Cultural Sovereignty beyond the Modern State: Space, Objects, and Media

188 Pages·2021·27.382 MB·English

by  Gregor Feindt, Bernhard Gissibl, Johannes Paulmann

CulturalSovereigntybeyondtheModernState
European History Yearbook
Jahrbuch für Europäische
Geschichte
Edited by
Johannes Paulmann in cooperation with Markus
Friedrich and Nick Stargardt
Volume 21
Cultural Sovereignty
beyond the Modern
State
Space, Objects, and Media
Edited by
Gregor Feindt, Bernhard Gissibl,
and Johannes Paulmann
EditedatLeibniz-InstitutfürEuropäischeGeschichtebyJohannesPaulmannincooperation
withMarkusFriedrichandNickStargardt
Foundingeditor:HeinzDuchhardt
ISBN978-3-11-067905-2
e-ISBN(PDF)978-3-11-067915-1
e-ISBN(EPUB)978-3-11-067925-0
ISSN1616-6485
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110679151
ThisworkislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0InternationalLicense.Fordetailsgotohttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Chapter‘Datameetshistory:Aresearchdatamanagementstrategyforthehistorically
orientedhumanities’byFabianCremer,SilviaDaniel,MarinaLemaire,KatrinMoeller,Matthias
RazumandArnoštŠtanzel.
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2021934671
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailedbibliographicdataareavailableontheInternetathttp://dnb.dnb.de.
©2021GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,andJohannesPaulmann,publishedbyWalterde
GruyterGmbH,Berlin/Boston.
Thebookispublishedinopenaccessatwww.degruyter.com.
Coverimage:“OneofGoogle’sfirstserverracks”byM.HawkseyislicensedunderCCBY2.0
Typesetting:IntegraSoftwareServicesPvt.Ltd.
Printingandbinding:CPIbooksGmbH,Leck
www.degruyter.com
Contents
GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,JohannesPaulmann
Introduction:Culturalsovereignty–claims,formsandcontextsbeyond
themodernstate 1
SilkeMende
FrenchimperialpoliticsandthelongshadowofFrancophonie 21
YfaatWeiss
SovereigntyinMiniature:TheMountScopusEnclave,1948–1967 38
SaimaNakutiAshipala
Sovereigntyoverdiamondresources:(Re)-negotiatingcolonialcontracts
inSouthernAfrica 65
SebastianLambertz
Thepeople’sownmedia:WorkersrepresentationinCzechoslovak
SocialistTelevision 87
JonasBrendebach
Contestedsovereignties:Thecaseofthe“NewWorldInformation
andCommunicationOrder”atUNESCOinthe1970s 106
IngridVolkmer
Digitalsovereigntyandapproachestogoverningglobalizeddata
spaces 128
GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,JohannesPaulmann
Culturalsovereignty–Aconclusioninfourtheses 147
Forum
FabianCremer,SilviaDaniel,MarinaLemaire,KatrinMoeller,
MatthiasRazum,ArnoštŠtanzel
Datameetshistory:Aresearchdatamanagementstrategy
forthehistoricallyorientedhumanities 155
Listofcontributors 179

GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,JohannesPaulmann
–
Introduction: Cultural sovereignty
claims, forms and contexts beyond
the modern state
Crisis? What crisis? Sovereignty, its proponents
and discontents
“Sovereigntyisback”–thuswastheapodicticstatementofCanadianhistorian
and politician Michael Ignatieff in 2012.1 Indeed, sovereignty has made a most
remarkablecomebackbothasasubjectofpoliticalandscholarlydebateaswell
as a feature of political practice. The list of recent and palpable assertions of
statesovereigntyinthetraditionalsenseislong,andtheyfoundperhapstheir
mostsymbolicaswellastheirmostconcreteexpressionatthattraditionalsite
ofstatesovereigntysincethenineteenthcenturythatistheinter-stateborder.A
fewnumbersforillustration:Between2006and2015,anestimated40,000peo-
plediedtryingtocrossstateborders.2Whilethenumberofborderwallswasas
lowastwelvein1989–theyeartheBerlinwallcamedown–wallsandfences
to clamp down and channel cross-border movements have risen to around 70
bytheyear2014.3Mostrecently,thepandemiccausedbytheSARS-CoV-2virus
hastriggeredaseriesofactionsbythestatesfromclosingbordersforcitizensof
othercountriesandpreventingexportsofmedicalgoodstoimposingcurfewsor
restrictfreemovementwithintheirterritories.EvenwithintheEuropeanUnion,
joint actions seemed to lag behind these unilateral measures so that interna-
tional coordination appeared more the result of a competitive process than
based on multilateral cooperation. Consequently, the global implementation
ofsuchharshpoliciesofexcludingnon-nationalsduringtheSARS-CoV-2pan-
demicstressedthecurrentuniversaltrajectoryofsovereignty.Iftherehasbeena
crisisofstatesovereignty,asmanypoliticalanalystshaveremarkedoverthelast
1 MichaelIgnatieff,‘TheReturnofSovereignty’,in:TheNewRepublic(25January2012)https://
newrepublic.com/article/100040/sovereign-equality-moral-disagreement-government-roth.
[2020-03-18]
2 ReeceJonesetal.,‘InterventionsontheStateofSovereigntyontheBorder’,in:PoliticalGe-
ography59(2017),1–10,1.
3 ElisabethValleted.,Borders,fencesandwalls:Stateofinsecurity?Farnham2014,1.
OpenAccess.©2021GregorFeindtetal.,publishedbyDeGruyter. Thisworkislicensed
undertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0InternationalLicense.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110679151-001
2 GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,JohannesPaulmann
25years,sovereigntyhasnonethelessretaineditsdecisionist,authoritative,ex-
clusiveandevenlethaledge.
Yet,thereismoretosovereigntythanthecontrolofbordersandmobilities.
OneofthemajormobilisingfactorsforBrexitsupporters,forexample,wasthe
desiretorestrictthefreedomofmovementforCentralandEasternEuropework-
ersintheUnitedKingdom.Thisargumentwas,however,chargednotonlywith
thedemandtoregain“full”or“real”sovereigntyoverlegislationandjusticebut
alsowithimaginariesofBritish,ormoretothepoint,Englishidentity,andthe
desiretoregainformergreatnessandglobaloutreachoftenassociatedwithan
unspecifiedimperialpast.4PresidentTrump’sblendof“makingAmericagreat
again”and“keeping”itgreatin2020,buildingawallatthesouthernborders
towards Mexico and the withdrawal from international multilateral agreements
andinstitutionsfollowedasimilarifmoreopenlyracistpattern.
Sovereignty has, therefore, extended well beyond the agencies and institu-
tionsofmodernstates.Contestsovermigrationhavereverberatedfarbeyondthe
geographic locality of borders and unleashed polarizing political debates over
rightsandcitizenship,nationalidentifications,belonging,andthedegreeofso-
cial and cultural plurality in virtually all European societies. The last decade
has, for example, witnessed the emergence of vociferous right-wing identitar-
ianmovementsacrossEuropewhooftenclaimthedefenceof“culturalidentity”
already in their respective denominations.5 Adherents of these groups draw on
biologically-basedideasofasocalled“ethnicpluralism”thatdrawsasharpdis-
tinction between people of Western European descent and immigrants, particu-
larlywithaMuslimbackground.Inwhatisoftentakenasafoundingmomentof
themovement,Frenchidentitarianactivistsunfoldedabannerontherooftopof
amosqueinPoitiersin2012,invokingtheyear732whenFrankishtroopsunder
CharlesMarteldefeatedtheUmayyadcaliphateinthebattleofTours-Poitiersor
Ma’arakat Balāṭ ash-Shuhadā’. In Germany, similar ideas became part of a
conspiracy theory of an engineered “population exchange” threatening “ethnic
Germans”tobecomeaminorityintheirowncountryafterwhathasbeencalleda
lossofpoliticalcontrolduringtheallegedSyrianrefugeecrisisof2015.
Therecently observablebacklashoftraditionalstatesovereignties, respec-
tivelyclaimsofsocietalgroupstoauthoritarianformsofgovernanceandthede-
fenceofallegedcultural identitysit alongside,andin partreacttowhat many
4 Seee.g.BeatriceHeuser,BrexitinHistory:SovereigntyoraEuropeanUnion?London2019
andSteveBuckledee,TheLanguageofBrexit:HowBritainTalkedItsWayOutoftheEuropean
Union,London2018.
5 The Austrian branch of the Identitarian Movement, for example, was registered in 2012
underthenameVereinzurErhaltungundFörderungderkulturellenIdentität.
Introduction:Culturalsovereignty 3
political observers have referred to as a widespread crisis of the sovereign na-
tionstateandtheerosionofstatesovereignty.SincetheendoftheColdWar,
thesecommentatorsseevariousdevelopmentsthathaveunderminedthedeci-
sion-makingpowersoftheEuropeannationstates.6Forexample,thecreation
of supranational institutions, such asthe International CriminalCourt in The
HagueortheprogressivelyintegratedEuropeanUnion,haseffectedthetrans-
ferofcorecompetenciesofnation-statesovereigntytotheseinstitutions.Deci-
sionmakinginimportantpolicyfieldshasbeenshiftedfromthenationallevel
ofmembercountriestoacooperativeormultilaterallevel,too.7Thepowerofthe
sovereign territorial state hasbeenfurther eroded by the intensified cross-border
mobilityofcapital,goods,information,andlabour.Startinginthe1960s,thiswas
reflecteduponatfirstintermsofglobalinterdependenceandlaterglobalization.8
Thus,itwouldbetemptingtointerpretmanyofthephenomenaanddevel-
opments to which we have just made reference as arising from the conflicting
interplaybetweennation-statesandtheforcesofglobalizationandtransnation-
alization. However, such a privilege of the global, respectively the national as
the most relevant levels of analysis obscures the involvement of a variety of
actors across several levels, as well as their contesting claims to governance
anddecision-making.Similarly,placingsuchcontestationsofsovereigntytoo
stronglywithinthe later partof the twentiethcenturycould mislead ustoover-
emphasisethedecision-makingpowerofearlierformsofstatehood.Ratherthan
6 Fromanextensivebodyofliterature,seeSaskiaSassen,LosingControl?SovereigntyinanAgeof
Globalization,NewYork2nded.1996);ManuelCastells,TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety,Chichester
2010;RichardJoyce,CompetingSovereignties,Abingdon2013;DieterGrimm,Souveränität:Her-
kunftundZukunfteinesSchlüsselbegriffs,Berlin2009;andinahistoricalcontext,JamesSheehan,
‘TheProblemofSovereigntyinEuropeanHistory’,in:AmericanHistoricalReview111(2006):1–15.
ThisintroductionispartlybasedonGregorFeindt,BernhardGissiblandJohannesPaulmann‘Kul-
turelle Souveränität. Zur historischen Analyse von Deutungs- und Handelsmacht jenseits des
Staates’,in:Idem(eds.),KulturelleSouveränität:PolitischeDeutungs‐undHandlungsmachtjenseits
desStaatesim20.Jahrhundert,Göttingen2017,9–46;translationbyDonaGeyer,Munich.
7 Ontheleewaythatso-called“cunningstates”havethusgainedtostrengthentheirsovereignty
through the clever exploitation of overlapping sovereignties, see Shalini Randeria, ‘Cunning
States and Unaccountable International Institutions: Legal Plurality, Social Movements and
RightsofLocalCommunitiestoCommonPropertyResources’,in:EuropeanJournalofSociology
44/1 (2003): 27–60; Shalini Randeria, ‘Rechtspluralismus und überlappende Souveränitäten:
Globalisierungundder“listigeStaat”inIndien’,in:SozialeWelt57(2006),229–258;AndreaRe-
hling,‘MateriellesKultur-undNaturerbealsObjektundRessourcekulturellerSouveränitätsan-
sprüche’,in:Feindt,GissiblandPaulmann(eds.),KulturelleSouveränität,257–284.
8 MartinDeuerlein,DasZeitalterderInterdependenz.GlobalesDenkenundinternationalePo-
litikindenlangen1970erJahren,Göttingen2020;PaulJamesandMartinB.Steger,‘AGeneal-
ogyof“Globalization”:TheCareerofaConcept’,in:Globalizations11/4(2014),417–434.
4 GregorFeindt,BernhardGissibl,JohannesPaulmann
assumingaprincipledantagonismbetweentheglobalandthenationalorthees-
sentialdeclineofthemodernstate,weproposetospeakofcontestedsovereignties
intheplural.Thisallowsfortheanalysisofadynamicunderstandingofclaims-
anddecision-makingasaprocessthroughoutEuropeanhistory.Itissensitiveto
conflicts and contradictions not only between actors but also across the levels
fromtheglobaltothelocalandavarietyofsocietalfields.Necessarily,suchan
understandingchallengesthereceivedideaofsovereigntyasauthorityoverdeci-
sion-makingthatissolelylinkedtothemodernstate.Inconsequence,thisnotion
ofsovereigntyitselfhastobetakenasaclaimratherthanagiven.
In contrast to received concepts, the contributions assembled in this theme
issueemployandexploretheconceptof“culturalsovereignty”inordertodenote
the fluid and contested character of sovereignty. Cultural sovereignty, as we un-
derstand it, isessentially a heuristic concept for the analysis of decision-making
power and various efforts at self-determination and self-assertion. It takes seri-
ouslythealwayscontestedcharacterofsovereigntyandtheassociatedclaimsby
competingactorsandstakeholders.Indoingso,weseektoarriveatadeepened
understandingofsovereigncontestationsastheymanifestthemselvesbetweenex-
ternalandinternalfactorsand forces,betweenvariousactorsand groupswithin
states, and over different fields from political decisions and economic powers to
societal behaviour and cultural politics. The “culture” in the composite term
ofculturalsovereigntydenotes,ontheonehand,aspecificdomainwithpecu-
liarresourcesthatmaybeemployedtoclaimsovereignty.Ontheotherhand,
ourapproachgoesbeyondthislimitedunderstandingandconceivespowerand
authorityasculturalpracticesthatarebothsituatedinandmediatedthroughpo-
litical,societal,economicandculturalspheres.Thestateaswellassocietalactors
likecompanies,socialmovements,themediaorscholarswereengagedinclaims
oversovereigntiesandtheirdifferentmanifestationsandinterpretations.
Inthefollowing,wewill,first,discussrecentcontributionstorethinkingsov-
ereigntyand,second,bringforwardculturalsovereigntyasa“heuristictool”.Fi-
nally,wewillintroducethechapterstothisvolumeand,intheconclusion,carve
out their contribution to cultural sovereignty as a concept of analysis, which
offers a heuristic for the historical analysis of sovereignty practices beyond
thescopeofthenationstate.
Rethinking sovereignty beyond the modern state
Inrecentyears,arichliteraturehasobservedthevariousforcesunderminingsov-
ereignty. These studies illustrate that sovereignty is changed if not challenged