2

The urge to work or create, 2, Thoroughness, 3. Love of order, 4. Distaste for social form, 5. Stubbornness, 6. a tendency towards indulging in emotions, he seems to expect these tendencies to endure. ⁴ We know, however, from experience that "national characteristics" of this kind can change within one generation. For instance, the urge to work can evaporate with the development of a so-called "welfare mentality" in a system of exaggerated socialism and unionism. These traits may be very true for one generation, even for generations before, but utterly wrong for the one following. ⁵ If David Potter’s characterization of the Americans as a "People of Plenty" (1954) has been fitting up to now, this might soon change in a period of scarcity of energy and raw materials.

Cultural profiles, on the other hand, seek to explain the most characteristic cultural manifestations up to that moment. They are retrospective and do not project further developments.

Moreover, someone who traces a cultural profile tends to avoid the ticklish question of freedom versus determinism in national development. As we pinpoint cultural features and the way they fit together, we do not necessarily have to explain what brought them about, nor whether this was inevitable or based on free decision. Nevertheless, I personally would not hesitate to admit that I fully share Erich Kahler's (1974, p. 5ff.) Hegelian kind of determinism, which he expresses in the following way:

"Just as an individual's consciousness, reason, and free will are influenced by heredity and environment, so, in the history of a people, the thoughts and actions of leading men are influenced by the traditions of their people and the climate of their epoch. Their ways of thinking, their explorations and innovations, are determined by developments far beyond their individual range. Yet these explorations and innovations are no less their own achievements." He especially shows this with Martin Luther, about whom he says: "Nowhere in Europe can we find a single personality whose impact on a nation's history is comparable to Luther's. But if we look closer, we shall see that this man, who was so influential in German history, was himself subject to emotional and intellectual forces that have their origin in the social and cultural configurations of medieval Germany.” There are mainly two ways of examining the cultural profile of a nation: the historical and the phenomenological. 6 Both look at first at a civilization as a whole and, after a while, discover prominent features. These features may stand out, because they simply occur more often than

3

others (e. g., the creation of musical or philosophical masterworks), or because they are markedly different from those of other nations (e. g., a pronounced tendency for "inwardness" or introvert attitudes in art). The historical approach will immediately attempt to trace such features back to their possible origins. It is interested in causal relationships. The phenomenological approach, on the other hand, will keep looking for other, related features that might possibly link up with the first into patterns or structures. We could therefore call it "holistic."

In reality, the historical and the phenomenological approaches always unite in various ways. It is impossible to look for historical causation of a feature without having an idea of what is supposed to be "typical" and, therefore, worth a historical explanation. On the other hand, the description of certain national characteristics always leads to historical perspectives. These structures of related features, which we might observe in the cultural manifestations of a nation, resemble very much the "behavioral patterns" hinting at the underlying personality structure in individuals. It is in this sense that the philosopher Schelling (1799/1859, p. 731) already spoke of the "German temper" represented symbolically by Goethe’s Faust. And sometimes we use expressions like "typically German" in that way. In fact, if applied carefully, such generalizations can be useful as working hypotheses, helping to connect and thereby explain isolated symptoms (national features or characteristics). And, if we analyze our own thinking, we use them all the time in tacit assumptions. But, of course, they cannot be extended to all manifestations of a nation. Indeed, "cultural profiles" often embrace the antithetical ("dialectical") relationship of antagonistic features (like extreme rational and irrational behavior) and mold them into a synthesis that. can accommodate and even explain seemingly "bizarre contradictions."

Of course, if you look long enough, not only will you find many “exceptions" to such observations but also similar phenomena in other cultures contradicting the assumption that we are dealing with features exclusively German. We have to keep in mind that all concepts and categories in the humanities admit exceptions. All observations made in civilization courses carry us beyond specific cases and into generalizations. They can do nothing but set accents, accents that nevertheless might serve well as ideal points of reference. In an attempt to tie such observations into a somewhat convincing pattern for our students we are looking for a model that would enable us to do so. Anthropology, in a similar predicament,

4

has developed two points of reference for establishing cultural profiles, the value-system approach ⁷ , and the culture-personality-theory. The first, which derives a cultural profile from an analysis of the conscious and unconscious value-hierarchies effective in a society, does not carry us very far, since very similar value hierarchies direct most European nations. It is exactly the characteristic mode in which these same values are pursued that we are after. Differences of temperament more than differences of values determine those cultural characteristics we try to explain. Therefore, a careful applied comparison of cultural traits with personality traits seems to me to be more promising in our search for a helpful model for a synthesis. ⁸ After psychology has done its duty in helping us pull together isolated observations into something resembling personality types that we call a cultural profile, we have to ask how far this analogy should be allowed to go. Personality types, especially those based on qualities of temperament, are often based on biological determinants. Should we assume that "the German national character" is based on racial factors ⁹ , or on historical determinants (including climate and environment) ¹⁰ ? I think there is no scientific proof for the first assumption, and all the evidence speaks for the second. The first, the myth of the "race soul" was, of course, propagated by the Nazis ¹¹ , and its devastating consequences have instilled in us fears against attempting any synthetic aspect at all, at least programmatically. Latently, and partly unconsciously, we are working with cultural cliches all the time.

Helmut Plessner, in his study Die verspätete Nation (The Belated Nation, 1959) points out that German writers have made German national characteristics, seen as racially determined, responsible for Germany's achievements and failings, apologetically or reproachfully, as needed. This view is dangerous because it does not allow for the possibility of change, relearning, or improvement. It is utterly pessimistic. And even though historically ingrained national habits can also be seen as fairly permanent, views of racial determination are certainly not justified as scientific evidence.

Often "Völkerpsychologie" bases its observations on Comparative Linguistics ¹² , since language is the prime instrument in our relations with the world. However, language is also shaped by the historical experience of a nation. Therefore, linguistic evidence of national characteristics does not prove that they are biologically based, nor unchangeable.

Since we neither can nor want to avoid cultural generalizations altogether ¹³ , we should rather attempt to make the best use of them, and to see clearly their limitations. The latter are:

5

1. Cultural profiles can, as the name indicates, only be applied to cultural manifestations and achievements of a nation, not to its single members. ¹⁴ 2. They are at best useful generalizations, providing us with points of reference for a better understanding of isolated cultural observations. They always aim at a synthesis. In that respect they resemble type concepts in personality theory (German: Charakterologie ¹⁵ ). 3. They should, if at all, be explained historically ¹⁶ , not biologically. 4. They are basically retrospective ¹⁷ . Their limited value for our own time of intense political, economical, and cultural change and exchange should always be kept in mind. 5. They are not tied to any philosophical positions, as, e.g., concerning freedom versus determinism. 6. They combine by necessity a phenomenological with a historical perspective,, but stress, the former. 7. They use as points of reference either value-hierarchies or psychological models. The latter approach seems to promise more subtle insights into differences in style and temperament between cultures. 8. If they are more psychologically oriented, cultural profiles can embrace and explain seemingly antagonistic features within a culture. 9. Tracing "cultural profiles" we avoid most of the methodological problems pertaining to the concept of "national character." ¹⁸ We consciously shun familiar questions tied to the culture-personality type approach, like: Does each "Kulturnation" have its own "basic personality type” ¹⁹ , ? How can the latter be separated from traits, of other group affiliations, "status personalities", "prestige series" ²⁰ , occupations, etc.? What exactly is the connection and interaction, between "national character" and "culture" ²¹ . 10. For the purpose of drawing isolated observations together into patterns that we call "cultural profiles" it is not necessary to move from description to causal analysis ²² . Reasons for observed patterns - be they geographical, historical or biological - will offer themselves frequently, but should be dealt with cautiously, especially the last group. In any case there is no need to ignore the observation of useful patterns if they cannot be explained causally ²³ .

Our approach is a pragmatic one. We look at cultural manifestations of a nation, which to a considerable degree of agreement are perceived as being "typical", and we ask ourselves whether any pattern can be discovered, and how it could be described. It is not surprising that in most cases metaphors ²⁴ from psychology seem to be the most adequate. In the last analysis, cultural profiles are projections, just as are psychological types. They are both systems of categories we impose on phenomena. The only justification for applying them is their

6

usefulness in creating order in a multitude of formerly unconnected impressions, and in stimulating further comparative observations.

II

After having outlined some basic considerations of the concept of cultural profiles in general, I would like to apply these to the task of sketching a German cultural profile in particular. We start with some random, but not atypical, observations, the kind that are made over and, over again in our civilization courses:

First, of course, the difficult written style of the Germans with its complex sentence structures and frequent use of "Nebensätze" and especially split predicates that embrace the remainder of the sentence, also the inclination to appear "profound" ("heavy") by using lots of abstract nouns and classifications;

Their desire to construct comprehensive systems that explain everything with a few basic principles, not only in philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Hartmann, Heidegger), but also in categorizing their dreams (Freud);

Their unrivaled dominance in pure (absolute) music from Bach to Stockhausen; Their unique achievements in certain art movements (Romanticism, Expressionism) ²⁵ , art styles (the self portrait) and literary genres ("Bildungsroman");

Their predilection for highly sensitive and introspective heroes ("German inwardness") often joined to a temperamental antipode (Faust - Mephisto, Walt and Vult, Narziss and Goldmund, Tonio and the blond Hans), or posited between two female counterparts, symbolizing extreme aspects of womanhood (Tannhäuser between Frau Venus and Elisabeth, Faust between Helena and Gretchen, Hofmannsthal's Andreas between Maria and Mariquita, etc.). These typical observations seem to suggest a cluster of attitudes associated in psychology, and, characteristically, first and foremost in German psychology ²⁶ , with the introvert personality type ²⁷ . The introvert type, as described most prominently by Gustav Jung (1921) is usually associated with the "schizothyme" type, as defined by Ernst Kretschmer (1921) and his school. There are many other names for, and descriptions of, this basic type and its opposite, the extrovert or "cyclothyme", ranging from observations in brain physiology to philosophical and artistic attitudes ²⁸ , but a simplified view will suffice for our purposes here: "introvert" means

7

socially inhibited, channeling emotional energies back to one's own inner life, rather than to the outside; "schizothyme" means an inclination towards a dissociation of personality components, mainly of the rational from the irrational impulses. ("Schizophrenic" is the pathological extreme of this basic tendency.) In isolation, both kinds of impulses, the rational and the irrational, tend to become more extreme. The connection between introversion ("inwardness") and dissociation can be explained easily: The extrovert, who lives in constant contact with his environment, is always in touch with reality. His emotional energies as well as rational interests constantly relate to the exterior world, are shaped by it, and are discharged into it. Tensions within the strata (or functions) of his personality will therefore not arise. Popular psychology has always known that "thou-related" persons are more "at peace with themselves" less in danger of building up tension than "self-centered" ones, that the best way of relieving inner conflict is to concentrate on your fellow man, that internal conflict goes hand in hand with social problems. Androgenic and exogene neurosis are two aspects of the same process. Extreme extroversion leads to shallowness. The introvert, on the other hand, is holding back his energies, emotional as well as intellectual, and therefore tends to intensify them into more extreme forms. Pent up emotion is more powerful, once it erupts, than feelings that are constantly discharged and are therefore "spread more thinly". But also the effort to control these emotions by creating systems of order that may save the introvert from chaos is more desperate, and therefore more extreme.

Of course, I do not advocate that we operate with these technical terms in the classroom. It is better if we combine the observations as such, without ever mentioning the typological model in the back of our mind.

Our explanation of student observations along this line would sound somewhat like this: The development novel ("Entwicklungsroman") seems to be indeed a characteristic genre for German literature starting with Wolfram's Parzival because it offers an ideal vehicle for one of the main problems of the Germans - the integration of a sensitive and highly gifted individual into society. Why should this process be so fascinating to the Germans? Because it did not come naturally to them; they had to strive for it. This accounts for the high strung subjectivism of so many German literary figures, e. g., Faust, but also for the tragic mood of so many German poets. In their isolation from society, the world seems to them to be determined by "impenetrable fate" In many cases, they do not even contemplate active participation in society

8

or the possibility of changing it. This fatalistic and resigned attitude, especially in regard to political activity, has been traced by many authors back to the restoration of the ancien regime in 1815 and by others further still to the disastrous impact of the 30-Years' War. Some also blame the Reformation and the resulting division of Germany for the predominantly apolitical attitude of the German intelligentsia.

As compensation, the tragically isolated poet in Germany sometimes tends to overestimate his mission and assumes a priestly pose. That is why, occasionally, we speak of "metaphysical pathos" in poets like Hölderlin, George or Rilke.

"Realism" cannot be expected from predominantly introvert poets. That is why German literature did not attain world acclaim in this literary period. Our kind of realism was later called "poetical realism," and in the 20th century we developed a "magical realism." Again, these developments can be, and have been, explained historically.

As might be expected from a predominantly introvert tradition, it excelled and attained world impact at the most extreme poles of the continuum between rationalism and irrationalism, e. g., in the philosophy of Kant on one side, and the poetry of Romanticism on the other. It yielded its most brilliant results whenever an emotional content could be expressed in an utterly calculated and rational medium, especially in music ²⁹ . But not only in Classical and Romantic music, but also in the highly expressive constructions of the twelve-tone technique of Schoenberg and his school. And it should not be forgotten that the breakthrough to nonobjective (that is, completely abstract) art was also made in Germany. It has been rightly observed that the emotional intensity of Expressionism in painting was to be found in Germany long before the 20th century. In the same way, we had insights into depth-psychology before Freud, and even before Schopenhauer ³⁰ . Freud only developed them into a coherent system. The obsessive concern with order, categorizing, and classification in philosophy and psychology can be seen as a mostly unconscious defense against the subliminal threat of chaos and anarchy. Only when disorder is felt as a latent danger, can order be taken so seriously, as deadly seriously as in the German concept of "Wissenschaftlichkeit." 31

Where rational thought is left to itself and its results do not have to be verified constantly by reality, it may rise to the unique philosophical speculations of German idealism ³² . Already Heine (1834/35), and later again Georg Lukacs ³³ , explain these by the political isolation and impotence of the German bourgeoisie in the 18th and 19th centuries. Where poets as well as