This section outlines the rationales that were identified in the analysis in relation to why and how the ideas for the events came into existence in the first place.
7.3.1. Individual initiative: Changing public perceptions by challenging the status quo
The events in 2009 were the first major commemorative events of the fall of the Wall. These events were initiated by one of the organisers who pursued ideas for the events for several years and was convinced that something large-scale should take place for the 20th anniversary. The interview with this organiser revealed various reasons for this initiative.
166
The organiser seemed to be primarily concerned with changing public perception of the historical events, which was the key rationale for the events:
To keep it short, the topic in 2009 [started because we] approached [the Senate of] Berlin with our project ideas. And that was a longer process.
We started this discussion in 2003 when we realised that perceptions of historical events can change because of anniversaries. There was the example of the uprising in 195316, until 2003 quite an inappropriate view on the events prevailed and with the year 2003, with this anniversary – and there were publications, books, events – there was a change in public perception. And so we thought, well, if you can use these kinds of anniversaries, that really was the starting point, if you do it cleverly, then you can do something with this. So we had a look in terms of our topics, what areas are there, and we said 2009 is an opportunity. If many people work together and an interesting focus is found, then you could achieve something. (Interviewee 2)
It becomes clear that this organiser was unsatisfied with the predominant view on the GDR and the fall of the Wall and felt that representation thereof was inaccurate (see also Section 7.2.3). Because they had experienced a change in public perception of historical events following large-scale anniversary celebrations, this organiser developed strategic plans for the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Peaceful Revolution and the fall of the Wall to also use these dates for changing public perception and in this sense, for influencing the dominant collective memory. The interviewee furthermore states:
And in the perception of what happened in 1989 the word ‘Wende’ was often used, or partial revolution, if at all. Actually no one said revolution, and if they did then only in the negative sense like partial revolution, aborted revolution, counter revolution. In the best case, societal upheaval. And what happened, it was not described correctly at all, neither in the media nor in research nor in public perception. And we said, that is something where it is important that we counter this with something else. (Interviewee 2)
This statement illustrates more directly this event organiser’s desire to oppose the dominant collective memory of the GDR. It is stated clearly that the established views across various fields in Germany, particularly views of the citizens’ movement, were seen as incorrect and subsequently this organiser’s goal was to oppose these established narratives. The
16 The interviewee is referring to the People’s Uprising in East Germany in June 1953 which was violently suppressed by Soviet forces.
167
interviewee’s view is reflected in the literature in the terminological conflict over the term Peaceful Revolution (see Section 4.3). Campaigning for the use of the term revolution may thus aim at increased appreciation of the importance of the citizens’ movement.
The overall aim of this organiser was thus to achieve what they perceived to be a more accurate representation of the citizens’ movement by ‘adjusting’
collective memory and thus changing the status quo. This adjusted memory involves an increased appreciation of the movement across Germany.
7.3.2. Origins of collaboration: Packaging the ‘official’ narrative
A further aspect of interest is how the collaboration between these organisers came about after the initial initiative by Event Organiser 2. Due to this persistence of Event Organiser 2, the overall theme year was developed as described below.
Then Wowereit said, well it [the event proposal] went through the committees and then Wowereit said, he doesn’t decide it like that. He didn’t want some people to ask for money and then the next people want money, and then again others approach him and want money for something. He wanted an overall concept for the year. […] And the exhibition became a part of the theme year. And the other parts were a project which was supposed to present change in the city of Berlin and then the event on 9th November with the dominoes. [Event Organiser 1]
did that, this overall package, and the exhibition was a part of it.
(Interviewee 2)
The above statement explains that the initial event proposal for 2009 was rejected by the Governing Mayor as he was concerned about the potential number of similar event ideas asking for funding. Because of this, he requested an overall concept for the year in the form of a theme year and commissioned Event Organiser 1 to develop this and incorporate Event Organiser 2’s ideas. This theme year was thus making the statement that this is what the city of Berlin is staging to mark the anniversary and that no funding will be available for any other plans by third parties, and Event Organiser 2’s persistence allowed them to be included in these plans. This process gave the planned events legitimacy and further underpinned the Senate’s interpretational authority over how the historical events should be commemorated. The incorporation of the exhibition into the theme year was
168
thus the foundation of the first major commemorative events in 2009 as well as the collaboration that formed the basis for this theme year. The collaboration was seen as successful:
The strategic collaboration with [Event Organiser 2] developed as a perfect foundation for the planned major project. The cooperative organisation of the open-air exhibition on the Alexanderplatz was the origin and focus of all projects of the theme year 2009 in Berlin. (Theme year document, p. 10)
It is not a surprise that this collaboration was taken forward for 2014 in addition to a more prominent role for Event Organiser 3:
We met very early, [Event Organiser 1] and me, one and a half years ago already or two years ago, to think about what can be done. […] And because [Event Organiser 1] had worked closely with [Event Organiser 2] in 2009, they got [Event Organiser 2] involved again. It was obvious for them from the beginning. (Interviewee 3)
Thus the exceptional collaboration for the first large-scale anniversary celebrations was drawn upon again in 2014. One key difference in 2014 was that the event was not initiated by the Governing Mayor who commissioned Event Organiser 1 to develop a concept as in 2009, but was developed and proposed by the organisers and brought forward to the Mayor for approval.
And then the Bauders approached us with their light idea. […] And that was when we said, that is something we can try it with. And we took it and developed it further with [Event Organiser 1]. Or they with us, so we really developed it together. We created a concept, we bundled it, and [Event Organiser 1] submitted it. And they did something which they usually don’t do. They work by order of the Senate, because the Senate commissions them to do this or that. […] And that was the case 2009 as well. But in this case it was different, they developed this with us and proposed it. So it went the other way round. (Interviewee 2)
Two aspects of significance are mentioned here. First of all, the interviewee mentions that the original idea for the ‘Lichtgrenze’ stems from the artists Marc and Christopher Bauder who approached the organisers with their proposal. This then helped the organisers create an event concept. The second aspect further outlines the process of the event ideas in 2014 which took an unusual route compared to the usual nature of Event Organiser 1’s work. Overall, this section showed that in both years, the commemorative events took place due to the organisers’ initiative, rather than top-down ideas having been developed by local government.
169