Friday, June 9, 2017

The Nazis as occult masters? It’s a good story but not history







The Nazis as occult masters? It’s a good story but not history


Peter Staudenmaier
is associate professor of history at Marquette University in Wisconsin. His latest book is Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era (2014).
1,400 words
Edited by Sam Dresser

REPUBLISH




Why is Nazism so often associated with the occult?
 1Responses
Look into my eyes... Adolf Hitler photographed by his personal photographer practicing for public speaking in 1925. <em>Photo by Gamma/Getty</em>
Look into my eyes... Adolf Hitler photographed by his personal photographer practicing for public speaking in 1925. Photo by Gamma/Getty
Maybe it started with Indiana Jones. When Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered in 1981, audiences were treated to the vivid spectacle of bumbling Nazi officials obsessed with esoteric lore, eager to harness ancient occult powers for their own nefarious purposes. Fast-forward a few decades, and today’s popular culture is still awash in the imagery of Nazi occultism. From the History Channel to video games, from Hollywood movies to comic books, from chat rooms to Reddit to YouTube, there is endless speculation about the hidden forces behind Nazi evil. Books on the topic abound. It is a favourite of conspiracy enthusiasts and professional debunkers alike. Somehow, we have all become, like Indy himself, experts on the occult. And a whole lot of us are convinced that its arcane secrets hold the key to understanding Nazism.
The problem with this alluring image is not just that it is false. The myth of Nazi occultism is more than an amusing curiosity, a testament to the power of cinematic suggestion. It actively detracts from a historical understanding of the very themes it highlights. It yields a distorted view of Nazism and a distorted view of occultism. But it also offers an occasion for critical reflection, a chance to see how we might make better sense of the tangled history of occultism in the Nazi era. It might even help us to understand Nazi evil and the not-so-hidden forces behind it.
Why is the association between Nazism and the occult so fascinating and so enduring? Claims about Hitler’s supposed connections to occultism circulated before he even came to power. The image comes in several forms: Nazism as the tool of dark forces, or Nazis as covert masters of the occult. The appeal of these ideas stems from the nature of occultism itself. Esoteric philosophies promise access to a deeper reality, a higher truth lying beyond the veil of the ordinary world. Since ordinary explanations seem so inadequate for the abominations of the Nazi era, the esoteric alternative is enticing. It also fits the rhetoric of Nazism itself: suggestive and seductive rather than plainspoken and straightforward, filled with grandiose dreams and nebulous promises of an ineffable something that transcends everyday reality.
Sign up for Aeon’s Newsletter
That is where the danger lies. To blame Nazism on otherworldly forces is to exonerate the prosaic causes that brought Hitler to power in the first place. Yet such beliefs persist because they face scarce competition; solid scholarship on the relations between the Nazi regime and occult currents is rare. Not entirely absent, however: historians have often shied away from the apparently disreputable subject of occultism, but there are several incisive assessments of its status in Nazi Germany. Though usually overshadowed by sensationalist treatments, serious works on the topic continue to appear. There is much to debate about the arguments raised in these books, but they do offer a critical examination of a neglected part of history.
And that history looks very different from the myths that have grown up around it. Consider three chief elements in the longstanding popular image of Nazi occultism: the Thule Society, the Ahnenerbe or ‘Ancestral Heritage’ office of the SS, and the Wewelsburg castle. A common perception casts each of these seemingly uncanny phenomena, so suited to the mysterious countenance of the Third Reich, as an integral bond between Nazi rule and the enigmatic world of occultism. Each of them did in fact have some connection to the occult, but the links were more mundane – and, paradoxically, more revealing – than the myths would have us believe.
The short-lived Thule Society, which gained brief notoriety in the aftermath of the First World War, is frequently portrayed as a paradigmatic example of the ‘secret societies’ that supposedly gave birth to the Nazi party. While the organisation was indeed secretive, and its modest membership did include several figures who went on to become leading Nazis, it was not an occult order. The founder of the group, who went by the invented aristocratic name of Rudolf von Sebottendorff (he was in fact the son of a train driver), had extensive occultist interests, but they seem to have been met with indifference from the rest of the members. This is not surprising, since the Thule Society was in reality a political organisation committed to Right-wing radicalism, not esoteric machinations. Aside from spreading anti-Semitic propaganda, its chief activities consisted of militant confrontations with the Left in the Munich area. Hitler had nothing to do with the group. The notion of the Thule Society as incubator of the Nazi party is a product of Sebottendorff’s megalomaniacal imagination; years after the organisation dissolved, he published a spurious memoir claiming that he played a crucial role in nurturing the early Nazi movement. There has never been any evidence for such claims.
What of Heinrich Himmler’s Ahnenerbe? This was an SS department devoted to researching the alleged Aryan origins of the German people. Thanks to Himmler’s personal fascination with the occult, some of the projects pursued under the aegis of the Ahnenerbe had esoteric affiliations. But most didn’t. Until the war started, the organisation largely focused on conventional archeological exploration, folklore and prehistoric studies. After 1939, attention shifted to military matters, including medical experiments on human subjects. As the historian Julian Strube points out: ‘The “research” of the Ahnenerbe was conducted for ideological and propaganda reasons in order to establish an SS influence on the German academic landscape.’ It is tempting to dismiss this sort of thing as pseudo-science, and much of it was just that. But this response lets mainstream science off the hook. A number of figures who worked with the Ahnenerbe were established scholars in their fields, while much of the German academic community willingly accepted funding from Nazi sources, provided material for Nazi projects, and so forth. Labelling all of this as pseudo-science is comforting, but much too simple.
Similar problems bedevil the lurid image of the Wewelsburg castle as a site of SS occult rituals. This peculiarly resilient belief presents a case study in the evolution of historical myths. The castle itself is an imposing centuries-old structure, and Himmler developed extravagant plans to make it the centre of a massive complex for ideological indoctrination after the expected German victory in the war. In the wake of the German defeat, former SS officers found an opportune way to deflect responsibility by accentuating Himmler’s ostensibly demonic ambitions. It took decades for historical research on the castle, and the uses the SS made of it, to catch up with these exculpatory tabloid tales. By then, the legend had long since displaced the reality, obscuring its actual functions within the Nazi system: routine bureaucratic tasks, supplemented by labour from a nearby concentration camp. The myth of the Wewelsburg castle contributed substantially to the ever-popular image of the SS as an occult order, an especially cherished motif in esoteric and neo-Nazi circles.
Not long after the final collapse of the Nazi regime, Theodor Adorno characterised occultism as ‘the metaphysics of dunces’. This harsh judgment has been roundly criticised, often with good reason, by scholars who study esoteric worldviews. Occult traditions are intellectually rich and diverse; there is much more to them than the bizarre and fantastic connotations that typically accompany any mention of esotericism. But Adorno had a point. A fixation on diabolical forces can distract attention from the social forces that shape reality. So it is with efforts to make sense out of the stark senselessness of Nazism. History, of course, does not belong to historians. In this case, however, we would do well to pay attention to what the historical record can and cannot tell us about the unsettling parallels between that time and our own. Attributing the horrors of Nazi Germany to obscure occult sources is all too often a convenient way of absolving ourselves from the hard work of understanding the past.

REPUBLISH

Conspicuous consumption is over. It’s all about intangibles now



Conspicuous consumption is over. It’s all about intangibles now

Elizabeth Currid-Halkett
is the James Irvine Chair in Urban and Regional Planning and professor of public policy at the Price School, University of Southern California. Her latest book is The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class(2017). She lives in Los Angeles.
Published in association with 
Princeton University Press 
an Aeon Partner
volume_up
play_circle_outlineListen here
Brought to you by curio.io, an Aeon partner
1,100 words
Edited by Marina Benjamin
REPUBLISH
Has cultural capital replaced conspicuous consumption as a signifier of social status?
 41Responses
Street style; status brands are no longer the domain of the elite..  <em>Photo by Getty</em>
Street style; status brands are no longer the domain of the elite.. Photo by Getty
In 1899, the economist Thorstein Veblen observed that silver spoons and corsets were markers of elite social position. In Veblen’s now famous treatise The Theory of the Leisure Class, he coined the phrase ‘conspicuous consumption’ to denote the way that material objects were paraded as indicators of social position and status. More than 100 years later, conspicuous consumption is still part of the contemporary capitalist landscape, and yet today, luxury goods are significantly more accessible than in Veblen’s time. This deluge of accessible luxury is a function of the mass-production economy of the 20th century, the outsourcing of production to China, and the cultivation of emerging markets where labour and materials are cheap. At the same time, we’ve seen the arrival of a middle-class consumer market that demands more material goods at cheaper price points.
However, the democratisation of consumer goods has made them far less useful as a means of displaying status. In the face of rising social inequality, both the rich and the middle classes own fancy TVs and nice handbags. They both lease SUVs, take airplanes, and go on cruises. On the surface, the ostensible consumer objects favoured by these two groups no longer reside in two completely different universes.
Given that everyone can now buy designer handbags and new cars, the rich have taken to using much more tacit signifiers of their social position. Yes, oligarchs and the superrich still show off their wealth with yachts and Bentleys and gated mansions. But the dramatic changes in elite spending are driven by a well-to-do, educated elite, or what I call the ‘aspirational class’. This new elite cements its status through prizing knowledge and building cultural capital, not to mention the spending habits that go with it – preferring to spend on services, education and human-capital investments over purely material goods. These new status behaviours are what I call ‘inconspicuous consumption’. None of the consumer choices that the term covers are inherently obvious or ostensibly material but they are, without question, exclusionary.
Sign up for Aeon’s Newsletter
The rise of the aspirational class and its consumer habits is perhaps most salient in the United States. The US Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that, since 2007, the country’s top 1 per cent (people earning upwards of $300,000 per year) are spending significantly less on material goods, while middle-income groups (earning approximately $70,000 per year) are spending the same, and their trend is upward. Eschewing an overt materialism, the rich are investing significantly more in education, retirement and health – all of which are immaterial, yet cost many times more than any handbag a middle-income consumer might buy. The top 1 per cent now devote the greatest share of their expenditures to inconspicuous consumption, with education forming a significant portion of this spend (accounting for almost 6 per cent of top 1 per cent household expenditures, compared with just over 1 per cent of middle-income spending). In fact, top 1 per cent spending on education has increased 3.5 times since 1996, while middle-income spending on education has remained flat over the same time period.
The vast chasm between middle-income and top 1 per cent spending on education in the US is particularly concerning because, unlike material goods, education has become more and more expensive in recent decades. Thus, there is a greater need to devote financial resources to education to be able to afford it at all. According to Consumer Expenditure Survey data from 2003-2013, the price of college tuition increased 80 per cent, while the cost of women’s apparel increased by just 6 per cent over the same period. Middle-class lack of investment in education doesn’t suggest a lack of prioritising as much as it reveals that, for those in the 40th-60th quintiles, education is so cost-prohibitive it’s almost not worth trying to save for.
While much inconspicuous consumption is extremely expensive, it shows itself through less expensive but equally pronounced signalling – from reading The Economist to buying pasture-raised eggs. Inconspicuous consumption in other words, has become a shorthand through which the new elite signal their cultural capital to one another. In lockstep with the invoice for private preschool comes the knowledge that one should pack the lunchbox with quinoa crackers and organic fruit. One might think these culinary practices are a commonplace example of modern-day motherhood, but one only needs to step outside the upper-middle-class bubbles of the coastal cities of the US to observe very different lunch-bag norms, consisting of processed snacks and practically no fruit. Similarly, while time in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City might make one think that every American mother breastfeeds her child for a year, national statistics report that only 27 per cent of mothers fulfil this American Academy of Pediatrics goal (in Alabama, that figure hovers at 11 per cent).
Knowing these seemingly inexpensive social norms is itself a rite of passage into today’s aspirational class. And that rite is far from costless: The Economist subscription might set one back only $100, but the awareness to subscribe and be seen with it tucked in one’s bag is likely the iterative result of spending time in elite social milieus and expensive educational institutions that prize this publication and discuss its contents.
Perhaps most importantly, the new investment in inconspicuous consumption reproduces privilege in a way that previous conspicuous consumption could not. Knowing which New Yorker articles to reference or what small talk to engage in at the local farmers’ market enables and displays the acquisition of cultural capital, thereby providing entry into social networks that, in turn, help to pave the way to elite jobs, key social and professional contacts, and private schools. In short, inconspicuous consumption confers social mobility.
More profoundly, investment in education, healthcare and retirement has a notable impact on consumers’ quality of life, and also on the future life chances of the next generation. Today’s inconspicuous consumption is a far more pernicious form of status spending than the conspicuous consumption of Veblen’s time. Inconspicuous consumption – whether breastfeeding or education – is a means to a better quality of life and improved social mobility for one’s own children, whereas conspicuous consumption is merely an end in itself – simply ostentation. For today’s aspirational class, inconspicuous consumption choices secure and preserve social status, even if they do not necessarily display it.
REPUBLISH