hrsg. von Michael Göhlich und Eckart Liebau 17

Benjamin JörissenLisa UnterbergLeopold KlepackiJuliane EngelViktoria FlascheTanja Klepacki(eds.)

WA X M A N N

Spectra ofTransformationArts Education Researchand Cultural Dynamics

Erlanger Beiträge zur Pädagogikhrsg. von Michael Göhlich und Eckart Liebau

17

Erlanger Beiträge zur Pädagogikedited by

Michael Göhlich and Eckart Liebau

Vol. 17

© Waxmann Verlag GmbH | for private use only

Benjamin Jörissen, Lisa Unterberg,Leopold Klepacki, Juliane Engel,

Viktoria Flasche, Tanja Klepacki (eds.)

Spectra of Transformation

Arts Education Research and Cultural Dynamics

Waxmann 2018Münster · New York


Publication sponsored by VolkswagenStiftung

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in theDeutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic dataare available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

Print-ISBN 978-3-8309-3713-5E-Book-ISBN 978-3-8309-8713-0

© Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2018Steinfurter Straße 555, 48159 Münster, Germany

[email protected]

Cover Design: Christian Averbeck, MünsterCover Photo: “Angel” by Ricardo GomezTypesetting: satz&sonders GmbH, DülmenPrint: CPI books GmbH, LeckPrinted on age-resistant paper, acid-free as per ISO 9706

www.fsc.org

MIXPapier aus verantwor-tungsvollen Quellen

FSC® C083411

®

Printed in Germany

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording orotherwise without permission in writing from the copyright holder.


Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Theoretical Perspectives

Leopold Klepacki, Tanja KlepackiProcesses of Cultural Tradition and Transformation from anEducational Science Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Hannelore BublitzSpectra and Dynamics of Social and Cultural TransformationTransformations of Contemporary Culture, Work and Power . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Benjamin Jörissen, Lisa UnterbergDigital Cultural EducationThe Capability of Cultural Education Facing Digital Tansformation . . . . . . 31

Marc HillSpace for Visions: Urban Life as Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Catarina S. MartinsThe Alchemies of the Arts in EducationProblematizing some of the Ingredients of the Recipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Teunis IJdensStudying Arts Education Policy and GovernanceConcepts and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Insights

Tuula JääskeläinenPlotA Space for Transformation in the Intercultural Research Process . . . . . . . . 89

Zofia MałkowiczBlurred affiliationsTransformation Between Fields of Art, Science and Humanities: Casesof Artistic Research and Arts-based Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95


6 Contents

Anna-Carolin WeberThe Spectra of Post-digital TransformationTracing The Haptic Field – a Protocol of Facing Error, Dysfunction andNoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Martha Karoline SchröderTransformation of MuseumsWhat Happens if the Exhibits are Digital Objects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Luise ReitstätterInclusive Museum Strategies that Make a DifferenceFrom Easy-to-Read to Learning German at the Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Esther Ropón MesaThe Transformational Dynamics of Orchestras in the 21st CenturyThe New Socio-educational Functions of Symphonic Orchestras . . . . . . . . . 125

Vanessa FriedbergerFrom Artist to Pedagogue?The Idea of Transformation in the Course of a Qualification Programfor Vocal Artists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Egge Kulbok-LattikCommunity HousesModern Cultural and Political Public Space in Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Fabian Hofmann, Sarah KuschelArts Education and TransformationsChallenges for Sensitised Perspectives and Methodological FurtherDevelopments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

The authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165


Preface

It is evident that we are living in highly transformative times. Transformations onmajor cultural and societal scales, such as economical, digital- and media-related, en-vironmental, migrational changes, are vastly changing people’s liveworlds and everydayexperiences on a global scale. These transformations affect edcuational systems, poli-cies and the conditions of pedagogical thinking and working, as they change aestheticpractices, from (mostly informal) everyday practices to (more institutionalized) artis-tic ways, means, and conditions of work.

Those both fields of change – educational and aesthetic /artistic – evidently in-terfere in the realms of aesthetic, arts and cultural education. With regards to artseducation, the last decade has been a time where the challenges of the Seoul-Agendagoals met the challenges of the disruptive changes mentioned above – which in factonly underlines the importance of a global, intercultural discourse and exchange inarts education research as well as practice.

While we tend to look at major transformations by defining them as rather isolatedissues – such as “the phenomenon of digitalization” –, it nowadays appears clearly thatthose processes are deeply intertwined, and have to be understood in and through theirrelatedness. For example, digitalization may hardly be understood without regard toeconomical globalization; political changes may hardly be understood without regardto digitalization; migration, of course, is tied to political and economical conditions,but evidently ever more related to digital (mobile) media and their capability of castlyspreading information within seconds, from virtually every place on earth.

In this spirit, the core idea of the international winter school “Spectra of Trans-formation”, which took place in February 2017 at the Friedrich-Alexander-UniversitätErlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, was to look at the effects and impacts of those multi-ple global transformational dynamics not as isolated phenomena, but to explore thosein interrelated perspectives. In many keynotes and workshops, transformations dueto migration /postmigration, digitalization, policy /governance, visual culture, trans-formative images and imagineries of arts education, and the research methodologiesrequired to make the traces of transformational dynamics in (educational and every-day) practice visible have been deeply explored and discussed over a term of three days,especially regarding the research (PhD) projects of our participants.

Encompassing practical, institutional, empirical and theoretical perspectives, thisconference mainly driven by the many very elaborated and also critical inputs of thecongregated young researchers, provided broad and rich insights to us, and hopefullyto our participants. The volume presented here shows some of the results and devel-opments as an aftermath of this event. We hope it will contribute as an inspiration tothe international arts education discourses. A very special thanks goes to our partic-


8 Preface

ipating researchers (most of whom contributed to this volume), to our cooperationpartners, the Erlangen UNESCO-Chair for Arts and Culture in Education, the Euro-pean Network of Observatories in Arts Education (related to UNESCO), to our criticalfriends from the German Netzwerk Forschung Kulturelle Bildung – namely ProfessorDr. Fabian Hofmann and Sarah Kuschel – and, last not least, to our teammates whokindly took the efforts to prepare this volume, PD Dr. Leopold Klepacki and Dr. LisaUnterberg.

The winter school “Spectra of Transformation”, as well as this publication, has beenmade possible by a grant of the Volkswagen Foundation.

Benjamin Jörissen, Erlangen, March 2018


Theoretical Perspectives


Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformationfrom an Educational Science Perspective

Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki

It initially appears self-evident that globalisation, digitalisation, economisation, trans-culturalisation etc. are not only contemporary cultural phenomena but appear as pro-cesses happening over time, and thus trigger social and cultural changes. However,how these processes happen as transformations of cultural and social structures andpatterns and the extent to which these transformations include or generate dynamicsaffecting even individual lives (see Schimank /Volkmann 2017) 1 seem open to a differ-entiated analysis only if a concept of transformation adequate to the topic is generatedfirst. Furthermore, if one assumes that transformations can only happen to somethingwhich already (latently or manifestly) exists and that this something will tend to be pre-served, transformation processes can only be understood in terms of how they interactwith processes of tradition. That is why this text will begin by attempting to define thetwo concepts in their mutual relation. Secondly, based on these basic considerations,processes of tradition and transformation will be discussed as the framework and thedriving force of intergenerational cultural communication processes and will be pos-tulated as relevant dimensions for educational theory.

An explanation of terms thus appears the logical starting point of this contribu-tion if we want to understand these phenomena appropriately. As a first conceptualapproach, one might say that “transformation” simply means something like “re-shap-ing”. But this simple explanation of the term obscures two aspects that are of crucialsignificance for the perspectives and approaches explored in this paper: firstly, thattransformations cannot happen “per se” but that “something” has to be transformedand, secondly, that transformation can only be imagined temporally and thus as aprocess. In a cultural and social scientific derivation, it follows that the subject oftransformation – the “something” – consists of the conditions, structures, generationpatterns, modalities etc. of social and cultural practices. Thus, a theory of the dynamicsof cultural and societal transformation is necessarily connected to structural and pro-cess theories of culture and society. In a certain perspective, this is the only way to graspthe “something” at all.

1 In this context, it seems worth noting that they thus are gaining relevance not only in socialand cultural theories but also in terms of subject theories.


12 Leopold Klepacki, Tanja Klepacki

The clarification of the topic alone, however, is not necessarily sufficient for un-derstanding the way and processes in which transformations work. Accordingly, amore detailed analysis of the phenomenon seems necessary. In order to understandwhat is transformed or what is transforming itself, we must first ask how transfor-mations happen and by way of what. Consequently, transformations can only be un-derstood if we also take their reasons and modalities into account. Transformationswould thus be conceived as emergent effects of the specific action of transformationfactors or transformation actors which themselves are not independent of historical (cul-tural, societal, technical /technological etc.) framework conditions. In this perspective,transformation dynamics could only be described by considering the mutual entangle-ment and contingency of each given historical-cultural structure as the subject – andat the same time cause – of transformation processes, transformation factors, trans-formation actors and transformation effects or consequences (see Schimank /Volk-mann 2017).

Secondly, if transformations take the form of an emergent and contingent (con-tinuous while at the same time disruptive or transgressive) process, the analysis oftransformation processes will allow for a specific approach to the understanding ofhuman-cultural historicity, as what can be described as the history or historicity ofhuman existence only constitutes itself in and through transformations. It is thus im-possible to speak of cultural or societal transformation dynamics without having anidea or concept of human historicity. In the perspective of a history of transformation(see Böhme 2011), the phenomenon of transformation not only characterises whatappears as a process of societal and cultural change – history itself would have to beunderstood as an effect of ongoing transformations or constructions of history (seeBöhme 2011) which themselves have a function for the future.

If we therefore understand cultural or societal change as a history of transforma-tion, there must be a double focus: on “processes, events and contingencies” (Böhme2011, p. 10) of the historical change of culture(s) and society /ies and their generat-ing factors and on modifications of the constructions of history. “In this context, theconcept of transformation refers to pragmatic, institutional and semantic phenomenaof cultural change both by their nature as a chronological process and by their spatiallocalisation and diffusion” (Bergmann et al. 2011, p. 40). That is why transformationsas chronological and spatial, emergent and contingent processes require “new or re-orientation, or at least a re-formulation of previous orientations by the concerned in-dividuals and groups in society” (Düllo 2011, p. 28).

From this perspective, processes of transformation create something new in thesense of cultural, societal and historical “re-figurations” (see Bergmann et al. 2011,p. 39) and, in doing so, they create both new presences and new pasts (as well as newfutures). In this context, however, the new – by its very difference and thus by its po-tential to create difference and resistance – appears not only as connected to that what


Processes of Cultural Tradition and Transformation 13

is transformed, but essentially only by the “relation of continuity and the change ofcultural formations” (ibid.).

Processes of cultural tradition and transformation are thus not in opposition toeach other but must be understood as mutually interlinked constitution principles ofcultural realities. On the one hand, it seems evident that cultural and societal processesof tradition have the general potential to function as specific mechanisms of histori-cal stabilization (see Böhme 2011, p. 21). When it comes to forming and developingcultural present(s) and future(s), they are potentially able to constitute and generate(re)liability, orientation and continuity by attributing validity to certain cultural con-cepts, artefacts, customs, practices etc. On the other hand, it is obvious that underthe impression of postmodern transformations the efficacy of these processes becomesfundamentally questionable if they were conceived as simple mechanisms of preservingcertain established (hegemonial) cultural realities.

In the light of this last notion it has to be considered that, logics, ways, dispositifs,practices and processes of tradition always also refer to the future or rather to conceptsof the future. Processes of tradition therefore do not remain at a reproductive levelbut can be considered a transformative principle, which also creates something newin three respects: firstly, because not only the constituents, modalities and objectivesof tradition but also its topics are included into the transformation processes (andvice versa); secondly, because the contents of tradition are transformed towards thedrafts of the future, according to present interests processes of tradition are inevitablylinked to practices of translation, re-configuration etc. Finally, passing on itself has atransforming effect, as the conditions, situations, processes and practices of traditionconstitute both the cultural contents as those contents which are supposed to be passedon and the humans participating in passing on as present subjects of cultural knowl-edge sharing and appropriation.

From an educational point of view, these figures seem very familiar. After all, theypoint to the problem or challenge described 35 years ago by German educationalistKlaus Mollenhauer (1983) as the entanglement of the task of education and overallculture, the social formation of this culture, its stocks of tradition – as far as they canstill be legitimated – and the latter’s future viability (see ibid., p. 19). From this, heconcluded that considering the norms, standards and modalities of educational workas a practice of presentation (“passing on, presenting that what we believe to be impor-tant”) and representation (a task of adults “to [have to] choose from the whole and to[have to] shape that what has been chosen in a way the child /youth can cope with”) isan educational necessity (ibid., p. 20).

There are undoubtedly several good reasons why Mollenhauer’s programme shouldbe reconsidered and updated from a (post-)modern point of view. But there are alsosome points of reference worth considering in the context of our argumentation.Given globalised and trans-cultural realities of life and post-colonial objections to tra-



ditional and /or hegemonial cultural dominance, two questions arise: On the basis ofwhich stabilisation logics or in the context of which dispositifs are the contents of tra-dition chosen and the norms and standards of cultural passing on determined? Andto what extent should the intergenerational nature of knowledge sharing in contextsof pluralised, post-migrant societies be imagined as a context characterised by differ-ences, interferences and disruptions? The recognition of (intergenerational) culturaldiversity may be a point of reference here for the conception of cultural tradition andeducation as a plural and open process, as it becomes possible to develop a critical viewon the positions of the educators as “cultural interpreters”: Educational logics, prac-tices and objectives of the adult or “interpreting” generation must be considered asresults of contingent historical processes. Education as a mechanism of stabilizationtherefore always appears as both embedded in and generating specific cultural realities.The stabilising cultural function of education and the postulated representativeness ofits contents thereby always look fragile and changeable. At this point a global and inter-cultural perspective is able to point out content-related and formal differences withinprocesses of cultural knowledge-sharing and to open up possibilities to raise awarenessof the danger of implementing hegemonial cultural logics and practices.

Furthermore, the future viability of that which is to be passed on seems ever moredifficult to predict, in the light of the post-modern signatures of culture(s) and society /ies, like e. g. pluralised ways of life and worldviews, the erosion of traditional authori-ties, norms and patterns as well as the virulent awareness of the contingency, “uncer-tainty, incalculability and unpredictability” (Schäfer /Wimmer 2004, p. 9) of life. Thusthe question of the cultural sustainability of educational processes of cultural knowl-edge sharing and appropriation becomes a crucial challenge. An educational conceptof sustainability formulated – or to be formulated – against this background wouldtherefore have to refer to the configuration of transformation processes which – byway of transforming preservation – produce continuities. In turn, these continuitiesenable the configuration of one’s own future, based on a historical awareness of theconstrued nature of (cultural) identity and subjectivities.

Finally, against the background of current cultural-theoretical approaches (see e. g.Reckwitz 2012), education would thus have to be understood as a specific culturalpractice with two functions. The first is the dual function of stabilising processes ofcultural passing on and of enabling the follow-up generation to cope with the future.The second is to generate meaningfully structured and meaning-structuring possibil-ities for understanding the world, while on the other hand, however, itself being pre-figured by systems of cultural meaning. Accordingly, education would have to be un-derstood both as the mechanism of those “symbolic orders [. . .] against the backgroundof which humans provide the social world – and thus also themselves – with meaning”(Reckwitz 2012, p. 16) and also as a system of practices which is itself characterizedby historically contingent “symbolic codes and interpretative schemes” (ibid.). After



all, it is this mutual interwovenness of education with cultural codes, interpretationschemes, knowledge orders and practices that demonstrates the particular cultural rel-evance of education both for processes of tradition and for the constitution of specificsubject formations (e. g. realising transformation orientations or transformation re-siliencies) which, in the sense of certain technologies of the self (Foucault), wouldthemselves also require critical reflection.

Given the value debates, the political proclamations of a guiding culture and grow-ing nationalist trends seen today, all of which may be read as reactions to the experi-ence of the structural conjunction of needs for orientation and the pressure to makechoices (see Ziehe 1992), the task Mollenhauer attributes to education once againseems strangely up to date. Understanding traditions, stabilisations, contingencies anddisruptions not as contradictions but as constitutive, interwoven dimensions of trans-formation processes is thus crucial to the transformation-theoretical perspective un-locked here. “Or, in other words: there are always specifications [. . .] without whichit would hardly be possible to speak of contingency. Yet these specifications [. . .] maynot be [understood] as conditions limiting the possibilities of events, but are them-selves the result of coincidences and thus both changeable and disruptable while at thesame time stubborn and robust, however not arbitrary. And thus traditions, too, mayno longer be understood as stable, normative specifications whose reasons for validityare not even invalidated by contingent events but may at best be replaced. Rather, eventraditions are contingency-contaminated 2, and unpredictable events may only happenagainst the background of a – perhaps allegedly – stable structure” (Schäfer /Wimmer2004, p. 10).

If we pursue this idea further, from a perspective of an educational interpretationof the mutual connection of cultural traditions and stabilisations on the one hand andof cultural contingencies and disruptions on the other, it becomes obvious that edu-cation itself – as a socially institutionalised practice of stabilising processes of culturaltradition that links the past to the present and refers to the future (see Sünkel 2011) –must be understood as both an effect and a factor of transformation processes.

Although the semantic range of the concept of education 3 or the historical changesand traditions of educational ideas, concepts and realities cannot be discussed in detail

2 Given the perspectives and positions elaborated here, the negative semantic level generated bythe concept of contingency would require a more detailed analysis. However, here the hint maysuffice once more that transformations must be understood as hybrid, event-like processes con-stituted by the melting together of lines of tradition and contingencies as well as disruptions.

3 According to Tenorth (2010, p. 16), education means, among others, “the older generation in-fluencing the younger generation”, “the process as well as the result of the process”, “the actionsof educators as well as the purposes they pursue, however also the effects affecting the children”,“the influence of institutions and groups of society or societies on adolescents”.



here, what is clear is the extent to which education as a cultural-social fact or practiceand as a cultural-social function and task (see Tenorth 2010) is not only a mechanismof content selection (representation), content articulation (presentation) and contenttransformation (generating contents as contents of cultural tradition and education),but must most of all be understood as a mechanism of the presentification (see Gum-brecht 2004, p. 115 ff.) and enforcement of cultural and social norms, values, powerconstellations and knowledge orders as well as the possibilities and limitations of sub-jectivation.

In this case, educational practices would have to be understood not only as prac-tices of communication but most of all as practices of the presentification of patternsof meaning and order that have grown historically and which themselves (pre-)disposethose processes of cultural learning happening in and by educational situations. Edu-cation as a trans-historically necessary condition for the possibility of history is thusat the same time always historical, insofar as it appears in historical varieties and un-der historical conditions (see Sünkel 2011, p. 26). Education is thus a historically tied,culturally and socially generated network of relations which itself creates and predis-posingly shapes relations or possibilities of relationing between people, between peopleand the world, and between people and history. Educational situations thus not onlycommunicate contents by humans to humans. Instead, educational situations specif-ically constitute both the contents – as far as they are articulated as specific symbolic(and logical) orders and passed on as such by way of educational practices – and peo-ple – as far as the people participating in educational situations are socially addressedas subjects of communication or appropriation /learning and thus take specific subjectpositions or are classified under specific horizons of possibilities of subjectivation.

This fact now appears fundamentally significant to the analyses compiled in thisvolume, insofar as the goals, ideals, ways of proceeding, postulates, approaches, con-cepts and programmes etc. of arts education make arts education itself appear as asocial-cultural educational actor that can only be described against the background ofits specific cultural ties and contingent historical developments. Arts education is thusat the same time itself an effect of historical processes of tradition and transformationthat generate both certain ideas of arts and education and ideas of those subjects thatare supposed to experience aesthetic-cultural educational processes in contexts of artseducation, or are supposed to participate in (specific forms of ) art and culture. Fromthis perspective, arts education appears most of all as a dispositif originating from andtied to the educational and artistic logics of the European modern age, within or bywhich the idea of the aesthetic education of a subject within or by way of art and cul-ture or by way of artistic practices as well as the idea of subjective participation in artand culture is still passed on today. At the same time, however, given a fundamentalchange in the understanding of art and aesthetic practice as following the tradition ofEurocentric-high culture paradigms towards that which may be called “post-art” (see



Meyer 2016, p. 243), as well as against the background of post-colonial and post-mi-grant transformations of globalised lifeworlds – and thus given an all-encompassing“re-arrangement” of cultural guiding ideas (see Schimank /Volkmann 2017, p. 61) –this dispositif experiences itself in the area of conflict between stabilising attempts ofpassing on, self-legitimation or self-identification constraints and disruptive-contin-gent dynamics of change. Against this background current forms of arts educationshould be questioned e. g. if or to what extent they provide possibilities to criticallyreflect on the age of digitalized globalisation and thus on hegemonial aspirations of aneoliberal and neo-colonial production of culture.

ReferencesBergmann, Lutz et al. (2011): Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen

Wandels. In: Böhme, Hartmut et al. (Eds.): Transformation. Ein Konzept zur Er-forschung kulturellen Wandels. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 39–56.

Böhme, Hartmut (2011): Einladung zur Transformation. In: Ders. et al. (Eds.): Transfor-mation. Ein Konzept zur Erforschung kulturellen Wandels. München: Wilhelm FinkVerlag, S. 7–38.

Düllo, Thomas (2011): Kultur als Transformation. Eine Kulturwissenschaft des Performa-tiven und des Crossover. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

Gumbrecht, Hans-Ulrich (2004): Diesseits der Hermeneutik. Die Produktion vonPräsenz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Meyer, Torsten (2016): What’s next, Arts Education? Fünf Thesen zur nächsten Ästhetis-chen Bildung. In: Ders. et al. (Eds.): Where the magic happens. Bildung nach der Ent-grenzung der Künste. München: kopaed, pp. 235–246.

Mollenhauer, Klaus (1983): Vergessene Zusammenhänge. Über Kultur und Erziehung.Weinheim und München: Juventa.

Reckwitz, Andreas (32012): Die Transformation der Kulturtheorien. Zur Entwicklungeines Theorieprogramms. Weilerswist: Velbrück.

Schäfer, Alfred /Wimmer, Michael (2004): Tradition und Kontingenz. Anmerkungen zueinem verschlungenen Verhältnis. In: Dies. (Eds.): Tradition und Kontingenz. Münster:Waxmann.

Schimank, Uwe /Volkmann, Ute (2017): Das Regime der Konkurrenz: GesellschaftlicheÖkonomisierungsdynamiken heute. Weinheim und Basel: BeltzJuventa.

Sünkel, Wolfgang (2011): Erziehungsbegriff und Erziehungsverhältnis. Allgemeine Theo-rie der Erziehung Teil 1. Weinheim und München: Juventa.

Tenorth, Heinz-Elmar (52010): Geschichte der Erziehung. Einführung in die Grundzügeihrer neuzeitlichen Entwicklung. Weinheim und München: Juventa.

Ziehe, Thomas (21996): Zeitvergleiche. Jugend in kulturellen Modernisierungen. Wein-heim und München: Juventa.


hrsg. von Michael Göhlich und Eckart Liebau 17

Documents

Transcript of hrsg. von Michael Göhlich und Eckart Liebau 17