anarchist punks resisting gentrification: countercultural contestations of space in the new berlin

HUMANITIEST H E

www.Humanities-Journal.com

JOURNALTHE INTERNAT IONAL

of

Volume 8, Number 10

Anarchist Punks Resisting Gentrification:Countercultural Contestations of Space in the New

Berlin

David Drissel

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES http://www.Humanities-Journal.com First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2011 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1447-9508 Publisher Site: http://www.Humanities-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Anarchist Punks Resisting Gentrification:Countercultural Contestations of Space in theNewBerlinDavid Drissel, Iowa Central Community College, IA, USA

Abstract: Although more than two decades have elapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, significantsocio-spatial distinctions continue to exist in Berlin. Reports indicate that a psychological-cultural“wall in the head” has replaced the geopolitical Berlin Wall. Stereotypical portrayals of East andWest Germans, known as Ossis and Wessis respectively, remain prevalent. Exacerbating Berlin’s in-formal spatial schism has been the movement of relatively affluent Wessis into eastern boroughs. Inparticular, numerous yuppies have relocated for the purpose of renovating old tenement houses, thusraising property values in the process. Consequently, thousands of low- and middle-income familieshave been displaced from their homes and neighborhoods. In response to gentrification, far-leftpolitical activists have organized street protests and other types of direct action. In particular, young“anarchists” and “punks” (or simply “anarcho-punks”) have become the shock troops of the anti-gentrification movement, often resorting to acts of civil disobedience, rioting, and property destruction.This paper examines the relatively recent phenomenon of gentrification and related socio-spatialchanges in various Berlin neighborhoods, primarily from the vantage point of anarcho-punks. Theinfluence of informal socio-spatial schisms in the present era, resulting in part from Berlin’s past ter-ritorial segmentation, is considered in this context.

Keywords: Gentrification, Anarcho-punks, Punk Rock, Berlin Wall, German Reunification, BerlinYouth, Urban Space, Countercultures, Wall in the Head, Ossis, Wessis, Yuppies, Anti-gentrificationMovement, Socio-spatial, Kreuzberg

Introduction

GERMANTEENSAND young adults living in Berlin belong to a distinct generation,one that has developed within the post-Cold War environment of a reunited city.1

Unlike their parents’ generation, most Berlin young people have never experiencedthe bifurcated urban environment that existed under the shadow of the infamous

Berlin Wall (Berliner Mauer).2 Rather, Berlin youth have grown up in a transitional urbanmilieu resulting from Berlin’s re-consolidated system of government and reintegrated marketeconomy. Despite the fact that more than two decades have elapsed since the Berlin Wall’sfall and German reunification, significant socio-spatial distinctions continue to exist in Berlin.

1 Berlin was divided into two de facto cities from 1949 to 1989. During this period, Soviet forces dominated theeastern half, while the western sector was a virtual capitalist “island” surrounded by hostile communist territory.East Berlin was the capital of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), founded as a Marxist-Leninist state in1949. West Berlin became an integral part of the pro-western, Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).2 The Berlin Wall was erected by the GDR in 1961. This mammoth 26-mile long structure encapsulated the entirewestern half of the city, designed to prevent any illicit migration or unapproved travel from the East to the West.Dubbed by the GDR as “the anti-fascist protective rampart,” the Wall came to symbolize the metaphorical IronCurtain that divided Europe into two antagonistic alliances. After a series of massive protests in East Berlin andother GDR cities, the Berlin Wall finally “fell” on November 9, 1989.

The International Journal of the HumanitiesVolume 8, Number 10, 2011, http://www.Humanities-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9508© Common Ground, David Drissel, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]

Numerous reports indicate that a psychological-cultural “wall in the head” (Mauer im Kopf)has replaced the geopolitical Berlin Wall (Burns, 1999; Graff, 2000; Kahn, 2000; Fischer etal., 2007). Though the physical barricades have fallen, stereotypical portrayals of East andWest Germans, known as Ossis and Wessis respectively, remain prevalent (Glaeser, 2000;Bigg 2009).

During the past several years, Berlin’s informal spatial schism has been exacerbated byrelatively affluent yuppies (young upwardly mobile professionals) moving into various inner-city boroughs. In particular, manyWessis have relocated for the express purpose of renovatingold tenement houses in the former East Berlin, thus raising property values in the process.In addition, various western investors and companies have privatized former state enterprisesor reclaimed and redeveloped “lost” properties that had been nationalized by the communistspreviously. Many of these post-reunification gentrification and revanchist developmentprojects have been implemented in traditional working-class neighborhoods, resulting inrents skyrocketing to unaffordable levels for countless long-term residents and shopkeepers.Consequently, thousands of low- and middle-income families have been displaced from theirhomes and neighborhoods (Mayer, 2006).

In response to gentrification and related social problems in various Berlin neighborhoods,far-left political activists have organized street protests and other types of direct action. Inparticular, young people identifying as “anarchists” and “punks” (or simply “anarcho-punks”)have become the shock troops of the anti-gentrification movement, often resorting to uncon-ventional tactics of civil disobedience, rioting, and property destruction. Most provocatively,unidentified arsonists with reputed ties to anarchist groups have torched hundreds of expensiveautomobiles in newly gentrified (or gentrifying) neighborhoods (Connolly, 2010; Moore,2010). Tellingly, a majority of the riots and arson attacks have occurred on the streets ofFriedrichshain-Kreuzberg, the longtime bohemian enclave and anarcho-punk epicenter ofBerlin, which has been experiencing creeping gentrification in recent years (Waleczek, 2009).

Due to the radically militant ideological stances and highly irregular resistance tactics ofanarcho-punks in Berlin and elsewhere, the term counterculture seems to be an apt sociolo-gical descriptor, rather than the more generic concept of subculture. By definition, a coun-terculture is an identity-laden group, which embraces values and norms of behavior thatdirectly contradict those of the cultural mainstream.3 In contrast, the values and norms ofan archetypal youth subculture are clearly distinct from the status quo, though not nearly asovertly oppositional to social and political institutions as those of a counterculture.

The relatively recent phenomenon of gentrification and related socio-spatial changes ininner-city Berlin neighborhoods, as perceived primarily from the vantage point of anarcho-punks, is the focus of this research project. How has the post-reunification transition ofBerlin’s living spaces and economic infrastructure, including the gentrification of many low-income neighborhoods, affected indigenous youthful residents and their perceptions ofyuppie newcomers? What role has the “wall in the head” played in fueling opposition togentrification, particularly among self-identified punks? How has the anti-gentrificationbacklash been influenced by the anarcho-punk scene in Berlin? Such questions are addressedby focusing on in-group/out-group attitudes, perspectives, and beliefs expressed by Berlin

3 My definition draws extensively from the ideas of Theodore Roszak, author of The Making of a Counter Culture(1968).

20

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

teens and young adults identifying with punk and/or anarchism, the vast majority of whomwere born after the Wall’s fall.

This research project is based on ethnographic observations and open-ended interviewsof Berlin punks and other youths (ages 16 to 26) that I conducted in town squares, streetcorners, nightclubs, and other urban spaces during a two-week visit to Berlin in July 2004.I also engaged in follow-up interviews with several respondents that I had met previouslyin Berlin, primarily through the use of e-mail and MySpace messages during the months ofDecember 2008 and January-February 2009. In examining my data, I did not utilize anystatistical methods but rather chose to develop a purely qualitative approach, in which Ianalyzed comments from my thirty-five respondents. In order to insure confidentiality, Ihave used pseudonyms for all respondents.

In this paper, I first examine several of the major sociological theories of urban space,including youth-based territoriality and related forms of collective resistance to gentrification.Then I briefly trace the American-British origins of anarcho-punk and the counterculture’ssubsequent development in West and East Berlin during the later stages of the Cold War.Next, I describe various socio-spatial changes that have emerged in Berlin since Germanreunification, focusing on the impact of the “wall in the head” and gentrification. I then re-count my own experiences in exploring the contemporary socio-spatial contours of the cityand include selected excerpts of interviews that I conducted with my youthful respondents,along with observations of social spaces and activities related to the anarcho-punk counter-culture and the anti-gentrification movement. I conclude with an analysis of my respondents’comments and a discussion of my findings.

Contestations of Urban SpaceSpace is a social construction that “shapes social action and guides behavior,” including thepractices and activities of everyday life (Gotham, 2003, p. 723). Put simply, “space is apracticed place” (de Certeau, 1984, p. 117). The physical place of the street, for instance,becomes a space only when people are actually engaged in social practices such as walking,running, driving, or conversing on or near the street. Social theorists often emphasize thedynamic, stratified character of public space in cities, thus contending that power is spatiallyconstructed and wielded through an economy of discourse. As Michel Foucault (1984) ob-serves, “Space is fundamental to any form of communal life; space is fundamental to anyexercise of power” (p. 252).

Urban space is both visibly and invisibly partitioned, with frequent struggles wagedbetween adversarial groups over segmented urban assets and territory, including variousneighborhoods. Such a “spatial ordering of the city” is prone to hegemonic discourses ofotherness and marginalization, as articulated by dominant urban actors (Sandercock, 2008,p. 222). Group members continually mark spatial boundaries and view any alterations inexisting borders as “politically divisive acts” (Shirlow, 2006, p. 103). Aside from overtlyconfrontational forms of intra-urban conflict, adversarial groups tacitly negotiate to expand,delimit, or overturn spatial boundaries. Various groups act to ameliorate or even overcomesocioeconomic constraints through the productive use of space (Gotham, 2003). Longstandingdifferences between adversarial groups are very important in this regard, as “the positioningof a meaningful past” infuses group consciousness with “a narrative of continuity” that ef-fectively links past grievances to present-day circumstances (Neill, 2001, p. 5).

21

DAVID DRISSEL

However, such narratives tend to exaggerate differences between groups, while minimizingdifferences within groups. Particularly when compared to the in-group, other urban actorsare depicted as monolithically impure, deviant, and dangerous (Sibley, 1995). This is espe-cially the case if a substantial degree of social distance exists between groups, such as whenneighborhoods are segregated or normal non-adversarial inter-group relations are extremelylimited or nonexistent. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice tends to flourish insuch an insulated urban atmosphere, particularly when positive interactions between membersof different groups are lacking. Studies have found that prejudice can be reduced throughintergroup contact in egalitarian social settings when members of different groups share acommon goal and are interdependent in achieving that goal. However, contact between dif-ferent groups in social settings can actually increase levels of prejudice under certain circum-stances, especially when such contact involves persons of unequal status in competition withone another (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).

Major reconfigurations of urban space, such as the gentrification of low-income residentialareas, tend to spark spatial contestations between antithetical social actors. Long-term residentsfrequently seek to “preserve” their neighborhood by organizing anti-gentrification campaigns,lobbying elected officials, and resorting to property destruction in extreme cases. Even theinner-city ghetto, once the reputedly otherworldly bastion of socio-cultural insularity, increas-ingly has found itself under “siege” by yuppies and related groups. As Lance Freeman ob-serves in There Goes the ‘Hood (2006), “Walls that were formerly solid seem porous now,at least from the perspective of who is moving into the ghetto” (p. 16).

Gentrification is often inescapable once it has begun, as it tends to ripple across an entireneighborhood in successive waves. Long-term residents are adversely affected by skyrock-eting rents, mortgages, and lease rates, which frequently prompt their out-migration (Hamnett,2003). Often fueling gentrification is the “rent gap,” which refers to “the gap between theactual capitalized ground rent (land value) of a plot of land given its present use and thepotential ground rent that might be gleaned under a ‘higher and better’ use” (Smith, 1987,p. 462). Thus, when land is being underutilized in terms of potential rents, there are strongeconomic incentives for real estate developers, landlords, and other economic actors to closethe rent gap by renovating the property. Paradoxically, the “revitalization” of inner-citylandholdings tends to inflate expenses for traditional low-income residents, while generatingrates that are easily affordable for newer, upscale tenants.

Youthful Terrains of ResistanceEmpirical studies (e.g., Hendry et al., 1993; Pearce, 1996) have revealed that urban youthin particular tend to have strong emotional attachments to local spaces and places, whichoften serve as a major source of collective identity, group cohesion, and intergroup conflict.The neighborhood is especially important as an identity marker for youth, as localized spatialorientations tend to depict non-residents (and new residents) as suspicious or unwelcomeoutsiders. In many cases, various forms of harassment and even violence may be directedat non-residents who accidentally or purposively venture into a particular neighborhood.Such territoriality can be “best understood as a spatial strategy to effect, influence, or controlresources and people by controlling area” (Sack, cited in Hesse et al., 1992, p. 172). Numerousdemographic factors have been found to fuel spatial territoriality, including differences instatus, social class, race, ethnicity, religion, subculture, and local street-gang affiliations;

22


which tend to be strongest among young men living in low-income locales (Cohen, 1988).Thus, identifying with one’s neighborhood can become “a form of defensive street masculin-ity,” especially when youths perceive of themselves as threatened or under assault by spatialoutsiders or dominant majority groups (Watt and Stenson, 1998, p. 253).

Young people frequently utilize public space to subvert and resist various hegemonicstandards of behavior; despite periodic attempts by adult regulatory regimes to control,marginalize, or even prohibit their presence in particular urban areas. Teenagers are frequentlydepicted as “a potential threat to public order” (Baumgarnter, 1988; Cahill, 1990), findingthemselves subjected to police harassment, public and private surveillance, and temporaland spatial curfews in public spaces. Indeed, urban “revitalization” schemes in NorthAmerican and European cities tend to involve the de facto privatization of public space; i.e.,unofficially excluding undesirable others – including loitering teens in general and minorityyouths in particular - from newly gentrified locales (Berman, 1986; Fyfe and Bannister,1996).

Nonetheless, “the space of the street” is frequently the only truly autonomous space thatyoung people construct and inhabit without constant adult supervision. Thus, “hangingaround, and larking about, on the streets, in parks and in shopping malls, is one form ofyouth resistance (conscious and unconscious) to adult power” (Valentine et al., 1998, p. 7).To paraphrase Paul Routledge (as cited in McGrellis, 2005), such “terrains of resistance”frequently pose major challenges to the sociopolitical status quo. The street is “the stage ofperformance” for many young people, who often adopt subcultural/countercultural identitieswithin the public domain that are "contradictory and oppositional to the dominant culture(messy, dirty, loud, smoking, sexual)” (Malone, 2002, p. 163).

Genesis of Anarcho-punkThe origins of punk rock can be traced back to the bohemian bowels of New York City’surban milieu in the mid-1970s. Based on a stripped-down form of minimalist, dissonantmusic set to a furious pogo beat, punk rock germinated within the rancid walls of CBGB’s– a seedy Bowery dive-bar on Manhattan’s lower-east side; though punk quickly evolvedinto a full-fledged counterculture on the sardonic streets of London. The birth of punk wasfueled in equal measure by youthful disillusionment with the corporate music industry andangry-opposition to the sociopolitical status quo. “In England (punk) was begun by working-class youths decrying a declining economy and rising unemployment, chiding the hypocrisyof the rich, and refuting the notion of reform,” Dylan Clark (2003) observes. “In Americaearly punk was a middle-class youth movement, a reaction against the boredom of mainstreamculture” (p. 225).

On both sides of the Atlantic, the emerging punk counterculture expressed a unique formof rage and antipathy towards everything suburban and bourgeois,4 thus establishing an al-ternative field of social relations that championed values such as non-conformity, equality,and authenticity. Along these lines, punks rejected the popular-corporate mythos of the “rockstar” that performed in arena-style concerts; thus characterizing such a conception as overlypretentious and elitist. Punk bands would instead stage “shows” for their fellow punks in

4 For an overview of the history and philosophy of the punk rock subculture, see Boot and Salewicz (1996).

23

DAVID DRISSEL

relatively undersized, but highly interactive, venues. Moreover, musical proficiency was notconsidered to be a prerequisite for starting a band. As Matt Davies (2005) observes:

Punks strove to eliminate the distinctions between performers and audience, and didso by a radical form of egalitarianism: anyone could be a punk, and any punk couldplay in a band or, if they preferred, to publish a zine, to organize shows, or to produceor distribute records. A punk scene is of punks, for punks, by punks (p. 126).

Allusions to anarchism have been prevalent in the song lyrics, poster art, graffiti, and otherdiscursive artifacts of punk from the very beginning, particularly in the U.K. Seminal Britishpunk bands such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Gang of Four, the Damned, and the Exploitedemployed various anarchist, Marxist, and nihilist themes and imagery to emphasize the allegeddecadence and degeneration of British society. Such an iconoclastic discourse was“destabilizing” to popular culture in 1970s, particularly since it was magnified by punk’slyrical utilization of controversial expletives such as “fuck” and “cunt” (Laing, 1997, p. 413).However, much of the early political commentary of punk was actually “simulated anarchy”or “performances of anarchy” designed primarily to shock mainstream society (Clark, 2003,p. 233). In large measure, early punk caricatured anarchism as mere “destruction” or “chaos,”rather than presenting a coherent anti-authoritarian ideology of voluntary cooperation andorganized opposition to the hierarchies of oppression.

Tellingly, there were several lesser-known British punk bands of the 1970s and earlyeighties – such as Crass, Flux of Pink Indians, Conflict, and Discharge – that actively pro-moted anarchism as a viable political ideology and genuine resistance movement.5 Suchbands advocated direct action tactics, which included spray-painting anarchist-inspiredgraffiti messages, occupying abandoned buildings, dumpster diving for food, and organizingpolitical demonstrations and even riots when deemed necessary. They also promoted theanarchist-influenced ethos of DIY (“do-it-yourself”), which stood in sharp opposition tomonopolistic-corporate control of the record industry. Spurning the idea of passively con-suming homogenized musical-commodities, anarcho-punk pioneers touted DIY as an altern-ative means of cultural production, emphasizing the formation of independent record labels.As Daniel Sinker (2001), founder of the magazine Punk Planet, observes, “Punk said thatanyone could take part – in fact, anyone should take part” (p. 9).

Several North American hardcore punk bands of the 1980s – including the Dead Kennedys,D.O.A., and Black Flag – further disseminated the DIY ethos and related anarcho-punkideals to a global audience. Hardcore effectively redefined “musical success” in non-economicand non-commercial terms within a close-knit social network of dedicated youth-based crewsand scenes. Akin to “tribal syndicalism,” hardcore represented a “community-based culture– like a commune or an armed fortress” (Blush, 2001, p. 275). As Mark Stern of the LosAngeles-based band Youth Brigade observes in reference to the hardcore scene:

We were about doing it yourself, thinking for yourself, believing that no matter howfucked up the world is and how fucked up the situation around you, that you can makea difference and affect change and inspire people (quoted in Blush, p. 275).

5 See Rimbaud (1999) for more information about the early British anarcho-punk scene.

24


Clearly, at the time of its nascent underground development in the 1970s and eighties, punkwould best be described as a youth counterculture (and underground genre of rock music).However, over the years punk has evolved into more of a youth subculture, featuring mostlynonthreatening forms of rebellion through music, argot, and style. American punk even went“pop” in the 1990s, with bands such as Green Day, Good Charlotte, and Blink-182. On theother hand, anarcho-punks have continued to promote a militant countercultural ideologythat professes to oppose the bourgeois-capitalist system. Revealingly, punks who allegedlyfail to embrace or exemplify the DIY ethos and related ideals are often labeled posers byanarcho-punks. Thus, anarcho-punk represents a contemporary countercultural factionwithin the subculture of punk, though this distinction is to some extent subjective.

Anarcho-punks in West BerlinThe origins of anarcho-punk in West Berlin date back to the early 1970s – even before punkrock was established as a distinct musical genre. Most notably, the West German-languageproto-punk band, Ton Steine Scherben (“Clay Stones Shards”), actively promoted left winganarchism and anti-capitalism in their music. Hailing from West Berlin, the band was instru-mental in encouraging local youths to establish communal “squats” (i.e., previously abandonedhouses occupied by non-proprietary, collective-style residents). In West Berlin and othercities, “squatting” became increasingly common and was known as instandbesetzen, whichis a portmanteau of instandsetzen (“renovating”) and besetzen (“occupying”). During theseventies, such West German squats facilitated the creation of “a self-confident urbancounterculture with its own infrastructure of newspapers, self-managed collectives andhousing cooperatives, feminist groups, and so on, which was prepared to intervene in localand broader politics” (Mayer, 1993).

Due to its “occupied” status during the Cold War, West Berlin maintained a special ex-emption for military service that was mandatory for young men in the rest of the FederalRepublic of Germany (West Germany). Consequently, the city became a social magnet foranti-authoritarian, bohemian youth. In particular, Kreuzberg was transformed into the mostpopular borough in West Berlin for communal squats, since it was located on the internalperiphery of the city (directly adjoining the Berlin Wall) and included many derelict buildingsand barren tracks of land, which attracted youthful squatters from all over West Germany.By the late 1970s, the fledgling Berlin punk scene had found a home in Kreuzberg at thelegendary SO36 Club, which was named for the district’s postal code. Inspired by Britishanarcho-punk and American hardcore, numerous West German punk bands with radical-leftanarchist influences performed at S036. Labeled Deutschpunk, bands such as Slime (fromHamburg), Canalterror (from Bonn) and Vorkriegsjugend (from West Berlin) fomenteddirect action and even violence against the police in their lyrics. These and other artists re-corded at West Berlin’s Aggressive Rockproduktionen (Rock Productions), an independentrecording studio established in 1980, specializing in anarcho-punk.

Accordingly, Kreuzberg became the unofficial German mecca of the anarcho-punkcounterculture. The district developed its own distinctiveKiezkultur (“neighborhood culture”)that was based on a multicultural environment, a DIY ethos, and a collectivist communalorientation. As a result, anti-government rebellions and riots began occurring in the early1980s, often sparked by May Day commemorations and reactions to unpopular governmentinitiatives and urban renewal campaigns in Kreuzberg. German left-wing anarchists, many

25

DAVID DRISSEL

of whom identified with the Autonome (“autonomous”) movement,6 often instigated suchriots (Leach, 2009). Dubbed der Schwarze Block (“the Black Bloc”) by the German media,due to their heavy black attire, such militant anarchists frequently constructed barricadesand threw stones and firebombs at police.

Punk and left wing politics formally comingled with the founding of the Anarchist PogoParty of Germany (APPG) in 1981, which was established by two 17-year old Hanoverpunks. Adopting the name “pogo” for the popular punk dance, the APPG claimed to representthe Pöbel (mob) and other “social parasites.” Subsequently, the APPG encouraged and facil-itated the participation of West Berlin punks in demonstrations and riots against police. Overthe years, punks became increasingly involved in the transnational squat movement, whichdirectly affected many major West European cities. Seeking to counteract government-sponsored urban renewal projects and police attempts to evict illegal residents from derelictproperties in Kreuzberg and other areas of West Berlin, squat activists and their anarcho-punk allies organized politically and won important victories in the 1980s; thus resulting inmajor government reforms that legalized the status of many squats and provided publicfunding for low-income housing repairs (Karapin, 2007).

Anarcho-punks in East BerlinIn sharp contrast to the overt anarcho-punk counterculture of West Berlin, young punks inEast Berlin were less obviously political since they faced more direct and omnipresent formsof government repression. Whereas West Berlin youth were relatively free to experimentwith various provocative fashion styles and rebellious (though non-violent) personas inpublic spaces; the collective identities, lifestyles, attire, and social spaces of teenagers inEast Berlin were subject to coercive regulations enforced by school officials and Stasi officers(state security police). Thus, the everyday lives of young people varied considerably in Eastand West Berlin, given the relatively strong emphasis onmass conformity to the state’s officialvalues and standards of behavior in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Par-enthetically, young people in the GDR and other Soviet-bloc countries of the Cold War erawere portrayed as potential “victims of western influence,” from which they needed rigorousstate protection (Mahrad, 1977, p. 198).

Even so, rebellious East German youths utilized particular urban spaces tacitly as “sitesof resistance,” in opposition to communist hegemony (Smith, 1998, p. 291). For example,rock concerts, group discussions, and other ostensibly apolitical events were frequently heldin the relatively “free space” (Freiraum) of East Berlin’s churches. Maintaining “an uneasytruce” with the GDR state, established churches were allowed to sponsor unsanctioned,youth-based “spiritual” and “educational” activities on church property, which focused fre-quently on environmental and pacifist concerns. Notably, “blues masses” in East Germanchurches featured musical performances and unregulated deliberations on social and politicalissues that would have been banned by the state otherwise (Smith, 1998). Though the firstblues mass was held in July 1979 and attracted around three hundred spectators, the averagecrowd numbered approximately 10,000 people by the time the GDR regime finally squashedsuch events in 1986 (Bigg, 2009).

6 The far-left autonomous movement originated in Italy in the 1960s, effectively combining Marxism with anarchism.The movement is based on the idea of autonomy, as in being free from society’s “repressive” rules of behavior.

26


Reportedly, the first-ever East German punk rock show was held inside East Berlin’sYugoslav embassy in March 1981, which included approximately one hundred young punksin attendance. Representing the “maverick” (non-Warsaw Pact) communist government ofYugoslavia, this particular embassy became “something of a liberal oasis within a policestate” (Mohr, 2009). According to a GDR report from 1981, there were approximately onethousand punks and 10,000 “sympathizers” nationwide at that time. The GDR’s punk scenegained additional notoriety due to West Berlin’s Aggressive Rockproduktionen studio, whichreleased “GDR From Below,” a compilation album of East German punk songs, in 1983.Soon after these events, communist authorities began a massive crackdown on punk rockers.Many punks in East Berlin and other cities found themselves arrested, fined, beaten, andsometimes jailed for their “unaesthetic appearance” (Smith, 1998, p. 292). In fact, “punksexperienced arbitrary detainment, brutal police beatings, and invasive searches of apartmentsand other spaces where they congregated” (Mohr, 2009).

However, East German punks and other bohemian youths actively created their own al-ternative spaces in various communal squats, which were located mainly in older East Berlininner-city neighborhoods such as Friedrichshain, Mitte, and Prenzlauer Berg. Such squattingwas allowed under East German law if a particular house had been vacated by the previoustenets for a minimum of three months. Therefore, countercultural spaces of youth in squatsand similar venues “offered an opportunity for contact between people and a sense of commoncause, acting to undermine the effect of the Stasi” (Smith, 1998, p. 296).

In spite of the highly conformist atmosphere for youth in the GDR, a pro-western civilrights movement emerged in the late 1980s that gradually gained strength. In geopoliticalterms, the movement was tacitly encouraged by pledges of noninterference in the GDR’spolitical development by then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Youthful dissidents oftencited Gorbachev’s reform-oriented approach to socialism - dubbed perestroika (restructuring)- as a de facto repudiation of the GDR’s neo-Stalinist system. Strongly supported by punksand other radical youths, the civil rights movement eventually sparked widespread politicalprotests that culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.

Post-Reunification Social FissuresThe official reunification of Germany (and Berlin) in October 1990 dramatically altered thegeopolitical-spatial status quo. In epochal terms, Germans began referring to this transitionalperiod as the Wendezeit (“the time of the turning”). The incredibly swift pace of politicalreunification had reflected the widespread “presupposition of an essential unity of the Germanpeople” (Glaeser, 2000, p. 2). Streaming by the thousands through what was left of theBerlin Wall, East Berliners appeared eager to experience the freedom, abundance, opulence,sensuality, and crass commercialism of a seemingly utopian West Berlin (Veenis, 1999, p.86). In particular, young people embraced reunification; especially “in relation to leisure,entertainment, new consumption patterns and the extent of foreign travel” (Smith, 1998, p.297).

However, the tearfully jubilant euphoria of reunification proved to be short-lived. Indeed,the reunification process was decidedly lopsided, with the GDR absorbed politically by thehegemonic FRG. The social-psychological “burden” of transition clearly was placed on thebacks of easterners, who were expected to adopt the West’s political and economic systemvery swiftly. In effect, “West-shock” occurred for many in the East, who were unprepared

27

DAVID DRISSEL

for the onslaught of a highly competitive market economy (Fischer et al., 2007). Westerninvestors quickly privatized or closed many enterprises in the former East Berlin, thuscausing unemployment rates to skyrocket and anti-western resentment to percolate. Suddenly,East Berliners had to abandon virtually their entire daily routine and embrace revised,western-imposed versions of everything from street signs and billboards to phone booths,youth organizations, school textbooks, and university curricula (Moran, 2004; Smith, 1998).In effect, “former GDR citizens had been involuntarily relocated – not geographically, butculturally and politically” (Kahn, 2000).

Soon after reunification, the former East Germany became depicted in popular discourseas “less civilized” and “outmoded” compared to the more “modern” western part of thecountry.7 It quickly became apparent that the negative impact of reunification was in generalmuch stronger for the nation’s new “minority group,” the former East Germans (dubbedOssis), than for westerners (Wessis) (Fischer et al., 2007, p. 165). By the early 1990s, Ossisincreasingly occupied a lower status position than Wessis across a wide range of indicators,including social standing, career opportunities, relative income, and levels of wealth (Wag-ner, 1999). In addition, the systematic de-industrialization of east-central Berlin promptedmany easterners to migrate to the city’s outskirts or leave the city altogether, in a desperatequest for employment (Stahl, 2008).

In the new “united” Germany, Berliners of both “sides” soon claimed that they couldeasily distinguish between Wessis and Ossis. Signifiers such as certain types of clothing,posture, dialect, and even the words used in everyday conversation reputedly expressed aspace-based collective identity. As the dominant group in the newly “united” Berlin, Wessisoften portrayed Ossis in a decidedly negative light. “They are not like us” was a commonWessi refrain about Ossis, who were often stereotyped as “backward” and “provincial” incontradistinction to the reputedly more “advanced” and “sophisticated” Wessis. In WestGerman popular discourse, the “other” Germans were “whining easterners” (Jammer Ossis).Such stereotypes often focused on the alleged “weak” work ethic and ineptitude of Ossis,with the former GDR’s lack of incentives usually blamed (Glaeser, 2000; Kahn, 2000).

In turn, many Ossis portrayed Wessis as arrogant “know it alls” (Besserwessis) who al-legedly acted as though they were intellectually and morally superior to their eastern coun-terparts. In sociopolitical terms, Ossis often claimed that Wessis treated them unfairly as ifthey were second-class citizens (Ozment, 2004, p. 313). In the workplace environment, manyOssis complained that Wessis lack “commitment” and “discipline” (Glaeser, 2000, pp. 193-194) and are overly egocentric (Burns, 1999). Ossis disparaged the hyper-individualistic,narcissistic “elbow society” of the Wessis in particular, which discounted the value ofteamwork and collective responsibility at the workplace (Burns, 1999). In sum, Berlinerscontinued to remain sharply divided socio-spatially, even though political reunification hadoccurred.

Gentrification in the New BerlinThe post-reunification migration of relatively prosperous Wessis into several of the formerEast Berlin’s traditional working-class districts further exacerbated socio-spatial tensions.

7 See Moran (2004), Glaeser (2000), and Hörschelmann (2001).

28


Similar to the global model,8 many of the original gentrifying pioneers in the newly reunitedBerlin were college students, artists, and other highly-educated, non-affluent members ofthe “creative class” seeking cheap rents and an idealized bourgeois-bohemian urban envir-onment. However, due to the unique circumstances of eastern Berlin’s post-communistbonanza of artificially inexpensive properties, relatively wealthy investors quickly madeinroads into working-class neighborhoods, resulting in thousands of low- and middle-incomeOssis being displaced from their homes, shops, businesses, and neighborhoods (Mayer,2006).

Consequently, new “islands of wealth” have been created in many frontier-styleWild Eastneighborhoods, resulting in significant population exchanges. For instance, approximately70,000 new residents entered the (former East) Berlin district of Prenzlauer Berg between1991 and 1997, while around 65,000 left during the same period. The new residents tendedto be “younger, better educated, and form more single households than those who left”(Mayer, 2006). Tellingly, the district has lost approximately 60 percent of its original inhab-itants since 1990, due to out-migration. Within the span of less than twenty years, PrenzlauerBerg has been transformed from a “worker’s district into an affluent quarter” (Connolly,2010).

Such gentrification-style economic restructuring in Berlin is a localized manifestation ofneo-liberal globalization and its hegemonic processes of uneven development, which hashad a deleterious impact on working class communities within various post-communist so-cieties (Smith, 1996). Indeed, the massive exodus of Ossis from traditional working classneighborhoods is a direct manifestation of the post-reunification transition from state-socialismto capitalism. Having paid fixed rental rates that were heavily subsidized by the communiststate for decades, Ossis were unaccustomed to negotiating leases with individual landlords.Though the Berlin city government had instituted rent controls for relatively impoverishedneighborhoods in the immediate post-reunification era, such regulations were easily circum-vented and weakened by various legal loopholes utilized by innovative and unscrupulouslandlords. By the late 1990s, city officials had mostly abandoned the enforcement of rentcontrol mechanisms and instead embraced policies favoring homeowners over renters(Mayer, 2006). Thus, ever-higher rental fees were a byproduct of “the gradual retreat of thestate,” which facilitated major spatial dislocations for disadvantaged residents and the relat-ively rapid deterioration of traditional neighborhood social structures (Holm, 2006).

Numerous nondescript, multi-occupant tenement buildings and storefronts in PrenzlauerBerg, Mitte, and other eastern Berlin boroughs have undergone massive renovation by entre-preneurs and firms in recent years, which has led to the proliferation of single-ownershiptownhouses, luxurious apartments, trendy cafes, and cosmopolitan boutiques, catering to anupscale clientele. Such “international earmarks of gentrification,” based on “the infrastructureof conspicuous consumption,” have become ubiquitous in Berlin’s new frontier (Holm,2006). In social-conflict terms, yuppies and other non-native elites have effectively “colon-ized” blue-collar, family-based neighborhoods (Atkinson and Bridge, 2005). Due to the in-creasingly visible role of yuppies, Germans have begun referring to gentrification as Yuppis-ierung. Echoing southern criticism of northern-sponsored “reconstruction” and attendantcarpetbaggers in the aftermath of the American Civil War, many Ossis view Yuppisierungby Wessis as “unwelcome, post-unification pillage” (Ozment, 2004, p. 312).

8 See Freeman (2005).

29

DAVID DRISSEL

In reaction to such socio-spatial changes in working class neighborhoods, leftist radicalgroups have held street demonstrations to protest the spatial displacement of residents bywestern development schemes. Tellingly, a political protest was held in June 2008 under thebanner, “Fuck Yuppies,” as part of “Action Days for Autonomous Free Spaces.” PatrickTechnau, a 24-year old college student from eastern Berlin and one of the organizers of thedemonstrations, claimed to be on the verge of being driven from his life-long neighborhoodin Prenzlauer Berg, due to escalating rent payments resulting from Yuppisierung. “This isprobably the only house on this street that hasn’t been renovated yet,” he said, pointing toa nearby apartment building (Kirchner, 2009). Various hardcore-punk bands from Berlin(e.g., Situations, Insuiciety) performed in the “Action Days” mega-concert held at nearbyMauerpark.9 More recently, businesses located in the area have been targeted for demonstra-tions and even attacked by leftist militants. For example, a group of approximately onehundred black-clad anarchists vandalized the Berlin headquarters of the German softwaregiant SAP, located in Mitte, late at night in April 2009.10

Importantly, several contemporaryDeutschpunk bands have recorded songs and circulatedCDs that are directly critical of gentrification. For instance, the Berlin-based punk bandKotzreiz entitled its August 2010 debut album Du machst dies Stadt Kaput (“You’re Des-troying the City”), in an obvious critique of Yuppisierung. The album cover features anartistic depiction of a monstrous-looking construction worker standing in front of a crumblingbuilding that is in the process of being demolished by large equipment. The skull-headedworker is clad in a t-shirt that proclaims in English: “Gentrification.” Appearing to belaughing maniacally, the sledgehammer-wielding hardhat employee is surrounded by fallendebris from various buildings. In essence, the album cover is depicting low-income neigh-borhoods under siege by seemingly “alien” capitalist-predators intent on destroying Berlin’sway of life.

Berlin Youth in Shared SpacesWhile visiting Berlin, I was particularly interested in finding shared public spaces and placeswhere Ossi and Wessi youths congregate on a regular basis and are relatively detached fromofficial supervision. One such place is Breitscheidplatz, which is one of the largest and mostimportant public squares in the former West Berlin. The square includes a large opencourtyard that often has a carnival-like atmosphere. During daytime hours, the courtyardfeatures mimes and other street-theatre performers, orchestral concerts, folk and pop musicacts, breakdancing troupes, artistic displays, and numerous other attractions. The Breit-scheidplatz is located next to one of the city’s major commercial thoroughfares, the tree-lined Kurfürstendamm (popularly known as the “Ku’Damm”). Located on the plaza is theEuropa Center business and shopping complex, which attracts numerous tourists and localresidents from all over Berlin. The Europa Center’s high-rise tower is visible for miles, dueto the large Mercedes-Benz commercial symbol perched obtrusively on the rooftop, whichis emblematic of capitalism’s triumph over communism.

9 For the June 2008 agenda of “Action Days for Autonomous Free Spaces” (including various musical performances,workshops, and marches) see http://www.koepi137.net/actiondays/index2.html10 See Spiegel Online International, “Attack from the Left? Automobile Arson a Trend in Berlin” (April 9, 2009)at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618443,00.html

30


I observed hundreds of young people sitting around or standing in groups on the Breit-scheidplatz courtyard everyday, in spite of the oppressive heat of summer. I engaged in in-terview-style conversations with several teens and young adults from both “sides” of theformer Wall. Barrett, an 18-year old clad in a bright red tank top, told me that he is “proud”to be an Ossi. “Sometimes West Berliners call us names and all,” he said, “but we were justraised differently.” Living in the eastern borough of Prenzlauer Berg, Barrett expressedconcern about the relatively recent encroachment of Wessis into his Kiez (neighborhood).“My parents are thinking about moving to a different part of Berlin or even out of the city,since rents have become so expensive over the past few years,” he said. “It’s mainly the faultof wealthy people from the West.”

Roth, 17-years old and one of Barrett’s Ossi friends, agrees, noting, “Ossis don’t have asmuch money as Wessis, but that’s OK. All Wessis think about is money and getting moremoney.” Employed part time as a bellhop for a nearby hotel, Roth complains that Ossis oftenwork in lower paying jobs due to discriminatory practices. Though neither Barrett nor Rothadmit to having any close friends who are Wessis, they interact with westerners on thecourtyard quite frequently. For instance, Mallory, a 16-year old Wessi, was talking withBarrett and Roth when I first approached. She admits to having had a better – more luxurious- life than most Ossis, noting that Berlin remains divided in many ways. “Some Wessis actlike they’re better than Ossis,” she laments, “but I don’t agree. We are all the same, really.We’re all Berliners.”

In conducting my research in various parts of the city, I sought to determine if there areany strong feelings of resentment or hostility existing between Ossi and Wessi youth ingeneral. I often asked respondents how they perceive people originally from the other “side”of the country; and in particular, how they view the spatial-urban other in Berlin. I quicklydiscovered that most respondents acknowledge that various stereotypes are still quite preval-ent, even among young people. Rory, a 21-year old college student and punk/alternativerock aficionado that grew up in the former West Berlin, explains that many Wessis believethat they have an unfair financial burden due to the additional social welfare costs of absorbingEast Germany into the country. Moreover, he asserts that the “wall in the head” affects allkinds of personal relationships. As he states:

Many East German companies went bankrupt after reunification and the costs of thenon-economic system of the poor East Germans was paid for by the West Germangovernment. The West Germans had to pay for them and that was the reason for theaggression between East and West. This aggression still exists to some extent. Nowadayspeople know there is no wall, but still if somebody is called Ossi, it is no positivecompliment. If some people are starting a friendship, after a while they are asking eachother, are you from the East or West?

Several Wessi youths with whom I spoke claim that the stereotyping of West and East Ber-liners is not only prevalent, but also largely accurate. Anton, an 18-year old student wholives in the former West Berlin, asserts that Ossis typically are “ungrateful” for western-subsidized social welfare programs and development projects that largely benefit the formerEast Germany. “Most Ossis are satisfied to live in rundown tenement buildings, and notappreciative of the reconstruction of their neighborhoods by westerners,” he claims. “Thismay be a stereotype, but it’s based on fact.” Martin, a 25-year-old assistant manager of a

31

DAVID DRISSEL

local tourist bureau, largely agrees with Anton’s assessment, providing his own socio-histor-ical spin on the stereotyping of Ossis:

Such stereotypes are often true. It just started after the fall of the Wall and developedduring the past several years. As a Wessi, I realized that from the very beginning. Today,there are still differences in clothing, general appearance, language and even ways ofthinking between both parties. Ossis tend to be more backwards in their thinking.

Berlin’s New Battle ZoneWithin the past several years, the primary battle zone involving gentrification has graduallyshifted from Prenzlauer Berg and Mitte to the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district, which hasexperienced escalating incidents of vandalism and arson. Kreuzberg merged with the adjoiningneighborhood of Friedrichshain in 2001, forming a very eclectic habitat that includes Turkishmigrant families,11 anarchists, punks, hippies, metal heads, gay men and lesbians, and othermarginal groups. Before the Wall’s fall, Friedrichshain had been on the eastern side andKreuzberg on the west. In fact, the longest section of the Berlin Wall still in existence - themural-laden “Eastside Gallery” - runs through the heart of this consolidated district.

Several of my youthful respondents claimed that Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is the “hippest”district of Berlin, which includes a variety of communal squats and alternative music venues.The annual May Day demonstrations and riots involving anarchists, punks, and various left-wing militants take place here, which tends to enhance the district’s legendary radical mys-tique.12 Conversely, many German media sources and conservative politicians have depictedthe district in highly negative terms, often describing it as a dangerous “no-go area” that isfraught with high rates of crime, drug abuse, and other delinquent behaviors. Such observersfrequently describe Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg as having a large number of chronically unem-ployed people and “foreigners” on welfare (Mayer, 2006).

Compared to Prenzlauer Berg and Mitte, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has experienced asomewhat slower rate of gentrification in the post-reunification era. During the past twodecades, the rapid deindustrialization of the district has resulted in a glut of abandonedbuildings, many of which have been filled by gentrifying pioneers (e.g. college students andyoung artists). However, yuppie-style gentrification has been occurring in increasingly largerswathes of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and nearby Neukölln, much to the chagrin of longtimelow-income residents.13 Not surprisingly, the relatively low rents, underdeveloped properties,legendary club culture, and the “authentic” bohemian atmosphere of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberghave attracted yuppie-colonists. The anti-gentrification group, "United We Stay," has claimedthat "30,000 people face the risk of not being able to afford living" in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg due to rent inflation.14

11 Berlin’s Turkish population is heavily concentrated in Kreuzberg, which is known locally as “Little Istanbul.”Negative depictions of Turkish youth are commonplace throughout German society and particularly in Berlin, in-cluding stereotypes describing them as “unskilled or semi-skilled” (Petzen, 2004, p. 22) and “essentially criminalelements” (Soysal, 2001, p. 9).12 For a description of a recent riot involving over 2,500 anarchists and punks on May Day 2009, see http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4225144,00.html. The May Day riots included youths tossing firebombs and stones at police.13 For more information about the “expanding wave” of gentrification in Berlin, see http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3427742,00.html14 Cited in The Local: Germany’s News in English at http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090409-18561.html

32


One major source of frustration is the apparent lack of governmental consultation withlocal residents prior to the approval of new urban renewal projects in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and other districts. For example, city authorities have announced plans to transformthe deactivated Tempelhof airport - adjoining Kreuzberg - into a luxury apartment complex,while opponents would vastly prefer a park instead. “We have no voice in the way the cityis changing,” states Jan, a 26-year old graphic designer and left-wing activist in Kreuzberg.“Until recently it was where I used to walk my dog and meet friends, he said in reference tothe former airport. “Now look – they’re building glassy apartment blocks there for richyuppies to move into” (quoted in Connolly, 2010). Even SO36 – Kreuzberg’s landmark punknightclub – is in imminent danger of closure due to disputes over escalating rents and com-plaints about noise from newer residents (Emms, 2009).

Responding to such developments, massive sit-ins at the Tempelhof airport and similarlyhotly contested locations have been held in recent months. Over five thousand demonstratorsattempted to occupy Tempelhof in June 2009, resulting in clashes with the municipal author-ities – including the use of pepper spray against protestors by police.15 In addition, anti-gentrification activists in Kreuzberg have advocated a militant “uglification strategy” thatencourages long-time inhabitants to refrain from repairing roofs or even fixing broken win-dows, as a means to “keep out unwanted residents” (Connolly, 2010). One of the most con-frontational anarchist groups, BMW (Bewegung fürMilitantenWiderstand, or the Movementfor Militant Resistance), has claimed responsibility for torching hundreds of expensiveautomobiles owned primarily by yuppies living in neighborhoods that are currently experi-encing gentrification. Yuppie-owned or dominated nightclubs and German business firmshave been targeted with stink bombs, paint bombs, stone throwing, and graffiti (Waleczek,2009).

Such sociopolitical acts of vandalism and arson have become progressively more commonin recent years, touted by far-left activists as an appropriate form of collective action on behalfof the poor and working class, in active resistance to gentrification and the “new bourgeoisie”(Connolly, 2010). There is even a website, “Burning Cars,” that features a Berlin map withinteractive locations in which pricey cars have been set ablaze in protest, with informationthat includes the exact date, automobile model, and street address, of each attack.16 Themajority of recent anti-gentrification incidents involving arson have occurred in Friedrich-shain-Kreuzberg, which has effectively turned the district into the primary terrain of resistancefor anarcho-punks and related movement activists.

Perspectives of Anarcho-punksWhile walking around Kreuzberg, I met Karla, a 17-year old Ossi student, who was sportinga “DDR” (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) emblem and related communist graphics onher clothes. This is an example of what is popularly known as Ostalgie (i.e., nostalgia forthe former East Germany), which is a pop-culture trend that has been gaining momentumfor the past several years among Ossi youths in particular. Several young people with whomI spoke - including three Ossis and one Wessi - assert that it is “cool” to wear such clothes,

15 For more information about the Tempelhof airport protest, see http://www.demotix.com/news/berliners-attempt-storm-tempelhof-airport-protest16 See the map at http://www.brennende-autos.de/

33

DAVID DRISSEL

even though many older folks (especially Wessis) say that they are bewildered, dismayed,and angered by anything remotely tied to the GDR’s communist system. In many respects,Ostalgie 17 and related fashion styles represent a tacit form of rebellion against perceivedWessi-yuppie hegemony over the former East Germany’s culture, economy, and property.As Karla, a self-identified anarcho-punk, states:

Yuppies seem to be taking over and upsetting our way of life. I know many folks whosay, ‘It’s not my neighborhood anymore.’ Lots of new people from other parts of Ger-many and other countries are moving to eastern districts. Most of them are schickimickis (‘fashionable people’). They are pushing out people who’ve been here for severalyears. That’s making many people very angry. Things are changing for the worse.

Lara, a 23-year old anarchist-squatter, black-clad with long braided-hair and sapphire eyes,recalls that she had abandoned the comfy confines of her relatively affluent, middle-classhome in an eastern German hamlet and journeyed to Kreuzberg five years ago to experience“a more exciting life.” Though she contends that Wessis in general tend to be less receptiveto her free-spirited lifestyle, nine of her twenty-three squat-mates are from western Germany.Various communal events are held in the squat’s first floor living room on a regular basis,including artistic presentations, musical performances, special dinners and breakfasts, movies,and political meetings focusing on squatters’ rights and related anti-gentrification initiatives.In the non-privatized, open spaces of the squat,18 socio-cultural distinctions between Wessisand Ossis become largely irrelevant. As Lara observes:

One of the things I really like about my neighborhood and squat is the variety of people.People from all over Europe and even the world are living here in Kreuzberg. This partof Berlin is very accepting of people like me, who don’t want to be bothered by ideasabout money or where you’re from. We believe in affordable housing and are opposedto the expensive rents found in other neighborhoods. We oppose yuppies and theircapitalist mentality.

In the same vicinity, I talked to Tim, a 25-year old anarchist-graffitist who recently movedto Kreuzberg from his “native” eastern Berlin neighborhood, due to escalating rents. Heexpressed great pride in pointing out several of his elaborate, multicolored graphics – includ-ing one piece bearing the iconic heading of Der Berliner Mauer (“The Berlin Wall”), posi-tioned directly above a grumpy-looking Karl Marx grasping an aerosol can in one hand,seemingly poised to spray paint into the faces of unsuspecting passersby. Unemployed forover a year, Tim seemed visibly disheartened while discussing his personal life, yet enthusi-astic when explaining why he writes on the walls of Berlin. As he states:

Bombing the city with graffiti is my way of having my voice heard. Everyone whowalks by can’t help but see what I’m thinking. It’s difficult to secure a decent job these

17 See Moran (2004) for a detailed analysis of Ostalgie phenomenon. As he notes, many trendy young Wessis haveembraced “Ossi kitsch.”18 Since my interview with Lara was conducted, Berlin’s squats have been compelled to become low-rent “houseprojects,” due to recent changes in municipal laws. Berlin’s last rent-free squat, located in Mitte, was forced toclose its doors in June 2010, after several days of protest and active resistance by local anarchists and squat movementproponents (Novak, 2010).

34


days, especially when you’re from the East. When I’m back in my old neighborhood,I bomb even more, so that people see that we’re fed up with this gentrification shit.

As I explored Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain, I came across numerous graffiti slogans andgraphics that directly questioned or opposed gentrification and capitalization. Such messagesoften were very explicit in their verbiage, including the English phrase “Yuppies Fuck Off”and German slogans such as Kein Spekulant (“No Speculators”) and Yuppies auf’s Maul(“Hit Yuppies in the Mouth”). One notable graffiti slogan spray-painted on a tenement wallin a Friedrichshain neighborhood compares Berlin’s gentrification projects to South Africa’spast system of racial segregation, with the phrase: Yuppisierung ist Apartheid (“YuppieGentrification is Separateness”). Another graffiti piece has an illustration of a MahatmaGandhi spray-painted with the English words, “Truth is God.” Gandhi appears to be staringat a U.S. dollar sign defaced with a red mark, above the phrase, “Don’t Believe the Hype.”Such graffiti was designed apparently to be a strong critique of western capitalist valuessuch as materialism, greed, and conspicuous consumption.

Anarcho-punk Spaces of OppositionDuring my exploration of Kreuzberg, I visited a multistory squat and live music venue knownas the Tommy-Weisbecker-Haus (or simply “Tommyhaus”). The building is named for ayoung anarchist-agitator who was shot and killed by West Berlin police in the early 1970s.Officially chartered in 1973 as a “housing collective,” the Tommyhaus was one of the firstabandoned buildings to be squatted in Berlin. During the 1970s and eighties, the Tommyhauswas repeatedly raided by police due to its proximity to nearby municipal buildings and alleg-ations of involvement by residents in the anarchist-terrorist organization Bewegung 2 Juni(Movement June 2).19 Known as “the ground zero of anarchy in Berlin” (Niklaus, 2009),the squat currently houses approximately forty residents – mostly unemployed youth - wholive in a communal environment. The first-floor café of the squat, known as “Line 1,” featuresa wide variety of punk, hardcore, and metal acts from all over the world, performing on stageseveral nights per week. Bands headlining at the venue have included Rage Against theMachine (1996), Queens of the Stone Age (2006), No Respect (2006), and Chumbawamba(2007).

The Tommyhaus is visible for several blocks away as it juts defiantly into the air, appearingto pulsate in an effervescent kaleidoscope of aerosol-painted neon colors. Most notably, thebuilding has an impressive, vibrant facade covered with various anarchist-influenced muralsand graffiti. One side of the squat features an outsized elongated snake coiling from theground level to the top floor, while the squat’s exterior also has various smaller graphics,including the red-lettered anarchy (“A”) symbol and a depiction of the famous Marxist-Ar-gentine revolutionary, Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Next to the front entrance, a painted-signdeclares boldly in English, “Fuck the Police.”

19 Established in the early 1970s by young militant anarchists, Bewegung 2 Juni was named after the date in 1967on which police killed Benno Ohnesorg – a 26-year old German college student - during a peaceful demonstration-turned-riot. Bewegung 2 Juni mostly bombed property targets, but also engaged in occasional kidnappings of gov-ernment officials. The group was loosely associated with the Red Army Faction (RAF) - a radical Marxist “urbanguerrilla” terrorist group also known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

35

DAVID DRISSEL

Upon entering the Tommyhaus, I observed that the vast majority of youths exhibitedvarious forms of punk attire, including Mohawks, hair spikes, tattoos, multiple piercings,dog collars, wallet chains, and black bomber jackets brightly adorned with various band-buttons and iconoclastic slogans. As the Dutch anarcho-hardcore band Antidote played onstage in the main music venue of Line 1, the mosh pit began to swell with numerous youngmen slamming their sweaty bodies back and forth in a spasmodic frenzy of fraternal fury,performing a violent-laden, yet mostly non-threatening, communal ritual. Thrashing aboutwith arms flailing and noses flaring, several punks crashed repeatedly into one another, asthe band performed the song, “New Enemy.”

In the somewhat quieter bar area of the squat, I interviewed seven young punks in depth,including five originally from the former East Berlin and two from the western part of thecity. Four of the Ossi punks are self-professed anarchists; one Wessi describes himself as anihilist, while the remaining two punks refused to endorse any particular political ideology.Notably, all seven respondents said that they identify strongly with the anti-authoritarianethos of DIY, contending that punk is much more than simply a subgenre of rock music. Inthis regard, my respondents described punk with various appellations such as “an undergroundscene” and “an alternative movement.” The concept of “scene” is particularly relevant, sincemy respondents tended to use the term to describe their distinctly localized – yet transnational– countercultural/subcultural identity as Berlin punks. Importantly, the metaphorical sceneimplies a dramaturgical performance, thus reflecting “an emergent urban psychological ori-entation – that of a person as an actor, self consciously presenting him - or herself in frontof audiences” (Irwin, 1977, p. 24).

One of the first punks I interviewed was Abel - a 25-year old Ossi with a wry sense ofhumor, twinkling emerald eyes, and a steeply protruding crimson-tipped Mohawk. He explainsthat the city remains divided between Ossis and Wessis. Speaking in broken English, heobserves that there are distinct dialects and slang terms utilized by East and West Berliners.Abel recalls that he witnessed the fall of Berlin Wall when he was only ten years of age,while accompanying his older brother. He adds that his brother had been involved for yearsin “the punk underground” of the former East Germany, which was often repressed bycommunist authorities. As the Wall crumbled before his stunned-eyes, Abel rememberspeering for the first time into the glittering commercial expanse of the previously forbiddenWest Berlin. In the days and weeks following the Wall’s fall, he claims to have discoveredthat the typical Wessi is a “know-it-all.” However, in recent years he professes to have metnumerous Wessis who share his anarchist views and punk rock musical tastes. Thus, as heconcedes, “I now realize that it’s unfair to say that Wessis are all the same.”

Joseph, a 17-year old Ossi sitting next to Abel at the bar, coiffed with spiked black hairand sporting a bomber jacket, complains that Wessis often treat easterners as if they are“second class citizens.” Nonetheless, he agrees with Abel that not all Wessis are “snobs” or“yuppies,” noting that intolerance can be found on both “sides” of Berlin. Like Abel, Josephwas born and raised in the former East Berlin and feels stigmatized and marginalized by hissocio-spatial background in the post-reunification era. “Ossis tend to be poorer and havefewer connections,” he explains. “Often they have no choice but to work at lower payingjobs and live in poorer neighborhoods.”

Marie, a 20-year old Ossi-punk adorned with dark mascara and black lipstick, chain-smoking rolled-cigarettes and nursing a beer on a nearby barstool, states bluntly that “theEast is much more brutal.” This brutality is evident in everyday life, she declares, when the

36


police treat Ossis much more harshly than Wessis and imprison them for relatively minoroffenses. “The police mess with us all the time, for no good reason,” she states. “Now, wefind ourselves fighting to keep our squats and flats, with everything getting more expensive.”

Looking around, Abel remarks that just about everyone in the bar grew up in the East.Coincidentally, a couple of relatively well-groomed punks with expensive looking leatherjackets walk in at that moment, to which Marie waves and notes matter-of-factly that theyare Wessis. “There is a strong difference between Ossis and Wessis,” she asserts. “But I havemany Wessi friends who I’ve met through the punk scene.” Strom, a 16-year old Ossi youthsitting on the other side of the bar, wearing a black t-shirt adorned with a large red “A” (an-archy) symbol and an eye-catching button featuring a swastika that bears George W. Bush’svisage, recalls that he became an anarchist when he was fourteen after discovering that“capitalism does not work and only exploits people.” As he states:

This system only benefits those with privileges. The government oppresses many people,including both Ossis and Wessis. I was angry all the time when I was younger and hatedWessis. I later realized that only anarchism could change things for the better. We can’tlet brainless names like Ossi and Wessi keep us apart any longer… Capitalism is thereal threat. It’s destroying our way of life. We have no choice but to fight back againstyuppies and corporations.

Lukas, one of the nicely dressed Wessi-punks that Marie had waved to earlier, explains thathe had only recently moved to Kreuzberg in search of relatively inexpensive rents and a“cool” nightlife. When asked about the “wall in the head,” he reveals his status as both acollege student and punk novice. “I really like punk and the scene here in Kreuzberg isfucking amazing,” he states, “butOssis tend to complain and whine way too much.” However,Miles, a 24-year old Wessi anarchist that has been frequenting punk clubs in Kreuzberg forseveral years, largely disagrees with his friend Lukas’ assessment; stating:

Where you are from shouldn’t matter. It makes no sense to dislike someone just becauseof where they were born. After all, we’re all punks here. I’ve talked with Ossis manytimes. You know, it’s time to forget the stupid divisions of the past. There are moreserious issues, such as clubs being forced to close due to rents increasing. Somethinghas to be done. We have to defend ourselves.

Findings and DiscussionBerlin’s contemporary anarcho-punk counterculture is the product of cultural syncretism,being strongly influenced not only by the American/British punk archetype, but also havingproto-punk-anarchist German origins. Though German punk evolved in West Berlin by ex-pressing an overt countercultural discourse in opposition to bourgeois-hegemonic values, itsimultaneously developed in East Berlin by articulating a mostly covert counterculturaldiscourse in opposition to neo-Stalinist-hegemonic values. In both cases, punk representedan oppositional ideology to the “repressive” status quo, thus creating an alternative field ofcultural production, based on distinct principles, representations, and taste preferences. Soonafter German reunification, the two halves of Berlin’s punk scene comingled directly for the

37

DAVID DRISSEL

first time, merging into a somewhat-coherent counterculture/movement that was framed inopposition to the forces of marketization and gentrification.

In interviewing young people in Berlin, I discovered that self-described punks generallyexpress more intense feelings of dissatisfaction with gentrification than other (non-punk)youths with whom I talked. For Berlin punks, gentrification tends to be an everyday reality– as many have witnessed their families being dislocated, their friends evicted, their squatsand clubs closed, or their own rents skyrocketing, as a consequence. Though Ossi punkstended to declare their opposition to gentrification in stronger terms than their Wessi coun-terparts, Berlin punks in general agree that gentrification is a very serious issue of concern.Ironically, at least a few of my Wessi punk respondents are college students living in low-income neighborhoods undergoing redevelopment, thus acting as inadvertent pioneers forsuccessive waves of yuppie-style gentrification.

Most Berlin punks that I interviewed identify as anarchists or at the very least endorse theDIY ethos and related countercultural views. In contrast to other youthful respondents inBerlin, punks tended to frame gentrification in highly negative and dire terms, referring toneighborhood redevelopment processes as “destructive,” “brutal,” and “upsetting,” for in-stance. They also frequently used military-style terms to describe their opposition to gentri-fication, including “fighting,” “fight back,” “defend,” “attack,” and “shocking people.” Theymost often identified yuppies, the local government, and police, as the main “enemies” oftheir way of life – not merely their political opponents. Such militant, agency-laden metaphorsare illustrative of the ideological and practical imperatives that anarcho-punks utilize in orderto justify not only acts of peaceful civil disobedience, but also the vandalism of luxuryautomobiles, buildings, and other gentrified property; thus framing their behavior as an ap-propriate form of protest against the encroaching bourgeois-capitalist system.

Most of my punk respondents asserted that there are lingering socio-cultural distinctionsbetweenOssis andWessis, particularly when it comes to demeanor, appearance, and behavior.Significantly, Ossi punks in particular often conflated yuppies with Wessis, observing thatwesterners are implementing the vast majority of gentrification projects in Berlin. The cul-tural legacy of Berlin’s past bifurcation and subsequent economic transition continues toimpinge most profoundly on easterners, as numerous respondents alleged that Ossis are es-pecially prone to being negatively stereotyped, relegated to lower-paid jobs, harassed bypolice, and displaced from their homes and neighborhoods by gentrification schemes.However, an overwhelming majority of both Ossi and Wessi punks indicated that they hadabandoned many of their stereotypical views of the spatial-urban other as a result of direct,positive forms of contact and interaction in punk clubs, squats, town squares, and other rel-atively neutral social spaces.

Notably, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has a long history as the spatial-cultural epicenter ofBerlin’s anarcho-punk scene. As the synthesis of two traditional working-class residentialareas – including one from each side of the former Berlin Wall - the district epitomizes theofficially reunited Berlin. Over the years, the hegemonic framing of the district as a dilapidatedghetto has widened the gap between the ground rent of derelict properties and the potentialground rent derived from redeveloped properties, thus encouraging gentrification as a meansof closing the rent gap. Accordingly, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has become the major terrainof resistance to gentrification in Berlin, pitting anarcho-punks and various far-left activistsagainst yuppies and assorted agents of the municipal government.

38


Conclusion: Codes of Spatial PerformanceThe contestation and negotiation of urban space in post-reunification Berlin is basedprimarily on what Pierre Bourdieu (as cited in Gotham, 2003) describes as “codes of spatialperformance,” including social situations and dialogic interactions between adversarial actorson the urban stage. As he asserts, various fields are established and contested, with groupsproducing “place-specific forms of identity, consciousness, and knowledge” (p. 724).Meaningfully, the roles and activities of various actors within a given field are somewhatordered and constrained by their distinctive habitus; i.e., “a system of durable, transposabledispositions, that are structured, inculcated and generative” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 53). Simplyput, the habitus is “a sense of one’s and others’ place and role in the world of one’s livedenvironment” (Hillier and Rooksby, 2008, p. 21). Within a particular urban field, subordinategroups will seek to resist the spatial order through habitus-based repertoires of rebellion andinnovation; while dominant groups will actively defend their structural position with whateverpower resources best exemplify their habitus (Bourdieu, 2008).

Over the past few decades, the social structures of Berlin’s urban field have undergonedramatic, revolutionary changes; yet have also reproduced and magnified social inequalitiesthat have their roots in the Cold War era. Though the physical fortifications of the BerlinWall have fallen, new socio-spatial sources of intra-German conflict have emerged in theirstead. In particular, the globalization of market forces has engendered new value contradic-tions and a heightened potential for “anomic amorality” among teenagers and young adultsliving in post-communist Berlin (Hagan et al, 1998). Social strains resulting from years ofdichotomous classification schemes have affected many of the young people studied, eventhose who were born several years after the Berlin Wall’s official demise.

Berlin’s dominant habitus, best exemplified by the so-called “wall in the head,” has shapedvarious perceptions, representations, sensibilities, and patterns of behavior, found amongBerlin youth. The contemporary struggle between the dominant Wessis and the largely sub-ordinate Ossis has generated new tensions and conflicts in Berlin’s urban field. In particular,the gentrification of low-income neighborhoods, disproportionately located in the formerEast Berlin, has widened the informal spatial schism. Thus, Berlin’s habitus has been em-powering for many Wessis, yet oppressive for Ossis who have been relegated to a lower-status position within the field of social relations.

Rather than living in fixed spatial stasis, many longtime residents have sought to utilizeurban space effectively to resist gentrification and related urban development projects. Mostnotably, young anarchists – often operating within the countercultural context of Berlin’spunk scene and related social movement organizations - have spearheaded the radical con-testation of urban space, acting in direct opposition to yuppies and other reputed agents ofgentrification. Accordingly, relatively new or expanded codes of spatial performance haveemerged in Berlin, which frequently involve various non-traditional tactics such as squatting,protest marches, uglification, boycotts, vandalism, rioting, arson, and writing graffiti. Eventhe lyrics of contemporary German punk songs are sometimes framed in militant oppositionto gentrification, thus encouraging the mobilization of prospective activists. As James Scott(1990) has observed, resistance often takes many forms, with overt acts of defiance sometimesless prudent or efficacious than more clandestine means. In some cases, the best course ofaction for subordinate groups is to resist domination covertly and anonymously. Sucheveryday forms of resistance are characterized by the presence of an alternative counter-

39

DAVID DRISSEL

discourse that is articulated largely “offstage,” i.e., beyond the normal spatial purview ofofficials (Lee, 2000, p. 45).

Particularly relevant in the case of Berlin, youth subcultures and countercultures are mostlikely to emerge or become more active during periods of relatively rapid economic changein society, such as urbanization and capitalization. Such forces tend to weaken interpersonalcommunal ties and the normative consensus of society, thus fueling “alienation, social dis-organization, deviant behavior and anomie” (Brake, 1985, p. 9). To some extent, Berlin’spunk scene reflects the dominant habitus of Berlin, which includes the social-psychological“wall in the head” that has developed in response to rapid social changes sparked by Germanreunification. Indeed, numerous subjects interviewed in this study indicate that they haveretained some feelings of suspicion, resentment, and animosity towards the urban spatialother. Though such socio-spatial distinctions continue to be informally apparent within theeveryday interactions of punks, Berlin’s translocal/transnational anti-gentrification movementhas to some extent transcended traditional bipolar labels. In particular, the lines betweenOssis andWessis have become somewhat blurred in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, with anarcho-punks and various activists from both sides of the former Berlin Wall often cooperating tofend off potential “alien” intruders that are identified primarily by their social-class status(e.g., yuppies, wealthy, capitalists) and only secondarily by their socio-spatial origins (e.g.,Ossis, Wessis).

In sum, Berlin’s dominant habitus is being challenged by anarcho-punks and other youthswho are interacting in the relatively open public spaces of courtyards, nightclubs, bars, parks,and squats. The hegemonic processes of gentrification are directly threatening many suchsocial spaces and exacerbating Ossi resentment of Wessi-yuppies, yet are also providing theraison d’être for a nascent social movement that includes interdependent participants fromboth sides of the former Berlin Wall. New dialectical dispositions among antithetical agentsand subversive, non-conformist challenges to dominant social structures are becoming visiblyapparent, gradually replacing older socio-spatial rivalries within the spaces of youth. Indeed,numerous teenagers and young adults in Berlin seem to be formulating new collectiveidentities based primarily on countercultural/subcultural affinities and common economic-political goals; thus seeking to radically reconfigure their city’s socio-spatial milieu.

ReferencesAllport, Gordon. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (1954).Atkinson, Rowland and Gary Bridge.Gentrification in a Global Context: The NewUrban Colonialism.

London: Routledge (2005).Baumgarnter, M. E. The Moral Order of the Suburbs. New York: Oxford University Press (1988).Berman, M. “Take it to the streets: conflict and community in public space.” Dissent Fall: 470-94

(1986).Bigg, Claire. “In a once-divided city, East Berliners still see ‘us’ and ‘them.’” Radio Free

Europe/Radio Liberty (November 6, 2009). Accessed online at http://www.rferl.org/con-tent/In_OnceDivided_City_East_Berliners_Still_See_Us_And_Them_/1870974.html

Blush, Steven. American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Los Angeles: Feral House (2001).Boot, Adrian and Chris Salewicz. Punk: The Illustrated History of a Music Revolution. New York:

Penguin Studio (1996).Bourdieu, Pierre.Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University

Press (1977).

40


Bourdieu, Pierre. “Habitus.” InHabitus: A Sense of Place. Ed. Jean Hiller and Emma Rooksby. Padstow,U.K.: Ashgate Publishing (2008).

Brake, Michael. Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subculturesin America, Britain, and Canada. New York: Routledge (1985).

Burns, Chris. “Germans now divided by the ‘wall in the head.” CNN.com (November 9, 1999).Available online at http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.head/

Cahill, Spencer. “Childhood and public life: reaffirming biographical divisions.” Social Problems 37:390-402 (1990).

Clark, Dylan. “The death and life punk: the last subculture.” In The Post-Subcultures Reader. Ed.David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl. Oxford and New York: Berg (2003).

Cohen, P. “The perversions of inheritance: studies in the making of multiracist Britain.” In SocialChange and the Middle Classes. Ed. P. Cohen and H.S. Bains. London: UCL Press (1988).

Connolly, Kate. “Anarchists in Berlin turn anger on new ‘bourgeoisie.’” The Observer (January 2010).Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/10/berlin-anarchists-torch-cars

Davies, Matt. “Do it yourself: Punk rock and the disalienation of international relations.” In ResoundingInternational Relations: On Music, Culture, and Politics. Ed. M. Franklin. New York: Pal-grave (2005).

De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress (1984).

Emms, Stephen. “Two decades of clubbing in Berlin, city of the night.” The Observer (October 2009).Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/oct/18/stephen-emms-berlin-night-clubs

Fischer, Ronald, Juren Maes, and Manfred Schmitt. “Tearing down the ‘Wall in the head’? Culturecontact between Germans.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31: 163-179(2007).

Foucault, Michel. “Space, knowledge, and power.” In The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. NewYork: Pantheon (1984).

Freeman, Lance. “Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods.Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 463-491 (2005).

Freeman, Lance, There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia:Temple University Press (2006).

Fyfe, N. and J. Bannister. “City watching: closed circuit television watching in public spaces.” Area28 1: 37-46 (1996).

Glaeser, Andreas. Divided in Unity: Identity, Germany, and the Berlin Police. Chicago and London:University of Chicago Press (2000).

Gotham, Kevin F. “Toward an understanding of the spatiality of urban poverty: The urban poor asspatial actors.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (2003).

Graff, James. “Germany’s youth across the divide.” CNN.com (October 4, 2000). Available online athttp://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/10/04/germanunity/index.html

Hagan, John, Gerd Hefler, Gabriele Classen, Klaus Boehnke, and Hans Merkens. 1998. “Subterraneansources of subcultural delinquency beyond the American dream,” Criminology 36 (2):309-339 (1998).

Hamnett, Chris.Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. London and New York: Routledge (2003).Hendry L., J. Shucksmith, J.G. Love, and A. Glendinning. Young People’s Leisure and Lifestyles.

London: Routledge (1993).Hesse, B., D.K. Rai, C. Bennett, and P. McGilchrist. Beneath the Surface: Racial Harassment.

Alderhot: Avebury (1992).Hiller, Jean and Emma Rooksby. “Introduction to first edition.” In Habitus: A Sense of Place. Ed. Jean

Hiller and Emma Rooksby. Padstow, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing (2008).

41

DAVID DRISSEL

Holm, Andrej. “Urban renewal and the end of social housing: the roll out of neoliberalism in EastBerlin’s Prenzlauer Berg: urban renewal, urban policy, and modes of regulation.” SocialJustice (Sept. 22, 2006).

Hörschelmann, Kathrin. “Audience interpretations of (former) East Germany’s representation in theGerman media.” European Urban and Regional Studies 2001.

Irwin, John. Scenes. Beverly Hills and London: Sage (1977).Kahn, Charlotte. Ten Years of German Unification: One State, Two Peoples. Westport, Connecticut

and London: Praeger (2000).Kahn, Richard and Douglas Kellner. “Internet subcultures and oppositional politics.” In The Post-

Subcultures Reader, Ed. David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl. Oxford and New York:Berg (2003).

Karapin, Roger. Protest Politics in Germany: Movements on the Left and Right since the 1960s. Uni-versity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press (2007).

Kirchner, Stephanie. “In Berlin, a gentrifying neighborhood under siege.” Time.com (Feb. 25, 2009).Available online at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1881451,00.html

Laing, Dave. “Listening to punk.” In The Subcultures Reader. Ed. Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton.London and New York: Routledge (1997).

Leach, Darcy. “An elusive ‘we’: Antidogmatism, democratic practice, and the contradictory identityof the German Autonomen.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 (2009).

Lee, Ching Kwan Lee. “Pathways of Labor Insurgency.” In Chinese Society: Change, Conflict andResistance. Ed. Elizabeth Perry and Mark Selden. London: Routledge (2000).

Mahrad, C. Jugendpolitik in der DDR. In Jugend im doppelten Deutschland. Ed. W. Jaide and B. Hille.Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag (1977).

Malone, Karen. “Street life: youth, culture, and competing uses of public space.” Environment andUrbanization 14 (2002).

Mayer, Catherine. “Germany’s election: Divided they stand,” Time.com (Sept. 21, 2009). Availableonline at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1921555,00.html

Mayer, Margit. “The career of urban social movements in West Germany.” In Mobilizing the Com-munity: Local Politics in the Era of the Global City. Ed. R. Fisher and J. Kling. NewburyPark: Sage. 41: 149-170 (1993).

Mayer, Margit. “New lines of division in the new Berlin.” In Towards a NewMetropolitanism: Recon-stituting Public Culture, Urban Citizenship, and the Multicultural Imaginary in New YorkCity and Berlin. Ed. Friedrich Ulfers, Günter Lenz, and Antje Dallmann. Heidelberg: Uni-versitätsverlag Winter (2006).

McGrellis, Sheena. “Pure and bitter spaces: gender, identity and territory in Northern Irish Youthtransitions.” Gender and Education 5 (December 2005).

Mohr, Tim. “Did punk rock tear down the Wall?” The Daily Beast (November 2009). Accessed onlineat http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-08/did-punk-rock-tear-down-the-wall/full/

Moore, Tristana. “In gentrifying Berlin, revenge of the anarchists.” Time.com (April 2, 2010). Availableonline at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1977084,00.html

Moran, Joe. “November in Berlin: The end of the everyday.” History Workshop Journal 57 (2004).Neill, William J.V. “Memory, spatial planning and the construction of cultural identity in Belfast and

Berlin – an overview.” In Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion: Lessons from Belfast andBerlin. Ed. William J.V. Neill and Hanns-Uve Schwedler. Basingstoke and New York: Pal-grave (2001).

Nicklas, Felix. “Berlin – the Olympic torch of punk.”ViceMagazine (April 24, 2009). Available onlineat http://vice.typepad.com/vice_magazine/2009/04/berlin-the-olympic-torch-of-punk.html

Novak, Candice. “Berlin's last squat ends as legit housing projects flourish,” DW –World.DE (June21, 2010). Available online at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5707925,00.html

42


Ozment, Steven. A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People. New York: Perennial Press(2004).

Pearce, J. “Urban youth cultures: gender and spatial forms.” Youth & Policy 52: 1-11 (1996).Pettigrew, T.F. and Trop, L. “A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 90 (2006).Petzen, Jennifer. “Home or homelike? Turkish queers manage space in Berlin.” Space and Culture 7

(2004).Rimbaud, Penny. Shibboleth - My Revolting Life. AK Press (1999).Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counter Culture (1968).Sandercock, Leonie. “Difference, fear and habitus: a political economy of urban fears.” In Habitus: A

Sense of Place. Ed. Jean Hiller and Emma Rooksby. Padstow, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing(2008).

Scott, James. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven and London:Yale University Press (1990).

Shirlow, Peter and Brendan Murtagh. Belfast: Segregation, Violence, and the City. London, Dublin,and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press (2006).

Sibley, David. Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge (1995).Sinker, Daniel. We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet : The Collected Interviews. New York: Akashic

Books (2001).Smith, Fiona. “Between East and West: Sites of resistance in East German youth cultures.” In Cool-

places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. Ed. Tracey Skelton and Gill Valentine. London andNew York: Routledge (1998).

Smith, Neal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 3, 462-465 (Sep., 1987).Smith, Neal. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Routledge

(1996).Soysal, Levent. “Diversity of experience, experience of diversity: Turkish migrant youth culture in

Berlin.” Cultural Dynamics 5 (2001).Stahl, Geoff. “Cowboy capitalism: The art of ping pong country in the new Berlin.” Space and Culture

4 (2008).Valentine, Gill, Tracey Skelton, Deborah Chambers, “Cool places: an introduction to youth and youth

cultures.” In Coolplaces: Geographies of Youth Cultures. Ed. Tracey Skelton and GillValentine. London and New York: Routledge (1998).

Veenis, Milena. “Consumption in East Germany: The seduction and betrayal of things.” Journal ofMaterial Culture 4 (1) (1999).

Wagner W. Kulturschock Deutschland: Der Zweite Blick (Culture Shock German: A Second Look).Hamburg: Rotbuch Zeitgeschehen. (1999).

Waleczek, Torben. “An Arson a Day: Car Conflagrations Ignite Political Row in Berlin,” SpiegelOnline International (June 19, 2009). http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger-many/0,1518,631435,00.html

Watt, P and K. Stenson. “The street: it’s a bit dodgy around there.” In Coolplaces: Geographies ofYouth Cultures. Ed. Tracey Skelton and Gill Valentine. London and New York: Routledge(1998).

About the AuthorProf. David DrisselDavid Drissel is a professor of social sciences at Iowa Central Community College in FortDodge, Iowa. His undergraduate work included a double major in political science and soci-ology. His graduate studies focused on comparative politics, international relations, social

43

DAVID DRISSEL

change and development, and social movements. Research interests include transnationalsocial movements and computer-mediated communication, nations/states undergoing polit-ical/economic transition, youth subcultures and collective identities, the global politics ofInternet governance, juvenile delinquency and subterranean values, diasporic youth and socialnetworking, and the role of interactive media and popular culture in mobilizing social net-works. Professor Drissel is a two-time Fulbright Scholar who has studied extensively inChina and the Czech/Slovak Republics, among many other countries. A frequent speakerand conference participant, he has had several papers published in various academic journalsand compilations. He is an alumnus of the Oxford (University) Roundtable in Great Britain,where he presented a paper which was later published in the Cambridge Review of Interna-tional Affairs.

44


EDITORS

Tom Nairn, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. David Christian, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Joan Copjec, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA. Alice Craven, American University of Paris, Paris, France. Michel Demyen, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. Elizabeth DePoy, University of Maine, Orono, USA Mick Dodson, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Oliver Feltham, American University of Paris, Paris, France. Clyde R. Forsberg Jr., Oxford College/Aletheia University, Tamsui, Taiwan. Stephen French Gilson, University of Maine, Orono, USA. Hafedh Halila, Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia. Souad Halila, University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia. Hassan Hanafi Hassanien, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Ted Honderich, University College, London, UK. Paul James, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Moncef Jazzar, Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia. Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA. Ayat Labadi, Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia. Marion Ledwig, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA. Greg Levine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Harry R. Lewis, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA. Fethi Mansouri, Institute for Citizenship & Globalization, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Juliet Mitchell, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Nahid Mozaffari, New York, USA. Nikos Papastergiadis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Robert Pascoe, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Scott Schaffer, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Jeffrey T. Schnapp, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University, New York, USA. Bassam Tibi, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany and Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA. Cheryl A. Wells, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Zhang Zhiqiang, Nanjing University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China. Chris Ziguras, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Humanities-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

[email protected]

anarchist punks resisting gentrification: countercultural contestations of space in the new berlin

Documents