JSAE Volume 2 Number 3 Spring 2002 Discourses of Exclusion: Dominant Self-Definitions and "The Other" in German Society Jens Schneider Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Museo Nacional Abstract: Definitions of identity, which describe its dynamic and complex character, were formulated especially by those academic fields which set their focus predominantly, and often exclusively, on minorities or the excluded: e.g. feminist theory, Cultural Studies and antiracism. But the theory of identity politics as a field of struggle for self-positioning should also apply to dominant and majority identity constructions. Moreover, we can observe a close relationship between minority and dominant discourses of belonging. Taking some results of field research in Berlin as illustration, the article shows, how identity constructions of young German discursive elites' depend on the construction of specific minority groups as 'Non-Germans . At the same time, these dominant constructions fundamentally structure the field, in which minority groups are obliged to move for their self- definitions. These self-definitions thus cannot be fully understood without a close analysis of the role they play within the identity constructions of'the majority 1 [Keywords: Germany, identity politics, minorities, Turks, anti-Semitism] Anthropology used to be an instrument of the colonising European societies to "describe the colonised, 'to make sense' of them. Anthropological records served as efficient tools to construct the colonised as culturally distant Others; this enclosed spatial notions as much as conceptions of temporal distance (Fabian 1983, xi). Predominantly white male Europeans imposed a dominant perspective on the Others, directed to an audience which consisted practically exclusively in themselves. So, boundaries were clearly marked from almost every point of view and 'cultural difference served anthropology simultaneously as the axiomatic departure point and as quod erat demonstrandum. From a dominant point of view this 'essentialising'concept of cultural difference and identity bore a clear advantage: to state that the Others are what we see in them, because that is what they are, avoided any further questioning of the scientific Self and the relationship of dominance. The process of decolonisation began to question the role of this dominant anthropology and to appropriate the scientific instrument for the colonised themselves (Schupp 1997, 4-61, Leclerc 1972). But, it was only through the presence (and self-conscience) of the Other in the anthropologists' society itself, especially women and ethnic minorities, that brought into question also its conceptual premises (Moore 1988, Kanaaneh 1997). To understand anthropology as the "science of the Cultural Other" — still a pretty common definition at least in German anthropology (Zeitschriftjur Ethnologic 122/1997) — is not very consistent, unless the ethnographic Self and perspective implicitly remain predominantly white (and male). 1 Feminist theory and minority anthropologists (referring to non-dominant groups in the broadest sense) have successfully attacked static apprehensions of'identity and 'culture' Here, identities become multi-layered symbolic and discursive constructions. They are agile expressions of belonging to "imagined communities" (Anderson 1991), such as nations, ethnic groups, genders or generations, and serve to position individuals and groups in power related and discursively constructed "fields of forces" (Bourdieu 1993). This understanding of 'identity brought back on stage the individuals as active actors — a liberating and emancipating approach for the study of the dominated and oppressed in our complex societies (Anthias and Yuval- Davis 1992, Hall 1993, Rosaldo 1991, and many others). But, to understand individuals as active actors in power relations was new only with regard to the dominated. Dominating parts of society were always (and legitimately) accused of taking a very active part in power exertion and domination. But at the same time, they were rarely analysed in the same dynamic terms of identity politics and positional strategies. Obviously, if we accept Pierre Bourdieu's "field of cultural production" as a place where power relations are discursively and symbolically negotiated, this applies as much for the dominant as for the marginalised. Dominant and powerful positions also have to be constantly reproduced and renewed discursively and symbolically. Moreover, defining boundaries of difference to the social and/or cultural Other is a prominent and vital element in positional strategies of the powerful. In this way, dominant positions limit and pre-structure the strategic possibilities of the dominated and marginalised. Although the latter develop a great deal of creativity in finding their way through these dominant structures, taking advantage of open spaces and inherent contradictions, their self- definitions are in much sense a reaction to these limitations. Thus, they are difficult to understand without an analysis of their role in dominant identity constructions (cf. Hannerz 1992). This argument shall be illustrated through an example taken from field research in 1995-96 on national identity 13