"victor klemperer", by katharina barbe

Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/4, 2007: 505–519

DIALOGUE

Victor Klemperer:The accidental sociolinguist1

Katharina BarbeNorthern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois

Wer denkt, will nicht uberredet, sondern uberzeugt sein;wer systematisch denkt, ist doppelt schwer zu uberzeugen.2

(Victor Klemperer)

During the Third Reich, the romance philologist Victor Klemperer (1881–1960),a baptized Jew, lived in Dresden married to a non-Jew. After the enactment ofthe Nurnberger Gesetze in 1935, he lost his professorship and, in late 1938, hisaccess to libraries. No longer able to pursue his scholarly endeavors officially,Klemperer nonetheless tried to remain active by recording astute – albeit also verypersonal – observations of his surroundings. These diary entries had to be hiddenwith friends, as the Gestapo frequently searched Klemperer’s residence. Thediaries in their entirety were not published until 1995 in Germany. Klemperer’sselection of language-related observations from his diaries appeared for the firsttime in print in 1947 as Die unbewaltigte Sprache – LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: Ausdem Tagebuch eines Philologen (hereafter, LTI). LTI has subsequently been publishedin several editions. In a translation by Michael Brady, LTI has only recentlybecome available to the English-speaking market with the title The language of theThird Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii. A philologist’s notebook (Klemperer 2000;hereafter, Brady).3

LTI provides perceptive and personal observations of how the Nazis bothemployed and manipulated language. This paper starts with a reflectionon Klemperer’s LTI to set the stage. Based on Jager and Jager (1999) andJager (1999), I will then position Klemperer’s linguistic observations intosociolinguists, more precisely, into critical discourse analysis (CDA), whilefocusing on the metaphor that emerges, ‘propaganda is a poisonous jargon’,which Klemperer uses throughout LTI.

REFLECTIONS ON KLEMPERER’S LTI

Klemperer deemed it important to share his observations with a wider readershipand ‘to attempt to understand how anything as barbaric as National Socialism

C© The author 2007Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20079600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA

506 BARBE

could take root and flourish in a society with an almost unparalleled tradition ofcultural achievement’ (Watt 2001: 36). He personalized his intentions, which hedisclosed in the last chapter of LTI. Two women influenced this decision. Therewas Kathchen Sara,4 for two years his sixtyish room-mate of necessity, who withinfantile fervor believed him to be a chronicler of the times. And then there wasa fellow refugee, whom he met after the war and who proudly proclaimed, thatshe had ‘been locked up for a year . . . ’cos of certain expressions’ (Brady: 286).5

She had insulted Hitler and Nazi organizations. These expressions as well as LTI-words, i.e. those coined, manipulated or re-fashioned by the Nazis, are at thebasis of his discussion. On a personal level, Klemperer kept his diaries becausehe believed that they helped assure his intellectual and emotional survival, andconstituted a connection to ordinary life, something that was denied to him soonafter 1933:

1.Ich sagte mir: du horst mit deinen Ohren, und du horst in den Alltag, gerade in denAlltag, in das Gewohnliche und das Durchschnittliche, in das glanzlos Unheroischehinein . . . Und dann: ich hielt ja meine Balancierstange, und sie hielt mich . . . (LTI:313).

I told myself: you hear with your own ears, and what matters is that you listenin specifically to the everyday, ordinary and average things, all that is devoidof glamour and heroism . . . And moreover: I kept hold of my balancing pole,and it kept hold of me . . . (Brady: 286).

During the Nazi ascension to power, Klemperer was bitterly disappointedbecause he was forcefully excluded from German society, whose nationalisticGerman and conservative aims he had supported wholeheartedly. In other words,for the first time, he was made to identify himself as a Jew (Jager 2000). There aremany places in LTI where he shows his ambivalence. While on the one hand, heno longer belongs in German society, on the other hand, he still feels like a Germanrather than a Jew and strongly identifies with German intellectual achievements.He attempts to put the Nazis in the pariah position by describing them as un-German. He sees his beloved language co-opted for odious objectives. With utterdespair, he shares his doubts about the deutschen Sprachcharakter, the characterof the German language:

2.Nie habe ich von mir aus verstanden, wie er [Hitler] mit seiner unmelodischenund uberschrieenen Stimme, mit seinen grob, oft undeutsch gefugten Satzen,mit der offenkundigen, dem deutschen Sprachcharakter vollig kontraren Rhetorikseiner Rede die Masse gewinnen und auf entsetzlich lange Dauer fesseln und inUnterjochung halten konnte (LTI: 64).

For my own part I have never been able to understand how he [Hitler] wascapable, with his unmelodious and raucous voice, with his crude, often

C© The author 2007Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST 507

un-Germanically constructed sentences, and with a conspicuous rhetoricentirely at odds with the character of the German language, of winning overthe masses with his speeches, of holding their attention and subjugating themfor such appalling lengths of time (Brady: 54).

In (2) Klemperer grieves for the German language, which should have prevailedand made the Germans aware of the dangers of unsophisticated propaganda,but which could not carry out this task. This is interesting, too, because ititerates the assumption that ‘good’ ideas should be conveyed in ‘good’ language,a descriptive linguist’s nightmare. If a language contains all the spiritual andintellectual property, as Klemperer asserts, then it contains the negative as wellas the positive aspects. In his diary, he writes that all cultural elements, be theyconsumed unconsciously or consciously, find their expression through language.That is, language contains the collective intellectual property (see Jager 1999).

Thus, Klemperer maintains that the soul of a people is expressed through theirlanguage. Speakers cannot escape or overcome their native language, a Whorfiannotion. Klemperer has been criticized for his Whorfian ideas (see especially Watt2001). Under the Nazis, everything that Germany once stood for either changes,becomes contaminated, or even disappears. Klemperer asks himself whether thepeople of Hitler are the same as those of Goethe. He does not seem to have theanswer to such a complex question – and there may not be an answer in the end.His writings appear tentative as his belief is being shaken. His resignation findsexpression when he says of terms, conscripted by the Nazis for their purposes,that perhaps this term also belongs to LTI, in German auch das gehort wohl zurLTI (Jager 2000). While Jager and Jager (1999) and Jager (2000) consider themodal particle wohl (perhaps, arguably) to indicate insecurity, I see it rather asindicating resignation and disappointment.

LTI is in some way a re-evaluation – an analysis with hindsight. Klempererappears to have known something ahead of its actual occurrence (Kamper 2000:35). For example, he talks about the treatment of pets living in Jewish families;these pets were considered contaminated by association.

3.Man hat uns denn auch spater unsere Haustiere: Katzen, Hunde und sogarKanarienvogel weggenommen und getotet, nicht in Einzelfallen und ausvereinzelter Niedertracht, sondern amtlich und systematisch, und das ist eine derGrausamkeiten, von denen kein Nurnberger Prozess berichtet (LTI: 113).

Later they took our pets away from us, cats, dogs, even canaries, and killedthem, not just in isolated cases and out of individual malice, but officially andsystematically; this is one of those acts of cruelty which will not be mentionedat any Nuremberg Trial (Brady: 101).

The reference to the Nurnberger Prozesse is clearly made in retrospect, addedlater when he reviewed his diaries for extracts to publish as LTI. Kamper (2000:35) points to a diary entry from 1933, which appears also in LTI:


508 BARBE

4.wo kunftig das Wort Konzentrationslager fallen wird, da wird man anHitlerdeutschland denken und nur an Hitlerdeutschland (LTI: 44/45).

I think that when in future people say “concentration camp” everyone willthink of Hitler’s Germany and only of Hitler’s Germany . . . (Brady: 36).

Kamper indicates that Klemperer could not have known the effect of suchwords as Konzentrationslager or even Hitlerdeutschland in 1933. Be that as itmay, in LTI (and throughout his Tagebucher), Klemperer documents how, throughre-definition, re-introduction, new coinages and frequent repetitions, ordinarylanguage was used to influence citizens’ attitudes and judgments. In addition, the‘language’ of extralinguistic entities took part in the indoctrination. Jager (1999,especially pp. 6 and 14) points out that the Nazis wove a web of propagandawhich covered all official institutions. This web also reached into the privatesphere, where it even included women’s pregnant bellies proudly borne for Hitler,to produce more potential soldiers.

Klemperer refers, thus, to a whole network of language and context andconceives a net of discourse. Many expressions and phrases with similar allusionsweave this net, which is thrown over the public and in the end is accepted by them(cf. LTI: 126). Klemperer clearly recognizes in language the effect of discoursesand their subject-imprinting power. Speakers and listeners are at the mercy ofthis discourse if they are careless and/or unwilling to interact critically with theirsurroundings (Jager 1999: 10).

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

There is disagreement in the relevant literature regarding whether Klemperer canbe considered a sociolinguist in general, or more specifically a discourse analyst as,for example, Jager and Jager (1999) do. Some see him primarily as an individual,personal chronicler of the impact of politics on daily life, Alltag, who was not ableto isolate linguistic matters from their societal embedding (see especially Maas1984: 209). But it is now generally accepted that linguistic matters do not appearisolated from their societal embedding. Rather language and context are seenas being mutually informing and dependent on each other (see e.g. Bork 1970;Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Van Dijk 1985, 1998; Wodak and Chilton 2005; Wodakand Meyer 2001; and others). Klemperer uses relatively colloquial language,not loaded with linguistic terminology (Jager and Jager 1999). His reflectionshave been dismissed as moralizing language criticism by some (Maas 1984).But, surely, the type of language used should not be at issue, especially becauselinguists can gain public support only if relevant publications are accessible toan audience larger than mere specialized linguists (Van Dijk 1998, 2001: 97).Outside of linguistics, LTI can be analyzed in many different ways, by sociologists,philosophers, or historians, to name but a few.6



In LTI, Klemperer wrote down everything, not only the spitefulness, the absurdfolly, the lunacy accepted as reality, but also the little gestures, the remarks,and the jokes. All in all, while he recognized the horrible reality, he also saw thenuances and the existing contradictions (see Gerstenberger 1997: 19). Moreover,in his observations he combined linguistic and contextual issues and discussedthe effects of the same.

Klemperer describes in detail ‘the ways in which linguistic forms are usedin various expressions and manipulations of power’ (Wodak 2001: 11). In thelanguage, or more precisely, the vocabulary, old words receive new meanings andnew words are coined on the basis of existing ones. Language becomes powerfulthrough its use by people in control, that is, ‘language is not powerful on its own –it gains power by the use powerful people make of it’ (Wodak 2001: 10). Becauseof his personal circumstances, Klemperer’s point of view now derives from hismembership in the dominated group (Van Dijk 2001: 96).

So far then, Klemperer’s LTI can and should be deemed a critical analysis.Therefore, I primarily follow Jager (1999) and Jager and Jager (1999) and considerKlemperer’s LTI an exercise in sociolinguistics or, more precisely, in CDA, eventhough it may not seem so at first glance, nor might it have been intended to be.Klemperer saw a close connection between language and power, and that, Jagermaintains, puts him close to modern discourse theory, which is based on thepremise that discourses transport collective knowledge through time and thusexercise power because discourses then lead to subjective action (Jager 1999: 3).While Klemperer to a large extent looks at single words, he always does so in thecontext of their use (but see Watt 2001 for a different view).

Klemperer ‘lived his data’; in this respect, he is not a detached, unbiased, andimpartial observer because he is also a victim of the situation. Certainly, the readerknows Klemperer’s point of view and his biases right from the outset. He paintshimself as the forcefully expelled critical outsider who is compelled against his willto modify or even sever his connection to German nationalistic ideas. In his role asa participant observer, he is somewhat unreliable, in the sense that everything hecommentsonalsoappliestohimselfandhis life.Klemperer’sanalysis isyetanotherassertion that the by now traditional approach, to disconnect form (grammar andlexicon) from function (usage and context), is not sustainable. What good wouldit do to think about terms in the LTI detached from their contexts? By detachingthe terms, would we ever be able to find out how they have been used, abused, andmisused? Considering propaganda to be a poisonous jargon, Klemperer pondershow the Nazis exploited and manipulated language, as well as how the languagewas, in turn, received, employed, and applied.

PROPAGANDA AT WORK: EIN GIFTIGER JARGON – A POISONOUS JARGON

Language molds its speakers, which generally prevents speakers from steppingoutside their language and observing that there are – as Tyler (1978) pointsout – other ways of being in the world. This influence ranges from the rather


510 BARBE

trivial (assuming the existence of relative clauses in every language) to the moreprofound, considering speakers of other languages to be simply mistaken intheir conduct of life, and to feel thus justified in treating the unknown otherwith contempt. To an extent, Klemperer was able to ‘step outside’ because hewas excluded; at the same time though, he was not immune to propaganda.Throughout LTI he addresses the power that a propaganda machine exerts inredefining linguistic terms, and he uses the metaphor ‘propaganda is a poisonousjargon’ to describe the influence of propaganda. Klemperer asserts that the use ofthe Nazi language leads to Nazi thinking, again a Whorfian notion:

5.. . . nicht nur nazistisches Tun, sondern auch die nazistische Gesinnung, dienazistische Denkgewohnung . . . (hat als) Nahrboden die Sprache des Nazismus(LTI: 10).

. . . (not) only Nazi actions . . . but also the Nazi cast of mind, the typical Naziway of thinking . . . (has as) its breeding ground: the language of Nazism(Brady: 2).

He further notes how the breeding ground of Nazism is reflected in languageand then internalized by the citizens.

6.. . . der Nazismus glitt in Fleisch und Blut der Menge uber durch die Einzelworte,die Redewendungen, die Satzformen, die er ihr in millionenfachen Wiederholungenaufzwang, und die mechanisch und unbewuβt ubernommen wurden (LTI: 23).

. . . Nazism permeated the flesh and blood of the people through single words,idioms and sentence structures which were imposed on them in a millionrepetitions and taken on board mechanically and unconsciously (Brady: 15).

It was ordinary language that was used to influence citizens’ attitudes andjudgments through re-definition, re-introduction, new coinages, and frequentrepetitions. Because of the persistent automatic and involuntary absorption,words can function like tiny doses of arsenic. Initially, the doses are swallowedunnoticed and without any apparent effects. However, after longer exposure thepoison starts to take effect, and then a subtle, and ultimately more substantialtransformation in attitudes can be detected. Klemperer notes that even those whosuffered under the Nazis were not immune to the regime’s misinformation. As herelates in his discussion of the word organisieren, he caught even himself usingNazi-words (see also Schmitz-Berning (2000), Brackmann and Birkenhauer(1988), Sternberger, Storz and Sukind (1989) and Friedlander (1980) for adiscussion of the LTI word organisieren):

7.Aber wer hat denn gestern erst gesagt: “Ich muβ mir ein biβchen Tabakorganisieren?” Ich furchte, das bin ich selber gewesen (LTI: 114).



But who was it that said only yesterday ‘I must organize some tobacco formyself?’ I fear it was me (Brady: 102).

Klemperer has been accused of using LTI-words seemingly unawares andwithout explanation (Watt 2001: 38). While, at times, that criticism may bevalid, I believe in a few instances his usage of LTI-words may be due primarily tocarelessness. At other places, Klemperer seems to use them intentionally. Watt(2001: 39) claims that Klemperer uses the word Sippe, i.e. family, clan, ‘withoutany apparent sign of embarrassment’ in the following instance:

8.Aber in welchen Zusammenhangen war denn dieser Generation, die 1933 nochkaum uber das Abc hinaus gewesen, das Wort heroisch mit seinem ganzenSippenzubehor ausschlieβlich entgegengetreten? (LTI: 11, emphasis added).

But after all, in what contexts had this generation come across the word‘heroisch {heroic}’ and all its kindred spirits, a generation which in 1933 hadbarely mastered the alphabet? (Brady: 2).

Here Klemperer writes about heroisch, which as an LTI-word has aSippenzubehor, an ‘LTI-family’. His usage of the LTI-term Sippe can be also be seenas being intentional. In the context and description of the LTI-word heroisch it isclearlyusedderisivelyandnegatively.TheoccasionalunfairnessofWatt’scriticismbecomes apparent when Klemperer is taken to task for himself using the LTI-wordausrotten (exterminate) ‘one of the seminal words of Nazi anti-Semitism . . . quitenaıvely and uncritically’ (Watt 2001: 39) in several places. One of the occurrencesin question is shown in the following excerpt:

9.ausrottbar seien die deutschen Juden wohl (LTI: 226, Watt 2001: 39).7

the German Jews could certainly be exterminated (Brady: 207).

Note the Subjunctive I (seien) in the German version. Klemperer is indirectlyquoting from a conversation with Markwald, a fellow Jew, who was later killedin the concentration camp Theresienstadt. It is at this point not Klemperer whouses ausrottbar, but a fellow sufferer. This supports Klemperer’s argument thateven the sufferers use the detested terms at times, which Seidel and Seidel-Slotty(1961) contend is quite a common occurrence. Nobody seems to be immune topropaganda.

In order to illustrate the infectiousness of propaganda and its far-reachingeffects, Klemperer relates an incident which happened on a Bornholm toCopenhagen boat trip. He describes a chain reaction of seasickness (cf. LTI:48–49). After one person throws up over the railing, everybody else at first smilescompassionately while secretly assuming that ‘this is not going to happen tome’, but in the end, of course, nobody is left standing. Through this anecdote hedescribes the influence of the ‘new language’ of the Nazis, implying that nobody


512 BARBE

can willingly escape propaganda any more than one can escape the onset andeffects of seasickness. The effect of the propaganda is compared to the action ofthrowing up. So in a shared surrounding, the often choppy waters of the BalticSea leading to Copenhagen, participant A succumbs to seasickness, participantB, literally and figuratively ‘in the same boat’, observes A throwing up and cannotsuppress his/her own reflex and joins A, the same then happens with C, D, and ondown the line. Klemperer puts all participants in the same context, Germany, whileA resists the lure of propaganda briefly, he/she succumbs; B observes this, tries toresist but – involuntarily, reflexively – also surrenders. This is the explanation ofthe effects of propaganda, which he describes as contagious and involuntary. So,a recurring argument in LTI, using metaphors of poisoning (examples 10–12),sickness, infection, or disease (13–15), is the discussion of propaganda as leadingto an involuntary consumption:

10.Worte konnen sein wie winzige Arsendosen: sie werden unbemerkt verschluckt, siescheinen keine Wirkung zu tun, und nach einiger Zeit ist die Giftwirkung doch da(LTI: 23–24).

Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appearto have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all(Brady 2000: 15).

Klemperer notes that even those people who surely were not Nazis were stillnot immune to the poison, which, as we have seen in (7), includes even himself:

11.Keines war ein Nazi, aber vergiftet waren sie alle (LTI: 108).

None of them were Nazis, but they were all poisoned (Brady: 96).

But they could not do anything against this poison as it was spread in the LTIdrinking water, and drinking water is a primary human nutritional need.

12.Das Gift ist uberall. Im Trinkwasser der LTI wird es verschleppt, niemand bleibtdavon verschont (LTI: 105).

The poison is everywhere. It is borne by the drinking water of the LTI, nobodyis immune to its effects (Brady: 93).

Here the poison is accidentally ingested, in particular because it is containedin the drinking water. The poison can also be the poison of disease. Involuntaryaction is also insinuated in the sickness metaphors (see also Jager 1999):

13.Wie sich Trichinen in den Gelenken eines Verseuchten ansammeln, so haufen sichCharakteristika und Klischees der LTI in den Familienanzeigen (LTI: 133).



Just as trichinae gather in the joints of someone with an infection,so the characteristic features and cliches of the LTI gather in personalannouncements (Brady: 119).

Discussing the dangers of LTI, Klemperer compares them to a plague, yet anothermetaphor implying involuntary infection:

14.Seuchen sollen ja immer dort am heftigsten wuten, wo sie zum erstenmal grassieren(LTI: 244).

. . . epidemics are supposed to spread like wildfire in places they assail for thefirst time (Brady: 222).

An epidemic initially infects a people who do not yet have access to antibodies,whose bodies are incapable of fighting it. Clearly this constitutes an involuntaryseizure of the afflicted. Klemperer notes that even a deeply religious principal ofa Catholic school, who retired rather than become a party member, replied uponbeing asked for an explanation of his son’s unusual name, Isbrand Wilderich:

15.So hieβ der Mann unserer aus Holland stammenden Sippe im siebzehntenJahrhundert (LTI: 91).

In the seventeenth century it was the name of one of our kin {Sippe}, whichoriginally came from Holland (Brady: 80).8

Klemperer notes that by using the term Sippe alone, even the anti-governmentprincipal showed his Nazi infection. Note that in (15) Klemperer quotes theprincipal. Sippe is also translatable as relatives, family, clan, or tribe (see also above(8)). It was rarely used before the Nazi era. During the Nazi regime this term waselevated and used especially in agrarian literature (Schmitz-Berning 2000: 574ff.). Following the poison metaphor, the unfortunate principal could not helpbecoming infected because propaganda is a poison swallowed involuntarily. Isthe poison perhaps homegrown, as Klemperer writes in (16)?

16.Erwies es sich, daβ es sich hierbei um ein spezifisch deutsches, aus deutscherGeistigkeit gesickertes Gift handelte, dann half kein Nachweis ubernommenerAusdrucke, Brauche, politischer Maβnahmen: dann war der Nationalsozialismuskeine eingeschleppte Seuche, sondern eine Entartung des deutschen Wesens selber,eine kranke Erscheinungsform jener traits eternels (LTI: 147).

Were it to be proved that this was a specifically German poison, one oozingout of German intellectualism, then evidence of expressions, customs andpolitical measures appropriated from abroad would be of no use: if that wasthe case, then National Socialism was not an imported scourge but rather adegeneration of the German character itself, a diseased manifestation of thosetraits eternels (Brady: 132).


514 BARBE

What if this poison is seeping out of the German collective psyche? Whatif German intellectualism constitutes an especially fertile ground for NationalSocialism? What if National Socialism was not imported but homegrown?Klemperer asks himself these questions without ever really providing answers.But even in (16) he seems to find a way out by stating that the traits eternels werediseased. A disease – as discussed above – is involuntarily acquired. In order toeradicate a disease, the infective agents, the culture, the event(s), the people whoinfected the Germans have to be found. So again, he locates a culprit outside ofthe German mindset. Sickness is still involuntary and blameless. At this pointit seems that Klemperer is an apologist and the criticism of Maas (1984), Watt(2001) and others is appropriate.

However, in several instances, Klemperer takes the Germans to task whenhe bemoans the voluntary ‘befoggedness’ of most citizens. He undoubtedlyrecognizes a voluntary aspect of accepting propaganda when he describespropaganda as an intoxicator (17), a drug (18) or even as bait (19). He refersjudgmentally to an acquaintance as a not particularly well educated, morallyupright burgher and calls him a:

17.kleinburgerlicher Kramer, der sich von hunderttausend Standesgenossen nurdadurch unterschied, daβ er sich von den verlogenen Phrasen der Regierung nichtbetrunken machen lieβ (LTI: 74).

petty-bourgeois grocer who only differed from hundreds of thousands of hiskind in not allowing himself to be intoxicated by the perfidious phrases of thegovernment (Brady: 64).

To follow Klemperer’s metaphor: if the intoxicating substance is so easilyavailable, and, moreover, offered as legitimate, and if everybody is ingesting it, thenit is much simpler to become intoxicated than to stay sober. A critical evaluationof what one hears (ingests) takes effort, and at this juncture some action on thepart of the speaker, however reluctant, is necessary. In order to imbibe, one hasto lift a bottle or glass to the mouth. Once the bottle or glass is at the mouth,then drinking is effortless, so no thinking is involved. Similarly, a narcotic or drugneeds be consumed. One needs to have:

18.das eingeschluckte, das umnebelnde Rauschgift (LTI: 106).

swallowed the mind-numbing drug (Brady: 94).

Swallowing is yet again a voluntary action. Accordingly, taking Rauschgift (inGerman a compound of Rausch (intoxication) and Gift (poison)), just like imbibingintoxicating drinks, actually requires the consumer’s cooperation. An individualneed not consume drugs and alcohol in order to subsist, but doing so may well leadto dependency and a craving for more. In this case, the consumption is officiallyencouraged and inhibitions may be overcome because it is a communal action,



generally accepted as reasonable. For the individual as a member of a group,conforming becomes easier than defiance. The ‘majority were probably contentto swim with the tide’ (Townson 1992: 149). Bait also has to be resisted actively.An enticing pledge promises more than it can keep. Klemperer considers Stieve’sbook Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (History of the German people) published intwelve editions between 1934 and 1942, to be a:

19.. . . guter Koder, sein Gift ist in unschuldige Brocken gewickelt (LTI: 288).

. . . good bait, its poison . . . wrapped up in innocent scraps (Brady: 263).

Bait is surely a lure which can be resisted, so here again collaboration is neededfor one to fall for the bait. Klemperer knows that it is harder to refuse to goalong with the general trend than to submit to it. To recapitulate, Klempererdescribes propaganda as either involuntarily (10–15) or voluntarily (17–19)received, internalized and accepted as truth. He also considers a number ofprerequisites which are necessary for propaganda to be effective and to influencethe masses. The first of these (20) requires the electorate to refrain fromquestioning:

20.Hitlers . . . oberstes Gesetz lautet uberall: laβ deine Horer nicht zu kritischemDenken kommen, behandle alles simplistisch! (LTI: 193).

Hitler’s . . . golden rule is always: don’t let your listeners engage in criticalthought, deal with everything simplistically (Brady: 176).

The masses need to be kept ignorant; ‘their minds can be completely dulled’(Brady: 217). Klemperer uses Verdummbarkeit here, -keit involves a process, herea process of ‘making stupid’. Ideally, to be easily influenced, the populationneed to be both ‘primitive types’ (Brady: 208) and ‘childlike masses’ (Brady:209). Note that Klemperer does not include himself in the masses he describesalthough he criticizes himself for occasionally ‘falling under the spell’ (see above(7)). Klemperer admits that it is not easy to elude these power grabs becauseof the endless repetition of lies and half-truths, as well as the twisting of facts.He concludes that the unquestioning acceptance of authority and the resultingsubservience, paired with a reluctance to question authority, make the publicsusceptible to propaganda.

Klemperer chastises even himself for unreflected actions prior to 1933, thetime when he still ‘belonged’. He remembers his tendency to overgeneralize andto put himself above others and notes contritely:

21.Sage nie wieder Der Bauer oder Der bayerische Bauer, denke immer an Den Polen,an Den Juden! (LTI: 307).


516 BARBE

Make sure you never again say The Farmer or The Bavarian Farmer, don’tforget The Pole and The Jew! (Brady: 280).

In addition, he bemoans his past attitude of judging a group either basedon stereotypes (All Poles are . . .) or generalizing an individual’s frowned-uponactions or behavior to cover all of his/her compatriots.

22.Vielleicht hatte vordem auch ich zu oft DER Deutsche gedacht und DER Franzose,statt an die Mannigfaltigkeit der Deutschen und Franzosen zu denken (LTI: 311)

Had I too also once thought too readily about THE German and THEFrenchman, rather than keeping in view the diversity of the Germans andthe French? (Brady: 284).

LTI and the diaries also depict Klemperer’s personal development, relating hisstruggle and his transition from a quasi-sympathizer to an outside observer.Furthermore, they include Klemperer’s doubts and his missteps, as well as hisarrogance and feeling of intellectual superiority which appear in several places(such as in (17)). While he admires the grocer for his steadfast opposition, he alsoputs him down as kleinburgerlich, petty bourgeois, which amounts to an insult. Hisis also a journey, which he openly admits. And, after all, is it not specifically in adiary where we can freely write about our thoughts, doubts, and shortcomings?

CONCLUSION: LINGUISTIC RESPONSIBILITIES

Klemperer discusses the effects of propaganda mainly in metaphorical poisoningterms. On the one hand, he suggests that the Nazi infection happened involuntary,that the public could, therefore, do nothing against it. Moreover, this infectionspread even to those people who suffered under the regime. Thus, if thispropaganda poison affects every person without their willing participation,includingevenJews,howcouldtheGermanpeoplebeguilty?Particularly,becauseof these metaphorical choices, Klemperer has been criticized for minimizing guiltprecisely because he seems to show a way out by offering the explanation of theinvoluntary aspect – the ‘I could not help it’ defense (see also Ehlich 1989). Inthis respect, Lang (1996: 72) calls LTI a profound analysis of the spiritual andcultural prerequisites of gullible following.

Conversely, several rejoinders can be found in his writings. Not all of hismetaphors imply involuntary affusion; many imply voluntary ingestion, usuallybecause it is easier and more satisfying to do so than to think about what is beingconsumed. In several places Klemperer rebukes those speakers who are ignorant,uncultured, and generally unwilling to question both their own beliefs as wellas authority in general. Jager (1999) points out that Klemperer would rejectacquittal, as Klemperer calls for critical, self-reflective scrutiny of language –especially of propaganda. While ignorance leads one to be easily influenced, it



cannot be used as a justification for suspending critical thinking. The public’svoluntary submission to propaganda is a result of laziness, an unwillingness tothink,scrutinizeandquestion.Thinking,scrutinizingandquestioningtakeseffortand can be dangerous. Klemperer calls for citizens to be perceptive; he envisions amature, thinking, and reflecting public. However, such awareness is difficult andoften reserved for people who are – like Klemperer – outcasts from the system.

Ultimately, Klemperer wants to entice everybody to become that thinkingperson – outcast or not – when he talks about speakers’ personal responsibilities. Itis every speaker’s duty to question the language used by leaders, to be critical of thislanguage, and not to remain ignorant. It seems that Klemperer would like everyspeaker to acquire the tools for critical language evaluation. Many basic elementsof CDA are dispersed throughout LTI’s pages (Jager 2000); therefore, Klemperercan be considered a sociolinguist and, more precisely, a critical discourse analyst.This becomes especially clear in his choice of the metaphor ‘propaganda is apoisonous jargon’ as well as in the didactic aim of LTI, in which he argues thata vigilant speaker/hearer has the potential to avoid ‘ingesting’ the metaphoricalpoison. Klemperer’s colloquial language should not detract from the fact thatLTI is an example of CDA. It is vital that CDA enlightens and that it is accessibleto a large public (Van Dijk 2001), as it has a crucial role to play in the generaleducation of a responsible citizenry.

NOTES

1. I am indebted to John Bentley, Wendell Johnson, and Doris Macdonald, as well as AllanBell, Nikolas Coupland and other reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

2. (Klemperer 1967: 110). ‘Someone who thinks does not want to be persuaded butrather convinced; someone who thinks systematically is doubly hard to convince’(Brady: 98). In the body of the text, I will provide the German original in italicsfollowed by the English translation.

3. Throughout the paper the 1967 edition is used. In the 1947 and 1967 editions, the titleof the book was Die unbewaltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen ‘LTI’ (Theunresolved language: From the notebook of a philologist ‘LTI’). Later editions, whichappeared after Klemperer’s death, omit unbewaltigt, which is a loaded word meaning‘not yet overcome’ or ‘unresolved’. The title of the 1996 edition, for example, is simplyLTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen.

4. After the adoption of a decree (17 August 1938), Jewish women had to add the name‘Sara’ and men ‘Israel’ in order to be immediately identifiable as Jewish.

5. In the original: ein Jahr gebrummt . . . wejen Ausdrucken (LTI: 313); the dialect placesthe fellow refugee’s origins in Berlin. Brady translates this into Cockney, and thusdraws on an already established link. In the German version of Shaw’s Pygmalionas well as in its popular adaptation My Fair Lady, Eliza initially uses the dialect ofBerlin.

6. In history, for example, Klemperer’s reflections have been regarded as an exampleof the history of everyday life that is Alltagsgeschichte (Bartov 2000: 176; also Niven2002).


518 BARBE

7. Watt (2001) uses the 1996 LTI edition and cites p. 265 for this quote.8. Brady often includes the German term in curly brackets, especially at places where

several translations are possible and the translation cannot make the relationshipsclear. Here he may have followed a convention also found in Weinreich (1999[1946]).

REFERENCES

Bartov, Omer. 2000. German soldiers and the holocaust: Historiography, research andimplication. In Omer Bartov (ed.) The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath.London: Routledge. 162–84.

Bork, Siegfried. 1970. Miβbrauch der Sprache: Tendenzen nationalsozialistischerSprachregelung. Bern and Munchen, Germany: Francke Verlag.

Brackmann, Karl-Heinz and Renate Birkenhauer. 1988. NS-Deutsch:‘Selbstverstandliche’ Begriffe und Schlagworter aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.Straelen, Germany: Straelener Manuskripte Verlag.

Ehlich, Konrad. 1989. Uber den Faschismus sprechen – Analyse und Diskurs. InKonrad Ehlich (ed.) Sprache im Faschismus. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.7–34.

Friedlander, Henry. 1980. The manipulation of language. In Henry Friedlander andSybil Milton (eds.) The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide. Millwood, NewYork: Kraus International Publications. 103–113.

Gerstenberger, Heide. 1997. ‘Meine Prinzipien uber das Deutschtum und dieverschiedenen Nationalitaten sind ins Wackeln gekommen wie die Zahne eines altenMannes’: Victor Klemperer in seinem Verhaltnis zu Deutschland und den Deutschen.In Hannes Heer (ed.) Im Herzen der Finsternis. Victor Klemperer als Chronist der NS-Zeit.Berlin: Aufbau Verlag. 10–20.

Jager, Siegfried. 1999. Sprache-Wissen-Macht. Victor Klemperers Beitrag zur Analysevon Sprache und Ideologie des Faschismus. Muttersprache 109: 1–18.

Jager, Siegfried. 2000. ‘Die Sprache bringt es an den Tag’: Victor Klemperers Beitragzum Verstandnis des Faschismus und seiner Nachwirkungen in der Gegenwart.http://www.diss-duisburg.de/Internetbibliothek/Artikel/Klemperer.htmLast accessed December 2006.

Jager, Margaret and Siegfried Jager. 1999. Gefahrliche Erbschaften: Die schleichendeRestauration rechten Denkens. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag.

Kamper, Heidrun. 2000. Sprachgeschichte–Zeitgeschichte: Die Tagebucher VictorKlemperers. Deutsche Sprache 28: 25–41.

Klemperer, Victor. 1947/1967. Die unbewaltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch einesPhilologen ‘LTI’. Darmstadt, Germany: Melzer Verlag.

Klemperer, Victor. 1996. LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen. Leipzig, Germany: Reclam.Klemperer, Victor (translated by Martin Brady). 2000. The Language of the Third Reich:

LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. London/New York: Continuum.Lang, Ewald. 1996. Victor Klemperer’s LTI. Osnabrucker Beitrage zur Sprachtheorie 33:

69–79.Maas, Utz. 1984. ‘Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache fand’ – Sprache

im Nationalsozialismus: Versuch einer historischen Argumentationsanalyse. Opladen,Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.



Niven, Bill. 2002. Facing the Nazi past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich.London: Routledge.

Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racismand Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.

Schmitz-Berning, Cornelia. 2000. Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Berlin:de Gruyter.

Seidel, Eugen and Ingeborg Seidel-Slotty. 1961. Sprachwandel im dritten Reich: Einekritische Untersuchung faschistischer Einflusse. Halle, Germany: VEB Verlag Spracheund Literatur.

Sternberger, Dolf, Gerhard Storz and W. E. Suskind. 1989. Aus dem Worterbuch desUnmenschen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Ullstein.

Stieve, Friedrich. 1934. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes. Munchen/Berlin: Verlag von R.Oldenbourg.

Townson, Michael. 1992. Mother-Tongue and Fatherland. Manchester, U.K.: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Tyler, Stephen. 1978. The Said and the Unsaid: Advances in the Study of Cognition. NewYork: Academic Press.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Ruth Wodak

and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.95–120.

Watt, Roderick. 2001. Victor Klemperer’s experience of the totalitarian manipulationof language. In Jeffrey Welsh and Peter Lynch (eds.) Language Change: Poetry, Politics,and Common Usage. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbook Press. 33–45.

Weinreich, Max. 1999 [1946]. Hitler’s Professors. The Part of Scholarship in Germany’sCrimes Against the Jewish People. New Haven, Connecticut and London: YaleUniversity Press.

Wodak, Ruth. 2001. What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important conceptsand its development. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of CriticalDiscourse Analysis. London: Sage. 1–13.

Wodak, Ruth and Paul Chilton. 2005. A New Agenda in (Critical) DiscourseAnalysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinary. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Benjamins.

Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.London: Sage.

Address correspondence to:

Katharina BarbeDepartment of Foreign Languages & Literatures

Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalb

Illinois 60115U.S.A.

[email protected]


"victor klemperer", by katharina barbe

Documents