Intellektuellen-Status und intellektuelle Kontroversen im Kontext der Wiedervereinigung

Nicht nur die beiden Gesellschaften, sondern auch die Intellektuellen aus Ost- und Westdeutschland befinden sich nach der Wiedervereinigung in einem Prozeß des Umbruchs und der Umgruppierung. Vor diesem Hintergrund beleuchten die beiden Beiträge von Wolfgang Emmerich und Lothar Probst in Heft 4 der Reihe "Materialien und Ergebnisse aus Forschungsprojekten des Institutes" Statusveränderungen und Kontroversen intellektueller Formationen in Deutschland. Beide Beiträge berühren sich in ihrer Darstellung des Antifaschismus in der DDR als identitätsstiftender "Zivilreligion" (Helmut Dubiel) und Loyalitätsfalle. Wolfgang Emmerich zeichnet am Beispiel bekannter DDR-Schriftsteller nach, wie der Antifaschismus als ideologische Klammer bei zwei Autoren-generationen gewirkt hat, während Lothar Probst den sowohl bei Ost- als auch bei Westintellektuellen anzutreffenden Mythos vom "antifaschistischen Charakter" der DDR problematisiert.Not only the two societies but also both the East and West German intellectuals have been, after the reunification, in a process of radical change and regrouping. Against this background, the two articles by Wolfgang Emmerich and Lothar Probst in number 4 of the series "Materialien und Ergebnisse aus Forschungsprojekten des Institutes" illuminate changes of status and controversies of intellectual formations in Germany. The two articles coincide in the way they present antifascism in East Germany as an identity-creating "Zivilreligion" (Helmut Dubiel) and a loyalty trap. Taking well-known East German authors as examples, Wolfgang Emmerich describes how antifascism worked as an ideological grip on two generations of authors, while Lothar Probst raises the issue of the myth, to be found in the writings of Eastern as well as Western intellectuals, of East Germany's "antifascist character"

Of “raisins” and “yeast”: mobilisation and framing in the East German revolution of 1989

There is no shortage of literature on the social movements that arose in East Germany in 1989. Numerous studies have shed light upon the nature, scale and dynamics of the uprising of that year. But on certain issues questions remain. No consensus exists, for example, on the relationship between the “civic groups” (New Forum, Democratic Awakening, etc.) and the street protests of the autumn of 1989. Were these simply two facets of a single movement? Or are they better characterised as two distinct streams within the same movement delta? Did the street protests push the civic movement activists into the limelight? Or is it more accurate to say, with Reinfried Musch, that “the civic movement brought the people onto the streets”?1 This paper considers two contrasting interpretations of these issues, and finds both wanting. An alternative interpretation is offered, one that draws upon Marc Steinberg's “dialogical” development of frame theory

A disposable picolitre bioreactor for cultivation and investigation of industrially relevant bacteria on the single cell level

Grünberger A, Paczia N, Probst C, et al. A disposable picolitre bioreactor for cultivation and investigation of industrially relevant bacteria on the single cell level. Lab on a Chip. 2012;12(11):2060-2068