Andreas Donders
Student Number: 11104201 E-Mail: [email protected]
Why German State and City Theatres Love Refugees.
A Critical Discourse Analysis of the debate surrounding Alvis Hermanis and Thalia Theater Hamburg (2015).
Master’s Thesis Arts and Culture: International Dramaturgy
University of Amsterdam Faculty of Humanities Theatre Studies Summer 2017
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jan Lazardzig Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Kati Röttger Table of contents page 1. Introducton 1.1 The debate surrounding Alvis Hermanis and Thalia Theater Hamburg 2 1.2 Methodology 5 1.3 Key terms and the issue of language 7 1.4 Structure 11 2. Portrayal: Background and context 2.1 The German state and city theatre system: a brief historical sketch 12 2.2 The so-called “refugee crisis” in Germany from a theatre perspectve 20 3. Analysis: The Hermanis/Thalia incident 3.1 Introducton of the main agents 28 3.2 Thalia Theater's press statement 30 3.3 Hermanis's statement 40 3.4 Lux's statement 44 3.5 User comments on nachtkritk.de 48 3.6 Media reports 50 4. Interpretaton: German state and city theatres in the so-called “refugee crisis” 4.1 An aesthetcally heteronomous approach of a new quality 53 4.2 Possible readings of theatre's engagement and the Hermanis/Thalia incident 55 4.3 Power relatons 61 5. Conclusion 5.1 Summary 64 5.2 Outlook 65 5.3 Some points of critcism and concluding thoughts 66 6. Appendix 6.1 Materials 6.1.1 Thalia Theater press release 70 6.1.2 Statement Alvis Hermanis 71 6.1.3 Statement Joachim Lux 72 6.1.4 Inquiries 73 6.1.5 User comments on nachtkritk.de 76 6.1.6 List of media reports 80 6.2 Bibliography 83
1/93 1. Introducton 1.1 The debate surrounding Alvis Hermanis and Thalia Theater Hamburg On 4 December, 2015, a press release by Thalia Theater Hamburg announced Latvian theatre director Alvis Hermanis's cancellaton of an upcoming show at the German city theatre. “In every war you must pick one side,”1 and Hermanis and Thalia Theater stand on opposite sides, the director is paraphrased in the press release. What had caused Hermanis to rhetorically go to “war” like this? Part of the answer lies in the politcal and social conditons in Europe at the tme. In the summer of 2015, the so-called “European refugee crisis” peaked. As a reacton to rising numbers of refugees stranded in Hungary in early September, the German and Austrian governments opened their countries' borders and let people enter without registraton. 2 According to chancellors Angela Merkel and Werner Faymann, these measures were supposed to defuse the situaton and prevent a humanitarian crisis.3 German chancellor Merkel's asserton “We can do it” (“Wir schafen das”), frst expressed a few days before the border opening, set the tone for an extensive Willkommenskultur.4 This welcoming culture towards refugees found expression partcularly in humanitarian aid given by large parts of German civil society. Besides the efort of the general public, the Willkommenskultur was also refected in an increased engagement of German state and city theatres in the topic of refugees. Not only were numerous stage productons created that dealt with refugees and contguous topics. Many theatres also hosted public discussions, actvely opposed ant-refugee rallies, or provided humanitarian aid. Actons like this were maintained over the following months.5 Alvis Hermanis, the aforementoned press release reads, does not support the
1 Hanna Klimpe, “Alvis Hermanis sagt Inszenierung am Thalia Theater ab. Grund: das Engagement des Thalia Theaters in der Flüchtlingsfrage.” Thalia Theater Hamburg Pressemiteilung. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
2/93 humanitarian aid for refugees given by Thalia Theater and many other German city theatres, and he does not want to be associated with it. Hermanis allegedly sees a connecton between immigraton as well as the Willkommenskultur on the one hand, and terrorism, partcularly the terrorist atacks in Paris three weeks earlier, on the other. The next part of the press release is a statement by Joachim Lux, the Intendant (theatre director) of Thalia Theater, in which he expresses his astonishment and regret about Hermanis's cancellaton and what he calls a divide across both Europe and the cultural sphere. Although claiming that he respects Hermanis as an artst, Lux makes clear that Thalia Theater does not share the director's current politcal positon. The press release provoked a lot of harsh critcism in German media and online comments on the theatre website nachtkritk.de, mostly directed at Hermanis. Shortly afer, the critcized director released a statement through nachtkritk and a few other media outlets with his own account of the events.6 In it, he accuses Thalia Theater of releasing the press statement without his consent, of quotng him out of context, and of atemptng to silence his opinion. Moreover, he defends and further explains his reasoning for the cancellaton. Two days later, Lux countered Hermanis's accusatons and reafrmed Thalia Theater's stance on the issue in a second statement published on nachtkritk.7 Both Hermanis's and Lux's follow-up statements further fueled the lively debate taking place in both the press and online comments. In the days and weeks following the press release, numerous commentators discussed diferent aspects of the controversy surrounding Alvis Hermanis and Thalia Theater,8 including the validity of Hermanis's arguments and whether Thalia Theater should have made Hermanis's statements public. In this thesis, however, I want to focus on an aspect that was neglected by most, namely the queston why the debate occurred in the frst place. The Hermanis/Thalia incident emanated from the conduct of many German state and city theatres in the summer and fall of 2015 with regard to the topic of refugees. But why did so many theatres take acton in the so-called “refugee crisis”? Rarely have that many theatres turned to one topic so uniformly and devotedly, though. It seemed like theatres virtually love (the topic of) refugees, as I suggest in the
6 “Miten im Krieg? Alvis Hermanis sagt aus Protest gegen Flüchtlings-Engagement Thalia-Inszenierung ab.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 04./06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
3/93 ttle of this thesis.9 I argue that the cause of this devoton is that the so-called “refugee crisis” also served as a means to negotate another confict. From my analyses of the Hermanis/Thalia incident, the events in theatre in the months before, and the general history of German state and city theatres, I have developed a working hypothesis: Besides the obvious aims of debatng the topic of refugees and giving humanitarian aid, the diverse engagement of many German state and city theatres in the so-called “refugee crisis” was also an expression of another issue. This underlying confict is the state and city theatre system's crisis of legitmacy between the poles of autonomy and heteronomy. The terms autonomy and heteronomy each have two dimensions that I will consider, namely what I call the aesthetc and the structural dimension. Although these diferent aspects are generally expressions of the same ideas, it is worth distnguishing between them. The aesthetc dimension of autonomy is the autonomy of art.10 According to Jacques Rancière, the idea of autonomy has been dominant in the arts for the last two centuries.11 He characterizes this tme by the noton of “the singularity of art”12 in relaton to everything else. Here art is not subject to a regime of utlity but it is contngent only upon itself.13 The structural dimension of autonomy is the autonomy of theatre as an insttuton. A fully autonomous theatre would be independent in its decision-making. For example, it would not need to follow the directons of a rich donor in order to receive funding. With the aesthetc dimension of heteronomy I mean the variety of recent approaches in theatre concerned with social or politcal maters.14 These are not autonomous but make use of aesthetc
9 The topic of refugees had been an issue in Germany before, although in a diferent form. For examp le, from the late 1970s onwards, the FRG and the GDR were faced with the arrival of tens of thousands so-called boat people feeing Vietnam. Back then theatres did not deal with the subject as diligently as in 2015 by far. This assessment is supported both by a widespread lack of mentons of the issue in the relevant literature, and by theatre scho lars' observaton that most German theatres abandoned politcal topics in the 1970s and 80s. For an analysis of the implicatons of the boat people's emergency situaton on German refugee policy, see: Julia Kleinschmidt, “Die Aufnahme der ersten "boat people" in die Bundesrepublik.” Bundeszentrale für politsche Bildung. Web, 26.11.2013. Online (last accessed 29.06.17):
4/93 strategies that are not traditonally considered part of the realm of art and theatre, such as direct audience partcipaton.15 The structural dimension of heteronomy refers to the idea that theatre as an insttuton is not autonomous in the sense described above. As I will show, theatre in Germany is currently (and has ofen been) in a state of crisis – a crisis of its place in society, to be exact. I argue that during the so-called “refugee crisis,” theatre makers atempted to fnd a soluton to this problem. This took place through a negotaton – both among theatre makers and with the public – of the queston whether (a) theatre can preserve its autonomy, or (b) if it needs to be open for change emanatng from events outside of theatre, such as politcal crises or social upheavals. I argue that this negotaton becomes most apparent in the debate surrounding the Hermanis/Thalia incident, which is why I will analyze it in partcular detail.
1.2 Methodology The events surrounding Alvis Hermanis and Thalia Theater include hardly any material actons. 16 Instead, most of what happened took place through language alone. Diferent agents made statements or commented on the issue, mostly in writen form. Even Hermanis's cancellaton was a verbal act performed through writen text in a number of e-mails. Owing to the text-based character of the incident, I chose to conduct a Critcal Discourse Analysis (CDA) of the debate, based on Machin and Mayr's How To Do Critcal Discourse Analysis17. CDA is not to be confused with other approaches to discourse analysis, such as the Foucauldian one, although it does draw on some of Michel Foucault's ideas.18 CDA has its origins in descriptve linguistc approaches in the late 1970s.19 It was developed in reacton to the critcism that Critcal Linguistcs was faced with regarding its lack of proper “development of the nature of the link between language, power and ideology.”20 CDA comprises a variety of diferent methods that serve a common goal, namely “to reveal buried ideology,”21 and it is “openly commited to politcal interventon and social change.”22 The word critcal in Critcal Discourse Analysis refers to the act of “'denaturalising' the
15 Rancière traces back the idea of the autonomy and heteronomy of art to a statement by Friedrich Schiller. See: Jacques Rancière, “The Aesthetc Revoluton and Its Outcomes. Emplotments of Autonomy and Heteronomy.” New Lef Review 14 (2002): 133. 16 “Material processes describe processes of doing. Usually, these are concrete actons that have a material result or consequence.” David Machin and Andrea Mayr. How to Do Critcal Discourse Analysis. A Multmodal Introducton. (London and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publicatons, 2012), 106. 17 Ibid. 18 Such as Foucault's noton of discourse. See: Ibid., 20. 19 Ibid., 2. 20 Ibid., 4. 21 Ibid., 1. 22 Ibid., 4.
5/93 language to reveal the kinds of ideas, absences and taken-for-granted assumptons in texts” 23 and thereby unveiling the power interests hidden in the language. The most central concepts of CDA are discourse, ideology, and power. Machin and Mayr defne them as follows: discourses are “the broader ideas communicated by a text [...] [that] can be thought of as models of the world.”24 They “comprise partcipants, values, ideas, setngs, tmes and sequences of actvity.”25 Ideologies are “representatons of the world, they are worldviews.”26 Although everybody has a certain ideology, “the analysis of ideology is generally associated with those views of the world that are associated with power and exploitaton.” 27 Power is “at the core of the CDA project”28 and is “transmited and practsed through discourse.“29 It “comes from privileged access to social resources such as educaton, knowledge and wealth, which provides authority, status and infuence to those who gain this access and enables them to dominate, coerce and control subordinate groups.”30 In general, carrying out a CDA starts with an in-depth linguistc analysis of a number of selected texts in order to reveal the discourses they make use of. Then the ideologies buried in these discourses are uncovered and examined with regard to the power relatons they establish or sustain. What I will do in this thesis is examine theatre's engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” and the Hermanis/Thalia incident with regard to the manifestatons of the confict between autonomy and heteronomy. The notons of autonomy and heteronomy will serve as the representaton of two opposing ideologies regarding theatre. I will draw out these ideologies from diferent texts and events and then interpret them in terms of the power relatons that are at play. Conductng a CDA to approach my investgaton has some clear advantages. Since I argue that the Hermanis/Thalia incident is rooted in an underlying, larger issue, a discourse analysis will more likely help me understand the debate than, for example, looking at it as an isolated incident. The in-depth linguistc analysis that is part of CDA allows me to draw out subtle details in the language that could otherwise be easily overlooked. Analyzing the diferent discourses employed in the debate will enable me to understand the ideologies regarding the issue of autonomy and heteronomy that are revealed in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. As mentoned above, what makes
23 Ibid., 5. 24 Ibid., 20. 25 Ibid., 219. 26 Ibid., 220. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., 24. 29 Ibid., 4. 30 Ibid., 24.
6/93 CDA preferable to other types of discourse analysis is the fact that CDA as a linguistc approach matches the linguistc nature of the events I look at. I also want to address some shortcomings of CDA and other possible points of critcism this thesis may atract.31 First, I am unable to properly analyze “the social conditons of text producton and consumpton.”32 I try to base my interpretaton of the diferent agents' stance on autonomy and heteronomy on conclusive fndings. Stll, my interpretaton may be fawed for a number of reasons. For instance, the selecton of materials I analyze could possibly be misleading; some agents might have acted or made a statement for reasons that are not at all linked to my investgaton – which may or may not afect the validity of my interpretaton; and there might be a disconnect between my expectatons and interpretatons on the one hand and the actual behavior of diferent agents on the other. Second, the debate I examine involves a number of aspects that cannot be dealt with in this thesis. I will point out some of them in the conclusion. One, however, is so important that it also needs to be addressed here. Although I look at various diferent power relatons linked to the Hermanis/Thalia incident, I will not consider those between theatre and refugees. In this thesis, refugees are not looked at as actve subjects but only as passive objects of theatres' actons and of the debate around Hermanis and Thalia Theater. This actually refects how refugees were mostly treated in said actons and this debate. The queston whether theatres have used or even abused large numbers of human beings for their own beneft certainly calls for further investgaton. It cannot be considered here, however, as this study essentally deals with a crisis of theatre and not specifcally with refugees. Lastly, social change – critcized for being too ambitous a goal for CDA – is not what I aim at. By pointng out how recent developments in German theatre relate to its history and to its current crisis, I want to deepen the understanding of these developments rather than give impulses for concrete acton. At most, my eventual fndings may be rated as being supportve of the prevailing heteronomous approach to theatre.
1.3 Key terms and the issue of language As my use of the expression the so-called “refugee crisis” has already indicated, there has been a controversy around allegedly correct or appropriate terminology.33 The term has been used
31 For a discussion of other common critcisms of CDA (most of which are not applicable to this thesis), see: Ibid., 207f. 32 Ibid., 211. 33 For an analysis of these terminology issues, see: Nicholas De Genova et al., “'Migrant Crisis' / 'Refugee Crisis'.” Near Futures Online. Web, 2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
7/93 extensively in the media and in politcs, thereby cementng the expression and its implicatons in public discourse. This has arguably led to a certain way of speaking and thinking about the events. The use of the term crisis constructs the events it refers to as a potental problem for a country or a society,34 which entails the politcal and social demand to react to and avert the presumed danger. At the same tme the expression is very unspecifc with regard to what the alleged crisis is or who is afected by it. It stands to reason that there is a connecton between this linguistc unspecifcity and the much-cited uncertainty among the public in Germany and Europe regarding the appropriate way to react to the so-called “refugee crisis.” Arguably, the implicatons of the term crisis also facilitated politcal instrumentalizaton of the events by partes of all politcal colors, for example resultng in a reform of EU asylum policies.35 Bearing all this in mind, I will use the hedged expression the so-called “refugee crisis” (sometmes shortened to the “crisis”) to reference the term's common usage in public discourse while at the same tme drawing atenton to the problems it entails. Although it is a provisional soluton, a certain degree of linguistc awareness seems necessary given that I will be conductng a CDA. Another terminological issue revolves around the term refugees. Strictly speaking, a person is only a refugee when they have been ofcially recognized as one. This defniton has not been consistently used in recent years, though. Instead, in public discourse the term refugees has been used to generally refer to the heterogenous group of people whose arrival in large parts of Europe (and Germany in partcular) has been subject to extensive public debates at least since mid-2015. In spite of a beter alternatve – migrants or asylum seekers are similarly problematc36 –, this incorrect yet common defniton will be the one employed in this thesis, too. There are a few other crucial concepts for which working defnitons are needed. With the frst of them, theatre, I will be dealing in two diferent ways. When talking about state and city theatres (plural), I refer to theatre as a publicly fnanced insttuton with a specifc structure. I will elaborate on this in chapter 2.1. Theatres are concerned with the second noton of theatre, namely theatre (singular) as an art form. While various diferent concepts of theatre in diverse contexts have been developed over tme,37 I will use the term to refer to the kind of a that has historically been produced at West German state and city theatres in the 20th century. From this
34 Other common expressions such as refugee wave or stream have similarly been critcized for their negatve connotatons of natural disasters. 35 “Completng the reform of the Common European Asylum System: towards an efcient, fair and humane asylum policy.” European Commission Press Release Database. Web, 13.07.2016. Online (last accessed 14.06.17):
8/93 perspectve, theatre can very generally be called a presentaton, with an aesthetc purpose, of at least one person's involvement with a specifc topic to an audience. Another terminological issue that needs to be considered relates to what exactly theatres were doing during the so-called “refugee crisis.” In public discourse,38 their actons were sometmes given labels such as humanitarian aid, humanitarian engagement or social work. These terms were mostly used without a clear distncton or defniton,39 which is problematc even though most actons were probably “[c]oncerned with or seeking to promote human welfare,“40 as the term humanitarian is defned in the Oxford Dictonary. What all these labels appear to indicate is that theatres' actons were manifestatons of (aesthetc) heteronomy. On top of that, the widespread uncertainty about how to refer to these means of expression suggests that they possess a new, unprecedented quality of heteronomy in theatre. For lack of a beter opton, I will use the term humanitarian engagement rather loosely while acknowledging that its accuracy in relaton to theatres' actons is debatable. In fact, even when leaving the queston aside whether theatres engaged in humanitarian aid or not, it is hard to subsume all of their actons with regard to the so-called “refugee crisis” under one expression. When I refer to theatres' actons, engagement, or campaigns, I try to approximate the rather vague German expression Aktonen (zum Thema Flüchtlinge). This would comprise most “events” ofstage, but can also include a refugee-related stage producton. The next issue I need to address is the politcal. Although it will only be a side issue of this thesis, the politcal appears in at least two diferent although interrelated forms. The frst one is politcal theatre. A large number of scholars suggest that there is a rich traditon of politcal theatre in Germany.41 Stll, it is not always easy to tell politcal from non-politcal theatre, as Wolfgang Ismayr notes.42 For my purposes, I will use Ismayr's defniton of politcal theatre in the narrower sense as theatre that has the notceable intenton of changing either politcal
38 With the term public discourse, I refer to the entrety of discourses that are discussed by the public at a given tme. 39 As Eva Spies notes, there is actually “no clear-cut defniton [...] of the noton of humanitarian aid.” She proposes that humanitarian aid be understood “as an umbrella term comprising diferent forms of aid, including diferent organizatonal forms and aid policies but joined together by a normatve discourse on helping the helpless.” See: Eva Spies, “Dilemmas of Partcipaton. Developers and the Problem of Doing the Right Thing.“ Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid in the Twenteth Century. Ed. Johannes Paulmann. (Oxford: OUP, 2016), 417. 40 “humanitarian.” Oxford Dictonaries. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
9/93 circumstances or people's moral-politcal consciousness.43 From this perspectve, politcal theatre combines an aesthetc form with topics from outside the realm of theatre, and is therefore an expression of a heteronomous understanding of theatre. The second form is politcal reasons, namely the ones due to which Hermanis has allegedly cancelled his job at Thalia Theater.44 Politcal reasons thus refer to a specifc opinion regarding certain maters of public interest – roughly meaning, what is relevant to people in a specifc area, such as a city or a country, depending on the context. It is possible although not necessary that this overlaps with certain party politcs. Lastly, the issue of language itself needs to be addressed. Although the topic I investgate is a specifcally German one, and I as well as my supervising professor are German, this thesis is writen in English. This is owed to the fact that I am carrying out my investgaton as part of the Internatonal Dramaturgy MA program at University of Amsterdam. It seems plausible to write the fnal paper in an explicitly internatonal program in English. Stll, this choice may appear somewhat problematc given the fact that almost all the texts I analyze are writen in German, and even more so since the methodological approach I pursue includes an in-depth linguistc analysis. However, I see this as a challenge rather than a problem. I will approach it by not translatng the texts I analyze linguistcally, since with every translaton the original meaning of an uterance changes to a certain extent, for example in terms of its connotatons. However, as connotatons and subtle implicatons are exactly what I analyze, translatng the texts from German to English in order to match the language of this thesis seems counterproductve. I will therefore leave most German statements in their original form while analyzing them in English. In fact, the distance of a foreign language may actually prove useful when it comes to unearthing buried ideologies. I will, however, translate the secondary literature that I cite to support my argument. Whenever a quotaton in this thesis is in English while its original language is German, I have translated it myself unless noted otherwise. These translatons serve the purpose of keeping the text as homogeneous and easily readable as possible. At the same tme they avoid the need to explain all citatons from secondary literature. For any expression that loses a crucial part of its context or is ambiguous when translated, I will make clear what exactly it refers to by adding the original German term in parentheses.
43 Ibid. 44 See for example: Klimpe, Alvis Hermanis.
10/93 1.4 Structure In order to examine my working hypothesis, I will frst (chapter 2) point out the historical and the contemporary context in which the Hermanis/Thalia incident occurred. This includes a historical sketch of (a) the German state and city theatre system and (b) the course of events, generally and in theatre, during the so-called “refugee crisis” untl December, 2015. In both subchapters I will pay partcular atenton to questons of autonomy and heteronomy. Next (chapter 3) I will conduct a detailed linguistc analysis of the most important documents in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Primarily, these are Thalia Theater's, Lux's, and Hermanis's statements, all of which I will analyze rather extensively with partcular regard to any ideological manifestatons concerning autonomy and heteronomy. Then I will examine some other contributons to the debate in a more targeted and summarizing way, namely the coverage of the events in major online and print media and the user comments on nachtkritk. In chapter 4, I will relate the fndings of my analysis to the context established in chapter 2, and further scrutnize the Hermanis/Thalia incident and theatres' engagement in the topic of refugees. Among others, this also includes a close look at diferent power relatons connected to autonomous and heteronomous notons in theatre. In chapter 5, I will frst summarize my fndings and give an outlook on possible further developments. Then I will also address some points of critcism against this thesis before I eventually formulate some concluding thoughts. To round of the introducton I want to briefy address the picture on the cover sheet of this thesis. It shows the front of the Thalia Theater building,45 featuring a number of antque-like columns. Afer 1800, theatre buildings, just like many other public buildings, were ofen designed to resemble ancient Greek temples.46 As representatve buildings, they were not only meant to show the new autonomy of the bourgeoisie in the 19th century when theatres were slowly moved from courts to the expanding cites.47 They also point at the freedom and singularity of the arts by constructng an image of theatres as “temple[s] of art.”48 Here the principle of autonomy in whose spirit the German state and city theatre system was established is literally set in stone.
45 It was built in 1911-12 (architects: Werner Lundt and Georg Kallmorgen) and had to be partly reconstructed afer an air raid in April, 1945. See: Christne Ratka, Das Thalia Theater. "Von morgens bis miternachts": Eine Zeitreise durch Arbeit und Kunst (München and Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag, 2013), 31 and 51f. 46 Isabel Mathes, 'Der allgemeinen Vereinigung gewidmet'. Öfentlicher Theaterbau in Deutschland zwischen Auflärung und Vormärz (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1995), 82. 47 Ibid., 1. 48 Ibid., 82.
11/93 2. Portrayal: Background and context 2.1 The German state and city theatre system: a brief historical sketch In this subchapter I will outline the structure of the German Stadtheatersystem, then give a (necessarily fragmentary) portrayal of the system's beginnings and its development untl 2015.49 In my descripton I will also point out manifestatons of autonomous and heteronomous approaches to theatre throughout state and city theatre's history. In accordance with the German consttuton, Kultur is primarily the concern of the states (Kulturhoheit der Länder) and the municipalites (kommunale Kulturhoheit), but not of the federaton (Bund). This organizatonal structure is a lesson learned from the Nazi era when the regime brought all theatres into line.50 Besides “the school and university systems, educaton, broadcastng, [and] television,”51 the cultural sovereignty of the states also comprises the arts. These include museums, public libraries, theatres, orchestras, and ballets. There are about 140 predominantly publicly fnanced in additon to between 200 and 22052 private theatres in Germany.53 The former are generally divided into Staatstheater (state theatres) and Stadtheater (city/municipal theatres). Due to historical developments, there are by far more city than state theatres.54 The later (of which there are 20 in Germany) receive their funding55 from the federal state they are located in, city theatres from their municipality. Moreover, there are Landestheater o r Landesbühnen (regional theatres). Their distnctve feature is the high percentage of guest appearances, which means that they ofen have shows in cites that do not have a theatre
49 For a more comprehensive portrayal of the history of theatre in German, see for example: Erika Fischer-Lichte, Kurze Geschichte des deutschen Theaters (Tübingen and Basel: Francke Verlag, 1993). 50 Nix, Theater, 47. 51 “Staatliche Aufgaben sind grundsätzlich Ländersache.” Deutscher Bundestag. Web, 06.01.2013. Online (last accessed 29.06.17):
12/93 company of their own.56 In terms of fnancing, most regional theatres work similarly to state theatres. For my argument, I will focus on state and city theatres and not consider other organizatonal forms of theatre. This could be critcized as favoring insttutonalized theatres to the detriment of the independent scene, and thus as upholding the dominant discourse and consequently consolidate the structure of the German theatre scene. However, my decision to not include independent and private theatre groups is based on a practcal argument. Indeed large state and city theatres and a few prestgious companies from the freie Szene are favored by most newspapers' arts sectons and by theatre websites such as nachtkritk. Due to this underrepresentaton in the media it is much harder to obtain a lot of informaton on events at smaller city theatres and partcularly at most independent companies – which was one of the reasons for me to focus on state and city theatres.57 Furthermore, the state and city theatres have a longer, richer history than independent theatre groups in Germany, which is why the former lend themselves more readily to my investgaton. Moreover, I will generally equate state theatres and city theatres and not distnguish between them, which is possible because I do not compare the conduct of individual theatres or the diferences between state and city theatres. The precursors of today's city theatres evolved in the second half of the 18th century. Up untl that point, most theatre companies in Germany58 were organized as touring companies led and shaped by their theatre director (Prinzipal). They had to request the permission of a city or a prince (Fürst) if they wanted to perform on their premises or in their theatre buildings, and can therefore be considered as structurally heteronomous.59 Touring companies were subject to market-based principles and thus to their audiences' taste.60 As a consequence, these companies were very much dependent on popular subjects and aesthetcs if they wanted to survive. In a fuent transiton in the last third of the 18th century, permanent theatres (stehende Bühnen) with their own proper buildings and companies of actors became the dominant form of organizaton in
56 “Landesbühnen bringen Kultur überall hin.” Die Landesbühnen im Deutschen Bühnenverein. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
13/93 Germany. However, the vast majority of them were not yet city theatres but court theatres (Hofheater),61 which soon became an integral part of court life. Only towards the end of the 18 th century were they opened to a broader public.62 By the beginning of the 19th century, almost all German princes had their own court theatre in their residence that they fnanced and controlled. Much like the touring companies, court theatres were not autonomous, as their dependence on their princes illustrates. Besides the aristocratcally fnanced Hofheater, the idea of a Natonaltheater (natonal theatre) arose in the mid-1700s among members of the bourgeoisie (Bürgertum). Natonal theatres were meant to stage challenging dramas in German, as opposed to French dramas or Italian operas that were ofen played in court theatres.63 The general idea was to establish a sense of cultural unity through a common language in an environment that was characterized by politcal and religious fragmentaton. Moreover, proponents of natonal theatres “imagined the emerging bourgeoisie as the moral judges of the absolutstc authorites.“64 There were a number of atempts by members of the bourgeoisie to fnance and run theatres like that. One notable example is the Mannheimer Natonaltheater, founded in 1777; another one is the short-lived Hamburger Entreprise (also known as Hamburg Natonal Theatre, 1766-1769) with Gothold Ephraim Lessing as its main fgure and the world's frst dramaturg. 65 The Hamburger Entreprise, like most other similar atempts, failed rather quickly due to bankruptcy.66 They tried to stage more progressive and educatonal plays and fewer shallow entertainment pieces than were usually performed at court theatres. However, this did not fnd enough approval in the public. Just like the Wanderbühnen, natonal theatres had to take the audience's taste into account to not fall victm to bankruptcy. They consttuted an early atempt at making theatre more autonomous – and although short-lived, they actually had a lastng impact on the common idea of the city theatre (the “myth of the city theatre,”67 as Jens Roselt describes it). The fnancially more secure court theatres remained dominant during the 19th century
61 Roselt, Mythos Stadtheater, 219. 62 Van der Beek, Kulturfnanzen, 27. 63 Peter Simhandl, Theatergeschichte in einem Band (Berlin: Henschel Verlag, 1996), 136. Some theatres are stll called Natonaltheater today. In that case, the term merely refers back to this historic development, serving as part of the name of some theatres that are otherwise organized as state or city theatres. 64 Kat Rötger, “Todesstoß des August von Kotzebue: Politsches Atentat, Fanal einer Krise. Zur Theatralität der Öfentlichkeit zwischen moralischer Bühne und politscher Gewalt.” Agenten der Öfentlichkeit. Theater und Medien im frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Ed. Meike Wagner (Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag, 2014), 138. 65 Roselt, Mythos Stadtheater, 220f. 66 Ibid., 226. 67 Ibid., 215.
14/93 although the politcal infuence of the Fürsten gradually dwindled.68 In the second half of the century, afer the German revoluton of 1848/49, the Bürgertum became more important, which led to rising numbers of private theatres.69 Afer the Bürger were unsuccessful in taking over the politcal system, they focussed on sciences and the arts and slowly started to obtain the power over theatres.70 Stagecraf was stll used to entertain and distract spectators. Widespread reservatons against politcal motfs in theatre were based on the by then common belief that art should be purposeless and not have a politcal agenda.71 However, theatre was also used to be intellectually and morally uplifing to the audience. The values of the bourgeoisie and enlightenment that could not be realized in the politcal environment at the tme were idealized in theatre, partcularly through classical dramas.72 For the frst tme in German theatre history, the idea of autonomy was getng popular on a larger scale. By the end of the 19th century, most princely residences and larger cites had their own theatre building.73 Just like the private theatres – some of which had already been calling themselves Stadtheater and were run by collectves of wealthy members of the bourgeoisie – these court theatres were turned into structurally and aesthetcally autonomous city theatres in the early 20th century. This transformaton marked the beginning of a short avant-garde period in theatre.74 The German Revoluton of 1918/19 brought an end to the monarchic system in Germany and with it all remaining court theatres.75 By the beginning of the Weimar Republic, almost all court theatres had been taken over by the state and the municipalites.76 When censorship was generally abolished afer the revoluton, this included theatre censorship, which had in fact been shaping German theatre for a long tme. Theatre, it could be said, was “at the heart of democratc change.”77 Reformers like Georg Fuchs and Peter Behrens renounced former naturalist design and actng traditons and instead addressed themselves to more “artstc” approaches. Aesthetcally, they led theatre away from literature and turned it into a more autonomous art form78 that drew
68 Ibid., 225. 69 Ibid. 70 Simhandl, Theatergeschichte, 182. 71 Ismayr, Das politsche Theater, 2f. and 8f. 72 Simhandl, Theatergeschichte, 183f. 73 Roselt, Mythos Stadtheater, 225. 74 Nix, Theater, 31. 75 Knut Lennartz and Deutscher Bühnenverein, Vom Aufruch zur Wende. Theater in der DDR (Velber: Erhard Friedrich Verlag, 1992), 10. 76 Van der Beek, Kulturfnanzen, 27. 77 Nix, Theater, 30. 78 Manfred Brauneck, Theater im 20. Jahrhundert. Programmschrifen, Stlperioden, Reformmodelle (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1982), 63.
15/93 much inspiraton from the fne arts.79 What also emerged in the afermath of the revoluton with directors such as Erwin Piscator and Leopold Jessner was lef-wing politcal theatre. Here the structural autonomy of theatre was joined by the more heteronomous idea of debatng current topics and politcal ideas onstage. This led to the curious situaton that this lef-wing politcal theatre mostly did not reach the working class, because paradoxically it was predominantly taking place in bourgeois theatres.80 With the end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler's Nazi regime in the 1930s, the tme of the avant-garde, the structural autonomy of theatre, and the lef-wing politcal aspiratons came to an end. All publicly fnanced theatres were brought into line by the regime. Among other measures, liberal Intendanten were replaced by ones who were true to party principles, and repertoires were aligned to the Nazi ideology. Theatres were basically turned into propaganda tools.81 In the frst years of the Second World War, theatres were mainly given the task of entertaining their audience and providing distracton from the war.82 This situaton lasted untl 1944, when Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels shut down all German theatres so that their employees could partake in the “total war” he had declared.83 The tme of the Nazi regime had a permanent detrimental efect on German theatre. The modern theatre that had been evolving since the German revoluton of 1848/49 came to an abrupt end.84 Atempts of the Allies afer 1945 to take up the traditons from the Weimar Republic mostly failed since many important fgures of German theatre had either fed the country or had been killed.85 Only a few weeks afer Germany's unconditonal surrender, many artsts started to make theatre again, although in auxiliary facilites since about three quarters of the theatre buildings had been destroyed.86 Stll, the “innovaton and politcal explosiveness of the 20s”87 could not be restored, which became partcularly clear afer the division of Germany in 1949. West German theatre88 was neither innovatve nor politcal for decades afer the Nazi era, as “the
79 Ibid., 459. 80 Ibid., 309f. 81 Nix, Theater, 31f. 82 Ratka, Thalia Theater, 48. 83 Interestngly, the directve demanded that artsts should not be employed in a way that would afect their future capability to pursue their profession. See: Ibid., 50. 84 Nix, Theater, 31. 85 Ibid., 35. 86 Lennartz and Deutscher Bühnenverein, Aufruch, 121. 87 Nix, Theater, 38. 88 I will focus on West Germany here. While the GDR was home to many publicly fnanced theatres, the politcal situaton in the oppressive socialist country gave rise to a theatre culture that was in many aspects diferent from theatre in the FRG, partcularly so with regard to questons of autonomy and heteronomy. Theatre in the GDR was considered a means to promote the socialist state ideology. Although some theatre makers found ways to reveal
16/93 impulse to block out what had happened was more powerful than the willingness of the survivors to scrutnize the history of Natonal Socialism in theatre.”89 While a formal and aesthetc richness was developing,90 politcal theatre was mostly rejected.91 Theatre makers returned to the autonomy in whose traditon city theatres had evolved. It was only in the late 1960s that a re-politcizaton of German theatre – which also means, the emergence of aesthetcally heteronomous ideas – took place.92 From 1967 on, directors like Peter Palitzsch, Erwin Piscator, and Claus Peymann, and authors such as Peter Handke revolutonized German theatre with new aesthetc approaches and organizatonal experiments in the spirit of the protests of 1968. However, Christoph Nix claims that “the tme of terror from 1933 to 1945 and the tme of silence from 1945 to 1966” 93 in theatre could not be compensated by the new perspectves during the movement of the late 60s. In the 70s and 80s, theatres returned from the “dominance of the politcal to private topics, to sheer play as play.” 94 They started to recycle old myths rather than elaboratng on the new subjects that had evolved in the late 60s.95 At the same tme, most playwrights seemed to lose their ambitous aims of politcal or social change and instead focussed on polishing their style.96 Theatre makers had, again, mostly turned away from any heteronomous approaches. The next deep cut in the history of German theatre was caused by the German reunifcaton in 1989/1990. Although the state and city theatre system at large could be preserved,97 some (smaller) theatres in both former West and East Germany were either merged
the gap between the ideological ideal and politcal reality, politcal operatves generally enforced the state ideology in theatre. Rather than standing in the autonomous traditon that West German theatre can be traced back to, theatre in the GDR therefore had a distnct heteronomous agenda that would need to be examined in greater detail than is possible here. For more informaton on theatre in the GDR, see for example: Lennartz and Deutscher Bühnenverein, Aufruch. For an example of how the socialist ideology infuenced the work of theatre scholars, see theatre historiographer Rudolf Münz' 1969 essay on the idea of a natonal theatre. In critcizing the aristocracy, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism, Münz writes a history of theatre that clearly stands in the traditon of the state ideology of the GDR. See: Rudolf Münz, “Zwischen 'Theaterkrieg' und Natonaltheateridee. Zu den Anfängen der bürgerlichen deutschen Theaterhistoriographie.” Wissenschafliche Zeitschrif der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafs- und sprachwissenschafliche Reihe, XVIII (1969) 1: 15-36. 89 Nix, Theater, 37. 90 Lothar Schirmer and Gesellschaf für Theatergeschichte, Aus Trümmern entstanden. Theater in Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Berlin: Gesellschaf für Theatergeschichte e.V., 1991), 5. 91 For example by infuental absurdist theatre makers. See: Ismayr, Das politsche Theater, 3. 92 Nix, Theater, 38f. 93 Ibid., 40. 94 Georg Hensel, Spiel's noch einmal. Das Theater der achtziger Jahre (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1990), 9. 95 Ibid., 21. 96 Ibid., 12. 97 Lennartz and Deutscher Bühnenverein, Aufruch, 11.
17/93 or closed for economic reasons.98 Audience numbers started to dwindle.99 Since then, budget cuts have posed an existental threat to many city theatres, partcularly the smaller ones, through the closure of individual branches or entre theatres100 – a crisis that has been ongoing ever since. Its reasons are partly rooted in politcal, social, and economic developments (such as the fnancial crisis of 2007-08101) that have facilitated a rather parsimonious cultural policy. However, theatre's difcult situaton can in part also be traced back to the very structure of state and city theatres. The system is ofen critcized as too expensive and cumbersome. Thomas Schmidt argues that one third of German city theatres will have to close in the next 40 years if the system is not reformed fundamentally.102 Furthermore, critcs from the theatre scene – who have for example organized in groups such as the ensemble-netzwerk103 or art but fair104 – argue that the state and city theatre system is too conservatve, that structures are too hierarchical, that Intendanten have too much power, and generally that working conditons at theatres need improvement. Despite the system's many problems, news from the world of theatre do not usually receive a lot of atenton outside of their own realm. As a result, a larger public debate about the future of theatre in Germany and thus the need for reforms have long failed to take place. This suggests the existence of a third type of crisis besides the fnancial and the structural one, namely a crisis of legitmacy. Generally, theatre's “structure has survived the historical, politcal, and artstc changes of the last 200 years relatvely unscathed.”105 Even today it is stll dedicated to the idea of structural autonomy. The crisis that has started afer the German reunifcaton has found its way into
98 Nix, Theater, 48. 99 Franziska Schößler and Christne Bähr, “Die Entdeckung der 'Wirklichkeit'. Ökonomie, Politk und Soziales im zeitgenössischen Theater.” Ökonomie im Theater der Gegenwart. Ästhetk, Produkton, Insttuton. Eds. id. (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009), 9. 100See for example: Roselt, Mythos Stadtheater, 216. Or: “Aus für die kleinen Experimenterstäten? Die Nebenspielstäten der Theater stehen in mehreren Städten vor der vorübergehenden Schließung.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 22.11.2011. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
18/93 theatre's aesthetcs, though. Against the backdrop of “current processes of neoliberalizaton, mass unemployment, and the reducton of hard-won social protecton systems,”106 the precarious has found its way onto the stage. In the same way, the “virulant topic of (disappearing) work [has] extended the aesthetc range of expression and theatrical forms of producton.”107 This can either mean that theatres have drawn inspiraton from their own situaton, or from the social one in Germany in general. Either way, these new approaches are manifestatons of a new tendency towards heteronomous aesthetcs.108 Director Volker Lösch's use of choirs of amateur actors who appear in their (actual) capacity as homeless people or prosttutes is just one of many examples of this.109 When theatre makers turned toward heteronomous aesthetc approaches in the Weimar Republic and in the late 1960s, it was a reacton to social and politcal upheavals. I argue that the trend towards heteronomous aesthetcs since the Germany unifcaton is a reacton to the state and city theatres' own current crisis, partcularly the crisis of legitmacy. This became partcularly obvious in the so-called “refugee crisis.” In its early days, Sophie Diesselhorst claimed that theatre is currently willing to take a step away from the arts and to prove itself “in the turmoil of reality.”110 Similarly, elsewhere on nachtkritk it is noted that “the trend away from a mostly aesthetc positoning to social interventon has been notceable for some tme.”111 It is further stated that this new emphasis manifests in theatre's aid to refugees. While I agree, I would rephrase this in terms of notons of autonomy and heteronomy. I argue that theatres have turned to aesthetcally heteronomous means that are new and diferent in comparison to anything that came before. In the following I will examine said new kind of aesthetc heteronomy by tracing theatre's actons in the so-called “refugee crisis.”
106Evelyn Annuß, “Tatort Theater. Über Prekariat und Bühne.” Ökonomie im Theater der Gegenwart. Ästhetk, Produkton, Insttuton. Eds. Franziska Schößler and Christne Bähr (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009), 25. 107Schößler and Bähr, Entdeckung, 10. 108It seems worthwhile to relate autonomous and heteronomous aesthetcs at state and city theatres since the 1960s to Hans-Thies Lehmann's concept of post-dramatc theatre. However, due to lack of space this is unfortunately not possible here. 109See for example: Christne Wahl, “Theater muss wie Koks sein! Doku-Book auf der Bühne. 4. Teil: Hartz-IV- Empfänger, Migranten, Wutbürger – Volker Lösch.” Spiegel Online. Web, 16.01.2011. Online (last accessed 29.06.17):
19/93 2.2 The so-called “refugee crisis” in Germany from a theatre perspectve In this subchapter I will establish a selectve tmeline of the so-called “refugee crisis.” This includes not only the general course of events during the “crisis” but also those actons of theatres that received greater media atenton. As for the later, I will analyze why they caught the atenton of the media in the frst place. Lastly, this subchapter also serves to illustrate the immediate background of the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Many German state and city theatres had begun to occupy themselves with the topic of refugees even before the so-called “refugee crisis” peaked and started to be considered a crisis. The frst tme a theatre received widespread coverage in the media for one of their works on the topic was in May, 2014, with Nicolas Stemann's producton of Elfriede Jelinek's Die Schutzbefohlenen. The show was developed against the backdrop of the Lampedusa in Hamburg protest campaign that had been unfolding since March, 2013. Most of the approximately 300 members of the so-called Lampedusagruppe had had to fee from Libya afer the end of the Libyan Civil War in 2011. Afer staying in Italy for some tme, they arrived in Hamburg in March, 2013. The goal of their protest campaign was to receive German residence and work permits. The refugees' presence and the apparent unwillingness of politcians to help them caused a public debate in Hamburg and throughout Germany.112 In the course of the debate various diferent groups declared their solidarity with the refugees, among them Thalia Theater and director Nicolas Stemann. In September, 2013, a frst reading of Jelinek's text about the current European refugee policy and its consequences took place in Hamburg. The show that evolved in the following months was a co-producton of the Theater der Welt festval, the Holland Festval, and Thalia Theater Hamburg. Afer its premiere in Mannheim, it was incorporated into the Thalia Theater repertoire. One of the most controversial aspects of Stemann's Schutzbefohlene was that it featured members of the Lampedusagruppe onstage even though they were not legally allowed to work in Germany. Stemann and Lux, however, took a stand for the refugees and, afer consultng with a lawyer and public authorites, had them partcipate anyway for an expense allowance.113 In 2014, a considerable increase in the numbers of asylum seekers in the European Union was noted. From 435,000 registratons in 2013, the number rose to 626,000 (+191,000/44%).114
112See for example: Federica Benigni and Marika Pierdicca, “Migratonspolitk made in Italy. Aspekte von Souveränität und Bürger*innenschaf anhand von 'Lampedusa in Hamburg'.” Migraton, Asyl und (post-)migrantsche Lebenswelten in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektven migratonspolitscher Praktken. Eds. Miriam Aced, et al. (Berlin and Münster: LIT Verlag, 2014), 29-46. 113Ludwig Greven, “Flüchtlinge: Hamburger Asyl-Theater.” Zeit Online. Web, 15.09.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17):
20/93 While the reasons for this increase are complex, it can at least partly be explained by the worsening politcal situaton in Syria. This is refected in the fact that Syrians consttuted 20 % of the total number of asylum seekers. Against the backdrop of this development asylum and migraton policies began to come under fre. On 3 July, 2014, 80 theatre makers and creatve artsts published an open leter demanding of politcians to make both the German and the European asylum policy more humane.115 The leter ends with a voluntary agreement to give a voice to all those facing deportaton from Europe, and to create a shared forum for those afected, the mainstream society (Mehrheitsgesellschaf), and politcs. Although many famous theatre makers were among the signees, the leter did not receive much atenton outside of the realm of theatre. On 20 October, 2014, the politcal movement PEGIDA (Patriotc Europeans Against the Islamizaton of the West/Occident) came together for the frst of their weekly rallies in Dresden.116 Ofshoots of PEGIDA were soon formed in other cites in Germany and abroad. The protesters claimed to be critcal of an alleged Islamizaton of “their” countries and the migraton and asylum policy of Germany and the EU. The largest rallies in Dresden were those between 15 December, 2014, and 25 January, 2015, drawing from 15.000117 up to 25.000118 partcipants each Monday. On 22 December, the Semperoper in Dresden switched of their exterior illuminaton in protest against the rally in front of their building.119 Afer the number of protesters had temporarily dropped, it went up again between September and November, 2015, peaking at 15.000-20.000 120 partcipants in mid-October. Both PEGIDA and the counter-demonstratons (that drew up to 100.000 protestors across Germany121) were covered extensively in the media. Some observers
21/93 have linked the PEGIDA movement – which is ofen described as ant-Islamic, ant-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, völkisch, and right-wing populist122 – and its omnipresence in public discourse to the growing number123 of atacks against refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, and partcularly their shelters.124 One group in partcular caught the atenton of the media with actons situated between performance art and actvism, namely the Zentrum für politsche Schönheit (Center for Politcal Beauty, ZPS), led by philosopher and artst Philipp Ruch. Although the ZPS has only loose tes to the state and city theatre system,125 the independent company arguably helped to bring the feld of performatve art forms up for discussion. Between November, 2014, and October, 2015, the ZPS initated several campaigns revolving around the topic of refugees. With the frst one – Erster Europäischer Mauerfall (First European Fall of the Wall, October/November, 2014)126 – the group tried to draw atenton to people dying at the external fronters of the EU while atemptng to seek refuge in Europe. First, the ZPS unlawfully took away several white crosses from a memorial for those who had died at the Berlin Wall during the tme of the Cold War. Afer returning the crosses, the ZPS placed reproductons of them at the external fronters of the EU in order to build a memorial for those who had died there. The ZPS also successfully ran a crowdfunding campaign and sent several busses to the external fronters of the EU. The group's atempt to take down the barb wire fences, however, was stopped by local authorites. Stll, the project caused a controversy zu-gegendemonstratonen-a-1012628.html>. 122See for example: Vorländer et al., PEGIDA, 71-135; chapter 7, “Einordnung und Deutung der empirischen Befunde”. 1232013: 58 atacks on refugee accommodatons and asylum seekers' hostels; 2014: ca. 200; 2015: more than 1,000. See: “Fremdenfeindlichkeit: Zahl der Angrife auf Asylbewerberheime hat sich verdoppelt.” Zeit Online. Web, 02.03.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 22/93 in German media and even made headlines beyond German-speaking countries.127 In June, 2015, the ZPS started their next project called Die Toten kommen (The Dead Are Coming). A number dead bodies of refugees who had died on their way to Europe were exhumed (with their families' consent) at the external borders of the EU, then brought to Berlin and buried there. The ZPS' asserted intenton was to “restore the dignity of the unsuccessful immigrants”128 and to carry the corpses to their “bureaucratc murderers.”129 A rally at which some of the dead bodies were supposed to be present was scheduled to take place in front of the Chancellery building. Afer the police had prohibited the realizaton of this plan, more than 5,000 protesters gathered in front of the Bundestag, stormed the fenced-in area around it, and symbolically dug about 100 graves.130 Die Toten kommen, just like Erster Europäischer Mauerfall, was covered extensively both natonally and internatonally.131 In the summer and fall of 2015, more and more asylum seekers came to Germany, leading to the advent of the term “refugee crisis.” The situaton exacerbated due to a number of reasons, including the war in Syria, the opening of the so-called Balkan route, and German Chancellor Merkel's announcement to ofer temporary residency to all refugees arriving in Germany. 132 On 4 September, Merkel, Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, and the Hungarian government decided to allow a large number of refugees currently in Hungary to come to Germany and Austria without registraton.133 This exceptonal regulaton was justfed by Merkel and Faymann with humanitarian reasons.134 Critcs, however, have called it “de facto amnesty”135 and a “retroactve adjustment to the fact that migrants and refugees [had] been crossing these same borders for at 127See for example: Philip Oltermann, “Art group removes Berlin Wall memorial in border protest.” The Guardian. Web, 03.11.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 23/93 least two years.”136 The border opening of 4 September followed the frst tme Merkel had used the phrase “Wir schafen das” in a press conference on 31 August.137 The statement quickly became a sound bite summarizing Angela Merkel and the German government's refugee policy. It has since been quoted, critcized, and discussed extensively.138 On 27 August, about a week before the border opening, a truck with 71 dead bodies of refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran was found in Austria. They had probably died from sufocaton.139 A few days later, on 2 September, Schauspielhaus Bochum put a truck identcal in constructon to the one found in Austria in front of the theatre, then had “audience members” climb into it. This atracted a lot of atenton from the media, with some critcs calling it cynical and amoral.140 Schauspielhaus Bochum head dramaturg Olaf Kröck is quoted to have rejected allegatons of “Gruseltourismus” (horror tourism) which suggested that the theatre was only afer the atenton with a cheap horror efect. Kröck claimed the event was not intended to be a performance, a re-enactment, or art. Instead, the underlying idea was a humanitarian one, and the Akton should “sensualize what we are currently faced with all the tme” 141 (Kröck) and “bring to mind an abstract occurrence”142 (Anselm Weber, Intendant of Schauspielhaus Bochum). The days and weeks following the border opening saw an actve Willkommenskultur that manifested for example in large numbers of Germans welcoming refugees at train statons in larger cites and volunteering in recepton centers. This engagement of German civil society was accompanied by extensive media coverage. Many commentators, both natonally and internatonally, praised not only Chancellor Merkel for her decision to open the borders for people 136Ibid. 137“Mitschrif Pressekonferenz: Sommerpressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel.” bundesregierung.de. Web, 31.08.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 24/93 in need but also the general attude of helpfulness in Germany.143 At the same tme, however, critcs started to queston diferent aspects of the events. This included, among others, the number of refugees that public insttutons could manage to take care of;144 temporary accommodaton for the refugees in decent conditons;145 the feared signal efect open borders might have for other refugees, encouraging them to also come to Germany;146 and the fear of a security risk caused by terrorists who could possibly hide among the refugees entering the EU.147 On 7 October, the Intendantengruppe (group of theatre directors) of the Deutscher Bühnenverein148 released a statement commentng on the diferent ways German theatres had been dealing with the so-called “refugee crisis.” According to the publicaton, theatres “have lef or rather extended the space of art, and directly given humanitarian aid.“149 This is justfed with the claim that theatres, as a part of society, play a vital role in dealing with the “crisis” because they are both a social and dramatc art form that can serve as a “social laboratory.”150 While the text appears to be meant as a way to promote theatre's actons, recepton of the leter was minimal.151 In late October, 2015, a show at Schaubühne Berlin became a talking point beyond the theatre scene. Director Falk Richter's FEAR was dealing with and commentng on the fear that 143See for example: Katrin Bennhold, Steven Erlanger, and Alison Smale, “Germans Welcome Migrants Afer Long Journey Through Hungary and Austria.” The New York Times. Web, 05.09.2015. Online (last accessed 28.06.17): 25/93 some parts of German society (“besorgte Bürger”152) had or claimed to have of refugees, Islam, or “liberal” politcs changing the social status quo.153 In the show, several portraits of contemporary public fgures were used, among them politcians from rightwing partes. Two of the depicted, including controversial politcian Beatrix von Storch of the Alternatve für Deutschland (AfD), obtained an interim order against the use of their picture onstage. Thomas Ostermeier, the artstc director of Schaubühne Berlin, invoked the structural autonomy of theatre by calling their move “an assault on the freedom of the arts.”154 When the interim order was successfully appealed, the case had already atracted much public atenton: “Germany is controvertng contemporary theatre. It has been a long tme since that has last happened,”155 one commentator wrote. On 13 November, 2015, 130 people were killed and hundreds were injured in a series of terrorist atacks in Paris.156 Critcs of Germany's refugee policy were quick to connect the incident to the so-called “refugee crisis,”157 and many European countries' increased their security measures. About a week afer the atacks, Staatstheater Mainz drew the atenton of the media. While an AfD rally under the moto “against the asylum chaos” was held near the theatre building, 120 employees of the theatre sang Beethoven's Ode an die Freude (including the line “Alle Menschen werden Brüder,” all people become brothers) in the theatre foyer with the windows open. As the singing disturbed the rally and the singers did not react to calls by the police to stop, the later pressed charges against the theatre for violatng the freedom of assembly.158 152The term “besorgte Bürger” (concerned citzens) has been used in the context of the so-called “refugee crisis” in two diferent ways. On the one hand, it serves as a self-designaton of critcs of a liberal refugee policy who want to distance themselves from a rightwing ideology by claiming they are only concerned about, for example, Germany's future. On the other hand, the term has been appropriated by liberals to refer to people covering up their racist attudes. For a study on the problems that the designaton entails, see: Piotr Kocyba, “Wieso PEGIDA keine Bewegung harmloser, besorgter Bürger ist.” PEGIDA – Rechtspopulismus zwischen Fremdenangst und 'Wende'-Entäuschung? Analysen im Überblick. Eds. Karl-Siegbert Rehberg, Franziska Kunz, and Tino Schlinzig. (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2016). 153Georg Kasch, “Lachen über Pegida. FEAR – An der Schaubühne Berlin schickt Falk Richter seine Darsteller in die linksintellektuelle Blase.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 25.10.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 26/93 When reviewing all the actons described above, it has to be noted that no escalaton was taking place. While I consider the Hermanis/Thalia incident as the pinnacle of all prior developments, the later did not slowly grow in intensity untl they erupted into the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Instead, all actons that caught the atenton of the media shared a few characteristcs: frst, some actons were legally dubious or downright illegal, such as FEAR or the ZPS' campaigns, while others were morally dubious, for example the truck event. Second, the general topic of all actons was the so-called “refugee crisis.” And third, the way the topic was approached was by opposing those who were critcal of liberal refugee policy or of refugees themselves. Actons that were apparently less controversial – like the two open leters – did not receive as much atenton. This is also true for the many other cases in which theatres were addressing in the issue of refugees outside the realm of the aesthetc – in other words, their humanitarian engagement or social work, or, as I will argue later, their aesthetcally heteronomous actons of a new quality. Although most of these actons did not reach a natonal audience, they were ofen covered by local media. Many of these “quieter” actons can be found on a list under the ttle “#refugeeswelcome – How theatres get actve in refugee relief”159 that nachtkritk assembled between September, 2015, and January, 2016. The list features 78 entries, each of which describes one or more diferent actons that German, Austrian, and Swiss theatres have carried out to actvely help refugees. Most entries are from September, October, or November, 2015. Only seven entries menton actons taken in 2012-14. An analysis of the list shows that the most common measures were donatons that were made or collected by the theatres, including donatons of items (36 mentons); theatre projects with and by refugees (31 mentons), including projects conducted by drama teachers (Theaterpädagogen) with refugee children and youth (16 mentons); invitng refugees to shows, sometmes including a courtesy bus service and translatons of the show (27 mentons); intercultural projects and other forms of encounter between refugees and other members of an urban community (22 mentons); and ofering German classes (8 mentons). Four listed theatres accommodated a number of refugees in their premises for some tme.160 While the list gives a good impression of theatres' actons, it is by no means exhaustve. It also needs to be critcally assessed. Entries were added either based on ofcial press releases or 27/93 on direct messages from theatres to nachtkritk, pointng out the respectve theatre's actons. The compettve character of this method of submission creates doubt as to whether theatre's engagement was really unselfsh, or at least it added an afertaste of self-interest to theatres' otherwise honorable actons. Also, many theatres' extensive engagement in refugee-related topics onstage was completely neglected. The most prominent manifestaton of theatre's engagement turned out to be the Hermanis/Thalia incident in early December. It featured all the aspects identfed as catching the atenton of the media: frst, the fact that the inital press release was published without Hermanis's consent is both legally and morally questonable. Second, the general topic of the incident is the so-called “refugee crisis,” and third, Thalia Theater opposed a critc of liberal refugee policy. What set the incident apart from all previous ones was that with Hermanis, this critc came from inside the world of theatre. Arguably, this facilitated the widespread atenton this incident received from the media.161 In the following chapter I will examine the statements by the diferent agents involved in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. 3. Analysis: The Hermanis/Thalia incident 3.1 Introducton of the main agents Before startng with the analysis of the main texts consttutng the Hermanis/Thalia incident, I will very briefy introduce its main agents – Thalia Theater, its Intendant Joachim Lux, and Alvis Hermanis – as well as one of its major platorms, nachtkritk.de. Thalia Theater Hamburg was founded in 1843 by Chéri Maurice (Charles Maurice Schwartzenberger) as a Lustspielhaus.162 It was a private theatre untl 1938 when it was turned into a state theatre by the Nazi regime, which it stll is today.163 In 2009, Joachim Lux (*1957) became its director. As Thalia Theater dramaturg Christne Ratka describes, Lux has been stressing the character of the theatre as a “place of social communicaton in Hamburg”164 for the “intercultural urban community”165 since the beginning of his directon. According to Ratka, Lux has also been trying to enhance the internatonality of Thalia Theater in reacton to the observaton that society is becoming increasingly internatonal. 166 This 161It needs to be kept in mind, though, that historically, state and city theatres evolved in the spirit of the autonomy of art. Against this backdrop, it may in fact not be Hermanis but the majority of theatre makers that behaved in a rather unexpected way. I will consider this apparent paradox in chapter 4.3. 162Ratka, Thalia Theater, 14. 163Ibid., 44. 164Ibid., 146. 165Ibid. 166Ibid., 152. 28/93 focus on social communicaton and diversity of Lux's agenda clearly suggests an openness for aesthetc heteronomy. Alvis Hermanis (*1965) is a Latvian actor and theatre director. He has been the artstc director of New Riga Theatre (Jaunais Rīgas teātris) since 1997. While Hermanis is based in Latvia, he has also frequently been engaged as a director in the German-speaking European countries since 2005, with more than 20 works in Berlin, Munich, Cologne, Zurich, Vienna, and Salzburg. 167 His work has been described as “highly sensitve, mostly psychologically subtle, but rich in styles,”168 as “chiselled”169 and “fnely spliced,”170 and as rich in detail and very slow.171 Hermanis himself has stated that he does not have a specifc style. Instead, he claims to always startng out from reality because he fnds realism more interestng than modern kinds of theatre.172 Afer the Hermanis/Thalia incident, in mid-2016, Hermanis has called his approach to theatre to be “l'art pour l'art,”173 which means that he wants theatre to be “frst of all beauty and poetry.”174 Thus Hermanis can be classifed as an advocate of aesthetc autonomy in theatre. The website nachtkritk.de was founded in 2007 as, by the editors' own account, “the frst independent and transregional theatre arts secton [Theaterfeuilleton; A.D.] on the internet.”175 Its founders are theatre critcs Petra Kohse, Esther Slevogt, Nikolaus Merck, and Dirk Pilz, as well as visual artst Konrad von Homeyer.176 The site claims to be frequented by theatre practtoners and theatre enthusiasts alike.177 nachtkritk publishes theatre critques, theatre and performance- related news, and longer essays and columns by the nachtkritk editors or guest contributors. The 167“Alvis Hermanis.” Jaunais Rīgas Teātris. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 29/93 later notably include a series of texts on the future of the state and city theatre system (Debate um die Zukunf des Stadtheaters).178 Nachtkritk is not actvely advocatng autonomous or heteronomous approaches to theatre, but ofers various platorms to discuss theatre in its diferent forms. 3.2 Thalia Theater's press statement In the following I will analyze the Hermanis/Thalia incident. I will show what discourses are overtly and covertly discussed in the statements that were made during the incident, and analyze what ideologies they reveal, partcularly those concerning the autonomy and heteronomy of theatre. First I will look at Thalia Theater's press statement from 4 December, 2015, announcing that Alvis Hermanis cancelled his upcoming show at Thalia Theater. The one-page release was issued by Thalia Theater's communicatons and press department. It consists of (a)179 a leterhead, (b) a capton, (c) a segment announcing Hermanis's cancellaton as well as paraphrasing Hermanis's reasons for it, (d) a statement by Thalia Theater intendant Joachim Lux, and (e) a closing line. I will structure my CDA of the press release around these diferent parts due to the fact that they are all quite distnct in terms of tone and content. In the end I will consider (f) the overarching impression of the press statement. (a)180 The capton of the press release consists of two lines. The frst one is phrased in a neutral and ofcial tone. Hermanis is referred to by his full name; sagt ab is a neutral verbal process and Inszenierung is a neutral term from theatre language referring to the producton process of a theatre show. In the second line, neither Engagement nor Flüchtlingsfrage are very specifc. However, they evoke certain discourses in the reader's mind. Engagement is a term that is generally connoted positvely, and with two more mentons in the press release it appears quite frequently. The term is associated with commitment to an issue or actve partcipaton in a community. It would generally not be used to refer to something perceived as negatve. What is suggested is that the reason (Grund) Hermanis has stated for his cancellaton, namely the 178“Die Zukunf des Stadtheaters. Dossier zur Stadtheaterdebate.” nachtkritk.de. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 30/93 Engagement of Thalia Theater, is something positve, the consequence being that a negatve light is cast on him by rejectng it. It is implied that he does not want to partcipate in a good cause. By using the objectve term Grund instead of, for example, the more subjectve Begründung (ratonale), Hermanis's motves for his cancellaton are evaded. Thus the reader is not encouraged to empathize with Hermanis. Lastly, the term Flüchtlingsfrage (queston of refugees) is used instead of the more common Flüchtlingskrise (refugee crisis). As mentoned above, the use of the term crisis and other collocatons with refugee such as wave or stream has been critcized for their negatve connotatons. By using -frage, the issue is constructed as something that can be answered or solved rather than as a threat. Juxtaposing Flüchtlingsfrage and Engagement suggests that Thalia Theater has decided to look for the answer to this queston. Summed up, the capton evokes a number of discourses, namely the debate around the so- called “refugee crisis,” humanitarian aid, and the role of theatre in said debate. The capton's tone quickly changes from ofcial to more evaluatve, giving the impression of being neutral while actually constructng Hermanis in a negatve and Thalia Theater in a positve light. Accordingly, the heteronomous engagement of the theatre is implicitly connoted positvely whereas Hermanis's autonomous approach is implicitly connoted negatvely. Lastly it is important to note that Thalia Theater is mentoned twice in only two lines. This hints at what later becomes even more apparent, namely that the actual main subject of the press release is Thalia Theater and not Hermanis. (b)181 Next comes one long sentence that adds some more details to what has been indicated in the capton. Thalia Theater's Engagement, which according to the capton was the reason for Hermanis's cancellaton, is abstracted to the unspecifc aus politschen Gründen. This suggests that for Hermanis, Thalia Theater's Engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” has been a politcal act. The reference to politcal reasons introduces another discourse present throughout the text, namely the relatonship between an alleged politcal dimension and the realm of art. The tone of the introductory sentence is ranging between neutral and respectul or polite, which gives a professional impression. The verbs (arbeitet, hat abgesagt, hat darum gebeten ihn zu entlassen) are all rather neutral but defnitely not dismissive or accusatory – as one might imagine them to be given that those responsible at Thalia Theater182 were faced with the 181See Thalia Theater press release in the appendix, chapter 6.1.1: secton (b). 182I will sometmes use the term “those responsible at Thalia Theater” to refer to an unspecifed group of decision makers at Thalia Theater. When I use “Thalia Theater,” I refer to the theatre as a whole, as in “all people working 31/93 cancellaton of a show whose preparatons were “in a very advanced state.”183 The way Hermanis is characterized and contextualized (renommiert, Theaterregisseur, working at Opéra Bastlle in Paris) depicts Hermanis as a successful partcipant in what is ofen regarded as high culture. This representaton gives the impression that those responsible at Thalia Theater respect Hermanis. The verbs in the sentence further construct the image of a mutually respectul working relatonship between Hermanis and Thalia Theater. While hat darum gebeten, ihn aus der vertraglichen Verpfichtung zu entlassen points to the fact that Hermanis acted within the boundaries of a contractual relatonship with Thalia Theater, it also suggests that he acted politely when he requested his dismissal. A subtle faw is added to this seemingly positve depicton by the words verabredete and Verpfichtung. To cancel something that has been agreed upon can be interpreted as bad conduct, whereas to enter a contract and then back down can be viewed as either a breach of contract (legal dimension), or a betrayal (moral dimension). A less charged term like angesetzte (scheduled) could have been used instead of verabredete (agreed). The way it is phrased, however, Hermanis is depicted as not living up to his usual image of a reliable and morally impeccable associate. The characterizaton of Hermanis as Latvian and the reference to the Opéra Bastlle in Paris introduces the discourse of internatonality that can be found throughout the entre press release. While on the one hand it adds some more context about Hermanis, it also alludes to the fact that Thalia Theater is an insttuton that works with internatonal partners. In a society that has been and stll is subjected to processes of globalizaton, internatonal cooperatons are ofen regarded as indicatons of prestge and success. Moreover, the discourse of internatonality characterizes Thalia Theater as open-minded and experienced in dealing with partners from diferent cultural backgrounds. This openness for various cultural traditons and forms of artstc expressions can also be read as a tendency towards aesthetc heteronomy. (c)184 The next part of the press release paraphrases what is claimed to be Hermanis's reasons for the cancellaton.185 By paraphrasing Hermanis instead of quotng him directly, Thalia Theater at the theatre” and the public image of the theatre with the values it promotes. While I am aware that this is both quite vague and generalizing and therefore fawed, it ofen seems necessary to keep the terms this abstract as it is mostly an unspecifed group of people I refer to. 183Lea Hapig, E-mail from 32/93 clearly distances itself from the content of the statements. Thus, in analyzing this segment I will distnguish between what Hermanis allegedly said and the way Thalia Theater expresses it. On the level of content, the dominant discourse of this paragraph is danger, which then quickly turns into terror, then war. There is a clear overlexicalizaton of words and expressions associated with danger: extrem gefährlich, Terroristen, die Schlechten, Opfern, Anschläge, Krieg. Of the ten tmes one of these is mentoned, four are Terroristen. The dominance of this word corresponds with the content of the statements, namely the opinion that terrorism is the reason for both the alleged danger and war. With four mentons the word Flüchtlinge is just as dominant, suggestng a close link between refugees and terrorism. These linguistc choices could potentally evoke a feeling of threat in readers, but they can also (and arguably more importantly) be interpreted as an expression of Hermanis's own feeling of being threatened. The link between the discourse of danger and the text's second major discourse, humanitarian engagement, or rather Hermanis's critcism of it, is refugees. According to Hermanis, terrorists hide among refugees, and die deutsche Begeisterung, die Grenzen für Flüchtlinge zu öfnen enables terrorists to enter ganz Europa (which remains unclear as to whether it refers to the geographical contnent, the European Union, or just certain parts of one of them). While this line of argument is surely questonable, it is interestng to note that Hermanis does technically not blame open borders or the politcians responsible for opening them. Instead, he turns towards what he polemically calls the enthusiasm in German society to open them. By not making open borders an issue of politcal decisions but of a sentment carried by – allegedly all – members of a society, Hermanis constructs Thalia Theater's engagement as part of what he views as the problem. Moreover, he is able to positon himself very clearly since it is easier to critcize and oppose the opinions and emotons of concrete actors than complex politcal decisions. In Hermanis's descripton, terrorists are die Schlechten, but refugees (vaguely referring to people entering the EU, not to the actual defniton186) are not atributed any real positve traits, either. They only become “good” by not being terrorists. By claiming that nobody can tell the “good ones” from the “bad ones,” all “good ones” become potentally bad and dangerous by implicaton. While Hermanis shows empathy with the (European) victms of terrorism (den Pariser Opfern), he does not consider whether refugees are in need of help, why they are migratng in the frst place, or any possible reasons to accommodate and help them (e.g. presumed positve long- term consequences of immigraton for a country's economy, cultural diversity that potentally 186See chapter 1.3. 33/93 enriches society, or moral aspects). Neither does Hermanis consider the circumstances in which people become terrorists, nor the fact that most of those involved in the terrorist atacks in Paris held the French or Belgian citzenship and therefore did not have to “hide” behind “the good ones.”187 The involvement of some European countries and the U.S. in wars in natons like Syria or Afghanistan,188 or the fact that some countries beneft more from processes of globalizaton than others, for example, are not taken into account. Neither are the conditons that prompt Europeans to become radicalized. The constructon of such fat images of terrorists and refugees results in a simplifcaton of the so-called “refugee crisis” that blanks out all politcal and social circumstances in Europe and elsewhere. This lack of empathy helps Hermanis in establishing a strong oppositon of the “good European us” versus the “bad foreign them,” the later of whom supposedly come from an undefned place outside the European borders. The Paris atacks are used as evidence for a war between “us” and “them,” and all those who do not share this worldview of polar opposites are not on Hermanis's side. The confict is constructed as a proxy war with Hermanis as the representatve of a “no refugees” policy on one side, and Thalia Theater (as well as viele deutsche Theater) representng a “pro refugees” stance on the other. From this perspectve, the entre so- called “refugee crisis” seems to come down to a very personal level of individual investment rather than policies that are hard to challenge directly. This impression of personal investment and responsibility may be part of the reason why Hermanis and other commentators reacted that strongly to the Thalia Theater press release, as it can evoke a feeling of being personally atacked by a diferent opinion. Another interestng point is Hermanis's claim that die Zeiten der politcal correctness are over. Politcal correctness (p.c.) is a term that has ofen been used by the politcal right “to drum into the public imaginaton the idea that there was a deep divide between the 'ordinary people' and the 'liberal elite', who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk.” 189 This 187Two of the terrorists did indeed come to Europe from Iraq pretending to be refugees from Syria, as was later found out. Stll, the nine other people allegedly involved in the atacks (or many of those involved in other recent terrorist atacks) did not, which Hermanis does not take into account. See: Anthony Faiola and Souad Mekhennet, “Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State.” The Washington Post. Web, 22.04.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 34/93 noton of speech and thought control will become partcularly important in Hermanis's response to Thalia Theater's press release. However, the menton of p.c. as a negatve in the paraphrased statements already raises questons such as: if p.c. really exists, what exactly is it? Who facilitates it? Why, according to Hermanis, is it over now? What are the implicatons of p.c. being over, and what would an alternatve look like? All these questons remain without an answer or even a menton in the text. Another one of Hermanis's unquestoned presuppositons is refected in the claim that all terrorists are refugees or the children of refugees. Hermanis does not support this with any sort of evidence. He also does not defne who the actors in the war he claims to have spoted are, when it began, what goal the diferent combatants pursue, or why it should be considered a war in the frst place. While Hermanis talks about danger, terror, and war, he does not at all menton potental opposites such as peace or lack of concern. Accordingly, he neither clarifes what in his view has to happen in order to facilitate such a peaceful situaton, nor what exactly such a world would look like. He only defnes his vision of a beter world ex negatvo: no refugees and, as a consequence, no terror. In sum, virtually all of Hermanis's claims are vague or unsubstantated. Although he is talking excessively about a current politcal subject he does not ofer any statstcs, evidence, or even any neutral facts that might traditonally be expected in such a discourse. Hermanis's statements are heavily politcally charged while apparently not being based on anything but his own opinions and emotons. Another vital point is that Hermanis's statements hardly enter the discourse of art or theatre. This is quite remarkable given that the paraphrased statements were writen by a theatre director to the administraton of a theatre. Again, Hermanis expresses his ideology regarding theatre only ex negatvo. His rejecton of humanitarian aid as a task of theatre suggests that he advocates the aesthetc autonomy of theatre. The neglect of the discourse of theatre also suggests that for Hermanis, art may have faded into the background in light of the danger that he is apparently surrounded by. The way Hermanis's statements are presented by Thalia Theater are less emotonal than their content. By avoiding quotng verbs, the paraphrase is kept notceably neutral. Even the one quotng verb used (kritsiert) is only characterizing Hermanis's intenton but not judging the content of his words. The only tme it is unclear whether something is a judgment by Thalia accessed 07.06.17): 35/93 Theater or a quote of Hermanis is when the word Krieg is put in quotaton marks. Stll, the overall tone of the paraphrase is neutral. In combinaton with the controversial content this suggests that those responsible at Thalia Theater wanted to make sure Hermanis's words speak for themselves. They seem to cautously avoid making the press release vulnerable to accusatons of manipulaton. (d)190 The reacton to Hermanis's statements of Thalia Theater Intendant Joachim Lux can be found, clearly separated, in the next part of the press release. Each of the three parts of Lux's statement, indicated by line breaks, have distnct topics. The frst part describes Lux's emotonal and intellectual reacton to Hermanis's cancellaton and to the general situaton in Europe during the so-called “refugee crisis.” The second one lists diferent ways Thalia Theater has been reactng to the “crisis.” The last part is an announcement of how Thalia Theater intends to react to Hermanis's cancellaton. Together, these diferent parts suggest that Lux and Thalia Theater are thinkers and doers alike. As for word felds, Hermanis is mostly linked to the feld of politcs whereas Thalia Theater is described as being actve in the feld of the arts. As the later clearly dominates in terms of numbers of mentons in the text, this again suggests that the press release is mostly about Thalia Theater. The divide also marks one of the most important discourses Lux engages in, namely the separaton of art and politcs.191 While in the introductory sentence Hermanis is called renommiert and in his statement Lux claims that he values Hermanis highly as an artst, Lux clearly distances himself (and Thalia Theater) from Hermanis's politcal stance. This separaton is even more highlighted by Lux's announcement to keep one show which Hermanis has directed in the theatre's repertoire despite rejectng his politcal views. That way Lux creates the impression of him and Thalia Theater as farsighted and standing above day-to-day politcs. They seem to focus on what Lux calls (in his second statement two days later) the centre of the work of a theatre: artstc work. Hermanis on the other hand is implicitly characterized as caught up in politcs, his politcal views, and possibly even his temper since his cancellaton seems to show that he cannot separate the two areas the same way as Lux can. Rhetorically, these characterizatons of Hermanis are achieved by praising his craf. By not atacking Hermanis on a personal level but respectully treatng him as an artst, Lux apparently lives up to the implied ideal of standing above momentary conficts of opinion. By challenging Hermanis's politcal views, though, Lux makes clear that he 190See Thalia Theater press release in the appendix, chapter 6.1.1: secton (d). 191The term art in this context refers to theatre that is not regarded as politcal theatre. 36/93 does not at all see theatre as detached from its surroundings. Theatre in Lux's sense may not be inherently politcal but it can refer to politcal events from a distance – a clear indicaton of an aesthetcally heteronomous approach to theatre. What remains unclear is why the politcal and the arts should be kept separate in the frst place. The expression aus politschen Gründen is connoted as negatve when Lux states that he has never experienced a politcally motvated cancellaton. He makes the act of cancelling seem illegitmate. There is no explanaton of why it should be regarded as negatve, though, or if a legitmate, a “good” politcal cancellaton is imaginable. The way Lux's statements are phrased suggests that Hermanis's motfs are illegitmate without actually explaining the reasoning behind this suggeston. The only explanaton that Lux ofers for his apparent negatve judgement of Hermanis's cancellaton is that it is indicatve of the Riss or Spaltung of Europe that Lux claims to have detected. By statng that this division has reached the cultural sector, Lux connects the politcal with theatre, again from an observing rather than an actve positon. He frst expresses his regret about Hermanis's cancellaton, then claims that it is depressing and shocking that the division has started to afect the cultural feld. That way Lux constructs the Spaltung as inherently negatve and threatening. However, he does not explain how or when this division started, how the situaton used to be without it, who is responsible for and afected by it, which countries fast alle Länder consist of, if there really ever was something like a unifed Europe, how the Spaltung manifests, or generally what it is exactly. Given the context of Hermanis's cancellaton, however, it is likely that Lux refers to many Germans' and Europeans' disagreement on how to deal with the so-called “refugee crisis.” But it is not just dissent between two partes – not unlike the war partes Hermanis has mentoned – that Lux critcizes. As he arguably knows, dissent can be a productve force, which is why his critcism must aim at something beyond mere disagreement. Calling the dissent a Riss or Spaltung evokes the image of a geological structure, a crevice. When stcking with this image, the consequence of the Spaltung is a gap that – if it is deep and wide, as Lux suggests – makes it hard for the partes on both sides to communicate with each other without shoutng. As a result, either loud and bold statements are made in order to get heard on the other side, or the conversaton stops altogether. Although Lux does not explicitly say it, it seems to be this rejecton of a dialog between the representatves of the diferent points of view that Lux aims at with his critcism – or in this specifc case, Hermanis's cancellaton as a way of rejectng his partcipaton in an artstc examinaton of his disagreement with Thalia Theater. In other words, Lux speaks out in favor of a commitment to discourse and critcizes those who do not partake in it. 37/93 Indeed ofener gesellschaflicher Diskurs is one of the core tasks of Thalia Theater according to what Lux writes in the second part of his statement. He lists three felds of duty in the light of the so-called “refugee crisis.” These are artstc involvement, humanitarian engagement, and ofering spaces for open public discourse. As all them refer to the Flüchtlingsfrage, it remains unclear whether or how theatre's scope of dutes would be or were diferent in other circumstances. Given that artstc work is the frst point that Lux mentons, and given the dominance of words from the felds of art and culture linked to Thalia Theater in the press release, it seems likely that this aspect is the core of Lux's understanding of theatre. In his second statement, Lux actually makes this explicit. The feld of artstc involvement is also the one that Lux illustrates most vividly with two examples of work done at Thalia Theater. The other two aspects, humanitarian aid and ofering a forum for debates, are described only very vaguely and without any examples. The short list of the scope of dutes refects Thalia Theater's self-image and thereby constructs the three entries as positve. The positve depicton of artstc work implies that it results in some sort of valuable outcome. What exactly this is and who benefts from it remains unclear, though. Humanitarian engagement for people in need is described as positve, too. While most may intuitvely agree with this idea, it can of course be questoned as well. Why, for example, should the wellbeing of those in need be more important than the fortune and comfort of the ones helping them? Neither does Lux queston this, nor does he explain it. Lastly, open public discourse is defned as positve as well, and so is ofering it to the widest range of politcal stances. Here it remains unclear why discourse should be regarded as desirable, and why everybody should be allowed to partake in it. In sum, Lux describes his aesthetcally heteronomous stance but does not actually explain it, which makes it easy to challenge. While Lux talks a lot about the arts, he does not react to the topics most dominant in Hermanis's statements, namely danger, fear, terror, and war. They only appear implicitly in Lux's Riss and Spaltung, but other than that they are completely evaded. Even the topic of refugees is mentoned only once in the form of the word Flüchtlingsfrage. Lux does not join the discourse of fear (or fearmongering) but stcks to theatre. He does not look at potental problems resultng from the Flüchtlingsfrage but turns straight to productve reactons and atempts at dealing with it. The persona of Joachim Lux that the press release creates is multlayered. On the one hand, Lux is not introduced as the intendant of Thalia Theater, thus the authority linked to the job is not explicitly evoked. The emotonal tone (bedaure, sehr schätze, bedrückend, schockierend) of 38/93 the frst part of Lux's own statement consolidates this efect of being relatable to as a “normal” person in the face of the so-called “crisis” and the politcal Spaltung, not the manager of a prestgious theatre. The sometmes informal lexis in the segment on Thalia Theater's actvites (wir, das Thalia instead of das Thalia Theater, no numbers or other specifc data given) stands in contrast to its rather ofcial content. The overall level of authority seems low, the tone creates a co-membership with the audience. On the other hand, expressions like noch nie erlebt, aufs Neue, über den Einzefall hinaus, and fast alle Länder suggest that Lux has great experience and profound knowledge as well as a broad view of politcal and social developments in Europe. Moreover, Thalia Theater and its various actvites are linked with the expressions mehrfach, in vielfältger Weise, zahlreichen, and größtmöglichen. These create the impression of far-reaching and in-depth involvement with the topic of refugees, and thus of being an authority in that area. Also the very form of the press statement including a full leterhead gives an ofcial, authoritatve impression. Thalia Theater is constructed as a moral authority with a lot of experience that stands up for its values and even respects its opponents. Both the informality and seeming lack of authority on the one hand and the authority actually created on the other win the readers over to the authors' side, even more so as Hermanis is characterized rather negatvely. (e)192 The last sentence of the press release directly addresses the readers. The expression bite haben Sie Verständnis is polite but decisive, creatng an ofcial tone. Together with the fact that Lux wrote only his own statement and had the rest of the press release writen for him – as referring to him in the third person suggests –, this again indicates Lux's authority. It also suggests, like the use of wir and das Thalia (Theater), that Lux is not alone with his attude but that he is part of a larger group of kindred spirits. (f) What is arguably most characteristc about the press release as a whole is how clearly Thalia Theater and Lux distance themselves from Hermanis. Although Lux hints at former tmes when Thalia Theater and Hermanis apparently got along well, he also makes it very clear that this relatonship is not going to be the same unless Hermanis changes his views. All in all, the director is depicted quite negatvely, which prevents readers from empathizing with him. Thalia Theater, on the other hand, is presented very positvely and reasonably. While both of these characterizatons may partly or even predominantly stem from the content of both sides' 192See Thalia Theater press release in the appendix, chapter 6.1.1: secton (e). 39/93 statements, they are certainly reinforced by the language of the press release. In accordance with this sharp distncton, the main discourses Hermanis on the one side and Thalia Theater/Lux on the other engage in are very diferent. Hermanis talks about fear, danger, and war. He seems to be caught up in his politcal and ideological views, focussing exclusively on current politcal and social events. With his “us versus them” rhetoric he engages in a discourse of isolaton, both on a personal (him vs. Thalia Theater) and politcal level (refusing to help refugees). Thalia Theater and Lux, on the other hand, obviously reject Hermanis's choice of discourse. Instead of discussing Hermanis's claims directly, they counter them by positoning themselves as cosmopolitan through the discourse of internatonality. They uphold respect and moral integrity through the discourse of humanist ideals such as altruism. Unlike Hermanis, they depict themselves as farsighted and standing above day-to-day politcs on the one hand and both thoughtul and actve on the other. Their most important, interconnected discourses are theatre and its spectrum of dutes, and public discourse. Lux describes state and city theatres as insttutons rooted in their urban communites. In his descripton they are a productve force in the so-called “refugee crisis” which is able to actvely shape the course of events through artstc work, humanitarian engagement, and providing a forum for open public discourse. By contrast, Hermanis does, surprisingly, hardly ever menton theatre, and seems to have turned his back on open discourse with his cancellaton. In fact, Thalia Theater and Hermanis both advocate art. However, for the former it is only one part of a larger spectrum of dutes of theatre as an insttuton (heteronomous stance), while for the later it is theatre's only goal (autonomous stance). 3.3 Hermanis's statement On 4 December at 18h45, nachtkritk updated their original post with Thalia Theater's press release, adding a statement by Alvis Hermanis himself.193 Esther Slevogt of nachtkritk had called Hermanis when she learned about the press release prior to its publicaton. 194 On the phone, Slevogt claims, Hermanis frst invoked private reasons. When confronted with the wording of the press release, he apparently felt treated unfairly by Thalia Theater because they had quoted from his private e-mails without permission. Later he sent nachtkritk the statement mentoned above.195 193“Miten im Krieg?” Also see Hermanis's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.2. 194See the edit by Wolfgang Behrens in user comment #8 under: “Miten im Krieg?” 195Esther Slevogt, E-mail from 40/93 Hermanis opens up a number of diferent discourses in his statement. First, expressions like manipulated, taken out of context, without asking my permission, tabu, not open for diferent opinions, and the rhetorical queston What about democracy? suggest that he is a victm of a language or even thought regime. The preceding claim that the tmes of politcal correctness are over aligns with this idea. An important aspect of the discourse of a thought regime is that of the oppressed majority. Hermanis constructs an image of himself as a member of a group that is dominant in numbers but oppressed by the liberal mainstream media. For instance, this is refected in the actons mentoned in the text: Hermanis himself and those he relates to are given a low degree of agency through mainly mental, behavioral, and relatonal process verbs. On the other hand, those whom he describes as his opponents are represented with a much higher number of material processes indicatng a high degree of agency. This seems to suggest that “they” act while “we” can only react. Morever, Hermanis calls emigraton (meaning immigraton) uncontrolled, links refugees and terrorists, and rejects that he is radical – a suggeston with unclear origins, since there is no menton of it in Thalia Theater's press release. He also rejects that almost the entre populaton of Poland are neo-nazis and racists, another claim with unclear origin. This suggests a number of things: (a) that Hermanis is part of a majority, (b) that this majority is in the right, (c) that this majority is oppressed, and (d) that Hermanis is a sort of rebel boldly going against the grain, even though this might lead to disadvantages for him. The impression is conveyed that the regime of politcal correctness led by Germany is a threat to Europeans, those inside EU borders, Eastern Europe, and Poland – all of whom Hermanis constructs as being on “his” side. Expressions like massacre, permanent paranoia, even worse, abandoning, everywhere, surrounded, threat, fear, traumatsed, dangerous, 9/11, tragedy, terrorism, or death mark the second large discourse in Hermanis's statement, namely an all-encompassing fear and paranoia. The dominance of said discourse seems to give a glimpse into Hermanis's own state of mind, just like the paraphrased statements in Thalia Theater's press release did. Stll, Hermanis potentally alarming words do not entrely succeed in evoking a frightening atmosphere. This tme it is the obvious fallacies in Hermanis's reasoning that distance the reader from the content. This is the case even though Hermanis weaves another minor but powerful discourse into the discourse of fear: family. By referring to his seven children and to the death of 132 young people he amplifes the noton of fear by touching on the basic human impulse to save one's children. Another discourse that discredits Hermanis more than it supports him is the implict ant- 41/93 muslim discourse. The menton of Israel associates the Israeli-Palestnian confict. Describing it as negatve that Jews are allegedly abandoning Paris suggests that Hermanis takes the side of Israel in said confict, thus implicitly critcizing Arab actons. What fuels this discourse even more is the connecton Hermanis draws between immigraton policies and terrorism. Ever since the New York terror atacks on 11 September, 2001, linking Islam and terrorism has been a common discursive practse in “Western” media.196 This has led to the widespread demonizaton of Muslims in countries such as the U.S. or Germany. Hermanis is by far not the only one engaging in this discourse. In fact, it has gained new momentum in the so-called “refugee crisis,” permeatng much of the debate around it.197 It was also an important factor in the rise of right-wing groups such as PEGIDA. As Fatma El-Tayeb argues, the discourse of the close link between Islam and terrorism is highly problematc.198 One way to read Hermanis's statement is as a succession of claims that he, Hermanis, is a victm. First he is the victm of unfair practces by Lux; second of terror, fear, and paranoia; third of the general German thought regime; fourth of the more specifc thought regime of Thalia Theater; and lastly he is part of the majority of Europeans who have been put at risk by the German Willkommenskultur. However, the statement can also be interpreted as one part of a narratve of how Hermanis frees himself. From his perspectve, this could look as follows: by cancelling his show and having his own choice and [his] own opinions he has escaped Germany and Thalia Theater. With issuing his own statement, he corrects the false image that he claims Lux has painted of him. And lastly, by potentally persuading readers of his views he might contribute to a change of politcs, and as a consequence rid the “oppressed European majority” of the German regime and eventually of terror and fear. Although Hermanis did maybe not initally have the intenton of publishing the reasons for his cancellaton, he now takes on the role of a sort of hero in the struggle against an allegedly dangerous, politcally correct thought regime. Many of the statements that Hermanis makes in the course of constructng himself as a rebel, however, can be unmasked as logically or objectvely fawed: (1) Accusing Lux and Thalia Theater of manipulaton becomes apparent as a bogus argument, or even as an atempt to impute base motves to them, when Hermanis repeats 196El-Tayeb, Undeutsch, 156. 197Ulf Brüggemann, “Sind Flüchtlinge ein Terror-Risiko? Das Narratv der Terroristen muss durchbrochen werden.” Tagesspiegel Causa. Web, 10.01.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 42/93 the statements from the paraphrase right afer atacking them as quoted out of context. (2) Hermanis claims that the Jewish community leaving Paris is evidence for Paris being somehow worse than Israel because the Jews there do not leave. That means Hermanis takes one characteristc – the presence of Jews – of an example that he came up with himself – Israel, possibly because of the connectng aspect of paranoia –, and links it to his current situaton. Then he makes a statement about the absence of the same characteristc – the absence of Jews – in the case he talks about, namely the situaton in Paris. The subjectve, somewhat random elements in this argument indicate that it is hardly verifable. (3) Claiming that Hamburg is a potentally dangerous city because some of the 9/11 terrorists had lived there confounds the premisses of two diferent arguments to a wrong conclusion. If the terrorists were dangerous and the terrorists lived in Hamburg, the conclusion is not that Hamburg is dangerous. It is also a case of inductve reasoning (the premises are regarded as evidence for the truth of the conclusion), which does not make for a logical conclusion but only for a more or less probable one. (4) Hermanis's claim that the German government changed their refugee policies because of the Paris atacks is a logical fallacy, or more specifcally a post hoc fallacy. It suggests that the changes were made because of the atacks due to the fact that they were made afer the atacks, which cannot be proven. In fact, what happened was a tghtening of security measures, not a change of refugee policies.199 (5) Hermanis's claimed that Thalia Theater took away his democratc rights (possibly meaning the right of free speech) because they did not approve of his opinion. This mistakes critcism – and the refusal to give a platorm to a radical opinion that cannot be proven, namely linking refugees and terrorists200 – for censorship. (6) And lastly, the suggeston that Hermanis cannot be racist because many others allegedly think the same way about immigraton is an argumentum ad populum. This means that just because many people believe in something does not make it true. Hermanis might have wanted to make his reasoning more comprehensible and thereby clear his name afer what he saw as a misrepresentaton in the Thalia Theater press release. However, he 199“Reakton auf Terror von Paris. Viele Länder verschärfen Sicherheitskontrollen” Spiegel Online. Web, 15.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 43/93 actually achieved the exact opposite. All the illogical or irratonal statements in fact made it very easy for those critcal of Hermanis's cancellaton to atack him, which arguably played a major part in why the Hermanis/Thalia incident atracted so much media atenton. Although Hermanis is engaged in a dispute among artsts, the discourses of art or theatre are not included in his statement. And neither is humanitarian aid, except implicitly in his rejecton o f refugee-welcome centers. Hermanis does not at all react to Lux's paragraph on the tasks of Thalia Theater. The possibility of artstc involvement with the topic of refugees, or even artstc work in general do not appear to be on his mind. This is revelatory of Hermanis's understanding of theatre. He does not even seem to think about theatre as possibly involved with politcal or social maters. This apparent blind spot suggests what Hermanis made explicit in an interview half a year later, namely that his approach to theatre is “l'art pour l'art.”201 In this aesthetcally autonomous view, a theatre behaving like a refugee-welcome center apparently should be rejected because it does not focus on what he regards as its core task: art. 3.4 Lux's statement Joachim Lux's second statement was released on nachtkritk two days afer the inital press release and Hermanis's response. It was not issued as an ofcial Thalia Theater document but informally sent to nachtkritk.202 In the statement, Lux replies to some of the points raised by Hermanis. While the inital press release appeared to be a carefully crafed statement for which even a lawyer was consulted,203 this second statement by Lux seems less worked on. Just like with Hermanis's statement, the multple errors (e.g.: emails, bloß zu stellen, ab zu stmmen, daß) suggest that the text was not spell-checked very carefully, which makes it seem more like a piece of private conversaton than an ofcial leter, not unlike Hermanis's statement. (a)204 In the frst three segments, Lux defends Thalia Theater's actons against Hermanis's claims. Lux accuses Hermanis of not telling the truth and explains his own view of what happened. The frst part of Lux's statement rejects the claim that Thalia Theater's press release was manipulatve and quotng Hermanis was illegitmate. Lux does this in a factual and ofcial tone, as expressions like referiert (academic connotaton), Positon (instead of “Meinung,” for example), or Geschäfsführung (instead of “ich”205) suggest. The language that he uses seems driven by the 201Schurian, Alvis Hermanis. 202Slevogt, e-mail 15.03.2017. 203Hapig, e-mail 22.03.2017. 204“Miten im Krieg?” Also see Lux's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.3: secton (a). 205When Lux writes that Hermanis sent his e-mails to the management, he in fact means himself: “Between 19.11. 44/93 intenton to clarify and to restore Thalia Theater's high moral positon which Hermanis had contested. In the last two sentences of the frst segment, however, Lux subverts this apparent goal. While it does no harm to Lux's argument to change the rather technical, distanced tone of the frst four sentences to a more relatable tone by using unsere and wir, Lux's claim to even have protected Hermanis from himself does. Lux suggests that it was honorable either to paraphrase Hermanis, or to paraphrase him the way it was done. Rhetorically, this claim is arguably the biggest faw in Lux's argument. While the segment on the Spaltung of Europe in his frst statement can be critcized as vague and subjectve, the suggestve yet vague claim that Hermanis needs to be protected from himself seems presumptuous and patronizing. Was publishing the press release the honorable act that protected Hermanis from himself, or does the claim suggest that Hermanis did in fact say even “worse” things than the ones quoted, and not quotng those must be considered honorable? Either way, Lux provided his critcs with a target, just like Hermanis's fawed arguments did. (b)206 The second part defends the act of publishing the press release. Its long frst sentence is full of legal vocabulary (e.g. Geschäfspartner, Vertragsverhältnis, Korrespondenz). Both the sentence's length and the choice of words situate the confict between Thalia Theater and Hermanis in a contractual context. Inside this framework, Lux discusses the distncton between privacy and publicity. The legal argument does not only suggest integrity, legal knowledge, and authority. It also conveys the impression that Thalia Theater's behavior was legitmate. Regardless of whether this is true or not, (a) the implicatons of this argumentaton strategy can be seen as problematc in the given context. The legal framework reduces Hermanis and Thalia Theater to business associates. This suggests that their acts are evaluated on the basis of law alone, which blinds out the moral values that Thalia Theater and Lux claim to uphold. The legal argument that Lux makes can also be interpreted diferently, though. It can also be read (b) as a way for Lux to show that a city theatre as a public insttuton is bound to laws and that it acts within their framework. This would be another counter-argument to Hermanis's manipulaton claims. In order to decide which of these alternatves, (a) or (b), might be more likely, it is helpful to look at the last two sentences of the second part. So aber suggests that the last sentence contnues the line of thought of the previous one. This would mean that it defends the act of issuing Hermanis's statements. What the last sentence actually does, however, is defending the way the statements and 21.11.2015, Alvis Hermanis wrote 4 short e-mails to Joachim Lux, the Intendant of Thalia Theater, to which the later replied.” – Hapig, e-mail 22.03.2017. 206See Lux's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.3: secton (b). 45/93 were published, namely without asking Hermanis's permission. This suggests that the queston of if is not even considered, and Lux would defnitely have published the statement regardless of whether Hermanis would have given his consent, because it is Lux's legal right. Thus Lux would always choose the legal opton over the ethical one – which, as I have argued above, is rather problematc when considering the moral stance he takes. (c)207 In the third part Lux makes the self-image of Thalia Theater even more explicit than in the press release. He explicitly calls creatve work the centre of a theatre's self-defniton, suggestng that it is the most important aspect but not the only one. He goes on to state that creatve work is complemented but not replaced by social, humanitarian, and sociopolitcal engagement. This contradicts Hermanis's claim that Thalia Theater is a refugee-welcome center which suggests that its focus has shifed to politcal actvism and neglects creatve work. Lux concludes his argument by statng that theatre is both a place for creatve work and a public space in an urban community. He does not defne the relaton of art and social, humanitarian, or sociopolitcal engagement, though. Neither does he explain what Thalia Theater's politcal stance is, nor if it has one at all. In sum, the third part of Lux's statement serves to summarize Thalia Theater's self-image and the tasks it engages in. The terms Lux uses, however, remain vague since he does not elaborate on them. As for creatve work, a few examples can be found in the inital press release. But when it comes to social, humanitarian, or sociopolitcal engagement and a public space in the urban community, it is unclear what exactly this means since Lux has not given specifc examples before, either. Just like in Lux's statement in the press release, however, the idea of art complemented by maters from outside points at Lux's and Thalia Theater's aesthetcally heteronomous approach to theatre. (d)208 In the fourth part, Lux stresses once more that in his opinion engaging in public discourse is to be preferred to boycotng certain countries or insttutons because of their politcal stance. To convey this message he uses the story of a recent case in which Thalia Theater and Lux were in a similar positon as Hermanis prior to his cancellaton. That way he atacks Hermanis without mentoning him. A boycot is presented as a possible but not a preferable opton when facing circumstances that challenge one's canon of values. Stressing that the opton was heavily discussed at Thalia Theater suggests that the structures inside Thalia Theater are open enough to allow controversial debates. This contradicts Hermanis's claim that those working at Thalia 207See Lux's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.3: secton (c). 208See Lux's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.3: secton (d). 46/93 Theater are not open for diferent opinions and cannot be talked with productvely. But Lux's argument is somewhat fawed. The way he describes them, decision-making processes at Thalia Theater appear democratc and based on debates. By using the passive voice (wurde diskutert), however, he does not only obscure how exactly the discussions were led, but more importantly he also does not reveal who took part in them. While at frst view this might not have much to do with the specifc case of Alvis Hermanis, it certainly points at the more substantal issue of power relatons and decision-making processes in state and city theatres. Although it is not clear if this actually is a problem at Thalia Theater, the much-cited general lack of democratc structures within the German state and city theatre system erodes the moral principles many theatres ofen call for in their work.209 (e)210 The last four sentences address the critcism that those responsible at Thalia Theater should take more measures than only condemning Hermanis's claims in a press release, and take Hermanis's previous show of the program. Lux counters these voices by assertng the power of the arts, suggestng again that stage productons can have a bigger impact than a boycot. This also implies that Hermanis's statements have an efect to which an answer (Antwort) needs to be given. Lux does not clarify who this answer is aimed at, though. Without a specifc addressee it seems as if the alleged artstc impact of Hermanis's piece is meant to stand for itself. Apparently it should resonate as a statement about not only the content of the piece and its relaton to the current politcal situaton, but also about Thalia Theater's way of dealing with Verwerfungen such as the ones between them and Hermanis. Lux seems to strive for prudence and circumspecton in not wantng to carelessly let day-to-day politcs or other current events – such as the Hermanis/Thalia incident – mingle with the agenda and the creatve work at Thalia Theater. He presents his message in a strong and emphatc way. The superlatve die beste and the exclamaton point suggest that Lux has a well-defned positon and that he is determined to defend his convicton against any critc, if need be. This high modality can in fact be found throughout the entre text (e.g. in keinster Weise; anders als behauptet ist es keine). (f) All in all, Lux's second statement is similar to his frst one. Thalia Theater and Lux himself are again constructed in oppositon to Hermanis with the former two being described as objectve and honest and the later as more dishonest and subjectve. Lux distances himself from Hermanis's allegedly false statements, his politcal opinion, his stance on what theatre should be and do, and 209I will point out a few diferent critcisms of state and city theatres in chapter 5.3. 210See Lux's statement in the appendix, chapter 6.1.3: secton (e). 47/93 the decision to cancel his show and thereby refuse to take part in open discourse. Through his choice of words, Lux again creates a positve image of Thalia Theater as engaged in all sorts of diferent processes. Moreover, Lux again does not react to Hermanis's claims concerning Germany's refugee policy but only to the accusatons against him and Thalia Theater. This partcular focus, the fact that Lux felt urged to reply to Hermanis's statement although he had initally refused to give any further comments, and the use of the word Verwerfungen – a metaphor suggestng a severe geological event – all suggest that Lux treated the issue rather seriously. 3.5 User comments on nachtkritk.de The Hermanis/Thalia incident was debated partcularly vigorously in the comment secton underneath the nachtkritk artcle on the incident.211 From 4 December untl 16 December, 2015, a total of 122 comments were published,212 and two more on 27 December. The posts were published under 83 diferent names, but some of the commentators may have used more than one alias. At least 19 people have submited more than one comment.213 The contributons of these 19 commentators represent 50 percent of the total number of comments (62/124), with user martn baucks as the top contributor (14 entries). Of those who have submited comments under their full name,214 at least six seem to be theatre directors and dramaturgs.215 These numbers are indicatve of the magnitude of the controversy the Hermanis/Thalia incident had caused in the German-speaking theatre scene. The commentators were discussing numerous diferent topics related to the Hermanis/Thalia incident. While many users critcized Hermanis for the reasons he had given for his cancellaton, a few defended him. The later ofen also critcized Thalia Theater/Lux for the way they had treated Hermanis's cancellaton, or they critcized the German Willkommenskultur. The so-called “refugee crisis” in general – outside the context of theatre or the Hermanis/Thalia 211“Miten im Krieg?”. 212More may have been writen, but the nachtkritk staf reviews all comments before they appear on the page. Some comments might not have met the terms and conditons of the nachtkritk discussion board and were not released. Also, a few comments were apparently deleted afer they had been published as some missing post numbers suggest. 213Assuming that none of the commentators have used an alias previously used by someone else. 214It is relatvely (although not completely) safe to assume that they are indeed the people's real names since nachtkritk is the biggest and most important theatre website in the German-speaking world. It is not unusual for practtoners from the feld of theatre to frequent the page and leave comments. 215Namely: Roland Koberg, Martn Baucks, Kai Festersen, Frank-Patrick Steckel, Stephan Thiel, and Leander Haußmann. 48/93 incident – was also debated vigorously. Some critcized the way the debate in the nachtkritk comment secton was led. Many of the discourses touched upon by the commentators do not seem to be directly linked to theatre, such as the conduct of the German government in the so- called “refugee crisis.” Although probably most comments could be analyzed productvely, I will in the following only look at those revealing the authors' concepton of theatre in a more concrete way. User dabeigewesen (#47216) estmates that 80 % of the theatre community approve of Thalia Theater's critcism of Hermanis – which actually seems to be true for the commentators on nachtkritk. At the same tme, dabeigewesen (#1, #47; similarly Ungereimtheiten: #84) claims that theatres should also consider opinions in their work that are not commonly held in the theatre community. User eine Besucherin (#45) wants theatre to refect important societal problems. User dabeigewesen (#47) states that the so-called “refugee crisis” needs to be addressed by society as a whole, which is why theatres – since they should be rooted in society – should join in: “because ideally, theatre […] accompanies, comments on, and artstcally digests social processes.” Most commentators seem to approve of theatre's social engagement beyond the realm of art (including user Boneless: #46; Mirko Schädel: #48) or at least do not openly disagree with it, thereby revealing a common approval of aesthetcally heteronomous approaches in theatre. User Mirko Schädel (#48) even views this engagement as a unique feature of theatre among public insttutons. A number of users are more critcal, though. User Lilooo (#21) fnds it interestng that entre theatres, as opposed to individual artst, explicitly positon themselves politcally. Lilooo takes up Hermanis's claim that certain positons are silenced by some theatres. If this claim is true, Lilooo writes, open discourse and even democratc practce might be in danger since most theatres seem to have the same stance in the so-called “refugee crisis.” User Gleichschrit (#97) polemically claims that the German theatre system is totalitarian, and that all state theatres share a uniform politcal doctrine that leaves no room for dissent. Gleichschrit sees Hermanis as a victm of their regime of opinion. User Mirko Schädel (#49) rejects Gleichschrit's conjecture for the practcal reason that a theatre is too big an insttuton to bring everybody involved into line. User Klaus (#120) describes the working conditons at a theatre or simply the work of a theatre director (Regisseur) as very stressful. According to Klaus, many directors sometmes go beyond their 216I have collected the comments that I refer to in this chapter in the appendix (chapter 6.1.5). For all comments, see: “Miten im Krieg?”. 49/93 breaking point and start to not act sensibly any more. In Klaus' opinion, dramaturgs and theatre directors should create a safe structure in which controversial statements can be made without the fear that they might be published to a greater audience. None of these critcal voices directly reject aesthetcally heteronomous approaches, though. Instead, they argue on the level of content. The theatre practtoners who commented under their real name were interestngly not openly concerned with theatre but more with the so-called “refugee crisis” in general. Partcularly Martn Baucks wrote long essay-like comments in which he scrutnizes the contents of Hermanis's claims and engages in discussions with other users, debatng their arguments. In fact, this is what most comments looked like. The Hermanis/Thalia incident seems to have led to a renegotaton of the “crisis” among commentators, most of whom are presumably rooted in or closely linked to theatre circles. This renegotaton was not directly connected to the queston of how theatres should behave, but rather resembled the general debate about the so-called “refugee crisis” in the media. The dominant tone was resembling the one of the Willkommenskultur. But much like in general public discourse, some critcal voices were raised, too. These critcal comments were then discussed in length and ofen rejected or refuted by other commentators. The apparently high interest in this debate suggests that many theatre makers and audiences are indeed open to politcal and social topics. While this does not prove that these people also want theatres to actvely engage in such maters, onstage or elsewhere, it does not seem far-fetched to conclude that many are potentally open to aesthetcally heteronomous approaches. 3.6 Media reports Media coverage of the Hermanis/Thalia incident began on the day Thalia Theater issued its press release. For more than a week, many German-speaking217 print and online media reported and commented on many diferent aspects of the debate. Some of the commentators simply paraphrased the diferent contributons to the debate in a more or less neutral way. Others critcized the diferent actors involved, and stll others used the case to refect on the debate in more of a feuilleton style, scrutnizing not only the incident alone but its diferent implicatons, too. Afer about a week and a half, coverage decreased. Later the Hermanis/Thalia incident was 217While a couple of reports can be found on Latvian news websites, very few English-speaking media covered the incident. Together with the fact that the incident was quite specifc to a German context, and that this thesis deals with German state and city theatres, this is why I will mostly disregard foreign coverage. Some links to non- German-speaking websites can be found in the bibliography and in chapter 6.1.6, though. 50/93 used as part of the bigger picture of the so-called “refugee crisis” in a number of artcles. In this subchapter I will give a broad overview of those artcles that specifcally take into account the implicatons of the Hermanis/Thalia incident for the theatre scene and beyond. My aim here is not to scrutnize any one specifc artcle in detail but to show (a) how extensive the coverage of the incident was and (b) that the incident was used to refect on theatre in a broader sense, too. A list of the artcles on the Hermanis/Thalia incident that I have looked into can be found in the appendix.218 It includes 28 artcles in 22 diferent media channels within the frst nine days afer the Thalia Theater press release, plus four more later on. Most commentators critcized Hermanis for cancelling his show, the paraphrased statements from the press release, or his own statement. In fact, some of the earliest artcles (from 4 December) covering the story were very critcal of Hermanis although the only source of informaton at the tme was the Thalia Theater press release.219 These quick reactons indicated that apparently a raw nerve had been touched. Some authors already made severe judgments: “racist director,”220 “politcally ignorant,”221 and “hatemonger.”222 The tone of others was more pitying and bafed (“helpless gesture,”223 “And now?”224). Stll others defended the director against the online Shitstorm225 and critcized Lux.226 While Michael Laages was quick to write a lengthy rebutal of Hermanis's arguments,227 Stefan Lüddemann was the frst to comment not only on what Hermanis had said and done but its implicatons and its meaning within the theatre context. According to Lüddemann, humaneness (Humanität) is a consensus that should be fundamental 218See the list of media reports in the appendix, chapter 6.1.6. 219See for example: “Alvis Hermanis' Flucht vor Flüchtlingen. Rassistscher Regisseur am Thalia-Theater.” taz.de. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 51/93 and self-evident to everyone in the arts. Hermanis, he claims, has revoked this agreement.228 Over the next few days most commentators toned down their rhetoric and wrote more balanced, well-researched artcles. Stll, most of them were critcal of Hermanis. Many also commented on theatrical practce in general and the conduct of the theatre scene in the so-called “refugee crisis.” Stefan Grund suggests that many theatres' engagement for refugees is a fg leaf hiding an artstc crisis.229 This corresponds with my argument that, with their engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis,” theatres tried to overcome their crisis of legitmacy. For Rüdiger Schaper, the Hermanis/Thalia incident is about the self-concepton of German theatre. Similarly to Lüddemann, Schaper claims that the theatre scene is in shock because Hermanis has revoked the agreement that theatre is pluralistc and a free and safe space.230 This is interestng in the way it combines diferent notons of autonomy and heteronomy. If theatre is said to be a free and safe space, this can be read as being structurally autonomous. On the other hand, pluralism would rather be associated with aesthetc heteronomy. For Schaper, the two seem to be connected. So if Hermanis turns against aesthetc heteronomy, he atacks theatre's structural autonomy at the same tme. In this line of thought, the freedom of theatre as an insttuton and the open- mindedness of its aesthetcs are interrelated. Hubert Spiegel writes that the Hermanis/Thalia incident has created a str outside of theatre, too, because it is not only about art but about the so-called “refugee crisis” as well. Although Spiegel is critcal of Hermanis, he also suggests that theatre sometmes mistakes humanitarian engagement for artstc work, and that the theatres' engagement for refugees is questonable.231 Thus Spiegel seems to be an advocate of aesthetc autonomy in theatre. While Wolfgang Höbel rejects Hermanis's claims, he writes that the director raises some important questons about the self-concepton of German creatve artsts. According to Höbel, many theatre makers are longing to take a stand on important social and politcal questons with artstc means and to get politcly actve with their art.232 This suggests a common 228Lüddemann, Thalia-Theater. 229Stefan Grund, “Die rassistsche Logik des Regisseurs Hermanis. Theaterskandal.” Welt. Web, 05.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 52/93 interest in aesthetc heteronomy among theatre makers. Leander Haußmann233 wants theatre to be a moral instance that stands the test of tme. The texts produced in the course of the Hermanis/Thalia incident, Haußmann writes, do not answer this claim. While rejectng his politcal standpoints and calling him “currently mad,”234 Haußmann seems to more or less agree with Hermanis on the issue of aesthetc autonomy in so far as theatre should not occupy itself with day- to-day politcs. Two of the artcles that were not specifcally covering the Hermanis/Thalia incident but only referred to it also weighed in on the queston of what theatre should or should not do. Joachim Huber claims with respect to the Hermanis/Thalia incident that “the currently biggest provocaton of theatre originates from the noton that no theatre is being made.” 235 Thereby Huber picks up on the idea that humanitarian aid is allegedly not the business of theatre. Christane Peitz is the third commentator to see a consensus revoked by Hermanis. For her, it is that theatre is a safe space and a place of compassion for the weak. It unmasks the powerful, Peitz writes, and gives a voice, a face, and an identty to the nameless. On the other hand, she claims that the arts have been using the so-called “refugee crisis” in order to obtain material, relevance, and authentcity for themselves.236 The last point chimes in perfectly with my argument that theatres were trying to escape their own critcal state through obtaining new legitmacy. 4. Interpretaton: German state and city theatres in the so-called “refugee crisis” 4.1 An aesthetcally heteronomous approach of a new quality At this point the fndings from the previous chapters need to be combined in order to assess my working hypothesis. As I have shown, the German state and city theatre system emerged in the late 19th/early 20th century in the spirit of the autonomy of art (aesthetc dimension) and of theatre as an insttuton (structural dimension). Since then, theatres have been predominantly commited to these autonomous ideas. Stll, over tme a number of heteronomous approaches to aesthetcs were tried out as well, partcularly in periods of politcal or social upheavals. These heteronomous 233Well-known German theatre director Leander Haußmann made a guest contributon to the newspaper Die Welt. 234Leander Haußmann, “Wir brauchen kein Flüchtlingskrisentheater. Debate um Hermanis.” Welt. Web, 13.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 53/93 eforts almost always remained in the realm of the aesthetc. Be it the politcal theatre in the Weimar Republic that was informed by lefist revolutonary ideas, or the new aesthetcs that emerged during the student unrest of the late 1960s or afer the German “turnaround” (Wende) – all these heteronomous approaches invariably had an aesthetc character. While they certainly led to new forms of expression in theatre, the long-term efect of these developments is doubtul. Were theatre makers able to maintain the impetus of these new approaches? And did these measures have a positve, stabilizing efect on theatre's positon in society? Arguably, the answer to both questons is no. The politcal theatre of the Weimar Republic was soon ended by the Nazi Regime, and the atmosphere of departure of the late 1960s trickled away even faster. How the new aesthetc approaches that have evolved since 1990 will be remembered in the long run is not yet clear. But against the backdrop of the current crisis of theatre, they have apparently failed to solidify and secure theatre's place in society so far. In the so-called “refugee crisis,” many theatres took to measures that, for the frst tme, were no longer rooted in aesthetcs. Theatres began to act in ways that went beyond the realm of the aesthetc, for example by hostng refugees on their premises or collectng donatons. I want to regard this new approach as an aesthetcally heteronomous one that possesses a “new” quality which has not been exerted by state and city theatres before. This new quality expressed itself in the lack of an aesthetc dimension, which means that theatres took acton in ways that were separated from any aesthetc aspiratons237 – unlike the “old” quality which was always rooted in aesthetcs. These actons received mostly local and almost no widespread atenton. The actons that caught the atenton of the media on a larger scale – the campaigns of the ZPS, FEAR, and so on – stll had an aesthetc dimension. Their appeal to the media, as I have argued, was a combinaton of their aesthetcs, their legal or moral questonability, their engagement in the topic of refugees, and their alignment with the zeitgeist to oppose critcs of liberal refugee policies and mend the alleged Spaltung of society.238 The quality of aesthetc heteronomy that these actons 237Thus it is debatable if the measures can even be called aesthetc, which I will do for the sake of my argument. However, I will revisit the issue again in chapter 5.3. 238Lux was not the only one suggestng the existence of such a divide. For example, Marina and Herfried Münkler note that Germany has become a “divided country” since the fall of 2015. In their interpretaton, those who helped to overcome the difcultes around the “crisis” are on one side and those who did not feel responsible and wanted to simply close the borders on the other. (See: Herfried Münkler and Marina Münkler, Die neuen Deutschen. Ein Land vor seiner Zukunf (Berlin: Rowohlt Verlag, 2016). – Ulrike Guérot claims that the current Spaltung is not located between the politcal lef and right, but that it runs straight through society. See: Ulrike Guérot, “Forderung nach EU-Reform. Mehr Demokrate gegen die Spaltung der Gesellschaf.” Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Web, 22.05.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 54/93 possessed was the “old” one – much like protest theatre in the late 1960s, for example –, as is indicated by the fact that they had an aesthetc dimension. When the Hermanis/Thalia incident took place in December, 2015, it was remarkable in a number of ways. First, it was the pinnacle of both theatres' engagement in the topic of refugees and their presence in the media. There was no other event connected to both theatre and the so- called “refugee crisis” that was discussed as vigorously before or since. Second, it was the most prominent example of the new quality of aesthetc heteronomy. Leander Haußmann's claim that the Hermanis/Thalia incident did not produce any lastng texts, as theatre should do in his opinion,239 also points to the incident's lack of an aesthetc dimension. Although the alleged cause of the debate was an aesthetc work, or rather the cancellaton of it, the incident itself was in fact frmly fxed in a public debate that did not have much in common with the traditonal, aesthetc idea of theatre: “the currently biggest provocaton of theatre originates from the noton that no theatre is being made.”240 Third, unlike most other actons that possessed the new quality of aesthetc heteronomy, the Hermanis/Thalia incident combined every aspect that had previously drawn the atenton of the media: Hermanis seemed to be put in the pillory, wherefore the press release was both morally and legally questonable; Thalia Theater opposed a critc of liberal refugee policies; and the press release was dealing with the topic of refugees, which, afer the terrorist atacks in Paris in mid-November, was once more dominatng public discourse at the tme. The Hermanis/Thalia incident thus featured aspects of both the old and the new quality of aesthetc heteronomy, which makes it a connectng link between these two. And fourth, the incident drew atenton to all other, previous manifestatons of the “new” kind of aesthetc heteronomy – for example, many of the entries on the aforementoned “#refugeeswelcome” list.241 This was achieved by explicitly bringing Thalia Theater's diferent dutes up for discussion rather than just stcking with Hermanis's claims. Thus, the spotlight was also turned on the new kind of aesthetc heteronomy as state and city theatres' apparent new additon to their spectrum of tasks. 4.2 Possible readings of theatre's engagement and the Hermanis/Thalia incident There are arguably a number of reasons why so many theatres engaged in actons exhibitng this new quality of aesthetc heteronomy. The abovementoned liberal zeitgeist is one of them. In the 239Haußmann, Flüchtlingskrisentheater. 240Huber, Bühnen. 241“Die Türen sind ofen”. 55/93 face of the so-called “refugee crisis,” many people working at state and city theatres joined the general Willkommenskultur and gave aid in whatever way they could, using not only their personal resources, including their tme, but also those of their workplace. As public insttutons with a complex infrastructure, state and city theatres arguably lent themselves to this kind of acton. And apparently many Intendanten let that happen or possibly even encouraged it, as was suggested both by the actual events at many theatres and by the Intendantengruppe statement. In a less direct way, however, theatre's engagement can also be understood as a reacton to its own crisis of legitmacy since the early 1990s, as I have indicated in my working hypothesis. I argue that this becomes partcularly obvious in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Publishing the press release had a number of diferent efects: frst, commentators debated Hermanis's statements and the so-called “refugee crisis” on the level of content. The director's own subsequent statement made the debate even more vigorous since its carelessly thought- through line of argument provided critcs with an excellent target. From Lux's perspectve – as presented in the press release –, this was frstly a success in terms of providing an opportunity for open public discourse. Second, the press release's focus on Thalia Theater's diferent actons guided the public debate into the directon of theatre. An essental aspect of this was the public discussion of many theatres' recent engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” as well as the insttuton's general positon in German society. Importantly, it was relatvely certain that most partcipants in the discussion were going to support rather than oppose Lux's argument. As one nachtkritk user suggested, Lux could count on the support of many in the theatre scene.242 Given the politcal climate in Germany at the tme, it was also likely that a major part of the general public would align themselves with Lux rather than with Hermanis. If all this came true – which it arguably did –, Lux could hope for a positve efect on the attude towards theatre among the general public. Third, many of the news artcles on the Hermanis/Thalia incident explicitly discussed the role of theatre in society. The humanitarian engagement that had received moderate coverage so far came into the limelight, and the general atenton on the topic of refugees ensured that a greater percentage of the public would read the artcles on a theatre topic than would usually be the case. In sum, publishing the press release seems to have had only positve results from the perspectve of Thalia Theater and the state and city theatre scene in general. What does a public debate about theatre have to do with theatre's crisis of legitmacy, 242See comment by user dabeigewesen (#47) under: “Miten im Krieg?”. 56/93 though? I argue that a more prominent spot of theatre in the public eye could potentally lead to a greater relevance and to larger audience numbers, both of which could increase theatre's legitmacy. Just like bourgeois theatres in the 18th and 19th century, theatres today cannot be economically sustained without an audience. While today's public funding ensures that state and city theatres are not fully dependent on audience taste, theatres are stll not entrely detached from atendance fgures. In order to receive money from the public purse, they need to legitmize their existence, and the easiest way to do this is to urge economic arguments and exhibit a stable audience. If a theatre atracts too few audience members, its budget is likely to be cut since unused artcles on the list of public spending are considered a burden to the public purse. Theatre makers are understandably interested in avoiding this fate, which is why they try to draw as large an audience as possible. Besides these actual, presumed, and potental efects of the Hermanis/Thalia incident, the queston why Thalia Theater and Lux made Hermanis's cancellaton public in the frst place needs to be considered more thoroughly. This is partcularly important if it is in fact true what Hermanis claims, namely that he and Lux had initally agreed upon quotng private reasons.243 Although any assessment of the underlying intentons of those responsible at Thalia Theater is eventually speculatve, the debate features some indicatons of possible reasons for the publicaton of the press release that must not be neglected. As those responsible at Thalia Theater could arguably foresee, the statements by Hermanis that they were paraphrasing had the potental to cause a public outcry. Against the backdrop of the critcal coverage of controversial theatre shows and other actons in the months before, it therefore seems possible that the debate around Hermanis was caused intentonally. It could be argued that Thalia Theater used Hermanis to promote its own agenda while apparently hazarding the negatve consequences this could have for Hermanis's future in the German-speaking theatre world. “Sacrifcing” the director out of self-interest can be critcized as not living up to the humanistc agenda Lux claims to defend. However, had Thalia Theater not made their concerns public, they could have been critcized for not standing by their own values, too. 244 So should 243Liz Jung, “'Kein ofener Dialog in Deutschland'. Alvis Hermanis im 'Kulturzeit'-Interview.” 3sat. Web, 07./08.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 57/93 Thalia Theater just have let it go and accept Hermanis's views, or were his opinions actually too extreme and dangerous to be ignored? Both can reasonably be argued for and against. The fact that Hermanis did not initally intend to speak out in public, however, gives the incident a diferent character than other recent cases in which questons of how to correctly deal with allegedly intolerant people have come up, for example in Magdeburg245 or Zurich.246 As it is hard to argue that Hermanis needed to be stopped from spreading his worldview, it seems as if Thalia Theater did in fact (ab-)use Hermanis for their own beneft. This appears partcularly obvious since Lux must have notced that many of Hermanis's statements were illogical or incoherent. It must have been clear to Lux that they would discredit Hermanis, which would in return result in broad approval from the public for Lux. Although the critcism of Thalia Theater seems legitmate, it can be asked how much damage the controversy aficted to Hermanis's career afer all. First, he stll remained the director of New Riga Theatre. Given his long shared history with the theatre, it was unlikely that he would have had to vacate that positon. Second, Hermanis's professional reputaton as a renowned artst and the accompanying privileges247 were not challenged in the incident with Thalia Theater. Instead, Lux even praised Hermanis as an artst. Third, even if Hermanis might not have been able to work in German theatre any more, he could probably have worked in other places. All of this was likely to protect Hermanis from the sudden end of his career. While some predicted that Hermanis would not be able to work in German-speaking Europe for a long tme,248 even that has in hindsight not come true. Afer working in Switzerland249 and Austria250 in early 2017, Hermanis also directed a new piece in Munich that premiered in May of the same year.251 The “denigraton 245Stephan Schulz, “Die Kunst ist frei - oder nicht? Kulturpolitsche Vorstellungen der AfD” Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Web, 30.03.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 58/93 and public executon”252 of Hermanis turned out not to be fatal afer all. Lux's apparent willingness to even take the chance can stll quite rightly be critcized. But the other opton – glossing over Hermanis's statements – seems less preferable considering both the relatvely mild consequences for Hermanis and Thalia Theater's understandable will to be true to their own agenda – and, of course, the potental benefts resultng from a potental scandal outlined above. However, this raises another, arguably graver point of critcism. As nachtkritk user Theo von points out, Hermanis's social and politcal stance had been known long before the Hermanis/Thalia incident.253 In a 2012 interview with Austrian newspaper Der Standard, Hermanis said: “This obsession for multcult theatre from exotc countries with a post-immigrant pathos reminds me of the Soviet era in communist countries, where art and professionalism were sacrifced in favor of the proletarian ideology, which was the only thing that politcians supported.”254 This questonable combinaton of a number of diferent discourses – multculturalism, Orientalism, communism, politcal repression, art, and professionalism/diletantsm, among others – reveal Hermanis's critcal attude toward non-European cultures and theatre's atempt to give them a forum. This clearly shows that Hermanis's xenophobic ideology which he evinced in the Hermanis/Thalia incident did not only develop during the so-called “refugee crisis” or afer the terrorist atacks in Paris, but much earlier. So why did many supposedly liberal theatre makers such as Lux only take acton in response to Hermanis's questonable views in late 2015? The allegedly new “divide” in the cultural scene that Lux laments was, it seems, no novelty afer all. But up untl then, Hermanis's politcal views were apparently concealed or ignored. Why were they suddenly deemed newsworthy afer his cancellaton? I argue that the answer again lies in theatre makers' atempt to legitmize German state and city theatres through atending to the topic of refugees and engaging in the “new” kind of aesthetc heteronomy. Lux used his power as the Intendant of Thalia Theater to unveil a “divide” in the theatre scene of which he (falsely) claimed that it had not existed before. On the one hand, the “divide” was presented as a confict between difering politcal and social ideologies, namely “pro refugees” and “against refugees,” allegedly just like in the politcal landscape in Germany and Europe. On the other hand, as I have argued, it Hand zur Versöhnung aus.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 05.05.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 59/93 was also a confict between diferent ideologies regarding the autonomy or heteronomy of theatre. Before the topic of refugees had become so dominant and controversial, sparking a debate about politcs might have been possible the same way, but a public debate about theatre's aesthetc orientaton and its place in society arguably would have been much harder to achieve. Hermanis's cancellaton ofered the opportunity to join both topics in a politcal climate that had been susceptble to debates for months. In the press release, Lux suggests that he normally tries to view an artst's politcal stance and their art as two separate enttes. Not usually caring about Hermanis's personal views as long as they do not interfere with his art can be seen as a manifestaton of this attude. Although it may be rated as hypocritcal, suddenly focussing on Hermanis's views when the so-called “refugee crisis” was dominatng public discourse can be seen as serving the cause of having the public talk about theatre and its aesthetc orientaton. There is another way to interpret why Hermanis's views did not become newsworthy untl late 2015. This alternatve reading is less focussed on theatre's wish for self-preservaton and also tones down the possible impression of hypocrisy. The so-called “refugee crisis” can be interpreted as merely one building block in a tme of politcal and social upheavals. Ernst-Dieter Lantermann claims that the world has become more complex and unstable in tmes of globalizaton and rapid technological development. In reacton, he argues, many people try to fnd stability in diferent kinds of radical behavior.255 One of these is a new trend towards natonalism. Brexit, the electon of Donald Trump as the U.S. president, and the politcal situaton in Turkey and Hungary can be seen as examples of this, just like the advent of PEGIDA and the AfD in Germany. The so-called “refugee crisis” is an important component of this development as it has helped to reveal problematc attudes and behavior in German everyday life, such as xenophobia and racism. That is why these issues have also taken up more space in public discourse than before. It almost seems as though these issues' relevance for everybody – and not just for certain minorites who have been afected by xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, etc. all along – was laid bare by the so-called “refugee crisis.” This has prompted liberal individuals, groups, and insttutons to rise up against the apparent threat to both their values and the way their life is organized, for example in the European Union.256 Among these liberals were possibly many of those working at German state 255Ernst-Dieter Lantermann, Die radikalisierte Gesellschaf. Von der Logik des Fanatsmus (München: Karl Blessing Verlag, 2016). 256For instance in the initatve “Pulse of Europe” that was founded in late 2016. See for example: Friederike Haupt, “Sie gehen für Europa auf die Straße. 'Pulse of Europe'.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Web, 08.02.2017. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): 60/93 and city theatres. From this perspectve, the apparent sudden importance of Hermanis's ideology was not (only) a call for atenton from Thalia Theater. It was also an indicaton of a rethinking among theatre makers that was caused by the recent politcal and social developments. What had been glossed over or ignored before due to the belief that it was not socially relevant – which of course remains questonable – was now realized to be something that needs to be publicly addressed and rejected. Thus, bringing Hermanis's attudes to light can be seen as a positve development aiming at rectfying an old mistake. This took place without acknowledging any previous wrongdoing on the part of many theatres, but at least it was done at all. 4.3 Power relatons In this last subchapter I will look at (a) the general power relatons in the discourse of autonomy and heteronomy in theatre, and (b) the power relatons that became apparent in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Then I will (c) point out why the public was by and large more susceptve to the positons of Thalia Theater rather than those of Hermanis. (a) First, the discourse of autonomy and heteronomy itself is informed by a number of assumptons about the power relatons these approaches have with their surrounding culture. Two diferent models can be identfed here. While structurally autonomous theatre can be seen as powerful in both of them, the view of the aesthetc dimension of autonomous and heteronomous approaches difers. On the one hand, autonomous theatre can be interpreted as powerful because of its elevated positon and its lack of dependency on anything other than itself. In this view, aesthetcally heteronomous theatre could be described as being in an inferior relaton with the discourses it engages in because of these discourses' power to shape it. On the other hand, it could be argued that aesthetc autonomy entails a detachment from politcal and social circumstances and thus the danger for theatre of sinking into insignifcance. From this perspectve, heteronomous theatre would be powerful because of its close connecton with public discourse and the resultng ability to possibly infuence it. In principle, both readings make sense. However, the consequence of the frst interpretaton, namely the atempted superiority of autonomy, has historically not proven very successful. This is suggested both by the lack of infuence of state and city theatres in the 20th century, and by the current crisis of theatre. What is more, heteronomous theatre has never been maintained for a long enough period of tme to prompt lastng processes of change and to possibly prove the second interpretaton, the superiority of heteronomy. Thus die-strasse-14845135.html>. 61/93 heteronomous approaches never got the chance to solidify the legitmacy of theatre on its own terms and not only through its inscripton in the German consttuton. This may have been one reason why theatres turned toward aesthetcally heteronomous approaches in their apparent atempt to escape their own crisis. Given theatre's history, it must have seemed unlikely that autonomous strategies would be successful in bringing about change. The possibilites of heteronomous approaches, on the other hand, had not been exhausted yet, as has been proven by the new quality of aesthetc heteronomy displayed in the so-called “refugee crisis.” (b) In the Hermanis/Thalia incident, the responses of the media and the public suggested that it was Thalia Theater that eventually had the upper hand in the debate. But why was their discourse of aesthetc heteronomy apparently so successful? I argue that this was the case for at least fve diferent reasons. First, because of Thalia Theater's reputaton as a structurally autonomous insttuton. Jens Roselt argues that the common image of city theatres as bourgeois and moral authorites is in fact to a great extent based on a myth. 257 Their infuence may therefore be perceived as more signifcant than it actually is. However, Roselt also demonstrates that the myth is very much alive and has real consequences. Thus Thalia Theater may have benefted from being expected to be a powerful insttuton, even though this impression is based on incorrect assumptons. Second, as structurally autonomous insttutons, city theatres can lay their own focus on whatever aesthetcs they want – even if these heteronomous aesthetcs stand in oppositon to the autonomous ideas from which city theatres once evolved. Third, the Thalia Theater press release makes an ofcial and thus authoritatve and powerful impression through its form and way of distributon. Fourth, the text in the press release keeps a stylistc and rhetorical balance between wielding authority on the one hand and fraternizing with the readers on the other. Both of these efects were benefcial with regard to the impression of Thalia Theater's power. Fifh, thanks to Lux's own rhetorical apttude and that of his team, some gaps and weaknesses with regard to the press release's content are successfully covered up. However, the limits of Thalia Theater's and Lux's power reveal itself in this last point, too. This is the case when, in his second statement, Lux engages in semi-private speech without the direct backing of the insttuton and his team. As pointed out in the linguistc analysis, the claim that Thalia Theater protected Hermanis from himself is a faw in Lux's argument that might not have happened had Lux stuck to the more powerful insttutonal form of an ofcial press release. Although Hermanis did not directly argue for aesthetc autonomy, the discourse was – as I 257Roselt, Mythos Stadtheater. 62/93 have shown – in fact implied in his statements. But why did he not have any success with it? I argue that this had at least three diferent reasons. First, the obvious faws in Hermanis's own statement subvert his argument. The potentally powerful efect of his rhetorical strategy – switching from a defensive to an ofensive tone – is not achieved because of the fawed content. Second, Hermanis lacks the status and the resources of a public insttuton. The implicatons of this can for example be seen in the unofcial form and the haltng language of his own statement. Third, Hermanis as a director is dependent on a system that evolved in the spirit of autonomy and is stll structurally autonomous. Being in such a relaton of dependence, he cannot efectvely argue for aesthetc autonomy if the system itself turns away from it. (c) All the above points allowed Thalia Theater to control the debate surrounding the Hermanis/Thalia incident. Thus they could efectvely promote their own agenda in the media and shape public discourse. But why did the general public apparently lean towards the second interpretaton noted above – that of heteronomy as being powerful? And why did they apparently not have the impression that theatres opportunistcally abandoned their autonomous agenda? The situaton was paradoxical indeed. Lux – the head of an hitherto mostly autonomous insttuton – got to advocate theatre's turn toward aesthetc heteronomy. His “opponent,” Hermanis, acted as the defender of theatre's traditonal, autonomous orientaton. Both men – Lux, the former dramaturg and director,258 and Hermanis, the director – had achieved their respectve power in the same structurally and aesthetcally autonomous system. There are at least two answers to the questons asked above. First, theatre makers understood the social atmosphere at the tme and were able to take advantage of it. In the Willkommenskultur, giving aid to refugees was in vogue, thus theatres could easily join this general trend. What is more, the much-quoted divide of society had arguably become so big by then that many liberals were extremely critcal of the opposite attude, such as a restrictve refugee policy or equatng refugees with terrorists. In other words, for many critcs Hermanis's politcal positons amounted to a general disqualifcaton of his ideas. By adoptng a positon that was by many seen as far-right or at least as incoherent and potentally dangerous, Hermanis indirectly weakened his entre argument, including the noton of powerful autonomous theatre. Moreover, heteronomous tendencies had been, as I have described, notceable for a while – at least since the early 1990s. All in all, engaging in an aesthetc heteronomy of a new quality – that is, the separaton from the 258“Joachim Lux.” Thalia Theater Hamburg. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): 63/93 aesthetc –, was consequental rather than out of line with theatre's previous actons. With regard to theatre's crisis of legitmacy, this ultmately means that the idea of aesthetc heteronomy was used to solidify theatre's structural autonomy. 5. Conclusion 5.1 Summary I started this thesis with the observaton that in the course of the so-called “refugee crisis” in 2015, a striking number of German state and city theatres devoted themselves to the topic of refugees in an extensive, actve, and rather uniform way. This circumstance as well as the heated public discussion about the Hermanis/Thalia incident have led me to the hypothesis that theatre's engagement was not only aimed at the topic of refugees. Instead, I suggested, it was also an expression of the state and city theatre system's crisis of legitmacy between the poles of autonomy and heteronomy. To investgate my hypothesis, I decided to conduct a CDA of the Hermanis/Thalia incident. For this purpose I frst looked at the history of German state and city theatre. I analyzed diferent manifestatons of autonomy and heteronomy, both structurally and aesthetcally. I was able to show that state and city theatres developed in a spirit of autonomy, and that aesthetcally heteronomous approaches were the excepton rather than the norm. Aferwards I described the development of the so-called “refugee crisis” untl early December, 2015, with partcular focus on theatre's actons. By analyzing the later, I was able to point out a number of characteristcs that apparently made them atractve to the media. I also had a look at those actons that did not catch the atenton of the media as much, most of which were what I later called aesthetcally heteronomous of a new quality. Next I conducted a linguistc analysis of the three main texts of the Hermanis/Thalia incident, following Machin and Mayr's CDA guideline. I also analyzed some key user comments on nachtkritk and some important artcles writen on the incident. That way I was able to point out the diferent agents' ideologies regarding the autonomy and heteronomy of theatre. I was also able to show why the Hermanis/Thalia incident received such considerable atenton from the media. Next I connected and interpreted my fndings from the two previous chapters. I frst linked theatre's engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” and the Hermanis/Thalia incident to historical notons of autonomy and heteronomy, suggestng that a new quality of aesthetcally heteronomous measures had developed. Then I considered some of the actual, presumed, and potental efects of the Hermanis/Thalia incident, and ofered a number of possible readings of the incident. Lastly, I have analyzed diferent power relatons connected to 64/93 autonomous and heteronomous notons in theatre in general in the Hermanis/Thalia incident. That way I was able to show how Thalia Theater controlled the debate and promoted the idea of aesthetc heteronomy. 5.2 Outlook My fnal hypothesis regarding state and city theatre's actons during the so-called “refugee crisis” reads as follows: with humanitarian and social engagement that went beyond the traditonal realm of art, many theatres employed a form of aesthetc heteronomy that had a new quality compared to former heteronomous approaches. This new kind of aesthetcally heteronomous measures was used, witngly or unwitngly, to gain new legitmacy for theatre and thus to end its own current crisis. The need to employ a new quality of heteronomy can be explained with the impression that the crisis of theatre probably cannot be solved with the same old approaches as in the past. A look at the history of these atempts shows that they faded away quickly and were unsuccessful in the long run. The queston now is whether theatre's engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” actually led to some sort of change, either in the general percepton of theatre, in theatre's positon in society, or in its legitmacy? I have argued that the Hermanis/Thalia incident was the pinnacle of the previous developments. If that is true, it can also be described as a point of crisis, a turning point. 259 But what was the result of this crisis for German state and city theatres: a change for the beter, for the worse, or the persistence of the status quo? I have given a detailed descripton of the short- term efects of theatre's engagement in the topic of refugees. Any potental long-term efects, however, cannot be foreseen yet. At the moment it is not clear if theatre's actons will be remembered by the general public, and if yes, with what efect. But today, one year and a half afer the Hermanis/Thalia incident, at least a frst interim balance can be drawn up – and it does not look too positve. Once more it has gone quiet around most German state and city theatres. The Hermanis/Thalia incident was the last large-scale scandal in theatre untl today. In additon, the #refugeeswelcome list on nachtkritk was closed in late January, 2016. If theatres actually stll give humanitarian aid or taking other heteronomous actons that go beyond the realm of the aesthetc, 259According to the The Oxford Dictonary of English Etymology, the word crisis comes from “Gr. krísis decision, judgement, event, issue, turning-point of a disease.” (“crisis.” The Oxford English Dictonary of English Etymology. Ed. C.T. Onions (Oxford: OUP, 1966), 229.) A crisis in the sense of a turning-point of a disease is the point which is followed by either recovery or death, depending on how the crisis is handled. 65/93 they do not get much atenton for it. It seems as though theatres have not (yet) been able to transform the impetus from their actons in the so-called “refugee crisis” to a normal, everyday state. This may or may not signify that the chance for positve change is forfeited. But if theatres are in need of another crisis like the so-called “refugee crisis” to contnue their new heteronomous actons, the odds do not look good. Such a dependence on temporary exceptonal situatons can hardly be turned into lastng change. It appears that theatres need to fnd and expose the critcal quality of the normal and conventonal in order to be successful with their new approach in the long run – or to at least see if the new quality of aesthetcally heteronomous measures can lead to positve change for theatre's legitmacy. This means that these measures need to be contnued despite the lack of an immanent social or politcal crisis, for example by engaging in social work instead of humanitarian aid. Rather than just helping refugees, theatres could predominantly turn to other people in need and other social injustces. Theatres would need to accept their new role and keep making use of the new approaches they have discovered for themselves. It is imaginable that this is already happening occasionally. However, it does not seem as if this is the case on a larger, more extensive scale. Or at the very least, no strategy has been found to atract the atenton of the media without the imminent need of a scandal. Ideally, such a strategy would be equally efectve, but “quieter” and reproducible at all tmes. 5.3 Some points of critcism and concluding thoughts In this thesis I have worked out a possible explanaton of theatre's engagement in the topic of refugees by analyzing one specifc incident as well as its historical background. There are a number of objectves that I have not been able to achieve, though. In the following I will list a few of them. First, I have not been able to clarify what exactly the bone of contenton was that caused Alvis Hermanis to cancel his job at Thalia Theater. This is partly because he was not entrely clear concerning this in his statements, and partly because he declined an interview request.260 Was he arguing against heteronomous approaches of the old quality, too – that is, those with an aesthetc component –, or only against the new ones that were not rooted in aesthetcs any more? Or was he actually just objectng to the specifc politcal positon of Thalia Theater, namely their liberal refugee policy, and his stance on the autonomy or heteronomy of theatre did in fact not play a major role at all? While all this remains unclear, it would hardly afect the content, regardless of Hermanis's intentons. 260Dagnija Grīnfelde, E-mail from 66/93 Second, as I have mentoned in the introducton, the goal of my CDA is not necessarily to bring about a change. However, the thoughts on the contnuaton of promising approaches that I have developed in the previous subchapter can be understood as a suggeston for further acton. If these measures would actually be crowned with success is unclear, though. What if theatres keep following the new-found path, gain new legitmacy, atract larger audiences, and see their funding go up? Even if everything goes according to plan for theatres, it is stll rather unlikely that this will end their critcal situaton. The most problematc aspects of the historically grown, stll mostly unaltered structures and power relatons within the state and city theatre system cannot simply be changed with more money for artstc creaton. Increased fnancial means would not be able to reduce Thomas Schmidt's critcism of theatre's structure,261 or the ensemble-netzwerk's critcism of bad working conditons, among others. Most problems of the state and city theatre system arguably need to be approached with proper reforms and a change of attude in the decision- making group. As I mentoned in the introducton, the fact that I have not addressed the power relatons between theatres and people in need can be regarded as a disadvantage. How were refugees used or abused by theatres? How were they not only used as a topic but also constructed as a target group of theatre, and what are the implicatons of these circumstances? How can cultural educaton be made fruitul for both groups alike, the majority group and the refugees? While I was not able to deal with these or any of the many other questons in this context, plenty of other scholars have provided insightul studies on these issues.262 Beyond that, there are other questons of power that would be worthwhile to look at in relaton to the engagement of state and city theatres and to the Hermanis/Thalia incident. These include but are not limited to: the government as both theatre's funder and the entty that should actually have taken care of the issues that, in the spirit of the Willkommenskultur, theatres (and German civil society) dealt with; Intendanten as those who made decisions and set the agenda; and the role of the media as well as online commentators on nachtkritk and other platorms. Moreover, due to its complexity I have completely avoided questons of the politcal. Was 261Thomas Schmidt's analysis and his reform proposals were actually discussed in detail at the 2. Bundesweite Ensemble-Versammlung in May, 2017. See: “ensemble-netzwerk.” vimeo. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 67/93 theatre's positoning in the so-called “refugee crisis” a politcal act? Should theatre be politcal, given its public funding? What is the relaton of humanitarian aid and social work on the one hand and a politcal statement on the other?263 Are aesthetcally heteronomous approaches politcal? If yes, is this true for only the “old” ones, the “new” ones, or for both? Also, which actons during the “crisis” can be categorized as humanitarian aid, as social work, or as something else? I have treated them all as more or less synonymous, but it is possible that these diferent kinds of actons have in fact diferent efects and implicatons for theatre's pursuit for legitmacy. The apparent lack of a clear categorizaton of these diferent types of actons shows not only how difcult it is to talk about what was happening in the theatre scene. It also points towards a general lack of discursive, academic, and artstc involvement of all parts of society with these new developments to this day. Generally, what needs to be analyzed is whether the city theatre system that was developed in the spirit of autonomy is stll sustainable. Its ongoing crisis and the steering towards new, unaesthetc approaches in the so-called “refugee crisis” suggest otherwise. In this context, the distncton between structural and aesthetc autonomy needs to be more thoroughly worked out, and both aspects must be looked at individually. Furthermore, the queston of whether the new aesthetcally heteronomous approaches can stll be described as such, or if they are simply social work, needs to be discussed. If the later is true, should theatres really engage in them? What added value would this create, and for whom? Mathias Lilienthal has claimed that he would rather choose good social work over bad art.264 But Michael Thalheimer's critcism that others are beter at this, and that in the worst case theatres could forget their unique feature of the aesthetc if they focus too much on social projects, cannot be neglected, either.265 On a fnal note, I want to revisit the ttle of my thesis. Do German state and city theatres really love refugees, as I have suggested? My Critcal Discourse Analysis of their actons in the so- called “refugee crisis” and the Hermanis/Thalia incident has not resulted in a clear answer. I do not doubt the sincerity and good intentons of anybody who has engaged in humanitarian aid and similar actons. Most individuals working in theatre have probably decided on their own to take 263An interestng side note in this regard is that according to the personal assistant of Joachim Lux, Lea Hapig, Thalia Theater adopts “a politcal stance that is principally open-minded and cosmopolitan in the sense of enlightenment, and that rejects renatonalizaton.” Hapig, e-mail 22.03.2017. 264Diesselhorst, Kunst. 265Martn Eich, “Theater. Michael Thalheimer über Anbiederung, Posen und Gegenwartsdramatk.” Wiesbadener Kurier. Web, 28.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 68/93 acton and help. It would be quite presumptuous to claim that all theatre makers' engagement happened out of self-interest. So if the term “theatres” refers to the people working at these insttutons, then it seems plausible to say that they do not technically love refugees. Instead, they have realized that refugees need help, and have therefore devoted themselves to helping them. However, this act of altruism could also be called brotherly love – or Nächstenliebe in German –, which would suggest that the term “love” is not unreasonable afer all. Stll, I do believe that some theatre makers have tried to use the so-called “refugee crisis” for their purposes as a side efect. That means that they tried to let theatre as an insttuton – and maybe also the art form – proft from the arrival of the refugees. If there was any love at play in this, then it was of practcal, expedient nature. I say this without judging anyone's intenton. In fact, I personally think that theatre's actve engagement in the so-called “refugee crisis” was the right thing to do as a humane reacton to an emergency situaton. I also believe that publishing Hermanis's cancellaton including his reasoning was generally the right decision, even though I do not approve of all aspects of the publicaton and the accompanying debate. Those responsible at Thalia Theater took a stand against Hermanis's problematc and potentally dangerous views, which in my opinion set a positve example in the critcal social and politcal climate in Germany at the tme. As for possible long-term consequences of the 2015 developments in theatre, I am not overtly optmistc. Nevertheless I hope that the potental of the qualitatvely new form of aesthetcally heteronomous approaches can be used to some extent for the beneft of the German state and city theatre system and the people working in it. 69/93 Hanna Klimpe, Kommunikation / Presse Pressemitteilung [email protected] 1. Seite Tel.: 040.328 14 – 172 Fax: 040.328 14 - 204 Hamburg, den 4. Dezember 2015 Alvis Hermanis sagt Inszenierung am Thalia Theater ab (a) Grund: das Engagement des Thalia Theaters in der Flüchtlingsfrage Der renommierte lettische Theaterregisseur Alvis Hermanis, der derzeit an der Pariser „Opéra Bastille“ arbeitet, hat aus politischen Gründen eine für April 2016 verabredete Inszenierung am (b) Thalia Theater abgesagt und darum gebeten, ihn aus der vertraglichen Verpflichtung zu entlassen. Hermanis kritisiert das humanitäre Engagement vieler deutscher Theater, so auch des Thalia Theaters, für Flüchtlinge, und möchte damit nicht in Verbindung gebracht werden. Die deutsche Begeisterung, die Grenzen für Flüchtlinge zu öffnen, sei extrem gefährlich für ganz Europa, weil (c) unter ihnen Terroristen seien. Und niemand könne die Guten von den Schlechten trennen. Eine gleichzeitige Unterstützung von Terroristen und den Pariser Opfern schließe sich aus. Zwar seien nicht alle Flüchtlinge Terroristen, aber alle Terroristen seien Flüchtlinge oder deren Kinder. Die Anschläge von Paris zeigten, dass wir mitten im Krieg seien. In jedem „Krieg“ müsse man sich für eine Seite entscheiden, er und das Thalia Theater stünden auf entgegengesetzten. Die Zeiten der political correctness seien vorbei. Stellungnahme Joachim Lux: Ich bedaure die politisch begründete Absage von Alvis Hermanis, den ich als Künstler sehr schätze. Die Absage zeigt über den Einzelfall hinaus aufs Neue, wie tief Europa derzeit gespalten ist. Der Riss in Europa ist tief und hat fast alle Länder erfasst. Dass diese Spaltung auch den Kulturbereich betrifft, ist bedrückend und schockierend. Ich persönlich habe noch nie erlebt, dass Inszenierungen aus politischen Gründen abgesagt werden. (d) Das Thalia Theater hat sich mehrfach künstlerisch mit der Flüchtlingsfrage auseinandergesetzt. Beispiele sind Stemanns „Schutzbefohlene“ und Gernot Grünewalds Projekt „Ankommen“ (Kurt Hübner-Preis 2016). Darüber hinaus setzt sich das Thalia in vielfältiger Weise humanitär ein. Wir hätten nie für möglich gehalten, dass humanitäres Engagement für Hilfsbedürftige zur Aufkündigung der Zusammenarbeit führen könnte. Außerdem versteht sich das Thalia als Ort des offenen gesellschaftlichen Diskurses und gibt in zahlreichen Debatten dem größtmöglichen politischen Spektrum Raum. Im Spielplan des Thalia Theaters ist derzeit Alvis Hermanis‘ Inszenierung „Späte Nachbarn“ zu sehen. Das Thalia hat sich entschieden, diese Inszenierung im Respekt vor dem Werk von Alvis Hermanis weiter im Spielplan zu halten. Die politische Position, die er derzeit bezieht, ist allerdings nicht die unsere. Bitte haben Sie Verständnis dafür, dass Joachim Lux für keine weiteren Interviews oder (e) Statements zur Verfügung steht. 70/93 6.1.2 Statement Alvis Hermanis “Miten im Krieg? Alvis Hermanis sagt aus Protest gegen Flüchtlings-Engagement Thalia-Inszenierung ab.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 04./06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Stellungnahme von Alvis Hermanis Aktualisierung, 4.12.2015, 18:45 Uhr. Gegenüber nachtkritk.de hate Hermanis am Donnerstag "private Gründe" für seine Absage geltend gemacht. Mitlerweile hat er nachtkritk.de eine ausführlichere Stellungnahme geschickt, die wir hier komplet veröfentlichen: "Of course the intendant of Thalia Theater made his statement where he manipulated with the sentences which were taken out from the context of my private leters (without asking my permission). I asked to cancel my producton in Hamburg because of the very private reasons. I am working now in Paris and living exactly in the same part of the city were massacre happened. The everyday life here feels like in Israel. Permanent paranoia. Even worse because the Paris Jewish community are the frst which are abandoning this city. Everywhere we are surrounded with a threat and fear. We all are traumatsed here afer what happened 2 weeks ago. I am a father of 7 children and I am not ready to work in another potentally dangerous town again. As we know the people who partcipated in 9/11 were coming from Hamburg by the way. We know that even German government changed the refugee politcs afer Paris tragedy. So the price which was paid to fnally admit the connecton between emigraton policy and terrorism - was the death of 132 young people in Paris. Is it stll the tabu in Germany to connect emigraton policy and terrorism? Afer speaking with a people from Thalia Theater I understood that they are not open for diferent opinions. They are identfying themselves with a refugee-welcome center. Yes, I do not want to partcipate in this. Can I aford to have my own choice and my own opinions? What about democracy? I do not think that my politcal opinions are more radical then those which are sharing majority of europeans. We do not support this enthusiasm to open the EU borders for uncontrolled emigraton. Especially in Eastern Europe we do not understand this euphoria. Do you really think that 40 million citzens of Poland, for example, are neo-nazies and racists?" Alvis Hermanis, 4.12.2015 71/93 6.1.3 Statement Joachim Lux “Miten im Krieg? Alvis Hermanis sagt aus Protest gegen Flüchtlings-Engagement Thalia-Inszenierung ab.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 04./06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Ergänzende Stellungnahme von Joachim Lux, Intendant des Thalia Theaters Aktualisierung 6.12.2015 10:30 Uhr. Zu den Vorwürfen von Alvis Hermanis (siehe Erklärung oben), das Thalia Theater habe seine Äußerungen manipuliert und aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen, zudem stammten sie aus der privaten Korrespondenz mit dem Theater und er sei nicht um Erlaubnis gebeten worden, diese veröfentlichen zu dürfen, reagierte das Thalia Theater auf Nachfrage von nachtkritk.de mit der folgenden Erklärung: 1. Die Darstellung des Thalia- Theaters ist , anders als Alvis Hermanis behauptet, in keiner Weise "manipulatv." Und sie reißt auch nichts aus dem Zusammenhang. Sie referiert sachlich und nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen die Positon von Hermanis, wie er sie vertreten hat. Anders als in der Neuen Züricher Zeitung behauptet, ist es keine Kompilaton aus diversen Mails und Telefonaten, sondern eine Zusammenfassung aus insgesamt 4 kurzen emails an die Geschäfsführung des Thalia-Theaters. Es war nicht unsere Absicht, ihn bloß zu stellen. Im Gegenteil: wir haben ihn hinsichtlich mancher dort vertretenen Ansichten vor sich selbst geschützt. 2. Wenn ein Geschäfspartner ein bestehendes Vertragsverhältnis mit einer Insttuton aufündigen möchte und dies massiv politsch und eben nicht persönlich begründet, handelt es sich nicht um eine schützenswerte private Korrespondenz, sondern um einen geschäflichen Vorgang von öfentlichem Belang und Interesse. Es ging Hermanis darum, "refugee welcome centers" zu boykoteren. Wenn die Begründung gewesen wäre, er habe seit den Anschlägen von Paris einfach Angst und müsse zu seinen Kindern nach Hause, wäre dies eine als privat zu respekterende Handlung gewesen, die niemanden etwas angeht. So aber sahen wir keine Veranlassung, den Inhalt unserer Veröfentlichung mit ihm ab zu stmmen. 3. Das Thalia ist – um auch das klar zu stellen – kein "refugee welcome center", sondern ein Theater, das sich im Zentrum über seine künstlerische Arbeit defniert. Das soziale, humanitäre und gesellschafspolitsche Engagement ergänzt die Arbeit immer wieder. Aber es ersetzt sie nicht. Theater ist beides: ein Ort der künstlerischen Arbeit und ein öfentlicher Ort in der Stadtgesellschaf. 4. Vor einem halben Jahr wurde im Thalia-Theater hefig diskutert, ob wir unsererseits angesichts der politschen Entwicklung in Ungarn das Land boykoteren und eine Gastspieleinladung ablehnen sollten. Ich fand das falsch. Im Ergebnis fand das Gastspiel in Budapest stat. Wir haben das osteuropäische Land nicht boykotert. Manche kritsieren jetzt, daß das Thalia Hermanis Inszenierung Späte Nachbarn am Thalia weiterspielt. Es geht an diesem Abend, dessen Autor der jüdische Autor Isaac B. Singer ist, um polnisch-jüdische Immigranten in Amerika. Der Abend ist die beste Antwort auf die gegenwärtgen Verwerfungen. Wir spielen ihn weiter! Joachim Lux, 5.12. 2015 72/93 6.1.4 Inquiries E-mail from Esther Slevogt Slevogt, Esther. From: Esther Slevogt (co-founder and manager of nachtkritk.de) [email protected] Date: 15.03.17, 17:20 sehr geehrter herr donders, dank für ihre mail. als wir hier von hermanis absage der produkton (und die vom thalia theater in der presseerklärung genannten gründe) erfuhren, habe ich ihn telefonisch kontaktert, um nachzufragen. am telefon machte alvis hermanis daraufin private gründe geltend. auch fühlte er sich unkorrekt vom thalia theater behandelt, da dort in der ersten presseerklärung aus seinen privaten und nicht zur veröfentlichung bestmmten emails ohne rücksprache mit ihm zitert worden wäre. später sandte er uns noch eine schrifliche erklärung. auf nachfrage zum vorgehen des theaters hat uns joachim lux für das thaliatheater ebenfalls eine schrifliche erklärung zur sache geschickt. all das haben wir in unserer meldung dann dokumentert. weiteres material können wir leider nicht zur verfügung stellen. doch ich hofe, diese informatonen helfen ihnen erst einmal weiter. herzliche grüsse esther slevogt E-mail from Lea Hapig (I) Hapig, Lea. From: Lea Hapig (personal assistant of Joachim Lux, Thalia Theater Hamburg) [email protected] Date: 22.03.17, 14:29 Sehr geehrter Herr Donders, vielen Dank für Ihr Interesse. Ich habe mit Joachim Lux Rücksprache gehalten und kann Ihnen zum Fall Hermanis Folgendes miteilen: Alvis Hermanis hat 4 kurze E-mails zwischen dem 19.11. und dem 21.11.2015 an Joachim Lux, den Intendanten des Thalia Theaters geschrieben, auf welche dieser antwortete. Joachim Lux hat die Entscheidung, die Absage von Hermanis öfentlich zu machen, mit der damaligen kaufmännischen Geschäfsführerin und einem Rechtsanwalt beraten. 73/93 Seit dem E-mailverkehr hat es keinen ofziellen Kontakt zwischen dem Thalia Thater und Hermanis mehr gegeben. Im Umfeld seiner Absage gab es von Mitarbeitern des Thalia den Versuch, den Konfikt telefonisch zu entschärfen, was aber misslang. Die geplante Inszenierung war in einem sehr fortgeschritenen Stadium. Das Bühnenbild existerte, die Besetzung war fxiert und der Probenzeitraum ebenfalls. Zur politschen Positon des Thalia Theaters: Wir lehnen die Gleichsetzung von Flüchtlingen mit Terroristen ab. Außerdem bestehen wir auf unser Recht zum humanitären Engagement. Des Weiteren ergibt sich aus der gesamten Hauspolitk (siehe programmatsche Lessingtage samt den prominenten Rednern) eine politsche Positon, die im Grundsatz weltofen und kosmopolitsch im Sinne der Auflärung ist und Renatonalisierung ablehnt. Liste: Da müssen Sie sich selbst via Internet schlau machen. Es gibt ein umfangreiches Archiv auf der Thalia-Website. Es begann mit der szenischen Urlesung von Jelineks „Schutzbefohlenen“ in der St. Pauli-Kirche, gemeinsam mit Flüchtlingen. Sie sind immer wieder Thema bei den Lessingtagen, im Herbst/Winter 2015 wurden über 100.000 Euro für Flüchtlinge gesammelt, es gab eine große programmatsche Rede von Olaf Scholz im Thalia Theater, die man auf der Website nachlesen kann. Die autonome Szene versuchte diese Veranstaltung zu verhindern, sie fand aber unter dem Schutz von LKA und BKA dann doch stat. Ich hofe, ich konnte Ihnen mit dieser Auskunf weiterhelfen und wünsche viel Erfolg bei der Masterarbeit. Herzliche Grüße Lea Hapig E-mail from Lea Hapig (II) Hapig, Lea. From: Lea Hapig (personal assistant of Joachim Lux, Thalia Theater Hamburg) [email protected] Date: 13.04.17, 19:00 Sehr geehrter Herr Donders, die Antwort von Herrn Lux in Kürze: 1) Ist Joachim Lux Mitglied der Intendantengruppe des Deutschen Bühnenvereins? Das Thalia Theater ist zwar als Mitglied des Bühnenvereins aufgeführt, über die Mitglieder der Intendantengruppe schweigt sich deren Website aber leider aus. --> Ja, Herr Lux ist auch persönliches Mitglied des Bühnenvereins und somit Teil der Intendantengruppe. 2) Wie stehen Herr Lux und das Thalia Theater zu der mit „WEIL WIR ES KÖNNEN“ 74/93 bettelten Stellungnahme bzgl. der Flüchtlingsfrage vom 07.10.2015, verfasst von Ulrich Khuon für die Intendantengruppe? Soll z.B. heißen, wurde/wird die Stellungnahme unterstützt, oder inwiefern dient(e) sie womöglich als Richtschnur auch für die Arbeit des Thalia Theaters? --> Zitat Joachim Lux "Diese Stellungnahme, die ich inhaltlich richtg fnde, ist völlig unabhängig von den Aktonen des Thalia Theaters entstanden. Und wir beziehen uns auch nicht darauf, sondern handeln autonom." Ich wünsche Ihnen schöne und entspannte Osterfeiertage. Herzliche Grüße Lea Hapig E-mail from Dagnija Grīnfelde Grīnfelde, Dagnija. From: Dagnija Grīnfelde (“Advertsing and Public Relatonship Specialist”, New Riga Theatre) [email protected] Date: 13.06.17, 10:41 Dear Mr. Donders, Thank you for your interest. However, I am sorry to inform that Mr. Hermanis for now denies all interview requests both in Latvia and abroad regardless the purpose. I wish you all the best with your thesis. Best regards, Dagnija Grīnfelde 75/93 6.1.5 User comments on nachtkritk.de In the following I list the user comments that I refer to in chapter 3.5. These are the comments #1, #21, #45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #84, #97, and #120. All comments incl. user names and tme stamps are copied from: “Miten im Krieg? Alvis Hermanis sagt aus Protest gegen Flüchtlings-Engagement Thalia- Inszenierung ab.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 04./06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): #1 2015-12-04 12:06 Hermanis-Absage: entäuscht — dabeigewesen Wow. Da würde man ja gerne mehr wissen: gab es gar keine Möglichkeit, die Inszenierung zu machen? Wollte der Regisseur nicht unter den Bedingungen des Theaters, oder das Theater nicht unter den Bedingungen des Regisseurs? Ich häte ja lieber die Haltung des Künstlers auf der Bühne gesehen, als daß sie jetzt nur durch Absage und Pressemiteilung gezeigt wird. PS: aus Gründen der politcal correctness füge ich mal an, daß ich die Haltung des Regisseurs nicht teile. #21 2015-12-04 20:12 Hermanis-Absage: wenig diskursofen — Lilooo Hermanis schreibt ja, das Thalia sei nicht ofen für andere Meinungen gewesen. Wenn er den Eindruck hat, dass das Theater verbohrt ist, fnde ich es seinerseits legitm, dort nicht zu arbeiten. Interessant ist das ja schon: dass sich Theater als ganze Häuser (und nicht bloß einzelne Künstler an diesen Theatern) explizit politsch positonieren. Wenn das recht uniform passiert (mir ist kein Haus bekannt, dass sich im "Wir schafen das so nicht"-Lager positoniert häte) und dann möglicherweise noch andere Positonen nicht vorgetragen werden können (so legt es Hermanis nahe), dann fnde ich das wenig diskursofen/demokratsch. Ich fnde den Brief von Hermanis konfus und nicht überzeugend. Die harsche Kritk aus moralischer Perspektve, die ihm hier in manchen Kommentaren entgegenschlägt, halte ich aber für gefährlich. #45 2015-12-05 11:45 Hermanis-Absage: Rechtes Gedankengut — eine Besucherin Ja. Der Glaube an Natonalstaatlichkeit, innere Sicherheit durch erhöhte Kontrolle ist rechtes Gedankengut. Per Defniton. Jeder der Grenzen schließen will und die Staatsgewalt ausdehnen, bedient sich an rechtem Gedankengut. Wer damit nicht leben kann, muss seine Einstellung überdenken. Wer weiters meint, Theater soll nicht gesellschaflich relevante Probleme refekteren, sondern bürgerliche Tugenden, macht es zum Ort jener, die sich die Eintritspreise auch zu den hunderten von Euros leisten könnten, wenn sich der Staat zurückzieht. Kulturförderung hat einen gesellschaflichen Aufrag. Ist dieser unerwünscht, Herr Thalheimer, muss sich der Staats zurückziehen. Denn Kulturförderung ist "linkes" Programm, in dem Sinne, dass JEDER, auch gesellschaflich Benachteiligte daran teilhaben können, weil leistbar. Wenn dies unerwünscht, bite abschafen und Theater nur noch für einen ganz kleinen Zirkel ermöglichen. Die Abschafung des Ensemblebetriebes und der Häuserförderung - beispielsweise- geht ausschließlich auf neoliberale Politk zurück. Zuerst denken. #46 2015-12-05 12:04 Hermanis-Absage: Hermanis und Thalheimer Unterschiede — Boneless @37 Thalheimer und Hermanis sagen ja auch komplet unterschiedliche Dinge : Thalheimer meint, dass das Engagement des Theaters nichts bringe, es deswegen etwas heuchlerisch sei und man sich eher auf die "reine Theaterarbeit" konzentrieren soll. Das halte ich zwar für falsch, ist defnitv etwas anderes als die 76/93 Argumentaton von Hermanis. #47 2015-12-05 12:16 Hermanis-Absage: Interessant an diesem Vorgang — dabeigewesen Gut, daß es jetzt etwas Licht im Dunkel, ein Statement von Herrn Hermanis gibt. Interessant an diesem Vorgang sind für mich gleich mehrere Dinge: 1) Ein Regisseur sagt aus persönlichen Gründen ein Arbeit ab. Hauptnhalt seines Statements ist: ich habe Angst, auch um meine Familie. Die Begründung fnde ich verschwurbelt und falsch, aber persönliche Gründe sind gerade das: persönlich. Das Theater kann dies nicht akzepteren, sondern veröfentlicht ohne Zustmmung des Regisseurs eine Pressemiteilung, in der ihm vor allem politsche Motve unterstellt werden. 2) Diese politschen Motve passen dem Thalia nicht und werden jetzt genutzt, einerseits vorhersehbare Zustmmung von 80% der Theater-People zu generieren, und andererseits noch einmal die segensreiche Arbeit in der Flüchtlingshilfe hervorzuheben. 3) Hier bei nachtkritk.de geht die nächste Aufage von martn baucks gegen Ernst Reinhardt und Konsorten in Druck. For the record: ich fnde es sehr, sehr gut, daß sich auch Theater in der Flüchtlingshilfe engagieren. Allerdings nur deshalb, weil es eine gesamtgesellschafliche Aufgabe jetzt ist (die man sich, @AfD, nicht unter Verweis auf Bruch der Verfassung oder was auch immer, wegwünschen kann), und weil Theater idealerweise Teil der Gesellschaf sind und Gesellschafsprozesse begleiten, kommenteren, künstlerisch verarbeiten. Da hilf es dann sehr, Herr Thalheimer, wenn man sich mal vom Rotweinglas losreißt und sich der Wirklichkeit stellt. Dadurch wird die Kunst nicht schlechter. Ich verweise auf den ofenen Brief der Intendantengruppe zum Theme, der war nicht schlecht (www.nachtkritk.de/.../) Aber: wenn es jetzt heißt 'weil wir uns engagieren können wir abweichende Meinungen nicht mehr auf der Bühne dulden', oder so, wird es schnell ganz düster. Da wir ja alle nicht bei den Gesprächen zwischen Herrn Lux und Herrn Hermanis dabei waren ist Vorsicht geboten. Ich für meinen Teil häte mir gewünscht, daß man die Chance nutzt, einen anderen, ich sage jetzt mal sehr verkürzt 'osteuropäischen' Blick auf die neue deutsche und europäische Wirklichkeit auf die Bühne zu bringen. Vielleicht gab es die Chance nie. Diese Art der Öfentlichkeitsarbeit aber ist wenigstens schlecht, vielleicht sogar manipulatv. Und zum Schluß @Boneless: explizit wird er weder Nazi genannt, noch ein Jobverbot gefordert. Aber wenn man die Kommentare liest, klingt das sehr deutlich an: 'hofentlich inszeniert er nie wieder in Deutschland', 'rechtsextrem', 'Nähe zu SS, SD'. #48 2015-12-05 12:56 Hermanis-Absage: sind wir bereit zu teilen ...? — Mirko Schädel In unseren westlichen Gesellschafen ist man entweder autstsch oder traumatsiert, weil irgendjemand einem das Spielzeug weggenommen hat. Die, die tatsächlich traumatsiert sind, nimmt man gar nicht zur Kenntnis. Es handelt sich bei diesen ideologisch geführten Diskussionen doch hauptsächlich um die Frage, sind wir bereit zu teilen und wie rassistsch denken wir. Angesichts von den Dorfdeppen der Pegida, deutschtümelnder Wutbürger, Brandstfungen unterbelichteter Angsthasen und gewaltausübender Nazis, ist es doch erfreulich, daß sich in diesem Land seit 1945 ofenbar eine Gesellschaf herausgebildet hat, die bereit ist Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen – und die politschen und gesellschaflichen Konsequenzen zu tragen. Insofern sind diese braunkarierten Rassisten durchaus in der Minderheit. Das in den ehemaligen Ostblockstaaten der heutgen EU eine politsche Abkehr von humanistschen Idealen statindet, liegt vermutlich einfach an der Tatsache, daß man dort nicht bereit ist zu teilen, weil das wenige was man dort an Ressourcen hat, kaum teilbar ist – und weil es eine andere Erfahrungswelt, eine viel abgeschlossenere, engere Welt ist als im Westen. Man braucht heute nur durch die EU-Staaten Polen, Ungarn oder Rumänien fahren um zu sehen, was ich meine. Die Angst vor dem Terror beherrscht diese Staaten wohl kaum, es ist mehr die Angst vor Konkurrenz, vor Fremden, mit denen man die wenigen Ressourcen teilen müßte, die Lebensbedingungen dort sind immer noch viel härter, als in den westeuropäischen Ländern. Ob man Paris für sicherer hält als Hamburg, ob man Flüchtlinge für Terroristen hält usw. hat mit Trauma nichts zu tun, sondern mit einer Abkehr vom Denken und einer Zuwendung zur Paranoia. Ich glaube nicht, daß Herr Hermanis paranoid ist, und seine Argumentaton deutet eher darauf hin, daß er um das eigentliche Problem herumkreist. Hermanis sagt ofenbar keineswegs, was er denkt, vielmehr sondert er fadenscheinige Argumente ab, die sein eigentliches Denken verstecken sollen – und seine eigene Intelligenz beleidigen müßten. 77/93 Das man im Theater sich als eine Insttuton zu erkennen gibt, die gesellschafliche Brüche aufzeigt, sich mit Obdachlosen, Flüchtlingen, behinderten Menschen solidarisiert und teilweise aktve Hilfe leistet, fnde ich gut. Ich wüßte nicht, welche anderen öfentlichen Einrichtungen das tun. #49 2015-12-05 12:57 Hermanis-Absage: Emotonalisierung und Symbolpolitk — Mirko Schädel Das man diese Hilfe und Solidarität als unnützes Gutmenschentum verspotet, weist nur auf den Charakter der Spöter hin. Ich glaube nicht, daß es einen Denkzwang hier oder in irgendeinem Theater gibt, der eine politsche Richtung vorgibt und alle Schäfchen folgen brav. Dafür ist so ein Betrieb wohl zu groß – und wie in der freien Wirtschaf auch, kann jeder denken was er will. Wir lassen sogar Nazis argumenteren und ihre kruden Vorstellungen propagieren wo und wann sie wollen, die Pegidadeppen gehen jeden Montag demonstrieren – hat das irgendjemand verboten, daß die öfentlich rassistsche Hetze betreiben? Herr Hermanis ist traumatsiert, Flüchtlinge sind traumatsiert, der Rest der Bevölkerung ist traumatsiert, und übrig bleiben die Autsten, von denen es immer mehr gibt... Die Absurdität der Selbstdiagnosen ist die Entlarvung der Welt. »Und es entwickelte sich in ihm eine bedauerliche Fähigkeit, die Dummheit zu erkennen und sie nicht ertragen zu können.« schrieb Flaubert in seinem Roman Bouvard und Pecuchet, möglicherweise schrieb er damit einen zukunfsweisenden Satz. Es gibt eine Sache, die ich noch das Bedürfnis habe mitzuteilen. Ich verstehe die Spöter und Kritker der politcal correctness insofern, daß in unseren Breiten, nämlich der gesamten westlichen Welt, eine solche Emotonalisierung von Politk statindet – und überhaupt eine Symbolpolitk betrieben wird, die von Gefühlen, Gesten, Zeichen, demonstratver Empathie, Schweigeminuten, Solidaritätsbekundungen und pathetschen Worthülsen durchtränkt ist, die regelrecht für die Medien inszeniert werden, und die genaugenommen zum Kotzen sind. Aber wenn man weiß, daß hinter der Gefühlsduselei im Grunde genommen nur eine gefühlsarme, politsche Selbstnszenierung steckt, die mit einem Auge auf die Umfragewerte schielt, dann kann man das ganze auch als politsche Schmierenkomödie abtun... #84 2015-12-07 19:54 Hermanis-Absage: Rolle des Thalia Theaters — Ungereimtheiten 1.) Für wen hält Joachim Lux sich eigentlich, wenn er glaubt, Hermanis "vor sich schützen" zu müssen? Meint er, im Alleinbesitz der allgemeingültgen Wahrheit zu sein? 2.) Warum hat Lux Hermanis denn eigentlich engagiert und zudem eine seiner Inszenierungen an den Münchmer Kammerspielen ins Repertoire übernommen, wenn er glaubt, den Regisseur "vor sich schützen" zu müssen? Er muss doch schon vorher Kontakt zu ihm gehabt haben. Hat er nicht gewusst, wen er sich ins Haus holt? 3.) Ob es nun vier oder vierzehn kurze Mails waren, aus denen das Thalia direkt oder indirekt zitert hat, ändert nichts an dem Sachverhalt, dass weiterhin Aussage gegen Aussage steht. Oder kennt jemand außer den beiden Beteiligten den Inhalt der Mails? 4.) Einmal angenommen, Lux' Darstellung stmmt, und Hermanis hat nicht aus privaten, sondern aus politschen Gründen abgesagt - warum steht in der Pressemiteilung dann nicht einfach nur, dass der Regisseur wegen unterschiedlicher politscher Ansichten zur Flüchtlingspolitk abgesagt hat? Das häte doch genügt - den Rest häte sich ohnehin jeder denken können - und wird ansonsten auch so gehandhabt. Als sich das Thalia vor zwei Jahren schon während der Proben für die "Möwe" von Regisseur Yannis Houvardas getrennt hat, wurde dieser Schrit auch nicht detailliert begründet. Aber vielleicht hate die Öfentlichkeit ja damals kein Recht darauf. 5.) Gerade das Theater mit seinem neuerdings wieder verstärkt gesellschafspolitschen Anspruch sollte ein Ort sein, an dem unterschiedliche Meinungen ausgetauscht und verhandelt werden (können). Darauf sollte auch eine Theaterleitung hinwirken. Alles andere ist ein Armutszeugnis. 6.)Das Thalia Theater kann sich trösten: Es darf nicht nur 2017 das Festval "Theater der Welt" (fnanziert zu zwei Driteln durch die Stadt Hamburg und zu einem Dritel durch die Beaufragte der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medienausrichten), sondern bekommt darüber hinaus vom Bund (Johannes Kahrs, SPD, und Rüdiger Kruse, CDU, machen es möglich) 850.000 € Projektörderung für einen von Lux für die Spielzeit 2016/2017 geplanten Schwerpunkt unter der Überschrif "Europa im Umbruch / Umbruch in Europa". Dafür hat er sich jetzt ja schon mal warmgelaufen. (abendblat.de/.../...). 7.) @ Theo von: Michael Thalheimer hat anlässlich der Premiere von "Penthesilea" der "Wiener Zeitung" ein Interview gegeben, das am 28.11.2015 erschienen ist und daher nichts mit diesem unndurchsichtgen Hin und Her zwischen dem Thalia Theater und Hermanis zu tun haben kann. Also besteht kein Grund, jetzt Thalheimer zu difamieren. 78/93 Obwohl der Link angegeben worden ist, zum Nachlesen hier die Originalzitate (a) des Interviewers und (b) Thalheimers Antwort darauf. (a) "An dieser Selbstrefexion scheint es zu mangeln. Vielerorts wird das eigene und insttutonelle Wohl eher im Kurshalten gesucht." (b) "Das ist auch Resultat einer veränderten Sichtweise, eines anderen Rollenverständnisses. Es ist Mode geworden, Aufgaben zu übernehmen, für die andere Insttutonen zuständig sind. Wenn neue Intendanten ihr Programm vorstellen, habe ich häufg den Eindruck, dass Amnesty Internatonal, die Obdachlosenhilfe und das Flüchtlingshilfswerk einen gemeinsamen Zukunfsort kreiert haben. Was aber komplet vergessen wird: es handelt sich um ein Theater. Diese Kollegen biedern sich einerseits dem Zeitgeist an und ignorieren andererseits die Aufgaben des Theaters. Dahinter verbirgt sich eine große Lüge. Es wird niemandem geholfen, es wird nur so getan. Und Theater verliebt sich dann in diese sozialen Projekte, die nichts anderes sind als eitle Pose. Deshalb habe ich immer ein doppelt übles Gefühl, wenn ich davon höre oder lese. Damit schaft sich das Theater ab." #97 2015-12-09 02:17 Hermanis-Absage: totalitäres Theatersystem — Gleichschrit Abweichen von der einheitlichen politschen Doktrin der Staatstheater ist unmöglich. Wer es wagt die Politsche Ausrichtung der Theater zu kritsieren wird zur Persona non grata. Hermanis ist einer von Vielen die nicht auf Grund von künstlerischem Unvermögen, sondern wegen ihrer persönlichen Meinung aus dem totalitären deutschen Theatersystem befördert werden. #120 2015-12-16 16:13 Hermanis-Absage: Verhältnismäßigkeit — Klaus Erlaubt sein muss die Frage nach der Verhältnismäßigkeit: ich habe selbst einen Teil meines Lebens am Theater arbeiten dürfen und bin für diese Zeit sehr dankbar. Gerade auch für die Zusammenarbeit mit vielen spannenden Regisseuren. Viele von ihnen schätze ich noch heute als Menschen und Künstler. Auch wenn beinah jeder dieser Regisseure irgendwann an seine Belastungsgrenze steß, hinter der er nicht immer weise agiert hat. Ich war damals und bin immer noch der Meinung, dass das in einer gesunden Struktur tragbar war und durch einen vertrauensvollen angstreien Diskurs aufgefangen werden konnte. Diese Struktur zu pfegen war aber auch die Aufgabe von Dramaturgen und Intendanten. Wenn jeder Regisseur, der irgendwann einmal eine undurchdachte, vielleicht politsch brenzlige Aussage gemacht oder Haltung angenommen häte, von meinen damaligen Intendanten gleich der Öfentlichkeit übergeben worden wäre, häte dies dem Stadtheater, wie ich es kannte, große Lücken geschlagen. 79/93 6.1.6 List of media reports In the following I list all the media reports on the Hermanis/Thalia incident that I have looked at in the course of my research. date medium author indicaton of source 04.12.15 Zeit Online no author “Regisseur sagt Stück aus Protest gegen deutsche Flüchtlingspolitk specifed (based ab.” Zeit Online. Web, 04.12.2015. on Deutsche Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Presse-Agentur 80/93 DELFI [LV] * no author “Hermanis: 'Thalia Theater' manipulēja ar maniem izteikumiem.” specifed DELFI. Web, 05.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): 81/93 Frankfurter Hubert Spiegel Spiegel, Hubert. “Was erlauben Hermanis? Theaterskandal in Allgemeine Hamburg.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Web, 09.12.2015. Zeitung Online (last accessed 07.06.17): * As I do not speak Latvian, I was not able to read these artcles and thus did not include them in my analysis. ** Contra Magazin is a far-right magazine, Jihad Watch Deutschland and Gates of Vienna are blogs that promote far- right positons and conspiracy theories. I decided to include them in the list despite the fact that I reject the ideology these sites display and promote. It is indicatve of the massive waves the Hermanis/Thalia incident has made that even platorms like these published rather long comments on a news story from the world of theatre. 82/93 6.2 Bibliography Printed works Annuß, Evelyn. “Tatort Theater. Über Prekariat und Bühne.” Ökonomie im Theater der Gegenwart. Ästhetk, Produkton, Insttuton. Eds. Franziska Schößler, and Christne Bähr. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009. 23-38. Benigni, Federica, and Marika Pierdicca. “Migratonspolitk made in Italy. Aspekte von Souveränität und Bürger*innenschaf anhand von 'Lampedusa in Hamburg'.” Migraton, Asyl und (post-)migrantsche Lebenswelten in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektven migratonspolitscher Praktken. Eds. Miriam Aced, et al. Berlin and Münster: LIT Verlag, 2014. 29-46. Bishop, Claire. Artfcial Hells. Partcipatory Art and the Politcs of Spectatorship. London and New York: Verso, 2012. Brauneck, Manfred. Theater im 20. Jahrhundert. Programmschrifen, Stlperioden, Reformmodelle. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1982. “crisis.” The Oxford English Dictonary of English Etymology. Ed. C.T. Onions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. 229. El-Tayeb, Fatma. Undeutsch. Die Konstrukton des Anderen in der postmigrantschen Gesellschaf. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2016. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Kurze Geschichte des deutschen Theaters. Tübingen and Basel: Francke Verlag, 1993. Forter, Mark. Theory/Theatre. An Introducton. London: Routledge, 2002. Fülle, Henning. Freies Theater. Die Modernisierung der deutschen Theaterlandschaf (1960-2010). Berlin: Verlag Theater der Zeit, 2016. Hensel, Georg. Spiel's noch einmal. Das Theater der achtziger Jahre. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1990. Ismayr, Wolfgang. Das politsche Theater in Westdeutschland. Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain, 1977. Jackson, Shannon. Social Works. Performing Art, Supportng Publics. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. Kocyba, Piotr. “Wieso PEGIDA keine Bewegung harmloser, besorgter Bürger ist.” PEGIDA – Rechtspopulismus zwischen Fremdenangst und 'Wende'-Entäuschung? Analysen im Überblick. Eds. Karl-Siegbert Rehberg, Franziska Kunz, and Tino Schlinzig. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2016. Lantermann, Ernst-Dieter. Die radikalisierte Gesellschaf. Von der Logik des Fanatsmus. München: Karl Blessing Verlag, 2016. Lennartz, Knut, and Deutscher Bühnenverein. Vom Aufruch zur Wende. Theater in der DDR. Velber: Erhard Friedrich Verlag, 1992. Lüders, Michael. Die den Sturm ernten. Wie der Westen Syrien ins Chaos stürzte. München: Verlag C.H.Beck, 2017. Machin, David, and Andrea Mayr. How to Do Critcal Discourse Analysis. A Multmodal Introducton. London and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publicatons, 2012. Marschall, Brigite. Politsches Theater nach 1950. Wien and Köln and Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2010. Mathes, Isabel. 'Der allgemeinen Vereinigung gewidmet'. Öfentlicher Theaterbau in Deutschland zwischen Auflärung und Vormärz. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1995. 83/93 Münkler, Herfried, and Marina Münkler. Die neuen Deutschen. Ein Land vor seiner Zukunf. Berlin: Rowohlt Verlag, 2016. Münz, Rudolf. “Zwischen 'Theaterkrieg' und Natonaltheateridee. Zu den Anfängen der bürgerlichen deutschen Theaterhistoriographie.” Wissenschafliche Zeitschrif der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafs- und sprachwissenschafliche Reihe, XVIII (1969) 1: 15-36. Nix, Christoph. Theater_Macht_Politk. Zur Situaton des deutschsprachigen Theaters im 21. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Verlag Theater der Zeit, 2016. Patzelt, Werner J., and Joachim Klose. PEGIDA. Warnsignale aus Dresden. Dresden: Thelem, 2016. Rancière, Jacques. “The Aesthetc Revoluton and Its Outcomes. Emplotments of Autonomy and Heteronomy.” New Lef Review 14 (2002): 133-151. Rancière, Jacques. The Politcs of Aesthetcs. London and New York: Contnuum Internatonal Publishing Group, 2004. Ratka, Christne. Das Thalia Theater. "Von morgens bis miternachts": Eine Zeitreise durch Arbeit und Kunst. München and Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag, 2013. Regus, Christne. Interkulturelles Theater zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Ästhetk, Politk, Postkolonialismus. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009. Roselt, Jens. “Mythos Stadtheater. Vom Weh und Werden einer deutschen Insttuton.” Theater entwickeln und planen. Kulturpolitsche Konzeptonen zur Reform der Darstellenden Künste. Ed. Wolfgang Schneider. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2013. 215-228. Rötger, Kat. “Todesstoß des August von Kotzebue: Politsches Atentat, Fanal einer Krise. Zur Theatralität der Öfentlichkeit zwischen moralischer Bühne und politscher Gewalt.” Agenten der Öfentlichkeit. Theater und Medien im frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Ed. Meike Wagner. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag, 2014. 135-168. Saito, Yuriko. Everyday Aesthetcs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Schirmer, Lothar, and Gesellschaf für Theatergeschichte. Aus Trümmern entstanden. Theater in Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Berlin: Gesellschaf für Theatergeschichte e.V., 1991. Schmidt, Thomas. Theater, Krise und Reform. Eine Kritk des deutschen Theatersystems. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2016. Schößler, Franziska, and Christne Bähr. “Die Entdeckung der 'Wirklichkeit'. Ökonomie, Politk und Soziales im zeitgenössischen Theater.” Ökonomie im Theater der Gegenwart. Ästhetk, Produkton, Insttuton. Eds. id. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2009. 9-20. Simhandl, Peter. Theatergeschichte in einem Band. Berlin: Henschel Verlag, 1996. Spies, Eva. “Dilemmas of Partcipaton. Developers and the Problem of Doing the Right Thing.“ Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid in the Twenteth Century. Ed. Johannes Paulmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 417- 435. Van der Beek, Gregor. Kulturfnanzen. Ein volkswirtschaflicher Beitrag zur Reform der öfentlichen Museen und Theater in Deutschland. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002. Vorländer, Hans, Maik Herold, and Steven Schäller. PEGIDA. Entwicklung, Zusammensetzung und Deutung einer Empörungsbewegung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2016. Ziese, Maren, and Caroline Gritschke, eds. Gefüchtete und kulturelle Bildung. Formate und Konzepte für ein neues Praxisfeld. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2016. 84/93 Internet resources (author specifed) Bennhold, Katrin, Steven Erlanger, and Alison Smale. “Germans Welcome Migrants Afer Long Journey Through Hungary and Austria.” The New York Times. Web, 05.09.2015. Online (last accessed 28.06.17): Berger, Michael, et al. “Burgenland: Mehr als 70 Tote aus Lkw geborgen.” kurier.at. Web, 28.08.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Bodissey, Baron. “'We Are Surrounded by Threats and by Fear'.” Gates of Vienna. Web, 10.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): Briegleb, Till. “Ist der Theaterregisseur Alvis Hermanis ein Rassist?” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Brüggemann, Ulf. “Sind Flüchtlinge ein Terror-Risiko? Das Narratv der Terroristen muss durchbrochen werden.” Tagesspiegel Causa. Web, 10.01.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Connolly, Kate. “Shitstorm arrives in German dictonary.” The Guardian. Web, 04.07.2013. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Dallapiccola, Marcello. “Alvis Hermanis. Die politsch korrekte Hexenjagd geht weiter.” Contra Magazin. Web, 10.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): De Genova, Nicholas, et al. “'Migrant Crisis' / 'Refugee Crisis'.” Near Futures Online. Web, 2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Diehl, Jörg. “Gewaltwelle. BKA zählt mehr als tausend Atacken auf Flüchtlingsheime.” Spiegel Online. Web, 28.01.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Diesselhorst, Sophie. “Ist das noch Kunst oder ist das schon Sozialarbeit? Empathie-Schulung, konkrete Hilfe oder Flagge zeigen: Wie die Theater sich in der Flüchtlingsdebate positonieren.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 02.09.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Diesselhorst, Sophie. “Schaft Verzweifung ein neues politsches Theater? Festung Europa oder das Theater mit den Flüchtlingen.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 29.04.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Diesselhorst, Sophie. “Wer schön sein will, muss leiden? Erster Europäischer Mauerfall – Das Zentrum für Politsche Schönheit fährt an die Außengrenze der Europäischen Union, um Grenzzäune aufzuschneiden.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 11.11.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 85/93 Eich, Martn. “Theater. Michael Thalheimer über Anbiederung, Posen und Gegenwartsdramatk.” Wiesbadener Kurier. Web, 28.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Ellmenreich, Maja. “Schauspieler-Bewegung 'Ensemble-Netzwerk'. Mit Charme für bessere Arbeitsbedingungen.” Deutschlandfunk. Web, 27.05.2016. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): Ender, Stefan. “Alvis Hermanis: 'Klare Meinungen sind für einen Leten natürlich'.” derStandard. Web, 30.03.17. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Faiola, Anthony, and Souad Mekhennet. “Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State.” The Washington Post. Web, 22.04.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Fellmann, Christoph. “Warten auf Sade. Madame de Sade – Alvis Hermanis zeigt in Zürich, wie sich Yukio Mishima die Frauen des Marquis de Sade fantasierte.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 02.02.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Fried, Nico. “Merkel zu Flüchtlingspolitk. '... dann ist das nicht mein Land'.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 15.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Geithner, Thomas. “Landeshauptstadt Dresden, Polizeieinsatz.” Polizei Sachsen. Web, 15.12.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Geithner, Thomas, and Marko Laske. “Landeshauptstadt Dresden, Polizeieinsatz.” Polizei Sachsen. Web, 12.01.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Gorelik, Lena. “Das Leid der anderen, ach Gotchen!” Zeit Online. Web, 04.04.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Grabowski, Peter. “Am Anfang steht das Wort – und das Wort ist falsch!” der kulturpolitsche reporter. Web, 08.01.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Greven, Ludwig. “Flüchtlinge: Hamburger Asyl-Theater.” Zeit Online. Web, 15.09.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Grund, Stefan. “Die rassistsche Logik des Regisseurs Hermanis. Theaterskandal.” Die Welt. Web, 05.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Guérot, Ulrike. “Forderung nach EU-Reform. Mehr Demokrate gegen die Spaltung der Gesellschaf.” Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Web, 22.05.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 86/93 Hagen, Kevin, and Peter Maxwill. “Asylunterkünfe. Flüchtlingskrise überfordert deutsche Behörden.” Spiegel Online. Web, 11.08.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Harding, Luke. “Angela Merkel: plan to share 160,000 refugees across EU may not be enough.” The Guardian. Web, 08.09.2015. Online (last accessed 28.06.17): Haupt, Friederike. “Sie gehen für Europa auf die Straße. 'Pulse of Europe'.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Web, 08.02.2017. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Haußmann, Leander. “Wir brauchen kein Flüchtlingskrisentheater. Debate um Hermanis.” Die Welt. Web, 13.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Höbel, Wolfgang. “Ein Volksfeind.” Der Spiegel 51 (2015). Web, 12.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Huber, Joachim. “Die Bühnen haben sich im Konformismus eingerichtet. Alvis Hermanis, das Theater und Flüchtlinge.” Der Tagesspiegel. Web, 14.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Jung, Liz. “'Kein ofener Dialog in Deutschland'. Alvis Hermanis im 'Kulturzeit'-Interview.” 3sat. Web, 07./08.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Kasch, Georg. “Lachen über Pegida. FEAR – An der Schaubühne Berlin schickt Falk Richter seine Darsteller in die linksintellektuelle Blase.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 25.10.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Kedves, Alexandra. “'Glauben Sie, dass die 40 Millionen polnischen Bürger Neonazis sind?'.” Tagesanzeiger. Web, 07.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): Khuon, Ulrich. “Weil wir es können. Das Theater als soziales Laboratorium.” Intendantengruppe im Deutschen Bühnenverein. Web, 07.10.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Kissler, Alexander. “Nazi-Skandal an der Schaubühne. Theater als Schauprozess.” Cicero. Web, 11.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Kleinschmidt, Julia. “Die Aufnahme der ersten "boat people" in die Bundesrepublik.” Bundeszentrale für politsche Bildung. Web, 26.11.2013. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): 87/93 Klimpe, Hanna. “Alvis Hermanis sagt Inszenierung am Thalia Theater ab. Grund: das Engagement des Thalia Theaters in der Flüchtlingsfrage.” Thalia Theater Hamburg Pressemiteilung. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Kreienbrink, Mathias. “Auf Distanz zu Flüchtlingen. Alvis Hermanis streitet mit Thalia Theater.” Der Tagesspiegel. Web, 07.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Kühlem, Max Florian. “Hunderte vor dem Schauspielhaus. Akton zum Flüchtlingsdrama in Bochum erschütert Zuschauer“ RuhrNachrichten.de. Web, 02.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Küveler, Jan. “So paranoid sind ja nicht mal die von Pegida.” Die Welt. Web, 06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Laages, Michael. “Ist Alvis Hermanis noch bei Trost? Eklat am Thalia Theater.” Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Laudenbach, Peter. “Umstritene Kunstakton. Tote Flüchtlinge, miten in Berlin.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 15.06.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Lemke-Matwey, Christne. “Art But Fair. Revoluton der Künstler.” Die Zeit 40 (2013). Web, 26.09.2013. Online (last accessed 14.06.17): Lemke-Matwey, Christne. “Politsche Kunst. Verkauf uns nicht für dumm!” Die Zeit 02 (2017). Web, 23.01.2017. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Lüddemann, Stefan. “Thalia-Theater hilf Flüchtlingen: Regisseur stoppt Inszenierung.” Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Mascolo, Georg. “Flüchtlinge in Deutschland. Die Mär vom eingeschlichenen Terroristen.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 14.10.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Medforth, Fred Alan. “Alvis Hermanis streitet mit Thalia Theater -- Auf Distanz zu Flüchtlingen.” Jihad Watch Deutschland. Web, 07.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): Meisner, Mathias, and Henrik Pomeranz. “'Die Toten kommen'. Linke: Gräber auf Reichstagswiese als Mahnung erhalten.” Der Tagesspiegel. Web, 22.06.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 88/93 Müller, Daniel. “Berliner Schaubühne: Im Namen des Volkes.” Die Zeit 51 (2015). Web, 17.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Müller-Ullrich, Burkhard. “Schauspielhaus Bochum: Falsches Mitleidtheater.” Deutschlandfunk. Web, 02.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Oltermann, Philip. “Art group removes Berlin Wall memorial in border protest.” The Guardian. Web, 03.11.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Peitz, Christane. “Bühne frei für Migranten.” NDR.de. Web, 06.05.2016. Online (last accessed 08.02.17): Pilz, Dirk. “Abwerten, aufwerten. Kolumne: Experte des Monats - Dirk Pilz zur abgesagten Podiumsdiskussion an der Zürcher Gessnerallee.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 08.03.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Schaper, Rüdiger. “Auf der Flucht vor Flüchtlingen. Alvis Hermanis.” Der Tagesspiegel. Web, 09.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Schiller, Maike. “Boykot-Aufruf gegen letschen Regisseur Alvis Hermanis.” Hamburger Abendblat. Web, 07.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Schiller, Maike. “Regisseur sagt Thalia aus politschen Gründen ab.” Hamburger Abendblatt. Web, 05.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Schmidt, Marie. “Paris und Terror. Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern.” Die Zeit 50 (2015). Web, 24.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Schulz, Stephan. “Die Kunst ist frei - oder nicht? Kulturpolitsche Vorstellungen der AfD” Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Web, 30.03.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Schurian, Andrea. “Alvis Hermanis: 'Ich bin konservatv und stolz darauf'.” derStandard. Web, 26.07.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Seidler, Ulrich. “Er schlägt die Türen zu. Alvis Hermanis zu Flüchtlingen.” Frankfurter Rundschau. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Slevogt, Esther. “Die Geschäfe des Als-ob. Die Glaubwürdigkeit des Theaters.” taz.de. Web, 27.12.2011. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Sly, Liz. “8 reasons Europe's refugee crisis is happening now.” The Washington Post. Web, 18.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 89/93 Spatz, Willibald. “Du holde Kunst. Insgeheim Lohengrin – Am Residenztheater München streckt Alvis Hermanis die Hand zur Versöhnung aus.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 05.05.2017. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Spiegel, Hubert. “Was erlauben Hermanis? Theaterskandal in Hamburg.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Web, 09.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Stegemann, Bernd. “Flüchtlingspolitk. Die andere Hälfe der Wahrheit.” Die Zeit 15 (2016). Web, 03.04.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Villiger Heilig, Barbara. “Eine Absage und ein Shitstorm. Eklat um Alvis Hermanis.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Wahl, Christne. “Gratwanderung zwischen Kunst und Aktvismus. Zentrum für politsche Schönheit.” Der Tagesspiegel. Web, 17.06.2016. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Wahl, Christne. “Theater muss wie Koks sein! Doku-Book auf der Bühne. 4. Teil: Hartz-IV-Empfänger, Migranten, Wutbürger – Volker Lösch.” Spiegel Online. Web, 16.01.2011. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): Weigel, Moira. “Politcal correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy.” The Guardian. Web, 30.11.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Wendt, Marian. “Die Signalwirkung wäre verheerend. Rede zur unerlaubte Einreise von Flüchtlingen entkriminalisieren.” cducsu.de. Web, 15.01.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Widmann, Esther. “AfD-Kundgebung in Mainz. Staatstheater übertönt AfD mit Beethoven – Polizei erstatet Anzeige.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 24.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): Internet resources (no author specifed) “Alvis Hermanis.” Jaunais Rīgas Teātris. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Alvis Hermanis erobert Österreich.” ORF.at. Web, 25.09.2011. Online (last accessed 23.06.17): “Alvis Hermanis' Flucht vor Flüchtlingen. Rassistscher Regisseur am Thalia-Theater.” taz.de. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Alvis Hermanis pamets darbu Hamburgā, protestējot pret Vācijas atvērtbu bēgļiem.” LSM.lv. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): 90/93 “Ant-Ant-Islam-Demos. 100.000 Menschen demonstrieren gegen Pegida.” Spiegel Online. Web, 13.01.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Aus für die kleinen Experimenterstäten? Die Nebenspielstäten der Theater stehen in mehreren Städten vor der vorübergehenden Schließung.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 22.11.2011. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Completng the reform of the Common European Asylum System: towards an efcient, fair and humane asylum policy.” European Commission Press Release Database. Web, 13.07.2016. Online (last accessed 14.06.17): “Debate über Verbindung zwischen Flüchtlingskrise und Terror. 'Der Massenfucht so annehmen, dass Krieg nicht immer intensiver importert wird'.” Focus Online. Web, 17.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Die Toten kommen.” Zentrum für Politsche Schönheit. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Die Türen sind ofen. #refugeeswelcome – Wie die Theater in der Flüchtlingshilfe aktv werden.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 23.09.2015 (inital publicaton; last updated on 28.01.2016). Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Die Zukunf des Stadtheaters. Dossier zur Stadtheaterdebate.” nachtkritk.de. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Dokumentaton Theatertrefen 2015.” Berliner Festspiele. Web, 09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “ensemble-netzwerk.” vimeo. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Ensemble- und Repertoirebetrieb schützen. Deutsche Theaterlandschaf als UNESCO-Kulturerbe?” nachtkritk.de. Web, 23.05.2013. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “eurostat pressemiteilung 53/2015.” eurostat. Web, 20.03.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Flüchtlinge: Kommunen warnen vor Überforderung.” Zeit Online. Web, 05.10.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 91/93 “Gegenveranstaltungen zu Pegida. Semperoper schaltet das Licht aus.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 22.12.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Globale Finanz- und Wirtschafskrise.” Bundeszentrale für politsche Bildung. Web, 25.09.2010. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): “Hermanis kritsiert Leysen-Bestellung.” derStandard. Web, 19.08.2012. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Hermanis: 'Thalia Theater' manipulēja ar maniem izteikumiem.” DELFI. Web, 05.12.2015. Online (last accessed 13.06.17): “humanitarian.” Oxford Dictonaries. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Joachim Lux.” Thalia Theater Hamburg. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): “Kriminalität. BKA-Chef warnt vor Gefahr neuer rechter Terrorzellen.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. Web, 25.06.2016. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Landesbühnen bringen Kultur überall hin.” Die Landesbühnen im Deutschen Bühnenverein. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Letscher Regisseur sagt Gastspiel aus Protest gegen Flüchtlingshilfe ab.” Spiegel Online. Web, 07.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): “Mahn-Akton in Bochum. Theater will Passanten in Kühllastwagen sperren.” Spiegel Online. Web, 01.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Mitglieder.” Deutscher Bühnenverein. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Mitschrif Pressekonferenz: Sommerpressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel.” bundesregierung.de. Web, 31.08.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Miten im Krieg? Alvis Hermanis sagt aus Protest gegen Flüchtlings-Engagement Thalia-Inszenierung ab.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 04./06.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): 92/93 “Ofener Brief von Künstlerinnen und Kulturschafenden an die Politk und sich selbst.” nachtkritk.de. Web, 03.07.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Öfentliche Ausgaben für Kultur.” Bundeszentrale für politsche Bildung. Web, 11.06.2014. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Paris atacks: What happened on the night.” BBC. Web, 09.12.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Pegida: Zahl rassistscher Übergrife steigt.” Zeit Online. Web, 27.01.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Reakton auf Terror von Paris. Viele Länder verschärfen Sicherheitskontrollen” Spiegel Online. Web, 15.11.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Regisseur sagt Stück aus Protest gegen deutsche Flüchtlingspolitk ab.” Zeit Online. Web, 04.12.2015. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): “Staatliche Aufgaben sind grundsätzlich Ländersache.” Deutscher Bundestag. Web, 06.01.2013. Online (last accessed 29.06.17): “Statstk zu Pegida in Dresden.” Durchgezählt. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Theater- und Orchesterlandschaf.” Deutscher Bühnenverein. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Über nachtkritk.de.” nachtkritk.de. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): “Unterbringung in Deutschland. Oberbayern rechnet mit bis zu 10.000 weiteren Flüchtlingen.” Spiegel Online. Web, 07.09.2015. Online (last accessed 07.06.17): E-mails All responses to the inquiries I conducted during my research can be found in the appendix: chapter 6.1.4. Grīnfelde, Dagnija. Images Cover sheet image: Smailovic, Armin. [Haus.] Thalia Theater Hamburg. Web, n.d. Online (last accessed 31.05.17): 93/93