Reflections on Comparative Everyday History: Practices in the Working-Class Movement in Leipzig and Lyon during the Early 1930s 1
2011; Routledge; Volume: 33; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/07075332.2011.620741
ISSN1949-6540
Autores Tópico(s)European history and politics
ResumoAbstract The essay develops a methodological approach to writing comparative history of everyday life and discusses methodological problems this involves. To empirically ground this discussion, it compares the working-class movements' reactions to the rise of the radical right in Leipzig and Lyon in the early 1930s. Methodologically, the essay argues for ‘dissecting’ stories, the ‘raw material’ historians of everyday life use, and comparing different aspects of such stories, for example the place where they take place or the tools actors use, This approach allows both for arriving at meaningful conclusions based on comparisons, and maintaining the sense of complexity and ‘messiness’ that characterizes the history of everyday life. A comparative approach to the history of everyday life might thus be a way to integrate micro- and macro-historical approaches. Empirically, the essay suggests that the deep politicization of the working-class movement in Leipzig contributed to its rapid collapse, first because it made conflicts between Sccial Democrats and Communists an everyday experience for many activists, and second because these activists were so frustrated by politics that they turned away from politics altogether. In Lyon, in contrast, the relative weakness of a political working-class movement helps explain the initial success of the Popular Front. Keywords: Working-Class MovementCommunismSocialismNational SocialismPopular FrontLeipzigLyonHistory of Everyday Life Notes 1. This essay is a revised version of J. C. Häberlen, ‘Die Praxis der Arbeiterbewegung in Lyon und Leipzig. Überlegungen zu einer vergleichenden Alltagsgeschichte’ in A. Arndt, J. C. Häberlen and C. Reinecke (eds), Vergleichen, Verflechten, Verwirren? Europäische Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Theorie und Praxis (Göttingen, 2011), 295–315. Translation courtesy of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, © Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 2. H.-G. Haupt and J. Kocka, ‘Historischer Vergleich: Methoden, Aufgaben, Probleme. Eine Einleitung’ in H.-G. Haupt and J. Kocka (ed), Geschichte und Vergleich. Ansätze und Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt and New York, 1996), 22 ff. All translations by the author. 3. The notion of Eigensinn, for example, introduced by Alf Lüdtke, has proven extremely powerful; see A. Lüdtke, ‘Geschichte und Eigensinn’ in Berliner Geschichtswerkstatt, Alltagskultur, Subjektivität und Geschichte: Zur Theorie und Praxis von Alltagsgeschichte (Münster, 1994), 139–53. 4. See WerkstattGeschichte 40 (02/2006): Alltagsgeschichte transnational; 43 (11/2006): Empire is coming home; and 45 (06/2007): Globale Waren. Historische Anthropologie similarly publishes an increasing number of articles with a global perspective, but few if any explicitly comparative studies, nor do the authors of the recent review article on everyday history address this issue. See P. Steege et al., ‘The History of Everyday Life: A Second Chapter’, Journal of Modern History, lxxx (2008), 358–78. On Everyday History in general, see A. Lüdtke, ‘People Working: Everyday Life and German Fascism’, History Workshop Journal, l (2000), 75–92; idem, ‘Alltagsgeschichte – ein Bericht von Unterwegs’, Historische Anthropologie, xi (2003), 278–95. There is, however, one notable exception: S. Fitzpatrick and A. Lüdtke, ‘Energizing the Everyday: On the Breaking and Making of Social Bonds in Nazism and Stalinism’ in M. Geyer and S. Fitzpatrick (eds), Beyond Totalitarianism. Stalinism and Nazism Compared (Cambridge and New York, 2009), 266–301. On a methodological level, the essay is instructive in two ways. First, partly confirming what Haupt and Kocka have argued, the essay shows that comparative approaches require analytical categories that can be used to study both cases – in this essay social bonds, whose establishment under totalitarian regimes Fitzpatrick and Lüdtke seek to examine. Second, the authors face the challenge of making generalizing statements while at the same time giving a sense of everyday life in all its complexity. To accomplish this aim, Fitzpatrick and Lüdtke want to demonstrate a ‘panorama of possibilities’ and use boxes set apart from the main text to tell individual stories in all their complexity and thereby, in a way, disrupt the ‘flow’ of the argument. Yet, Fitzpatrick and Lüdtke address methodological issues of writing comparative everyday history only en passant. 5. J. C. Häberlen, ‘Trust and Politics. The Working-Class Movement in Leipzig and Lyon at the Moment of Crisis, 1929-1933/38’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 2011). 6. On the Social Democrats in Leipzig, see J. Vogel, Der sozialdemokratische Parteibezirk Leipzig in der Weimarer Republik: Sachsens demokratische Tradition (Hamburg, 2006). On Communists in Saxony, see N. LaPorte, The German Communist Party in Saxony, 1924–1933: Factionalism, Fratricide and Political Failure (Oxford, 2003). On the working-class movement in Lyon during the Popular Front, see M. Moissonnier, Le mouvement ouvrier rhodanien dans la tourmente, 1934-1945. Vol 1: Le Front Populaire (Lyon, 2004); idem, Le mouvement ouvrier rhodanien dans la tourmente, 1934–1945. Vol 2: Déclin et mort du Front Populaire (Lyon, 2004); J. Faure, ‘Le Front Populaire à Lyon et autour de Lyon. Evénements, Images et Représentations (Avril – Juillet 1936)’ (Mémoire de Maîtrise, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Lyon, 1998); N. Walter, ‘Les grèves du juin/juillet 1936 dans l'agglomération lyonnaise’ (Mémoire de Maîtrise , Université Lyon II, 1999). 7. A. Lüdtke, ‘What Happened to the “Fiery Red Glow”? Workers’ Experiences and German Fascism' in A. Lüdtke (ed), The History of Everyday Life. Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life (Princeton, 1995), 198–251. 8. On the Popular Front, see J. Jackson, The Popular Front in France. Defending Democracy, 1934–38 (Cambridge, 1988); A. Prost, Autour du Front populaire: Aspects du mouvement social au XXe siècle (Paris, 2006). 9. A. Lüdtke, ‘Introduction. What is the History of Everyday Life and Who Are Its Practitioners’ in Lüdtke, History of Everyday Life, 3–40, here, 3. First published in German as idem, ‘Was ist und wer treibt Alltagsgeschichte?’ in A. Lüdtke (ed) Alltagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt a.M., 1989), 9–47. 10. Lüdtke, ‘Introduction’, 6. 11. Ibid., 15f, 21. 12. Ibid., 16. 13. The term is, of course, slightly misleading. These stories are always already filtered through the eyes of archivists and historians who look in specific places for specific stories. Yet, these stories are, in a way, cumbersome – sperrig – and resist the historian's efforts to categorize them. In that sense, they are the ‘raw material’ that practitioners of everyday history work with. 14. See Steege et al., ‘History of Everyday Life’, 373–77. 15. See Lüdtke, ‘Introduction’, 21. 16. Ibid., 29. 17. On the Cartel Autonome du Bâtiment, see J.-L. de Ochandiano, ‘Formes Syndicales et Luttes Sociales dans l’Industrie du Bâtiment, Lyon 1926-1939: Une Identité Ouvrière Assiégée?’ (Mémoire de Maîtrise, Université Lumière Lyon II, 1995/96). 18. Le Travail, 24 May 1930. 19. See A[rchives] D[épartementales du] R[hône], 4M466, Grève du Bâtiment, Avril – Août 1930. 20. See S[ächsisches] Sta[atsarchiv] L[eipzig], PP St. 98, and L V, 17 Aug. 1931, as well as the following days. All quotations from this file. 21. See the ‘boxes’ Lüdtke and Fitzpatrick use in their essay on everyday life under totalitarian regimes. Yet, they never engage in a systematic analysis of these stories as a basis for a comparison. 22. These ideas are inspired by W. H. Jr. Sewell, ‘A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation’, The American Jorunal of Sociology, xcviii (1992), 1–29. 23. I should stress, however, that I will not focus on age and gender in the subsequent analysis. 24. On the Nazis' attempts to ‘conquer’ proletarian neighborhoods, see for example D. Schmiechen-Ackermann, Nationalsozialismus und Arbeitermilieus: der nationalsozialistische Angriff auf die proletarischen Wohnquartiere und die Reaktion in den sozialistischen Vereinen (Bonn, 1998). On political violence in the Weimar Republic, see more generally E. Rosenhaft, ‘Links gleich rechts? Militante Straßengewalt um 1930’ in T. Lindenberger and A. Lüdtke (ed), Physische Gewalt: Studien zur Geschichte der Neuzeit (Frankfurt a.M., 1995), 238–75. 25. See Chapter One of my dissertation for a detailed analysis of Political Violence in Leipzig. 26. See, for the entire case, SStAL, PP S 3129. Leuchtmann is an invented name. Restrictions of space prevent me from giving a more detailed description of the incident. 27. See SAZ, 30.8.1930, and SStAL, PP S 6726 and PP S 8413 for Communists painting paroles on the street, PP S 4208 for Social Democrats. See in general G. Korff, ‘Rote Fahnen und Geballte Fäuste. Zur Symbolik der Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik’ in P. Assion (ed), Transformationen der Arbeiterkultur (Marburg, 1986), 86–107. 28. SAZ, 27 May 1931. 29. See, also for the following quotations, SStAL, PP S 7024/32. Unfortunately, the police report does not contain any information whether Zeichner was assaulted afterwards. Saaler certainly achieved her aim of informing the neighborhood about Zeichner being a strikebreaker. Saaler and Zeichner are invented names. 30. See Chapter Two of my dissertation. 31. See, for example, F. Heidenreich, Arbeiterkulturbewegung und Sozialdemokratie in Sachsen vor 1933 (Cologne, 1995). Conflicts due to Communists' ‘factional efforts’ (Fraktionsarbeit) within the football section of Leipzig's Arbeiter Turn- und Sportbund are documented in C. Gellert, Kampf um die Bundeseinheit. Zusammengestellt unter Verwendung der Niederschrift über die Verhandlungen der Vorstände-Konferenz der Sächsischen Spielvereinigung vom 28. September 1929 (Leipzig, 1929). I have discussed the case in J. C. Häberlen, ‘Indépendance du sport ou lieu de politisation: la relation problématique entre le mouvement sportif ouvrier et les partis ouvriers à la fin de la République de Weimar’ in J. Rowell and A.-M. Saint-Gille (ed), La société civile organisée aux XIXe et XXe siècles : perspectives allemandes et françaises (Lyon, 2010), 275–85. 32. Unemployment in Leipzig exploded from 27,479 in June 1929 to 102,357 in July 1932. See Statistisches Amt Leipzig, Statistische Monatsberichte der Stadt Leipzig (Leipzig, 1932). In Leipzig's communal welfare organization, caretakers, who were nominated by political parties according to their strength in the municipal parliament, looked after welfare recipients, who had to go to their caretaker's apartment. This frequently resulted in conflicts between Social Democratic caretakers and Communists recipients. The Communist press tried to use these conflicts to agitate against the SPD, while the Social Democratic press attempted to de-politicize these conflicts; see, for example, SAZ, 26 July 1930 and LVZ, 2 Aug. 1930. On the welfare system in Leipzig, see P. Brandmann, Leipzig zwischen Klassenkampf und Sozialreform: Kommunale Wohlfahrtspolitik zwischen 1890 und 1929 (Cologne, 1998). 33. See Gellert, Kampf um die Bundeseinheit, 8. Of course, not all games were interrupted in this way. Often enough, athletes could do sports without being bothered by political demonstrations. Yet, in a situation in which Communists tried to establish their own clubs, it could become a deeply political question which (soccer, and so on) club to join. Hence, even at such locations was the working-class movement in Leipzig deeply politicized. 34. See the statements of some Communists in ibid. Communist Worker Samaritans made similar statements, see B[undes]arch[iv] RY 1/I 3/8-10/156. 35. See Chapter Two of my dissertation for a more complete discussion of politics at the workplace. See also W. Zollitsch, ‘Die Vertrauensratswahlen von 1934 und 1935: Zum Stellenwert von Abstimmungen im “Dritten Reich” am Beispiel Krupp’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, xv (1989), 361–81; idem, Arbeiter zwischen Weltwirtschaftskrise und Nationalsozialismus: ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der Jahre 1928 bis 1936 (Göttingen, 1990). Strikes were another occasion for violent conflicts between Social Democrats and Communists. For an impressive study of a strike in Berlin, see K. Rainer Röhl, Nähe zum Gegner: Kommunisten und Nationalsozialisten im Berliner BVG-Streik von 1932 (Frankfurt a.M., 1994). 36. SStAL, Arbeitsgericht Leipzig 20140 / 7. 37. SAZ, 6 March 1930. 38. SAZ, 10 Dec. 1930. 39. LVZ, 17 Sept. 1931. 40. LVZ, 20 Feb. 1930. 41. See LVZ, 19 Aug. 1932, 2 Sept. 1932, SAZ, 25 Aug. 1932, and BArch RY 1/I 3/8-10/155, RY 1 I/3-8/166. 42. LVZ, 16 Jan. 1930, 21 Feb. 1930. 43. In 1932, the KPD in Leipzig had 6,634 members; the SPD, in 1930, 29,171 members, roughly four per cent of Leipzig's population; the SAJ had, in the same year, 1,602 members, about 1.4% of the youth; the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (ADGB) had 114,219 members. All numbers according to Vogel, Der sozialdemokratische Parteibezirk Leipzig, 669f, 77, 728f. 44. My findings contradict the results of Alexander von Plato's work on the Ruhr area. Von Plato claims, based on interviews, that the working-class movement played only a marginal role in workers' everyday lives. My findings, based on archival sources in Leipzig, point in the opposite direction. Perhaps Plato's interviewees depicted the past in a nostalgic way, longing for a (non-political) harmony in the past. See A. von Plato, ‘“Ich bin mit allen gut ausgekommen” oder: War die Ruhrarbeiterschaft vor 1933 in politische Lager zerspalten?’ in A. von Plato and L. Niethammer (ed), ‘Die Jahre weiß man nicht, wo man die heute hinsetzen soll.’ Lebensgeschichte und Sozialkultur im Ruhrgebiet 1930 bis 1960 (Berlin, 1983), i. 31–65. 45. L'Avenir Socialiste, 3 Dec. 1932. 46. Le Travail, 22 Feb. 1930. 47. J.-Luc de Ochandiano, Lyon. Un Chantier Limousin. Les Maçons Migrants (1848–1940) (Lyon, 2008), 230f. 48. C. Auzias, Mémoires libertaires. Lyon 1919–1939 (Paris, 1993), 90, 104f. 49. See L'Effort, 7 Jan. 1933, also for a second similar story. 50. On délégués, see L'Effort, 7 May 1933, and Ochandiano, ‘Formes Syndicales et Luttes Sociales’, 75–7. 51. On roulantes, see ibid., 77–80; R. Tissot, La roulante: chronique d'une grève assassinée (Lyon, 1995). 52. Ochandiano, ‘Formes Syndicales et Luttes Sociales’, 78f. 53. On the SUB, see B. Ratel, ‘L'Anarcho-Syndicalisme dans le bâtiment en France entre 1919 et 1939’ (Mémoire de Maîtrise, 2000). On the traditions of revolutionary syndicalism, see F.F. Ridley, Revolutionary Syndicalism in France: The Direct Action of its Time (Cambrigde, 1970); J. Jullliard, Autonomie ouvrière. Etudes sur le syndicalisme d'action directe (Paris, 1988). In Lyon, the SUB was part of the CGT-SR. 54. On these struggles, see Chapter Four of my dissertation. 55. See the literature mentioned in footnotes 6 and 7. 56. See for example La Voix du Peuple (Communist Newspaper in Lyon), 10 March 1934, 17 March 1934, 24 March 1934, 5 May 1934, 12 May 1934, and 19 May 1934. See further A. Fauvet-Messat, ‘Extrême Droite et Antifascime à Lyon: Autour du 6 Février 1934’ (Mémoire de Maîtrise, Université Lumière Lyon II, 1996). 57. Ibid., 167 ff. 58. See Chapter Five of my dissertation for this development. 59. See, for example Haupt and Kocka, ‘Historischer Vergleich’, 9, 12f. Additional informationNotes on contributorsJoachim C. HäberlenI would like to thank Agnes Arndt (Potsdam), Christiane Reinecke (Berlin), and the two anonymous reviewers for their critical feedback, as well as Bernhard Struck and Kate Ferris for giving me the opportunity to present these ideas at the workshop on ‘The Individual and the Local in Transnational and Comparative History’ in St Andrews in May 2010.
Referência(s)