Katja Hoyer: “Time to end the narrative of the narrative”

"Why do migration-skeptical narratives resonate particularly well in East Germany?" a German professor recently asked me at a conference in London. I took a breath to answer and immediately closed my mouth. I didn't know where to begin.

After opening and closing my mouth a few more times like a goldfish, I decided to present my colleague with an idea instead of searching for an answer to her leading question. How about assuming, I asked, that many people in the East, just as in many other parts of Germany and Europe, have indeed experienced drastic changes in their lives in recent years due to the large-scale immigration and believe it is their right to discuss the conflicts that accompany this?

What bothered me most was the word "narrative" in the question. The Duden dictionary defines it as a "meaningful narrative." Those who use it assume that the topic in question is constructed like a story. And what can be talked into existence can also be talked away or silenced altogether. This is a popular approach when it comes to sensitive topics like migration , but it's also one that rarely solves problems. Time to stop the narrative about the narrative and at least allow the thought that there might be some truth to people's concerns.

Narrative vs. Reality: Immigration and the Power of Interpretation in East Germany

That may all be true, I was told, but immigration is needed, especially in eastern Germany . That's a fact. The "uncertainty" about this arises among the population because anti-immigration parties like the AfD and the BSW tell people that immigration is a bad thing. Such "narratives" must be countered with positive arguments and not "satisfied." In the end, that only benefits the AfD.

There it was again, that word: "narrative." Much has been written about its rise as a buzzword since the late 1990s. At this point, I'll just say this: Despite criticism from many quarters, it persists, just like the somewhat older concept of "discourse." Both stem from the post-structuralist school of thought and essentially boil down to the idea that there is no such thing as a universally binding truth. So, if someone says that their living environment has changed due to migration, that isn't objectively true, but rather a "narrative," a constructed story.

This approach, which was shaped by influential thinkers such as Jean-François Lyotard and Michel Foucault, now dominates large parts of teaching and research at universities. It has become so commonplace that it permeates a wide variety of disciplines and has thus shaped large sections of the younger generation of academics.

A study by MDR, for example, found that people with higher levels of education and those under 30 are more likely to support gender-specific language (although the majority of these groups are also against it). The logic here is that the way we talk about things, i.e., the discourse, should shape reality and not just reflect it. Gender-neutral language should therefore contribute to creating equal opportunities between men and women or even abolish such gender categories altogether.

The problem with the whole thing is that large parts of the population continue to assume that the reality around them is true and exists, that situations and conflicts they find in their environment are very real and have direct consequences for their own way of life.

Homophobia at a Berlin school: Nightmare or racist narrative?

A recent controversy erupted over an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, which reported on conditions at the Carl Bolle Elementary School in Berlin, where, according to the text, 95 percent of the children have an immigrant background. A teacher there was now on sick leave because he was psychologically bullied by students. Oziel Inácio-Stech, 43, originally from Brazil, is married to a German man. Muslim students shouted that he would "end up in hell" for this and that he was "a disgrace to Islam." A fifth-grader allegedly told him: "You faggot, get out of here. Islam is the boss here." Oziel Inácio-Stech felt abandoned by the school administration and eventually contacted the newspaper, which "found this to be a cry for help."

What became a real-life "nightmare" for the teacher, serves "racist narratives" for Green Party politician Lamya Kaddor, because "queerphobia" is "not an imported 'cultural conflict,' it is deeply rooted in our majority society." It is of course true that homosexuals also face hostility in the German "majority society," but by a minority and against existing laws. This is different for many children with a migrant background, whose families often come from cultures where demonstrably different moral standards apply than those that have developed in Germany. For Inácio-Stech, this is not a "narrative," but reality.

According to the SZ newspaper, some of the children who bullied the teacher, for example, came from Lebanese families. For Lebanon, as for many other countries where the majority of the population is Muslim, the German Foreign Office has issued a specific travel warning for "LGBTIQ people." While Lebanon is considered "a comparatively liberal country among the countries in the region," travelers should "be aware that homosexual acts are punishable in Lebanon. The pressure on LGBTIQ people has increased." Furthermore, "any homosexual behavior (or behavior perceived as such) could lead to arrest."

The Federal Foreign Office isn't spreading a "narrative" here, but rather information about what is customary in Lebanon and what one should expect when traveling there. This also applies "with regard to clothing" and "especially swimwear," which "should be appropriate for the location." So, when teachers at the Carl Bolle Elementary School report that Muslim parents want to tell them not to wear "short skirts," it should come as little surprise. That people bring their customs with them isn't a "narrative," but a fact. Consequently, this leads to the "imported cultural conflicts" that Lamya Kaddor would rather explain away.

Every responsible citizen has the right to criticize migration

This brings us back to the original question: "Why do migration-skeptical narratives take hold particularly in East Germany?" Migration skepticism is neither a "narrative" in East Germany nor anywhere else, but rather an opinion that must be open to discussion in a democracy. As early as 2023, roughly two-thirds of Germans said in surveys that the country should accept fewer refugees. Only five percent said at the time that Germany should accept more. These are dimensions that cannot be talked away or silenced in a democracy. This is not a matter of all or nothing, zero migration or open borders, but rather of many citizens wanting a more nuanced debate in which they can have their say without being accused of falling for certain "narratives."

More than a quarter of the population in Germany now has a migration background, as the Federal Statistical Office announced last week. Why shouldn't a discussion about the obvious impact this has on schools, neighborhoods, and the social climate be legitimate? Perhaps we can agree that potentially every responsible citizen has something to say and is entitled to do so in a free country?

In my discussion with my colleague in London, my long-winded answer didn't get me very far. It apparently didn't fit the narrative.