Keywords

1 Background of the Discourse Analysis of Key Concepts in the German Migration Debate

The concept of “diversity” as the overarching theme of this anthology has been used more often recently in Germany in arts education discourse when it comes to the issue of migration. At the same time, however, it is emphasised that diversity not only refers to origin but to various personality characteristics, for example, in the context of the equal rights movement, to “six core dimensions of diversity”, which also draws on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the year 2000 (European Parliament 2000): age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic and cultural affiliation, religion and disability. Principally and originally, diversity refers to the “diversity of species” (Salzbrunn 2014: 8) and has its origins in biology (Buß 2010: 124). Not least the activities of UNESCO have more closely linked diversity to cultural issues, for example, in 1996 in the UNESCO report “Our Creative Diversity” (UNESCO 1996) of the World Commission “Culture and Development”, in 2001 in Paris with the “Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity” (UNESCO 2001) analogously to the biological diversity of nature or in 2005 in the “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions” (UNESCO 2005).

Fundamentally, the concept of diversity merely points out existing differences without judging them, explaining them or postulating a specific political call for action, in contrast, for example, to the concept of “inclusion”, which emphasises as a human right the equal participation of all (United Nations 2006).

The concept of “integration” is viewed as embodying an opposing political goal of action to that of inclusion (Keuchel 2016a: 25). Integration represents not the notion of providing equal opportunities to participate and to shape but of integrating someone in something that already exists, i.e. incorporating the individual into an existing system of rules and action. By politically recognising the status of Germany as a country of immigration, debates on the integration of immigrants and their descendants in Germany have gained in significance. This can be seen in the National Integration Plan (Federal Government of Germany 2007), for example, which was also taken into account within the scope of this study.

Another key concept addressed in the German migration debate is the concept of “Kulturelle Vielfalt” (“cultural diversity”). For the purposes of understanding, it should be noted here that the English and internationally standard term “diversity” can, depending on the context, sometimes be translated as “Diversität” and sometimes as “Vielfalt” in German (cf. Salzbrunn 2014: 8). The difference lies primarily in the fact that “Diversität” takes into focus fundamental differences such as gender or physical disabilities and is not limited to cultural differences like the term “Kulturelle Vielfalt” on the basis of the composition of the term alone.

Similar applies to the terms polyculturality or multiculturality. These terms also assume the existence of a diversity of different cultures as given, a parallel existence of cultures “that exist together in a (however defined) space of mutual awareness” (Keuchel and Wagner 2012: 252). This concept leaves open the manner or extent in which the cultures interact or act. A unique feature for German speakers within the context of this terminology can be found in the term “Multikulti”, a trivialising abbreviated form of “Multikulturalität” (“multiculturality”), which has established itself in discourse and is often used in a pejorative sense. A statement that has since achieved proverbial status in Germany made by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2010 “Multikulti ist gescheitert” (“multiculturality has failed”), made in reference to (not sufficiently fulfilled) integration goals, is illustrative of this. As a result of this high-profile devaluation of the term multiculturalism, it is to be assumed that it resulted in a discursive void, one that is also reflected in discussions on arts education. The still relatively rarely used concept of “polyculture”, which alone due to the equivalence of meaning in the respective prefix follows on from the concept of multiculture, can be viewed as an attempt to insert a politically and socially unconsumed word into this void.

The concept of interculturality also serves to shape the debate on the issue of migration in Germany. This concept, introduced into the German language by Husserl (1931/1973: 233) and established within the scope of internationalisation in the 1920s, particularly in the USA (Bolten 2018), is increasingly gaining in significance in German discourse in the wake of increasingly critical voices of the concept of multiculturality (cf. Müller-Jacquier 2004; Moosmüller 2007; Elberfeld 2008; Rathje 2009). Both terms share the cultural dimension. The difference between these terms is that unlike multiculturality, interculturality takes the view that the parallel existence and mutual perception of cultures are not sufficient, instead positing that there should always also be interactions between cultures.

Another concept has established itself within this controversial discourse, the concept of transculturality by Wolfgang Welsch (1999). It emphasises an opposing point of view to interculturality, one of “overlays” and mixing of cultural phenomena. The tenets of this concept assert that there are no “pure cultures” that exist in parallel or enter into a dialogue with one another but instead diverse mixtures (Conti 2011).

Another concept that features in this discourse, which originates from American literature and art critique and has become known in Germany among other things thanks to “post-migrant theatre” (Sharifi 2015: 249) by the German theatre maker Shermin Langhoff, is that of post-migration (ibid). The acknowledgement of Germany as a country of immigration not only leads as a consequence to discourse on integration but also to debates on the acknowledgement of a “new normality”, which are pointedly framed using the still relatively new concept of the “post-migrant”.

“The prefix ‘post’ hereby represents” according to Naika Foroutan “not the end of migration, but instead describes social negotiation processes that take place in the phase after migration” (Foroutan 2015). The term also refers to the often-neglected fact that migration describes a temporary state, while the “migrant background” of immigrants and their descendants remains a generally common characterising description of members of society.

The previously discussed key concepts surrounding the issue of migration make clear the wide range of perspectives, attitudes and evaluations within German discourse.

2 Objectives, Questions and Methodology of the Discourse Analysis

The objective of this discourse analysis is to examine the role the above outlined key concepts play regarding the issue of migration in German arts education discourse. Are there specific terms in arts education that are employed particularly often? What position do actors in arts education take with regard to the individual terms? For example, are some terms also discussed or debated controversially? And which resulting actions are associated with which respective terms, particularly when it comes to culture and arts education?

In view of the heterogeneity of the field, different actor groups in the German arts education landscape will be included. The question posed here is whether there are differences in the use of the concepts and the resulting action in the different fields of arts education such as politics, practice or science.

2.1 On the Study Design and Methodology

This discourse analysis will examine the use of nine selected key concepts, including possible variants (truncated form, e.g. divers*, integr*, etc.), in texts that address the issue of migration in German arts education discourse. The following key concepts were examined: cultural diversity, diversity, inclusion, integration, interculturality, multiculturality, polyculturality, post-migration and transculturality.

The timeframe for the study was set to 2007–2017. A longer timeframe was chosen purposely for the publication dates of the respective texts in light of the previously expressed suspicion that individual concepts lose and gain in significance over the course of the migration debate.

2.2 On the Selection of the Actor Groups

To do justice to the heterogeneity of the German arts education landscape in the broadest sense and to enable an explorative insight, four different actor groups were selected for observation: researchers, practitioners, professional representatives and politicians, though it must be stated that it was often not possible to draw these distinctions cleanly. For example, researchers and practitioners are also active in the field of lobbying, while researchers are commissioned by politics to develop strategic concepts for a federal state or a municipality. In such ambiguous cases, context was considered, as well as the factors of where the author published and the respective point of view the author presented, whether the author was operating as an independent researcher, the chairperson of an association or, for example, as a contractor for politics.

The group of researchers included professors and research assistants at universities and institutions of higher learning or other (educational) institutions, as well as freelance researchers who, irrespective of their employment status, have distinguished themselves at the time of publication through their academic expertise.

The actor group of practitioners consisted of people who were organisationally, implementationally or administratively directly rooted within the field of and on the supply side of arts education.

The group of professional representatives studied people who, at the time of the respective publication, were a member of an association relevant to the field of arts education who, for example, published statements or position papers.

The actor group of politics was primarily comprised not of political public officials or elected representatives but of natural persons and legal entities who, according to their activity or legal form, could be attributed directly to government agencies, federal offices or public federal institutions and who were involved in the publication of the respective text within this context. Arts education in the political field is a classic cross-sectional issue that touches upon various departments, and it is thus relatively rare for it to be the central focus of political position papers or action and development plans.

With the exception of the actor group of politics, authors were only included if they possessed both relevant expertise in the field of arts education and migration, to ensure that the texts collected here were relevant to the domestic specialist discourse. The decision on whether a relevant specialist focus is given or not was taken on the basis of available biographies of the respective authors.

2.3 On the Selection of the Textual Corpus

A total of 19 texts were analysed with a total scope of 38,431 words. For reasons of practicality, available digital texts were used for the study, which enabled automatic searches for the key concepts.

The texts consisted of articles on specialist platforms, in digitalised journals from interest groups in culture and in arts education, and chapters from relevant specialist publications available in digital form from researchers, associations or government agencies.

In addition to digital availability, further selection criteria were used for the selection of the texts:

  • Study timeframe was to be mapped out as evenly as possible not only in the overall sample but also within the individual actor groups.

  • At least four different texts of each actor and group.

  • Comparable scope (word count) among the individual actor groups.

2.4 On the Explorative Nature of the Study

The planned study had an explorative aspiration from the very start. Due to the timeframe and limited funding framework, a manageable number of texts were selected for examination. This situation poses challenges both to selecting and narrowing down the object of study as well as for the subsequent analysis, which should be taken into consideration when it comes to interpreting the subsequently illustrated results, which are not representative. This is particularly due to the following factors:

  • The difficulty in drawing distinctions between the authors in terms of the respective actor groups is primarily due to the dual functions of the authors.

  • The actor groups exhibited a very diverse publication behaviour (researchers and lobbyists publish a lot unlike practitioners).

  • The attribution of resulting action to specific key concepts (the texts often addressed multiple key concepts and often specified precise resulting actions for culture and arts education at the end of the texts).

If it was not possible to attribute specific resulting actions to a specific term, then these resulting actions were not included in the explorative evaluation.

This German specialist discourse analysis can, however, illustrate relationships and trends in the discourse with results that are clear and unambiguous. Only such clear findings will be presented in detail hereinafter and will be drawn on in the final conclusion.

3 On the Results of the Discourse Analysis

The examined texts, with an overall word count of 38,431 words, contained a total of 571 words that were attributable to the previously defined key concepts. In terms of the examined actor groups, it was observed that proportionately, the respective key concepts were found especially frequently in texts of special interest groups (Table 1 and Fig. 1).

Table 1 Absolute frequency and concentration of key concepts according to actor groups
Full size table
Fig. 1
The histogram depicts the distribution of key concepts in the sample. It is based on special interest groups, politics, practice, science, and total. Intercult tops the position followed by Integrat.

Distribution of key concepts in the sample

Full size image

The most commonly featured concept in the examined texts, with a share of 46%, is the concept of interculturality, while some way behind in second place is the concept of integration (27%), as can be seen in the following overview:

The concepts of diversity (9%), cultural diversity (7%), multiculturality (6%) and transculturality (4%) appear far less frequently, while the concepts of post-migration (1%) and inclusion (1%) appear least often. The comparatively infrequent use of the concepts of cultural diversity (9%) and inclusion (1%) by special interest groups is a surprise. Arts education in Germany emerged in the 1970s from extracurricular practice to establish itself as a separate field with its own set of values (cf. Liebau and Zirfas 2004: 579). A key fundamental principle of this set of values is the emphasis on a “common understanding of cultural diversity and inclusion” (Schorn 2009: 9.), just like many other specialist texts that equally stress inclusion as a key principle of cultural education in Germany (cf. Keuchel 2016a, b).

Special interest groups also used the concept of integration (31%) surprisingly often, second only to the concept of interculturality (52%). Both concepts share the assumption of existing cultural differences between different groups. The term integration implies, as previously stated, the political call to action of “integrating”, that is, the implication of one group adapting to or assimilating into another group. This stands in fundamental contradiction to the approach of inclusion as an underlying principle of arts education (cf. Institut für Kulturpolitik der Kulturpolitischen Gesellschaft 2014: 8, Keuchel 2016a). In Sect. 3.2 on the evaluation of the concepts, there will accordingly be an analysis carried out to ascertain whether the concept of “inclusion” is being favoured or rejected by special interest groups in the texts.

The concept of “interculturality” (59%) is also employed very frequently in practitioners’ texts. The concept of integration, meanwhile, is employed much less frequently in practice (16%). The concept of “multiculturality” (12%) is also used selectively by practitioners.

Clearer differences in how key concepts are drawn on can be diagnosed in the scientific texts, particularly in terms of the broader range of concepts used within such texts. The concept of interculturality also finds itself proportionately referenced the most with 34%, while the concept of diversity features in second place (24%) and the concept of integration (18%) in third. The more frequent use of the concept of transculturality (11%) in comparison to the other actor groups is also noteworthy.

The fact that terms such as transculturality, post-migrant or diversity are used almost exclusively in scientific texts could also be attributed to the fact that these terms, in comparison to the other key concepts mentioned here, have only emerged recently. For example, Wolfgang Welsch coined the term transculturality in 1992 (Blum-Barth 2016: 114, cf. Welsch 1999), while the term post-migration has only established itself recently (cf. Foroutan 2015, Sharifi 2015). While the concept of diversity has been prevalent longer in the Anglo-American sphere, it has only been picked up recently in German discourse. It may be the case that concepts that have emerged in scientific environments require a certain amount of time to establish themselves in practical discourse.

3.1 Use of the Terms Over Time

A marked difference can be observed in the use of the terms over time. The clearest illustration of this was seen in the concepts of interculturality, integration and diversity (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
The histogram depicts for frequency of the appearance of key concepts with the timeline in which the texts were written. The years are 2007 to 2009, 2010 to 2014, 2015 to 2017.

Frequency of the appearance of key concepts, differentiated according to the period in which the texts were written

Full size image

This figure shows that the use of the term integration has declined significantly since 2010. This may be consistent with controversial subsequent political debates, which were not least also initiated by the establishment of new key concepts such as transculturality or post-migration. Even if these terms haven’t (yet) imposed themselves in their use in arts education discourse according to the available results, they do postulate a different understanding of immigration policy, one that is less about integrating and instead focuses on the notion of a wide range of actor groups jointly shaping culture without hereby reducing the concepts to their connotation of migration (cf. Kolland 2015, Yildiz and Hill 2017).

The term interculturality is used proportionately particularly frequently between 2010 and 2014. This could be related to the critical evaluation of the term “multiculturality” or “Multikulti” (cf. Schirilla 2013) in Germany. With regard to the referenced devaluation of the multiculturality term in the German public sphere, it would be interesting to examine whether the term had experienced greater propagation in relevant texts of arts education prior to the period of study, such as in the 1990s or 1980s.

Unlike the concept of post-migration, the concepts of diversity and selectively also the concept of transculturality have featured more frequently in recent discourse, though for the most part in the scientific texts examined here. This poses the subsequent question as to whether the concepts of diversity and transculturality, like interculturality, will become more established in practice and politics over time.

3.2 On the Evaluation of the Terms in the Texts

How are the key concepts used in the texts? Are they subject to critical discussion (in terms of individual sub-aspects), rejected, viewed in a positive light or used in a neutral context?

Overall, it can be said that a longer established terminology is more prone to being used in a critical (not just positive) light than a terminology that is still less established or relatively new in arts education discourse, such as the terms “transculturality”, “post-migration” or “diversity”, which are used – while not often at all, generally speaking – solely in an uncritical light. The term inclusion is also solely used in uncritical contexts in the texts. The term most likely to be mentioned in a critical light is the term integration (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
The sidebar graph illustrates the critical commentary of key concepts in the texts which include uncritical, critical in part, positive in part, and critical. Uncritical occupies more compared with others.

Critical commentary of the key concepts in the texts

Full size image

When differentiating between critical comments of key concepts from the various actor groups, it is noticeable that scientific actors are much more likely to voice criticism of the concept of “integration” (3/4 of examined texts) and of the other terms than special interest groups.

The findings so far support the assumption that individual concepts stand contrary to one another in their appraisal, for example, the concepts of integration and inclusion. This will be examined in the following to a degree by way of a correlation analysis, which will examine the relationship between the terms (Table 2).

Table 2 Correlations between the evaluations of the terms
Full size table

The table above illustrates two positive, significant relationships: the first between multiculturality and interculturality and the second between inclusion and transculturality.

The former relationship could be ascribed to the fact that there is a cultural dimension inherent in both key concepts. Both concepts assume homogenous cultural groups in the broadest sense that perceive one another, face one another or enter into a dialogue with one another.

Since the concept of integration consists of the implicit notion of separation between in-group and out-group with considerable differences in legitimacy, while the concept of transculturality is inherently a post-modern cultural term characterised by equivalence, it is quite reasonable that the term transculturality should correlate with the term inclusion. At the same time, the term “inclusion” tends to stand contrary in the nature of its use to the concept of integration in the examined texts.

3.3 On the Specific Cultural Resulting Actions Linked to the Key Concepts

The following overview shows that there are both key concepts that are linked very strongly to specific action, and those that are not associated with any cultural action at all, like the terms multiculturality or post-migration. The fact that no resulting action is derived from the concept of multiculturality is hardly surprising considering the concept by its self-conception assumes the parallel existence of cultural spaces. Post-migration, meanwhile, is a very abstract concept, and so its inherent complexity may impede the ability to derive specific resulting action from it (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
The sidebar graph presents the no concretisation of cultural action. The calculated features are total, science, practice, politics, and special interest group.

No concretisation of specific cultural action with regard to the respective key concepts in the examined texts

Full size image

With the exception of one text, which comes from the group of practitioners, the concept of inclusion did not yield any specific resulting action in culture and arts education. The specific example contained the rather vague demand of thinking of more content-related arts education concepts from the strength orientation of migrant target groups, for example, multilingualism or everyday translation services. Apart from the specific dismantling of barriers for persons with disabilities, such as including sign language interpreters or creating structural access to buildings for wheelchairs, inclusion remains, also with regard to people with a migrant background, unspecific when it comes to implementation, i.e. it begins with the individual.

Specific resulting action in terms of culture and arts education with regard to the concept of integration is most likely to be formulated in texts from politics. In accordance with the demands of politics, it is focused especially on improving the interplay between art, culture and other measures of integration such as language training. It is to be supported through artistic, aesthetic means, for example, through music, singing or with formats like learning German in a museum (Keuchel and Weil 2010). The underlying, indirect notion is naturally to help migrants become acquainted with the culture of the host country. It became the subject of a controversial discourse in Germany on the so-called “Leitkultur” (“guiding culture”) (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2017). Within this context, other demands are geared towards achieving a greater target group reach, for example, improving the targeting and involvement of migrants who are to be familiarised with the host country’s cultural customs – positively in the sense of cultural participation.

In reference to previously outlined concerns, demands are being formulated for these new tasks concerning the training of staff in education, teaching and (culture) pedagogy. These demands can be found both in political texts and in those of special interest groups. Furthermore, political actors recommend incorporating more key figures with a migrant background when targeting target groups. Interest groups, in turn, are emphasising the need to establish suitable financial and political framework conditions for the implementation of integrative measures in culture and arts education.

In terms of transculture and diversity, specific resulting action is most likely to be found in scientific texts.

All resulting action related to transculturality is aimed at the substantive level of education and culture work. It levels the specific demand of developing transcultural education concepts, which up to now have hardly been reflected in actual arts education practice. This is not a surprise since, judging by the results of the discourse analysis, the concept of transculturality is in many cases still not being used at a conceptual level.

Within the context of “diversity”, the demand for specific staffing requirements, in addition to the training of staff, other content and a larger target group reach, is being voiced specifically for the first time in the sense that diversity should also be represented among staff. This demand within the context of the concept of diversity is consistent insofar as, unlike concepts such as multiculturality or transculturality, this concept does not inherently imply any cultural patterns of interpretation. The term multiculturality, for example, considers it irrelevant to intervene in staffing structures or content, since it holds that a wealth of cultures exists side by side in different spaces. Equally, the only consequences that arise from the concept of transculturality are those related to the development of new arts education concepts that teach how cultural influences blend and overlap. Staff ramifications are not necessary in this case since differentiated representatives for specific cultures do not exist.

Within the context of the term “cultural diversity”, the demands for action levelled also refer almost exclusively to content-related consequences. Cultural diversity should be reflected accordingly in the education concepts and, unlike with transculturality, in the cultural offer. It is also the source of the demand to instigate fundamental change in the organisational structures of cultural institutions without explaining this in greater detail. A voluntary commitment of the institutions and of the individual to learn more about cultural diversity is advised, however without explicitly levelling the demand for training for staff. Incorporating cultural diversity is thus possibly not viewed as a paradigm change in the arena of culture but more as a change in attitude, for example, in terms of the range of cultural understanding.

The term interculturality, meanwhile, is associated with the formulation of the most specific action for culture and arts education, particularly in politics.

In practice, this concept seems so far to be the most effective when it comes to deriving specific strategies for action for the field of culture and arts education (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
The sidebar graph presents the specific intercultural resulting action. In specific intercultural consequences staff training and other tops the position with more than 0.15.

Specific intercultural resulting action for culture and arts education in the texts

Full size image

Just as in the case of “diversity”, resulting action in the field of culture can be found at all levels: The most commonly voiced demand was for consequences for content, followed by increasing target group reach and, thirdly, the call for concrete staffing consequences. The focus in all cases is on a dialogical and mediating integration of different cultures, particularly that of the host country and the migrant countries of origin, which should be adequately reflected in publicly funded cultural life. Such a demand is consequently levelled in individual texts in terms of the appropriate consideration of employing people with a migration background among staff. A further specific demand in the context of “interculturality” addresses the involvement of autonomous migration organisations in the culture sector in terms of possibilities for support and funding.

4 Conclusion

Key concepts in the German migration debate are drawn upon in arts education discourse. The key concept that is currently most widespread within arts education is that of interculturality. A glance at the temporal dimension, however, has already indicated a decline in its use.

Differences can be noted in the frequency of the use of various notions in miscellaneous actor groups in arts education. A pattern has emerged whereby key concepts are initially discussed in scientific discourse and then subsequently taken up by professional representatives and politicians. Practitioners have subsequently shown themselves to align more closely with the vocabulary of their professional representatives.

The propagation of these terms is not only dependent on the temporal dimension, i.e. on when they become established in the academic field, but also on specific evaluations of individual actor groups. This was illustrated perfectly by the concept of multiculturality, which in German politics was considered “failed” (Malik 2015) about 10 years ago, and subsequently hardly plays any role in the texts over the course of the timeframe employed here.

The key concepts were generally viewed differently in the different actor groups; however, the group of practitioners does not itself actively appraise these terms, using them largely without reflection. Science itself is the most critical in this respect, particularly in respect to terms that manifest cultural differences within groups such as multiculturality or interculturality. The concept viewed most critically by the actors in the arts education sector is the concept of integration. The field of politics views the term more positively, which is possibly due to the fact that it can be more easily translated into statutory framework conditions than to cultural.

This analysis could not clarify the point in time when terms in academic discourse are carried over into other fields. Despite the longer existence of the terms transculturality, diversity and post-migration in academic circles, with the exception of diversity, it is very rare for any of these terms to be carried over into other fields of arts education. Another possible influencing factor can be found in the practicability of these terms for developing specific cultural action.

The discourse analysis has shown that there are some key concepts that are not associated with specific cultural action, such as the concepts of multiculturality or post-migration and, generally speaking, inclusion. This can be attributed to the fact that these terms are either of a descriptive nature, denoting a certain state that is not, in of itself, subject to scrutiny, or rather they denote a specific stance instead of necessitating concrete measures or indeed just stimulate what is still a very open discourse.

In this discourse analysis, specific action was demanded for art and culture particularly in reference to the concept of interculturality. This also applied in some measure to the term diversity, which possibly also explains why this concept has gained in significance over time in the texts.

The term interculturality was especially associated with the formulation of the most resulting action for culture and arts education, and this is despite the fact that this term tends to be viewed critically within science. This may be an indication that the substantive relevance of the concepts in terms of a realistic model of society is not necessarily synonymous with the practicability of the terms. It may therefore be helpful to emphasise individual aspects in practice, such as the cultural difference between specific groups in this case, in order to be able to develop countermeasures, even if cultural differences in this pointed form do not even exist.

In conclusion, this shows that key concepts can lead to different perspectives and thus different resulting actions. It can therefore be very useful to use different key concepts and thus different perspectives to be able to represent reality as accurately as possible.