The reinvention of relics of communism

Here’s a post about a bizarre relic of the GDR.  Can it really be true?  How can an entire population forget about a whole (albeit small and unpopulated) island?  Is it another example of the, frankly understandable, ’sweep it under the carpet’ attitude of former communist states in eastern Europe? 

 East Germany Lives On – As A Tiny Carribean Island « strange maps 

The need to replace the symbolism of communism and reconstruct national identity as a feature of post-communist society is a theme taken up by Laura Mulvey in her excellent documentary Disgraced Monuments (1996).   While it certainly is understandable that societies, especially the ex-Soviet states, emerging from the communist era would want to move on and build new futures, there is an argument that the process of destroying statues of Lenin and Stalin, for example, was an act akin to the reconstruction of national histories formerly instigated by the communist state itself.  And yet Western Europeans, myself included, are fascinated by the legacy of communism (at least in its visual, material and iconographic forms), for which a whole tourist industry has developed to cater.  While it would be untrue to state that ‘ostalgia’ (as it is called in Germany) is only consumed by westerners, I’m intrigued by the tension between the impulse of the (fairly) newly democratic nations to abandon the past and look to the future, and the need for the rest of us to continually rake over the past, recycling and endlessly appropriating icons of communist ideology: the Che Guevara t-shirt, the CCCP sweatshirt to name but two examples.  This emasculating and denuding of symbolic power is similar, I think,- like I was discussing in my earlier post about Kim Jong-Il – to how we look upon communism today.  In the post-Berlin Wall era ‘communism’ means little more than ‘retro-chic’.  And by emasculating the power and the threat it once meant by assimilating it’s iconography into our popular culture we are reaffirming to ourselves the triumph of West over East.

This is an interesting theme taken up by James Hevia in an article of his I read earlier today (which I’ve left in the office, and can’t for the life of me remember what it’s called!).  He discusses the looting of the Summer Palace in Beijing in 1860 by British and French troops, the eventual destinations of these objects and the meanings contemporaneously ascribed to them once they reached the colonial centres of London and Paris.  He argues that the identification of several items as having belonged to the Emperor himself not only adds a cache to their provenance and value, but their positioning (virtual or physically) in relation to objects pertaining to the British monarch, came to symbolise the defeat of the Chinese nation.  In my summation, the use of communist iconography in fashionable contexts, is much the same.  Both trophies of war, both (subconsciously perhaps in the case of the latter) symbolising the defeat and humiliation of the contexts of their original loci of production.

Phew – all that philosophising has worn me out.  Had better have a cup of tea to recover.  Oh, and I need to find out about Creative Commons licenses and whatnot. 

Interviews

It’s late, but I wanted to blog this while I was still basking in a sense of achievement and relief, and not tomorrow, when I wake up remembering that I forgot to do that, and I should have mentioned such-and-such. 

I’ve just sent of a list of questions to my first interviewee.  I’m planning on doing as many interviews as possible by email.  Mainly because they’re really an information-gathering process, not integral to my research.  Just there to provide some contextual information (all being well).  But also to save on time and money.  I know some people might feel that email interviews remove the level of spontaneity that characterises conventional interviews, but I’m not too bothered.  In fact I’m looking forward to some thoughtful and considered replies.  Plus it means I won’t have to transcribe hours of recorded interviews either, which has got to be a good thing.

However, I did want to get it right:  Pitch the questions at an appropriate level using the right sort of conversational tone.  I searched google for advice, and was pleased to find that I was, for the most part, on the right track.  But there were a few useful points which I hadn’t considered.  So – for future reference, what follows, is Amy’s top ten things (in no particular order)to consider when planning an interview by email.

• Think about what you need to know and what you want to find out from your interviewee.  Explain what you’re after from them (you could even give reasons why you’re asking particular questions).
• Devise open-ended questions that will encourage ‘emotional’ responses (this helps to get over that lack of spontaneity issue and provide opportunities for respondents to produce some really good, quotable material).
• Limit the number of questions (I confess I ran to thirteen – some of which had three or more parts), and keep them as clear, uncomplicated and as short as possible.
• List questions numerically and leave a space for answers (but give your interviewee the opportunity to submit their answers in an alternative format if they wish).
• Start your email with an apology for the daunting list you’ve sadlled them with and thank them in advance for their time.
• Finish your list/email by asking your interviewee if there is anything that they would like to add, or a question they feel you should have asked (I’m hoping this might reveal any areas I’ve not considered…or more likely, forgotten about).
• Give a (gentle) timeline or deadline for their response.
• Suggest that you may contact them to follow-up their responses and/or to clarify any points at a future date.
• Give your interviewee the option not to answer particular questions if they feel they cannot or would prefer not to.
• Promise to send them a copy of the written-up ‘interview’ in good time so that they can check it for accuracy (this is probably more important when conducting in-person and telephone interviews, but I think it’s good manners to keep your respondents ‘in the loop’).

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the consent, release – whatever you want to call it – form.  That’s a whole another post! 

I await a response eagerly.