Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich.
mehr Informationen...
Das Wechselspiel von Text und Kontexten – Georg Büchners Danton's Tod und die zwei Gesichter der Revolution
Ist Teil von
World literature studies, 2014, Vol.VI (3), p.51-78
Ort / Verlag
Ústav svetovej literatúry, Slovenská akadémia vied
Erscheinungsjahr
2014
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
This reflection begins with a scandal: In 2007 Martin Mosebach the recent prize-winner of the
prestigious Georg-Büchner-Preis provoked a public outcry with his thesis comparing Saint-
Just, Büchner and Himmler for their dealing with violence in giving ideological excuses. It
shows how extreme interpretation can be. Especially Georg Büchners Danton’s Tod is since
its existence a battle field of ideological standpoints between left and right concerning Georg
Büchner’s sight towards revolutionary action and the needs and risks of violence. Up to our
days we can see that ideological battle in the first discussions about the Marburger Ausgabe
(the critical edition of Büchner’s literal work in 2000) and the crucial edition of Danton’s Tod.
There it is shown once more how different the same literal communication can be interpreted and judged especially if it is focused on a single item like the speech of St. Just in II, 7 as a
standpoint of the author himself – pro or contra violence.
We should transparently controlling our methods without cutting new and creative approaches.
My own methodical thesis is that there exists a good deal of combination of methods
which could be combined productively without (too much) friction. Methods more close to
the text and methods more focused on history of ideas, historical and social contexts could
deliver an answer how Georg Büchner wanted to show the problems of terror in avoiding old
ideological discussions. Approaches close to the texts show how literal communication in the
texts works and helps us to control theses. The sociological approaches like Niklas Luhmann´s
theory of systems and Jan and Aleida Assmann´s theory of collective (social) memory deliver
a good framework helping to show changes in the shapes of production, reception and interpretation
but they are a bit too abstract, too far away from concrete texts. So there is a need to
build bridges between the approaches to show clusters in a sort of over-lay. Therefore we have
a dialogical structure in working with our methods.
In the view of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of systems the French Revolution marks the turning
point towards a modern functionally orientated society. It is both, the beginning of modern
democracies and totalitarianism as antagonistic mechanisms – at least marked with the
crucial conflict of steering an overflowing egoistic individualism with social discipline (M.
Foucault) and elements of solidarity. This antagonism leads to frictions between subcultural
forms of social organization playing the role of innovative and critical control which could
be described by the idea of official and non-official collective/social memory (J. and A. Assmann)
respective by the idea of different forms of social “semantic programms” and their
elements (Luhmann, Holl) forming concepts (e.g. of history) and commentating each other.