We Were There: a Recognition of the (Missing) Guest Workers in German Museums

English Version

Ned Strasbaugh

March 24, 2014

Prof. Cohen-Pfister

The importance of museums to understanding the culture that they portray cannot be

understated. Museums are a collection of exhibits from different periods of time that illustrate

the history and development of a culture. On one hand, museums help members of a culture to

remember and preserve the past of the culture more clearly than the fallibility of individual

memories; on the other hand, the preservation of certain cultural artifacts presents problems in

itself: not all of history can be represented by a museum, and so that requires a choice about what

does get represented by museums.1 This omission of certain events from museums necessarily

requires a choice about what gets represented and what doesn’t, a decision that reveals where the

interests of those in charge lie. Not only that, but the viewer of the exhibits in the museum,

presented with only some of the history, is left to fill in the gaps of what is not represented.2

Museums, therefore, have a power when it comes to representing a culture because of what they

show and what they omit. This has an effect of the viewer of the exhibits, because they are

presented with a one-sided account of a culture, and this affects the cultural mindset of the

viewer: “The relative value attributed to each way of looking at things is really a function of the

respective intensity of influences that each group has separately exerted upon him”.3

Museums in Germany face this conundrum acutely: the importance of portraying German

culture and history well is of vital significance, because “Germany’s identity was joined to the

negative memory of its Nazi past”.4 But in this attempt to reconcile with its turbulent past,

German museums are focused on some aspects while crucially leaving others behind. I am

referring to the Gastarbeiter movement of 1961-1973, in which fourteen million immigrants5 and

1 Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy, eds. “The Collective Memory Reader.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. P.3792 Olick 3793 Olick 1404 Assmann, Aleida, and Anja Schwarz. "Memory, migration and guilt." Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture 4, no. 1 (2013). 545 Eryilmaz, Aytac. „The Political and Social Significance of a Museum of Migration in Germany.“ Museum International 59 no.1/2 (May 2007): 127-136. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 17, 2014).

specifically over 800,000 Turks6 came to Germany to work. There are similar dedications to

immigrants in other countries: the United States has the Immigration Museum at Ellis Island,

established in 1990, and the Pacific Coast Immigration Museum in San Francisco. In an

increasingly-globalized society, the impact that immigration has in the advancement of nations is

apparent, and deserves recognition. But Germany has notably struggled with coming to terms

with itself as a nation with immigrants for years (source). It has had to come to terms with its

past, devoting boundless attention to reconciling with the atrocities of World War II and building

itself up again from the wreckage. The result is that the Gastarbeiter movement is left behind: not

portrayed in museums, it is as if the Gastarbeiter are not a part of German culture and history at

all, so that they are denied a place in cultural memory. This paper will demonstrate how the

Gastarbeiter movement has, conspicuously, been omitted from German museums and

consequently German awareness, cultural memory, and identity.

The implications of this omission are that German cultural memory is being shaped in a

way that is eschewed: German national identity is being biased in favor of the society that

unified and moved on from World War II. This national identity does not take into account the

complexity and multicultural identity of the new German, including the Gastarbeiter and the

German-Turks descended therefrom, which help to make Berlin the second largest Turkish city

in the world.7 This multicultural society is being denied its place in German history because it is

underrepresented in museums, indicators of the cultural and collective memory. But the

Gastarbeiter movement is important to show because they are also citizens of Germany who have

made this country their home. Therefore, it is important to recognize the repression of

P.1286 Ataman, Ferda. “Türkische Frauen: Die Opferrolle hat ausgedient.” Spiegel Online. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/tuerkische-frauen-die-opferrolle-hat-ausgedient-a-470392.html (accessed March 23, 2014)7 Sturm, Daniel-Friedrich. “Türken in Berlin.“ Die Welt. http://www.welt.de/welt_print/kultur/literatur/article6276084/Tuerken-in-Berlin.html (accessed March 23, 2014)

Gastarbeiter from museums, because this indicates the problems that underlie German society in

failing to come to terms with its immigrant history, and informs the work that still needs to be

done for Germany to come to terms with its past.

It is important to realize also that it is not every medium of memory that underrepresents

the German-Turks: the development of German-Turks in Germany has been portrayed acutely in

film, for example, by Tevfik Başer, Fatih Akin, and Özgür Yıldırım, among others;8 the role of

German-Turkish identity has been written about by prominent authors including Zafer Şenocak;9

and photographs of Armando Rodrigues de Sá, the millionth Gastarbeiter to work in Germany,

and his motorcycle are still portrayed in textbooks and newspaper articles.10 It is museums

specifically that underrepresent the Gastarbeiter, and thus not acknowledging the German-Turks

who descended from them. When I say that museums underrepresent the Gastarbeiter, it must be

understood that they are not unrepresented: for instance, de Sá’s motorcycle is housed in das

Haus der Geschichte in Bonn.11 However, the representation that is in Germany is startlingly

limited: there is no museum which commemorates those people who came to work in Germany

fifty years ago, people who numbered over a million and who have left a sizable minority in

present society: “Die erste Station in Deutschland für Millionen von Gastarbeitern ist nicht zu

einem deutschen Ellis Island geworden, welches heute ein Einwanderungsmuseum beherbergt”.12

8 Tunc Cox, Ayca. “Three Generations of Turkish Filmmakers in Germany: Three Different Narratives.” Turkish Studies 12, no.1 (March 2011): 115-127. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2014). P.118-1199 Littler, Margaret. „Guilt, Victimhood and Identity in Zafer Şenocak’s Gefährliche Verwandtschaft.“ German Quarterly 78, no.3 (Summer 2005): 357-373. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014).10 Stephan, Tobias. “50 Jahre geteilte Erinnerung; Es gibt Auswanderermuseen – aber keine für die Einwanderer. Erst langsam finden die Geschichten von deutschtürkischen Künstlern Eingang ins kollektive Bewusstsein.“ ZEIT-Online, 30 October 2011. http://www.lexisnexis.com (accessed February 25, 2014).11 Motte, Jan, and Rainer Ohliger. “Menschen ohne Geschichte?; Was weiß die Mehrheit der bundesdeutschen Gesellschaft über die Herkunft der Arbeitsmigranten? Und was weiß sie über ihre eigene Migrationsgeschichte? Welche Bilder verbinden sie damit? Der Einwanderungsgesellschaft ein Gedächtnis geben.“ Die Tageszeitung, 07 October 2002. http://www.lexisnexis.com (accessed February 25, 2014).12 Stephan

With such an underrepresentation of the Gastarbeiter and their descendants in modern

German society today, it is important to understand the root of German-Turks in German history.

In other words, there is no reason why museums would not underrepresent the Gastarbeiter if the

Gastarbeiter never came to Germany in the first place. The question becomes: Why did Germany

need the Gastarbeiter in the first place? Following World War II, Germany needed workers to

rebuild the nation, but East Germany cut itself off from West Germany, and consequently any

German laborers in East Germany from moving west. Without this labor force, “the FRG

increasingly began to recruit millions of labour-related immigrants from south-eastern Europe”13,

which was the beginning of the Gastarbeiter movement.

Germany kept accepting new migrant workers from other countries with the belief that

they would one day return home to their countries of origin. However, with the sudden end of the

Gastarbeiter movement in 1973, though most returned home, many stayed.14 This characterizes

the two sides of the issue of immigration to Germany and German identity during the

Gastarbeiter movement. On one hand, the Germans who hired the Gastarbeiter to work in

Germany did so due to the country’s weak economic state, yet at the same time espoused their

economic strength: “The German national myth of cultural purity characterizes foreign workers

for being dependent on German wealth, while the basic facts of migration historically prove the

existence of large-scale labour demand either for agricultural or industrial growth that initiated

labour migrations at the first place”.15 The Gastarbeiter were needed to revitalize Germany. But

this was, and still is, in contrast to the image that Germany wants to have for itself. This image,

of being strong in the 1960s, is borne of Germany’s dark past, and its need to move on. The irony 13 Eryilmaz 12814 Horrocks, David and Eva Kolinsky, eds. “Turkish Culture in German Society Today.” Providence: Berghahn Books, 1996. Print. P.8215 Canefe, Nergis. “Citizens versus Permanent Guests: Cultural Memory and Citizenship Laws in a Reunified Germany.” Citizenship Studies 2, no.3: 519. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2014). P.523

of this is that, following the use of foreign labor in the Nazi period, or the negative term

Fremdarbeiter, the term Gastarbeiter was used for this new period to replace it;16 but by the end

of the Gastarbeiter movement, it was apparent that the term Gastarbeiter carried the connotation

that the workers were merely guests, destined one day to leave Germany.17

It is apparent, therefore, that the Gastarbeiter were viewed as a temporary necessity to

help Germany recover from World War II. This is why cultural memory doesn’t allow for the

Gastarbeiter to belong in the German national consciousness, and why they are underrepresented

in museums. The Gastarbeiter were not there either to suffer the destruction that World War II

had on German identity and Germany’s position as a world power, nor at any happier time

before this dark period. “The sacrosanct nature of policies utilized for the accommodation of the

influx of ethnic Germans, and the labelling of these newcomers as ‘returnees’ or ‘re-patriates’ is

suggestive of a form of romantic remembrance of the ‘national’ past at the expense of coming

into terms with the present multi-cultural dictum of the German society”.18 The emphasis on

Germany’s romantic past, here, indicates Germany’s focus on the past in general. German

citizens who willfully forget the Gastarbeiter as part of German society, in the 1960s and

beyond, do so in order to preserve the German past that they may feel nostalgia for. Yet this is

not healthy for German cultural memory, because this intense focus on the past leads such

citizens to forget the present and the future. In spite of Germany’s emphasis of overcoming the

past, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Gastarbeiter were also part of German society, and their

descendants today cannot be ignored. The focus on the past would lead Germany to stagnate in

16 Smith, Andrea L. “Germany’s Anti-Foreigner Crisis: State Disunity and Collective ‘Forgetting’.” Journal of Historical Sociology 7, no.4: 393. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2014). P.40917 Horrocks xviii18 Canefe 528

the present and future: “The unhistorical and the historical are necessary in equal measure for the

health of an individual, of a people and of a culture”.19

It is not just this emphasis on the past that Germany has focused on which has left the

Gastarbeiter behind; it is also the people involved in the past, those who do the remembering like

those in charge of museums, and those in the past whom we remember. When it comes to

cultural memory, it is always subjective because we experience them personally, and it can only

“be fully understood by… myself. In this sense, it belongs to me and, at the moment of its

occurrence, I am tempted to explain it by reference to myself and myself alone”.20 Even in terms

of cultural memory, felt by a group of people instead of one individual, there is a degree of

subjectivity because of how the individual relates to the culture, a personal connection. The

importance of this personal connection to one’s culture cannot be understated: “The collective

repression of this history is… critical to the reproduction of a key element of German

nationalism: the ideology of German ‘homogeneity’”.21 Quite simply, with the resuscitation of

German identity following the memory of World War II, there was a feeling of who were victims

of the War: we are the people who felt this catastrophe; we are the people who repented and are

better for it. The Gastarbeiter don’t belong with this group because they came to Germany after

World War II. “Germans are those [who] define themselves in terms of belonging by rejection of

a Nazi Past. A German citizen of Turkish background can hardly fully belong to such a

collective. He cannot use the common ‘we’ concerning the contaminated past of Germany. In

this sense, ius sanguinis is being prolonged by the rituals of memory and remembrance”.22 The

19 Olick 7520 Olick 14021 Smith 41222 Diner, Dan. “Nation, Migration and Memory: On Historical Concepts of Citizenship.” Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 4, no.3 (January 1998): 293. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (March 23, 2014). P.303

Gastarbeiter are part of a more modern Germany, post-World War II, and have been instrumental

in forming the new German citizen when, in the meantime, German museums are still focused on

overcoming the past.

With these reasons why the Gastarbeiter are not considered to be part of German cultural

memory, it is easier to understand how this plays in the case of museums. Why should museums

submit to this German cultural memory that some of its citizens believe, and why should there be

so little representation of the Gastarbeiter in museums? There are certainly different groups of

people who would believe different things, either that the Gastarbeiter do belong in cultural

memory or they don’t. But it’s because of those who have the power over museums, and make

the choice that the Gastarbeiter don’t belong, that the museums exclude the Gastarbeiter from

cultural memory. “The invention of national traditions or official histories is a highly selective,

politically charged, and ongoing process involving the construction of a unitary national history

from multiple, conflicting, and competing group memories”.23 There are different interests in

what gets remembered in German consciousness and what doesn’t, and those who are in charge

get to decide. It shows the power structure of German society and where the interests of those in

charge are oriented. They have the power to remember certain things in the past and forget

others, shaping the course of the future: “Dieser Zustand der Erinnerungslosigkeit ist Produkt der

Mehrheitsgesellschaft”.24 And these interests of the majority society are concerned with

organizing Germany’s collective Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

I do not imply that this was the wrong thing to do; it was logical for the majority society

to focus on overcoming the past because, following reunification in 1990 and the union of 17

million new Germans as one people, there was a change of German self-definition and patterns

23 Smith 39324 Motte

of memory.25 Germany was together, and needed to unite with a common history so that its

citizens could embrace the future that lay before Germany. Naturally, the starkest event that

could unite the majority of its citizens together was its Nazi past,26 events that had profound

effects on those involved as well as the children and grandchildren of those involved. The

problem inherent with focusing specifically on its Nazi past, though, was the conflict at the heart

of it, between the Jews and the Germans, which brought about subsequent questions about the

human condition. It focused on repenting towards one group, while ignoring other minority

groups; the binary nature of Jews and Germans in this historical event implied that immigrants

were excluded from this common history.27 Therefore, while Germany is moving on from its

guilt, the Gastarbeiter and their descendants have been denied their place in cultural memory.

Delving deeper into the role museums have with cultural memory in Germany, it is

interesting to note what takes place in specific museums. There are, as stated, hardly any

museums which are dedicated to immigration. Kreuzberg Museum, located in “Little Istanbul,”

the concentration of German-Turks in Berlin, is one of these few that discuss migration. But

even then, the one special exhibit that it has discusses how the area has been shaped by

immigrants rather than the experience of the immigrants themselves.28 Museum Neukölln, the

museum in another district of Berlin shaped by the immigrants who moved there, has one room

with a tiny collection of artifacts, no special exhibits, and nothing else. These two districts,

hotspots for immigrants in Germany's capital, have nothing dedicated to immigration to

Germany, hardly an encouraging sign. “Die großen Einrichtungen, die die Geschichte der Nation

abbilden wie das Deutsche Historische Museum, das Germanische Nationalmuseum, die Stiftung 25 Wilhelm, Cornelia. “Diversity in Germany: A Historical Perspective.” German Politics & Society 31, no.2 (Summer 2013): 13-29. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2014). P.2426 Eryilmaz 13127 Wilhelm 2428 “stadt-migration-geschichte: vom halleschen zum frankfurter tur.“ Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Museum. http://www.fhxb-museum.de/index.php?id=267#c393 (accessed March 24, 2014)

Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, sie alle haben die Geschichte der

Einwanderung stets nur auf Fußnoten reduziert“.29 It is not as if there is no discourse on

immigration to Germany, as seen from these examples. But the topic of immigration to

Germany, and the Gastarbeiter, is hardly done justice by these minimal exhibits.

This underrepresentation of a distinctive minority is inconsistent with Germany’s efforts

to overcome its past and portray itself as changed from the destructive nation it was in World

War II. There is still emphasis elsewhere, away from this major event that helped to stabilize

Germany’s economy and has given rise to Germany’s largest minority, the German-Turks. The

emphasis is, instead, on Germany’s homogenous unification after the horror of World War II,

which has been cultivated in Germany’s museums, the site of Germany’s cultural memory and

politics: “So gerecht der Ruf nach einem zentralen Migrationsmuseum in Deutschland auch

klingen mag, so wenig wurde er bislang von der deutschen Kulturpolitik erhört.... Fest steht: Die

museale Sicht auf gesellschaftliche Phänomene in Zeiten der Globalisierung ist ohne das

Querschnittsthema Migration nicht mehr denkbar“.30 To continue to deny this movement its

place in German culture is counter to Germany’s own history and the increasingly globalized

world we live in: a world of more information, greater transnational movement, and evolving

national identities.

It follows from this analysis of the role museums play in society, and how they have

overlooked one of the key events of modern German history, that there is something at fault with

the power structures within German society. After all, the museums have overlooked the

Gastarbeiter because of the majority society that is in charge of them, and this reflects the

29 Kiyak, Mely. “Das unerzählte Kapitel; Das Problem der Ausstellungen zur Geschichte der Gastarbeiter in Deutschland.“ Frankfurter Rundschau, 15 January 2011. http://www.lexisnexis.com (accessed February 25, 2014).30 Gogos, Manuel. “Schaut! Uns! An!; Unsere Städte sind Spielplätze Vereinter Nationen Migrationsausstellungen boomen: Wie die Globalisierung unsere Museumslandschaft verändert.“ Der Tagesspiegel, 10 January 2011. http://www.lexisnexis.com (accessed February 25, 2014).

mindset that the majority society retains. It is thus important to understand that these problems

are not rooted in the museums themselves, but in the society behind the museums. This is not to

suggest that society is totally oppressive of German-Turks, nor were they of the Gastarbeiter: “It

is true that as of 1 January 1991, the German nationality law was changed to accommodate the

principle of birth right (jus soli) in order to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship for

‘foreigners’ under specific conditions”.31 This was an important change to cause, which changed

conceptions of German nationality from purely blood right to birth right, though this change

came only 18 years after the Gastarbeiter movement had officially ended, and 30 years after it

began.

But the law does not account for the foreigners who came to Germany to work for the

Gastarbeiter movement: generally, upon reaching the age of twenty-three, a resident of Germany

with non-German parents must choose between either German citizenship or citizenship of

another country. In other words, they are still either German citizens or temporary guests to

Germany. This highlights the fact that Germany is slow to accept the fact that its society is in

fact very heterogeneous. German-Turks feel this acutely: “Eine deutsche Istanbulerin: ‘So lange

ich meine deutschsprachige Kultur hier leben kann, fühle ich mich wohl.‘ Eine türkische

Berlinerin: ‚Als Kennedy sagte: „Ich bin ein Berliner“, hat das die ganze Welt gehört. Wir sagen

seit Jahren, dass wir Berliner sind. Aber uns hört niemand“.32 The German-Turks who have lived

in Germany for three generations now are still, like their ancestors, viewed as guests: neither part

of German history, nor part of German society. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The effect that this has cannot be denied: German-Turks, today, are not incorporated into

German society because their ancestors are not remembered as part of Germany. They are

31 Canefe 52032 Kiyak

excluded: “In order to unite divided communities and claim national sovereignty through a

politically viable ‘national consciousness’, the field of culture needed to be ordered so that a new

'collective memory' could be created for what was to become a single unified Germany”.33

Germany has sought to unify itself from the horrors of its past, and though the intent is

honorable, the way this is done is not working. They have made themselves appear united into

the same land with common memories with the help of their museums, at the cost of suppressing

the memories of those who don’t belong, namely the Gastarbeiter. This has led to such modern

social unrest as Angela Merkel declaring in 2010 that multiculturalism in Germany has “absolut

gescheitert”.34

Bearing all of this in mind, the situation is not hopeless: there is still much that can be

done, and is being done. There are museums in Germany that have been hosting exhibits that

honor the Gastarbeiter and the immigrants that have moved to Germany, including the

Ruhrlandsmuseum in Essen, the Kölnischer Kunstverein in Cologne, Project Migration, and the

Museum of Migration in Germany.35 The Dokumentationszentrum und Museum über die

Migration in Deutschland (DOMiD) is a project founded by migrant Turkish intellectuals that

has compiled together many documents and memorabilia from the Gastarbeiter movement and

the rest of immigrant history into a library with over 12,000 titles.36 Moreover, greater change

can come about at the societal level: “A broader discourse on the social reality of Germany and

patterns of the construction of diversity, cultural difference, memory, and German identity

would… not only allow those who were or are immigrants to identify with the nation, but also

help Germans to understand their own identity as far more diverse and culturally different as 33 Canefe 52134 Süddeutsche Zeitung. “Merkel: ‘Multikulti ist absolut gescheitert’.” Süddeutsche.de. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/integration-seehofer-sieben-punkte-plan-gegen-zuwanderung-1.1012736 (accessed March 24, 2014)35 Eryilmaz 132-13636 Eryilmaz 133-134

frequently asserted by their collective memory”.37 Museums are the place where this cultural

memory conflict takes place, but with a change in a societal level, with increased dialogue and a

deeper understanding of Germany’s role as a nation of immigration, museums can change and do

justice to representing the Gastarbeiter.

The Gastarbeiter are underrepresented in museums in Germany, and as a consequence,

they and their descendants are not given their place in German cultural memory, society and

identity. This is due to a number of factors, all of which stem from Germany’s desire to focus its

memory on World War II and overcome this memory: the feeling of community that Germans

experienced World War II, and that the Gastarbeiter didn’t; the desire to restore Germany to the

‘romantic past’ it was thought to have before World War II, also before the Gastarbeiter were

present; and the word “Gastarbeiter” which implies its temporary nature, and the laws of birth

right that are in place and naturally exclude the Gastarbeiter. The museums are the focal point of

this underrepresentation more than other media, because they reflect the mindset of the dominant

majority in society. Though there are cases where museums do represent the Gastarbeiter, this is

few and far between. It is much more prevalent that the Gastarbeiter are briefly touched on

before giving way to other historical topics. This, in turn, omits the Gastarbeiter from cultural

memory, so that it seems even more apparent that they do not belong, and therefore their

descendants are viewed as not belonging to this society as well. There are projects and museums

that are seeking to change this power structure in Germany, but there is still a long way to go

before the museums begin to reflect the changes that society makes.

37 Wilhelm 26

SOURCES

Canefe, Nergis. “Citizens Versus Permanent Guests: Cultural Memory and Citizenship Laws in a Reunified Germany.” Citizenship Studies 2.3 (1998): 519. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Jan. 2014.

Eryilmaz, Aytac. "The Political and Social Significance of a Museum of Migration in Germany." Museum International 59.1 (2007): 127-36. Print.

Gogos, Manuel. “Schaut! Uns! An!; Unsere Städte sind Spielplätze Vereinter Nationen Migrationsaustellungen boomen: Wie die Globalisierung unsere Museumslandschaft verändert.“ Der Tagesspiegel. (Montag 10. Januar 2011): Lexisnexis Academic. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.

Horrocks, David, and Eva Kolinsky, eds. Turkish Culture in German Society Today. Berghahn Books: Providence, 1996. Print.

Kiyak, Mely. "Das unerzählte Kapitel; Das Problem der Ausstellungen zur Geschichte der Gastarbeiter in Deutschland." Frankfurter Rundschau. (15. Januar 2011): LexisNexis Academic. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Motte, Jan, and Rainer Ohliger. "Menschen ohne Geschichte?; Was weiß die Mehrheit der bundesdeutschen Gesellschaft über die Herkunft der Arbeitsmigranten? Und was weiß sie über ihre eigene Migrationsgeschichte? Welche Bilder verbindet sie damit? Der Einwanderungsgesellschaft ein Gedächtnis geben." taz, die tageszeitung. (07. Oktober 2002). LexisNexis Academic. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Smith, Andrea L. „Germany’s Anti-Foreigner Crisis: State Disunity and Collective ‚Forgetting‘.“ Journal of Historical Sociology 7.4 (1994): 393. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Jan. 2014.

Stephan, Tobias. "50 Jahre geteilte Erinnerung; Es gibt Auswanderermuseen - aber keine für die Einwanderer. Erst langsam finden die Geschichten von deutschtürkischen Künstlern Eingang ins kollektive Bewusstsein." ZEIT-online. (30. Oktober 2011): LexisNexis Academic. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Wilhelm, Cornelia. “Diversity in Germany: A Historical Perspective.” German Politics & Society 31.2 (2013): 13-29. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Jan. 2014.