This synopsis is based on the full paper available here: paper
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the two Germanys were united in 1990, the historiography of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) that was written in unified Germany has often been shaped by narratives emphasizing censorship, repression, and the broader authoritarian nature of the socialist regime. These dominant narratives, particularly influential after German unification, have frequently drawn on Cold War frameworks that contrast the “restrictive East” with the “liberated West”, reinforcing familiar binaries in historical discourse. While these accounts capture significant aspects of the GDR’s political structures and constraints, they risk oversimplifying the complex social realities of everyday life under socialism. Recognizing these diverse narratives does not deny the existence of political repression but instead aims to add nuance to the historical understanding of East German life, making space for voices and perspectives often marginalized in broader, Western-dominated accounts.
In response to rather reductive historical accounts, this paper proposes the application of Alltagsgeschichte (everyday history) (see e.g., Lüdtke, 1989) as a critical tool to challenge the prevailing historiographical narratives. Emerging in the 1980s within German historiography, Alltagsgeschichte offers a method of historical inquiry that shifts attention away from elite-centric and top-down narratives, instead focusing on the lived experiences of ordinary people. It reframes history by seeking out and incorporating the perspectives of those often excluded from traditional accounts, emphasizing the importance of people’s quotidian agency. This approach can be understood as a form of ‘translation’, not in the linguistic sense, but as a metaphor for reinterpreting history by including marginalized voices. Just as translation involves capturing the nuances of one language in another and introducing new elements into target cultures, Alltagsgeschichte seeks to capture the subtleties of everyday life that are often overlooked in grand political narratives. This means moving from a focus on broad political structures to the micro-level of daily life, effectively translating history into a more diverse and human-centered account that challenges dominant ideological narratives.
This paper applies Alltagsgeschichte to the history of translation practices in the GDR, using the profession of translators and interpreters as a case study to explore how these individuals navigated their professional roles within the constraints of a socialist society. So far, while there are of course exceptions (Pokorn, 2012, for example), there is a tendency in (translation) history to commonly base research on mostly written documents, such as archive documents, original texts, translations or paratexts (see e.g., most entries in Rundle, 2021; Rizzi et al., 2019). Such documents, unless deeply personal such as letters or diaries, however, often fail to reveal subjective experiences. For distant histories, they may be our only sources, but for recent eras like the GDR, different kinds of oral sources such as interviews or testimonies offer a possibility to embellish text-based analysis with rich, first-hand accounts, to capture a dimension that otherwise would remain invisible. This is particularly salient when challenging and nuancing the East-West narrative, where tapping into contemporary witnesses’ stories can unlock additional layers of understanding.
Translation in politically charged contexts like the GDR is often portrayed as an activity strictly shaped by ideological directives. Much research has focused on the role of censorship, examining the ways particularly literary translators were compelled to self-censor and conform to state expectations or exploring moments of subtle resistance against these constraints. While valid, this focus can also reinforce the narrative that censorship was an ever-present and all-encompassing force, overshadowing the ways that many translators and interpreters simply carried out their professional tasks without constantly negotiating or being influenced by state control. By highlighting the personal experiences and perspectives of those who worked in this field, this study aims to offer a more nuanced narrative of translation as a profession—and translators as professionals—within a socialist regime, one that recognizes the routine, everyday nature of much of their work, rather than assuming that ideology dominated every aspect of their practice.
Contrary to established narratives, many GDR translators and interpreters report that censorship was not a defining or dominant aspect of their work. Instead, they underscore instances where personal judgement, reflecting their own critical interpretations rather than rigid ideological directives, guided their translation decisions. Such accounts complicate predominant narratives of oppression and censorship, revealing that translation in socialist contexts was not merely an extension of state machinations but was also marked by professional pride and creative ingenuity. Outside the realm of literary translation, specialized translators and interpreters mostly operated beyond the reach of censorship mechanisms. These individuals frequently recounted supportive work environments marked by reasonable timelines, stable professional fees secured through negotiating bodies, and a high social regard for their roles. Consequently, the societal shift from a socialist GDR to a capitalist Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) after unification spelled considerable hardships for many of these individuals and challenged their adaptability amid newfound economic pressures and diminishing professional recognition. The personal stories gathered in this study illuminate a complex picture of what freedom meant within these contrasting systems. In some cases, the security and predictability of the GDR were perceived as empowering, a stark contrast to the newfound uncertainties faced in the capitalist FRG. Such narratives compel us to reexamine entrenched categorizations like the “liberated West” versus the “restrictive East”, alongside shifting perceptions of autonomy and stability.
In conclusion, this paper calls for a reevaluation of how we construct historical narratives, particularly in relation to the Cold War era. Alltagsgeschichte helps to translate history by shifting our focus from grand political structures to the everyday actions of individuals, highlighting the subtleties of personal agency within larger historical contexts. By concentrating on small-scale, everyday decisions, Alltagsgeschichte offers a more granular and detailed account of history, one that emphasizes the complexities of life in the GDR beyond the binary of East versus West. In doing so, it challenges the simplistic narratives of ideological confrontation that dominate popular understandings of the Cold War era. Rather than simply viewing the GDR as a monolithic regime of control, Alltagsgeschichte allows us to see the lived realities of individuals within the GDR and, as in all regimes, recognize their capacity to negotiate, adapt, and assert their identities within the constraints of their political environment.
