehervary84). Muller regards the failure of the left , th,ll culminated in the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkneclu\ as the reason for the continuation of links between the Nazi-Regime and the GDR TIle pl.lyopens with a dialogue betvJeen a man and VIOnun. ntis dialogue articulates the political-economic contradiction that under­lies not only the scene but the entire play. The author analyzes the Ger­nun past by deconstructing the Germania myth and all forms of histOri· cal greamess linked to Germany. In this play, Muller "portrays the move­n~nt of German history as a vicious c)CIe of oppression and violence thai, for the lack of a viable revolutionary basis, perperuany reviulizes itself" (Fehervary 87). Thus, Mi.iller's replay of German hislOrydoes not focus on celebr.lted kings, Kaisers, and chanceUors. What MUller shows is .l. history of destruction and death (e.g. Tafin Berlin).

Digging Deep: Elfriede Jclmek and Herne r Muller 47

\YIdkenHeVl1is a text that consists primanlyof quotes (sometimes left in the original, other times completelyahered) that includes a mono-­logue spoken by a collective subject, "wir." In contrASt to h-hiller's play, there is no dramatic dialogue between dramatic chJ.racters nor any narra­live intervention .. Jelinek takes passages from Holderli.n:s odes .md h~~s; she includes Fichte's RetienandzedeutsdJe NalUlI, conslrtung ,m authenuCity of the German language in contrast to the language of foreigners; she quotes Hegel's ValesIDtm ,il:er el1£ PhJa(pbte de; Gesd)I,!~le that celebrates racism, she equates Heidegger's RekcCKlltsHX/e wlIh NUl Ideolog}~ and she qUOles RAF leners. By means of these quotes, the writer tr.1CCS the ~us­uun/German heritage of fascism back to the IUneleen th century. Jelinek Slated in an interview; " It [ ... ) lies .lllhe hean of J text hke V:ldkeJLfieulI, in which one can see that twentieth-century Germ.m history developed from this seemingly innocent history of the nineteenth ccnlllrY' (Beth~ld~ 63). Despite conte:-'1.ual and ~t}'us tic differences, both text!> are vcrys!1.nt­la r in revealing the idelllityof a collective subjcLlthat CJ.n not"lher ~mg dissecled by the authors, hide its connection. to fa~Clsm.

In bOth the G DR and AllStria,commg to tenl""lS wnh J faSCist P.lSl n~a.m forgening it and suppressing any memory of it. As his~ori.lJl al~rles Maier writes in tbe Umusrer.J:ie Pust, Austria has .llwa)~ aVOided a pJ.U1ful debate about its Nazi past, "'~tich m.lde it posS ible for a iormer NAzi like Kurt \'hldheim to become sute president in 1987 (163).1 The Ausmans warmly welcomed the Allies de<:~ion to regard their COlintry as the fin.l victim of H.iller'~ Germ.tn)~ and thei r enthuslJsm for AuStri,l'S A rr;dJI(l WJS ver),quick1yswept wlder the carpet. Afte r the v..:J. r, Ausu1.l e.J.sil)' Jml gladly overlooked its past and consllucled a collecu\"c n~lllO~' and n.J.­lional idemity thai suppressed the remembrance of fasc~sm 11\ A~lst~l .. l. The GDR sim.ilarly promoted the Ill)\h of a new and PUrified begIlU~.lllg with no connection or link to the PdSt after the W.Jr. The struggle .lgatllsl fascism was actually essential to E,ISl Gernuuy's clJ.im to legitim'lc}, By freeina itseU from the memory of Naz.i Germ.\Il}~ it Jefined il!>e1f as the new Germany versus the old Naz.i Gernuny Ihat had become \,(/e.st Ger­many. The "amiIascist p rotccti,'e ba rrier," also known as the Ber.lm \XIJ.ll, was legiumized in this very same fashion. The noti~1I of defenJmg one· seU aoai.nst the Fascists, who somehow all ended up U1lhe western pan of Gern~y (Michaels 4), was only possible by severing the link to the past. Moreover, antifascism was transformed intO an instnllnent of Cold \'('ar. The ami·Comrnunism of Ihe Adenauer years confirmed the Federal

48 Falls (TI Gemlan Swdies

Republic's essential fascist character (\Xfard 18). This "anti-fascist" political culture of bOth the GDRand Austria

is the comext in which Jelinek and Miiller write. For both playwrightS, this fascist memorylies Wldergrotmd,lies surpressed. is zlii/sdJiittet. Both writ­ers activate a disinterred memory \'(Iith the metaphor of the underground, the dramatists show that the past v.~th its guilt and its viclmlS IS hidden away and the cOlUlectio n to it is cut. A[ the Sdme time, they reveal that this memory lies ImlCt in the ground.

The SdXiddwkiilferin Genrruri:lliterallysells the past th,n he him­self has dug out; namely, he sells sl.."Ulls:

Gestatten Sie, class ieh Ihnen ein kleines Souveniranbicte ( ... J reh habe ibn selbst ausgegraben. Vnd drein'l.1i abgekoc111. Ein sauberes Exemplar. 18. Jahrhundert nach clem Grdbs rein. Vnd es isl ein gUle. Schadel, fiihlen Sie die Sch];ife. Die Erde bringt es an den T'g. (56)

The sk"'llll seller had been a historian, but ol mistake in the dolling of the Thousand Year Reich (reference (Q the Third Reich) forced him to leave his profession. He calls himself a "Hi.nterbliebener" (56), someone who is left behind. In actuality, as a Taengriil:er, he hJ.s not left the field of history bUl digs literally into dIe fields of the past, the graveprds: "'lch bin ein Himerbliebener, ich bene urn" (57). In doing so. it is he who keeps the memory of the past alive: " \X~r ..... -eiss, WJ.S die -loten mit ihren Knochen anuellen. Ieh habe da meine Vermutungen" (57). As someone who digs out the dead, he becomes the hndge between the present and the past, and at the same lime becomes inunune against forgetting the past: "Seitdem mich die Geseruehte an die Friedhofe verwiesen hat, [ ... J bin iell immun gegen das Leichengift der zeLtliehen Verheissung" (57).

Whereas the 5dJ3def.tl!Tkiiujer digs into the past and thus becomes the link bet ween the memory of the past to the presem, the subject in Wdken.Heunis already underground. It speaks as "Umote" (138), since it is already buried: "Der Boden spricht vom Gestein, in dessen NlSchen wir liegen" (146); "Zuhalls sein, begraben inl Boden v.ie Gold , Untote [ ... r (U8). This ground, in which the subject lies, is the ground of the past, soaked in blood: "~lit \'(/olken triinkt das Gewiner dich, du dunkler Boden, Ruhestanc. aber mit Blm der Menschen" ( 1-1 6). In con­[rut (0 the Sch.UleJ.wkaz{er in GenllVlZ:l, who keeps the memory alive by his

Digging Deep: Elf riede Jelinek and Heiner Mlil1er

activityof digging, the subject in \VdkenHetmwants to forget the ~asl d~at . b 'ed . hl next to it and claims to he innocent: "Unsere Gesducllle lSI IS un ng . 'd' die der Toten" (144); "Aber wit- nicht, wir lucht! Und muner Wle er, \VIe Kinder schuldlos sind lUlsere Hinde" (14 1). HO,,"'f!ver, the memory of the pas~ CJ.n not be erased. It is the ground ilSelf that spilS the subject out and with it the memoryof the past:

Wie leergetrunkene Flaschen traufeln auf unsrcn Boden, der U!lS aufnimmt undo Umote. wieder ausspuda. [ ... ] Uncl doch~ 'Z.ur Rube kommen wir mcht im Boden [ .. .]. DJ.s Ende cler Geschichte iSl uns misslungen. Sie kommt inuner wieder auf tins z.~, rasend auf ihren Schienen. \Xlarum stirbt sie lucht? Was holben Wlr ~etJ.n? [ ... J Warum wachst ihr die Hmd aus clem Grab? Und :wgt auf uns? Wtr 'WOllen vergessen werden. (141, I·H)

TIle metaphor of the underground shOM that the memory of .a fascist past is beneath the surface. In order to creale an identity freed from.fas. eism, the subject has to free itself from the memory of It. Botl.1 Jelinek and Muller expose the attempt of forgetting the PJ.5t. They also illustrate that the memory of the fascist past is still there and, though under the ground, can not be silenced. With the Sd).~~kiilffe:' Muller shows lh.e link between past memory and present. Jelineks subject also com 1~01 Si­lence the memory of the past: the P3St does '.lOt die, a~d the trams of Auschwitz roll faSt towards the subject who clalillS to.be 1I11lOCenl.

While showing that the memory of the past IS suppresse~, both drnm.ttists ponraya subject m3t is collective. TItis ,.ollecuve subject at­tempts to suppress a colieClive memor)1l\~iill~r's 5U?Ject!o Jre represenu· tives of groups, classes, p3rties Jnd orgaruuuol1S. 111C subjects hecome collective representatives of the very class or group they COlUe f ~om and belong to, like der Maurf!T', der Kam.,misl, der NazI, der A kUUH. Jelinek ~ar. ries the coUectivityof the subject even funher. In Wc/ken.Hevl\ t1~es~b)ect has no dramatic role at all any more, speaking in voices and conslitutUlg J.n obsessed "we-"identily. "Wir sind mer," ';wir sind wir,~ <Ow sind. bei tins

I '"'e ".:,. wie wit" "v..i.r wit wit-" "\\-enn Wlr, werul Wlr, wellil zu laos, WI ........ , '. ' '. • • , wir." Marlies J3nz cills this a "musical Clluque of Ideology' Lh.lt IS reo vealed in the subject'S utterAnce (127). .. ..

In addition 10 being collective, the subject's fJSCtSl Ident1~y \5 ex· posed in both plays. The subject can not hide its ideology of sel1-obses·

50 Foot> en Cennall Studies

sicn. negation and exclusion of an)One other than itself any longer. In \'(IdkenHelmit sa)"3:

\'(flr sind wir und scheuchen von allen Otten die anderen fort. [ .. .] \'((11" blicken hiniiber, den I\,fachbam nicht fUrchtend, wir Helen ihm aufs Haupt. ( ... J \'ifu-sind bei uos daheim. [ ... J Die andcren haben auf eigenem Boden n.ichts zu sagen. \VlfspiJen sie fon mit W1Seren Schlauchen. (139-40)

nus subject's German identity is connected with itS quest for Heumt: "Wll" wir wirl AUe dle5e urspriinglichen t>. lenschen wie wit, em Urvolk, dJS Yolk schlechrweg. Deutsche!" {145}. Heide l-felwig calls llUs an "Eigensucht" of a subjecllhat celebrates itself "a1s sein eigenes, aus sich selbsl gespeistes Sirn=ntunn" (401).

Throughout Gemw7J..,. Miiller connects twentieth cemury Ger­man fascism \\1t.h its historical antecedents. The :l.Ulhor points to the Pros­sian-fascist heritage that contlnues to be pan of the CDR identity (Dassanowsky-Harris \5). The p\.J.yis filled with violence and goryscencs of a SeihaeifleisckOf!.that shows the char-acters' fascist identity that .linlS to exclude. Gown 2 marches into the t'...dJ t'...;th the balmer. JEDE R SO-IlJSS EIN RUSS JEDER TRITI EIN BRIT JEDER STOSS EIN FRANZOS (46). The EhreieaTfWDeshouu: "NUR EIN TOTER rNDIANER 1ST EINGUfERINDlAATER" (61). Hitler, the epilomeof German fascism, is ponr-ayed as a man-eating figure who eats a soldier for breakLlSl, and who perversely claims that he does not eat blacks (62).

At the same~, however, this fascist subject h.lS an identnythat is neither sure of itself nor belongs to itself. In this separation from itself, the subject is in a State of being half-dead. The constant reassur.mce of one's existence in l'(IdkenHezm ("Wu- bezeugen uns: wir sind bier. Uns gehoren wU" (138» shows that [he collective subject doubts its existence and insists on the obvious: "Es gibt uns. Es gibt uns" (138). The subject constitutes iuelf as aggressive, msecure about its own existence, and ex­clusively turned to itself.

Mlille r's protagon ists Hilse and down 2 simila rly do not belong fully to themselves. TIle figure Hilse suffers from cancer and ulti­mately dies from it. Helen Fehervary writes [hat "the pecvJ.sive cancer of German history has crippled him, invaded his body and mind, and nude him 'only one half' of himseU: a dis-human. It is this i.ntemaliution of (he oppressive German past that kills I--lilse" (86). In the laS[ scene of

Digging Deep: EUriede Jelinek .lnd Heiner Muller 51

GermmZti, Hilse talks aboutlhis cancer. "\'('enn du mich fragst. mir gelus nicht gUl. Aber ich bin bloss die l--Talfte von mir, die and re l~~t de r Kr~bs gefressen. Und wenn du meinen Krebs frag:. t, dem gehls gut. Later, Hilse remarks: "\'(Iir sind eine Panei, mein Krebs und ich" (76). TIle cancer bJ.s become pan of Hilse and has slowly consumed him. Whalls left of 1 Iilse is a Fn:nrlk6rper, something other than himseU. AnOther example of how Miiller depicLS the state of idemilY is the figure Oown. 2. As. Wolfgang Emn'lerich points out, lhe Gown's identity, like Hilse's, IS pr-dClically nOIl­

existent (122). He is crippled in such a way that he litcrallycan 110t stand on his own feel. Gown 2, who is on his hands and knees, states: Mlch kann nidus dagegen tun. Es lum mir die Beine weg. E~ komllll VOI1UUlen. Es ist eine Naturgewdlt" (46). The only way he finallycJI'L ~(and lip I:' byst\'<ll­lowing a cane. In the implantation of a foreign subject, 00\\112 is ~bbe~ of any belonging to self. In both cases, Muller shows that the subject IS

replaced by either cancer or cane. Jelinek cunes this !J.ck of belonging to

self even funher: the subjeCl is not even sure if it redllyexisti. In either case, the subject becomes 1071«', it carnes something t1ut i:. not of itself. It

is half-dedd, half-alive. It is in this state of being half-dead or half-alive dlJt the

subject attempts to bide FJ.scism in another WJ.y. The subjects of both pla}'S are either defined pmly (as in G?71il1ll.1) or flilly (In.v'kellf-{eul~ by quOtes. \XIhen they use quOtes, the subjects only reproduce utterances of the p.lsl.TIlis bnguage becomes merely reproduction; it is llsed artifici,lll)[ A bJ!f-dedd subject uuer" dead l.mguage th,lt is de-hislOlicized. The re­production of language by means of quotJtion ndlUrdlizes the historical and the polillc.u. Thus, the subject CJ.O claim a histoncal innocence of its

past )'Cl agJin. Via the e}..-posure of the loss of memory in their pIJ}'S, the dr-alll.l­

tists reVeJllhe perpelllalion of a deeply rooted fJ.SCisl helit.lge th2.l the tWO nations continually mllSt come to terlllS with. How IlJVC we become who we are? 111e amnesia thal is exposed via the IllCtaphor of the under­ground and in the subjects themselves is in no way mllocem. 111e loss ~f memory is esseillial to the attempt to hide what Ea$[ Gernuns and Austll­ans, according [ 0 MUlIer and Jelinek, always have been: fundamentally Lls­

C1St.

Unnerstrycf Mas5(lchusetlS-A nlX!1lt

52 Fool;; (n German 51l1dies

NOles

; For funher d~cus~iol1, s~e Huyssen and Young. For an extensive dISCUSsIon on the WIaJdheim-affair, see Minen 65-73.

Works Gted

Bethman, Brenda L. "'MY~tre5Ii:u? c..J... as lar> ," UJPIJ ....... ,-,. I . . I Elf'd J I' I.- a)' Q .... '-J <OU, JIW"'. Iltervlew Wlt 1 o ne e ~ meK. wm m Genmn Yru-rfu;k 16 (2000): 61-72 assanOW5~I-I;rns, Robert v~n. ~The ~ream and the scream: 'Di~ Deutsche

~crc and the unre~lzcd GDR In Heiner Muller's GemI171!.'l Ted In Her­. lin. NewGen..mnRruew 5-6 (1989-90): 15-28.

Emmench, \Xblfgang: Oer AI~ de!: Geschichte. Preu&n in Heiner Muliers Lei::en l?n~ FriIXhuhwll7eJ{hlSchlaf TmlonSdmi D DallSmeM/Sen,>CVlSl un/

Jf!fZc: Dli!deJl/sdxMlSerellls nJe1111 mderr---..· ..... litemllu· D'- n_t;' ., . der L . L.. ~'<"W'"' ' '" ,- {to lS)'UI1:l'll "M' h I1emlllr (leT" DDR Ed. P.m! Gerhard KJussmann an Heinrich

o r. Bonn: BouvIer, 1982. ! IS· 58. Fehervary. Helen. .. Enligh(,mmem or Entanglement- Histo,), ".,j • - h . .

S"tol' B h d H . M II " . _ no;SI cues En 109 .• rec tan emer 11 er. NewGermm CrnupeS (1976): 80-

Helwig, Heidi. "Mitteilungen von Untoten." SpTtld}kllYlSr B - . H Lli£!tllll1'UlJseJEd»ji 25.2 (199-1): 389-402. . eurage Zltr

uu::heon, Lmda. A Pm.I(5 if POillnx!enDJIIL New York Routle~e, 1988. Hu~sen, Andreas. TWlfiJt. Mencry Marku"€ Tine In a GJuue A ~ New

York: Roudcdge, 1995 muLl.. Jam, Marues E/ji1ede/eliJrk Stuttg;lrt: MCI2.lcr 1995 Jelmek, Elfnede. Wdken.Heun 1988 Nfl#!. 71X!a/e,stiKke.. I--famburg. Rowohh 1990 Lowenthal, O;avld The Rlit IS a FOl'f!1gn G:rl1try New York: Cambric! up' 1985' M011er, o,;arles The U11IIJl.Jleml:ie Rut.. Hzsll¥y. Hdocalfst, an:i Gf!]mm tt~lU;W;d I~

. llr} ~mbnd'p'e: I--i:trvard UP, 1988. Michaels, Jenrufer E. Confroming ~he N~ Pm." 8eprJ 1989. Re-laldil Ger­

'Smn l~/1(:rmlfre SUn! 19--15. Ed. Kellh Bullwant. Providence: Be"l1ahn oot'.!>,1997. 1.20. '1>

Mitten, Richa.rd. :Bitburg, ,Waldheim, and the Politics of Remembering and For­gellUlg. Frail W(Jid tWIT CO \11afd/:6J/l Ed. David F. Cook and Ruth

.. ~bdak. New York Berghahn Books, 1999. 51-84. MuUer, Hemer." Commltl Tal m &din.. 1971. Berlin: Rotbuch, 1977. Ward,James J. Remember when It W01S the 'Antifascist Defense \Vall')~ 7he&:rl

IY1JL Ed. Ernst Schiirer, Manfred Keune and Philip Jen~ Ne y, kl Peter Lang, 1996. 11-2 .. 1. ' w or

\Xblf, o,rista. Kin:Iheir.s,mster. 1976. Miinchen: dIV, 1995. Young, James E. 71)f' Texfllre if Mem:ry HdOO1.lIst MemYTi,ds ani M . New

l-bven: Yale UP, 1993. frlnu~.

Colonizing Bodies in Ingeborg Bachmann's "Ein SChl~tt nach Gomorrha"

Anca-E lena Luca

O n her first collection of stories, Das dmfllf;>le Jabr, Ingeborg Bachn1alUl introduces "moments of reflection, lyrical inlpressions,

monologues, tigllllycomposed im.1ges tosugges( a radical rebellion against Ih,lt 'worst o f aU possible worlds' in which the protagollist~ find them­selves" (Achbergcr 10). "£i.n Schritt !lach Gomorrha" is one such Story that exemplifies this yearning for renewal, for anmher order, for "salva­

tion," which, though glimpsed for a momelll, is cleatly unattaul,lble (Achberger 11). Oassified as ,1 feminine Sdlfpfiu'f:[}3dJllhte,' Bac!launn's Story also lends itself to feminist ulterpret.ltion.~ Ftmher, it pOUltS ,it the

uncornfon.lble traces of colonialisnl, politics, and power from the former Ausuo- Hungali,lIl I-J.lbsburg Empire, which are still present in thl:! culture and politics of eve r}uJ.y Ausuimlife in the eJ.rly 1950s.

An accomplished pi,mo pla~r and the wife of all influemial aca­demic, Bachnunn's prot.lgonist OlarlOlte has tried in V.lUl to find fulfill­ment and purpose in the norms and values of [he Viennese ariStocrJC}, TIle increasing apathyof this ctUllIl"'d.llysoplustic,ued thoughdecadem cuss

hJS a suHocating effect Oll Om'lotte's deslre for love, which, due to its intensity ilnd unusual pass ion, collides with the self-sufficiency, indiffer­ence, and pride of her husband and friends. Although on the outside Our· lotte has learned per the rigid ntles of aristocratic etiquo.:n e to aCt as the accomplished and refined worrun en vogue, she remains on the inside J lillie mysterious girl, whose untouched hean is desperately struggling with lack of purpose and fuUillment. The emptiness and meaninglessness in Olarloue's life are reflected by the bareness of her apanlllent: "1m ZUllnyr: die ve rriickten Sti.ihle, eine verknullte Serviette .luf clem Boden, die gedunsene Luft, die Verwiistung, die Leere nJ.ch dem UberfaU" (1-+3). This void is abrupdy filled as lvLrJ, a Slovenian> studying in VielUlJ, oHers

FOO6 m Germall Studie5 Volume 8 (2001)