Whose German? Whose English? German Studies as Cultural Translation

In his contribution to the Forum "German Studies and Globalization" in the German Quarterly 78.2 (2005), Frank Trommler warns against a globalization of German Studies that conceals its German linguistic origins. Citing Jonathan Arac's concern about "the diminishment of language-based criticism in favor of a monolingual master scheme"(Arac cited in Trommler, 241), Trommler argues that a transnational mode of writing strongly shaped by the English language does not do justice to the particularity of the German cultural experience. His concern rejoins the topic of the other Forum "How much German in German Studies?" addressed by Margit Sinka and William Donahue in the German Quarterly 78.4 (2005). I would like to respond here to both topics, for I see them as intimately related. The question of how much German should be used in German Studies courses and whether German content might be more profitably taught in English is an age-old debate in our field. This debate is prompted only in part by low enrollments and the need to attract to our programs students with no proficiency in German. It also reflects a neoplatonic belief that language is but a transparent conduit for the expression of ideas. Ideas, not language, are thought to have priority in content courses. And, notwithstanding a venerable German tradition of linguistic relativity that started with Herder and von Humboldt, the belief is widespread among American Germanists that ideas in German Studies can be equally well expressed in English. Both language studies and cultural studies are involved in this debate. Language teachers, who feel responsible for helping their students develop usable language skills in meaningful communicative situations, naturally would like to see content courses taught in German, as would some upper-division students, especially if they have just returned from studying abroad. Cultural studies instructors, who see their role as discussing complex ideas, either do not feel linguistically up to the task, if they are not native speakers of German, or, if they are native speakers, they believe that American students cannot possibly express in German the more subtle nuances of their (English) thoughts. Thus it is often felt that readings and term papers in upper-division literary or cultural studies courses should best be discussed in English. Advocates of using German have focused on how the use of German in the classroom can provide opportunities for advanced language practice, i.e., for increasing the students' language communicative proficiency. But, to borrow Sapir's phrase: "The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached" (69). The debate has not focused on the best way to enhance the students' understanding of the link between German words and "German" worlds, between the forms of the German language and the worldviews of those who utter these words. It has not considered the relationship of patterns of language and patterns of thought, of language structures and social structure. For example: How does a speaker's utterances express and construct the cultural values prevalent in his/her society or community? How does a writer's style bespeak the social norms and generic conventions of a given group of writers, be they located in Berlin-Kreuzberg, Heidelberg, Zurich, Vienna, Cleveland, or on the internet? How do German concepts associated with such cultural topics as Multikulturalismus, Bildung/Erziehuttg, Meinungsfreiheit, Toleranz, Democratie translate or not translate into American English? Where are the areas of convergence/divergence? These and other questions are directly related to the language-culture nexus in German Studies. This nexus used to be taught in translation courses and in the close reading of texts. In these courses, whether the language of instruction was English or German, German words were analyzed and weighed for their multiple denotations and connotations, the deictic positionings of their speakers/writers, the illocutionary force of their speech acts, their metaphors and rhetorical figures, their intertextual resonances, and for what they revealed about the social and historical contexts in which they were uttered. …