Leuphana Universität Lüneburg 15.03.

2022

Wintersemester 2021/2022

Thinking Cities and Societies

A Reflection on the Berlin Wall

Modul: (10803000) Wissenschaft problematisiert: kritisches Denken

Seminar: (17278) Thinking Cities and Societies

Dozent: Dr. Paul Matthews

Index
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

2. Desiring Walls, Waning Sovereignty ................................................................................. 4

2.1 The Inefficacy of Walls .............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Fantasies of Walled Democracy ................................................................................. 6

2.2.1 The Fantasy of the Dangerous Alien in an Increasingly Borderless World ........... 7

2.2.2 Fantasies of Containment ....................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Fantasies of Impermeability ................................................................................... 8

2.2.4 Fantasies of Purity, Innocence, and Goodness ....................................................... 9

2.3 Why, then, build walls? .............................................................................................. 9

3. The Berlin Wall ................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 The fantasies of walled democracies and the Anti-Fascist-Protection-Wall ............ 12

3.2 On the efficiency of the Berlin Wall ........................................................................ 14

4. Limitations of the essay and potential criticism ............................................................... 15

5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 16

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 18

I. Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 18

II. Table of Figures ........................................................................................................... 20

III. Eidesstattliche Erklärung.......................................................................................... 20

2
 1. Introduction

Today’s world is shaped and influenced by an ever-increasing need for information, goods, and
services. Countries, often separated by thousands of miles of ocean are trading and interacting
with one another as if they were direct neighbors. This has led to an era of prosperity and
progress that lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, eroded the foundations of
many oppressive regimes all around the world, and established new ties between nations.
However, this age of interconnectedness also brought with it a dependence on others. Whether
it’s a political crisis, a natural catastrophe, or a pandemic, today’s issues cannot simply be
contained to one region but often engulf the entire globe. Scared by this rapid shift in politics
and responsibility, some parts of the western world wish to reverse these changes and to secure
themselves against these dangers. To understand the underlying reasons behind this
development and whether this phenomenon of walling-in is entirely new, one can turn to Wendy
Brown, a leading contemporary political theorist, who has analyzed this shift in western politics.
Her book, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, deals with the phenomenon of nation-state
walling in today’s Western world and explores the underlying reasons behind the walling of a
nation and whether such measures are effective at dealing with these perceived threats.

In my essay, I will use Wendy Browns' findings on contemporary nation-state walling and its
implications for today's liberal democracies of the West as a basis to analyze how and if her
findings can be used to understand other, non-contemporary, attempts at walling. More
specifically, by drawing on recent literature, I will demonstrate that Brown’s four fantasies of
walled democracies can be used as a theoretical groundwork to grasp the motives behind the
construction of the Berlin Wall.

To do so, it is important to understand what Brown perceives to be the rationale behind the
construction of modern walls. Therefore, I will first engage with Browns’ analysis to outline
the fantasies of walled democracies and whether walls are effective at defending the nation
against potential threats. Following this analysis, I will give a summary of the events that led
to the construction of the Berlin Wall and show how the fantasies of the walled democracy can
be applied to understand the official motives behind the construction of the Berlin Wall.
Equipped with this newly acquired knowledge, I will show that the Berlin Wall, as the
contemporary walls in Browns’ book, was inefficient at what it was supposed to do. It is
important to note, however, that this essay will largely ignore the multi-dimensional purpose

3
the Berlin Wall was supposed to fulfill. Instead, it will largely focus on the official motives that
led to the construction of the Berlin Wall. Since this might be a topic of discussion, I will further
elaborate on the reasoning behind my decision in chapter four. The last chapter of this essay
will conclude with a summary of the most important points.

2. Desiring Walls, Waning Sovereignty

In the Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Wendy Brown attempts to explain the current
political trend of deglobalization, mostly seen in the liberal democracies of the West, from a
political, historical, and economical perspective. Chapter four, desiring walls, considers the
effects of waning state sovereignty and perceived loss of control on western democracies and
examines the “contemporary frenzy” of nation-state wall building (Brown, 2010, p. 107).
Moreover, Brown puts forward the following thesis:

This chapter argues that nation-state walling responds in part to psychic fantasies,
anxieties, and wishes and does so by generating visual effects and a national imagery
apart from what walls purport to “do” – Wendy Brown, 2010

On closer examination, this thesis is based on two assumptions. The first assumption deals with
the reason for building walls. Thus, Brown sees the erection of walls not as a simple reaction
to perceived problems by Western countries, but as a psychological reactance1 to an alleged
loss of sovereignty, a fear of the unknown, and a desire for safety, security, and prosperity. The
second assumption suggests that walls, fences, and other similarly tangible objects can conjure
up national imagery of a perceived restoration of safety, security, and sovereignty. However,
according to Brown, this restoration of these thought to be lost values is just an illusion. To
further elaborate on her thesis, Brown alleges that before assessing the desire for walls, one
must understand how and why walls fail at achieving their “putative aims” (Brown, 2010, p.
109). This is of particular importance to Brown, as it provides the reader with a better
understanding of the futility behind building walls to shield oneself from immigration, drugs,
and terrorism.

1
According to reactance theory, a person will experience psychological reactance in response to a perceived threat,
such as loss of behavioral freedom. This mental state is characterized by distress, anxiety, and the desire to restore
their freedoms (Miron & Brehm, 2006).
4
 2.1 The Inefficacy of Walls

In the following subchapter, Brown shows the effects of the construction of walls and border
fences on border regions and society. In particular, she focuses on illegal migration, drug
smuggling, and terrorism – hot-button issues that dominate the public discourse since
September 11 (Woods & Arthur, 2014). The focus on these three phenomena is particularly
interesting since the proponents of tightened security often claim that walls and border fences
are the only solutions to these problems. The Republican Party, which has long called for the
construction of more walls, border fences, and the general expansion of security infrastructure
in these regions, can be cited as one of the most strident proponents on this matter (Republican
National Committee, 2003).

Contrary to what proponents of these measures claim, building walls does not lead to reduced
immigration, fewer drugs, and improved defense against terrorism. According to Brown, the
reason is clear: migrants, smugglers, and terrorists do not enter the country because of lax
border security and thus are not deterred by walls, fences, or floodlights. Instead of being
deterred, the respective groups merely adapt their methods and find other ways to achieve their
goals (Brown, 2010, p. 109). The data seems to back up Brown’s claim. According to the
Department of Homeland Security, most people without proper documentation did not directly
cross the US – Mexico border at all. Instead, they simply overstayed their visas. Furthermore,
apprehensions at the southern border of the US have gone down in recent years, showing that
illegal immigrants simply adapt to changing circumstances (McMinn & Klahr, 2019). Here,
proponents of walls might be quick to point out that this is because overall illegal migration has
declined in recent years, which would then subsequently show that the draconian measures
work. However, this trend can be attributed to more Mexican immigrants leaving the country
than coming in, further supporting Brown’s argument that illegal immigrants do not feel
deterred by walls and fences (Budiman, 2020). Anticipating objections, Brown points to the
wall being built by Israel to guard itself against Palestinian attacks. She explains that even
though suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of a complex network of
checkpoints and walls, the animosity and hostility have not. From this one can conclude that,
just like the illegal immigrants in the U.S., Palestinians have simply adapted their tactics to
these new circumstances, which in turn mitigate the effects a border wall has on the safety of
the Israeli people (Brown, 2010, p. 110).

5
In the following pages, Brown takes her claim that walls are inefficient a step further. Walls
and fences are not only bad at containing the "dangers" they are supposed to protect against -
they also exacerbate the problems unnecessarily. Walls, she explains, would (1) not stop
migration, but only make it more difficult and more expensive. Second (2), tighter controls
would start an arms race between the police and drug cartels, which would then lead to a
professionalization of drug smuggling. Instead of petty criminals, large cartels would take over
the drug trade. Lastly (3), this tightening of border controls will lead to an environment that
promotes violence and hostility (Brown, 2010, p. 112). This development can be observed in
many cities near the border. For example, Altar, a small community near the U.S. – Mexico
border, has been plagued by an increase in criminal activity, which led to a centralization of
violence. Instead of locals, fully armed professionals control the town’s territory, collect fees
from smugglers and control the routes to the border. This can be directly attributed to the
militarization of the war on drugs and the subsequent construction of border walls (Leutert,
2018).

Thus, Brown's argument structure is clear. Walls cannot prevent illegal migration, drug
smuggling, or terrorism because these activities do not occur because of too "lax" border
security. Instead, these activities occur because of a variety of other reasons such as the quest
for a better life or to meet the demand for cheap drugs in the U.S. This, in sum, shows that
wherever demand pulls the supply of cheap labor or drugs, walls produce regions that are
plagued by violence and lawlessness (Brown, 2010, p. 113 ff.).

2.2 Fantasies of Walled Democracy

Why, then, would the nation even want to build walls to shield itself from the dangers of the
outside world? According to Brown, it is necessary to consider this question from the subjects’
perspective (Brown, 2010, p. 114). Subjects, in this case, refer to individuals living in the liberal
democracies of the West who feel that the era of globalization has led to an era of dwindling
sovereignty and a diluted notion of nationhood (Brown, 2010, p. 109). These people then yearn
for state intervention that contains the alleged attacks on their country, protects its people, and
preserves their innocence in a world full of danger and violence.

6
Brown sets up the next chapter with a series of rhetorical questions. Among other things, she
asks to what extent walls can help change the discourse on immigration so that Westerners can
see themselves as victims of injustice and exploitation by immigrants, coming to their countries.
Furthermore, she asks to what extent walls can satisfy fantasies of national purity and innocence
(Brown, 2010, p. 115). To engage with these questions accurately, Brown makes use of four
national fantasies that might explain the underlying causes and hopes people have in building
border walls. In the following subchapters, I will concisely engage with each of these four
fantasies. It is also important to note that Brown uses Sigmund and Anna Freud’s
Psychoanalysis of defense as an analytic framework for her argument. However, since this is
of little relevance to the essay, I will not engage with Freuds' arguments in a separate subchapter
but instead, draw on some of the relevant arguments in the conclusion of this chapter.

2.2.1 The Fantasy of the Dangerous Alien in an Increasingly Borderless World

The demonization of political and social outsiders has existed for thousands of years. The
Romans, for example, classified every individual, not Roman or Greek as barbarians (Pruitt,
2018). Throughout time, terms like barbarian and alien became synonymous with generic and
derogatory “[…] figures of otherness” (Brown, 2010, p. 115). In our contemporary world,
politicians and others have used this, almost dehumanizing, rhetoric to equate unchecked
migration with the dangers of terrorism, even though little evidence exists that supports this
claim (Brown, 2010, p. 116). Here, I feel it is important to point out how and why this tactic of
“alienation” is so effective. In creating the narrative of the dangerous, name- and faceless alien,
one can evoke a feeling of uneasiness among their people, creating an “Us” versus “Them”
environment. This, in turn, can lead to a resurgence of national pride and identity while at the
same time excluding “Them” from this very process (Abzianidze, 2020). Furthermore, this
thinking can easily block out the inherent mutability of culture and identity, suggesting that
their current understanding of nationhood and identity is fixed and unwavering (Brown, 2010,
p. 117). It follows then that these aliens are perceived as intruders and a danger to the nation.
This, however, also relates to the fourth fantasy, which I will discuss later in this chapter.
Subsequently, if people subscribe to such an ideology, they will naturally look for easy and
quick solutions that can fix this problem. This leads many to the idea of a tangible barrier that
can ward off these aliens and secure the nation and its values. Brown comes to the same
conclusion; however, she additionally points out how this sealing of the nation can facilitate the
disregard of reasons why people migrate to the country in the first place (Brown, 2010, p. 117).
7
 2.2.2 Fantasies of Containment
The fantasy of containment can be understood as a continuation of the fantasies of the
dangerous alien. As discussed before, the danger of a name- and faceless alien leads to a need
for protection, which then fuels the fantasy of containment. Brown uses Heidegger’s
understanding of shelter as an analogy of why solid, and visible walls are demanded when the
aforementioned “We” and “Them” conflict arises (Brown, 2010, p. 118). Additionally, to just
providing shelter, these walls are meant to stop the decline of state sovereignty by containing
the dangers to the nation to the outside world (Brown, 2010, p. 119). Other western entities,
such as the European Union, also actively advocate for walls as part of a hybrid containment
strategy to secure their sphere of influence, even though little evidence exists that a wall can
fill this role (Patteri, 2022). It becomes clear then that the supposed decline of the nation,
allegedly caused by the illegal alien, creates a need for protection. As seen before, this rhetoric
further solidifies both parties’ roles in this relationship. The aggressor is the elusive but at the
same time “distinct otherness”, while the victim is the western nation itself.

2.2.3 Fantasies of Impermeability

The fantasy of impermeability appears to be complementary to the fantasies of containment
since both explain the supposed need for the walling-in of the nation. Brown notes that the idea
of sovereign power implies the fantasy of an absolute and enforceable distinction between the
nation and the outside world, which then leads her to the conclusion that something is needed
to keep this distinction between the inside and outside alive (Brown, 2010, p. 119 ff.). Using
Brown’s findings as a basis, I would argue that the need for a supposed impermeability is
created by an increasingly divisive discourse in the liberal democracies of the West. Other
scholars have also noted that this divisive discourse has resulted in many people feeling
threatened by the outside world (Woods & Arthur, 2014). Brown takes this interpretation a step
further and superimposes the feelings of vulnerability and victimization onto a nation that feels
besieged by the dangerous alien. Therefore, Brown follows, a nation that is under siege requires
defenses and blockades to shield itself from outside attacks (Brown, 2010, p. 120). This finding
reinforces the image I have already outlined in earlier chapters. The prosperous, peaceful, and
democratic nation and its people are under attack by an almost overwhelming force. Now, it
needs to fight back and regain ground to retain its progress, sovereignty, and alleged self-
sufficiency. To do so, it needs a tangible object that can protect the nation and its people and
create an impermeable barrier between themselves and evil.
8
 2.2.4 Fantasies of Purity, Innocence, and Goodness
As I have already mentioned in earlier subchapters, all three fantasies wish to construct a clear
separation between one’s nation and the outside world. Furthermore, it must be noted that this
separation goes beyond simple cultural differences. Instead, it aims to, with a surgical-like
precision, define which side is good and which side is evil. This, according to Brown,
culminates in the construction of a narrative that paints the supposedly humane and democratic
nations of the West as a civilized entity whose “[…] only crime it is to be free, open, prosperous
and tolerant” (Brown, 2010, p. 122). Directly quoting a portion of an official Israeli public-
relations document on Israel’s Anti-Terrorist fence, Brown shows how governments try to
defuse and rebuke legitimate criticisms of the wall. From this, we can conclude that the civilized
countries of the West have each adopted an image of goodness, innocence, and purity that needs
to be protected from the dangers of the outside. Instead of an entity exploiting weaker nations
and their people as cheap labor or for their easy to access foreign markets, it is the one being
exploited by others. Walls, then, are not an apparatus of aggression and hostility that seek to
separate the rich from the poor, but a tool of defense to shield the pure and innocent from the
dangers of the outside (Brown, 2010, p. 123). From this, I conclude that that fantasy of purity,
innocence, and goodness – this inherent belief of superiority – is simultaneously the culmination
and the source of all the other fantasies and therefore plays a pivotal role in understanding why
nations build walls. It is important to note, however, that this belief in one’s superiority is not
a phenomenon exclusively observed in Western countries. China, for example, harbors similar
beliefs (Langerbein, 2009). Still, these examples show how powerful nations can transform the
discourse to legitimize their construction of walls.

2.3 Why, then, build walls?

My preceding analysis of Brown’s text as well as my additional remarks have shown that walls
do little to prevent illegal migration, drug smuggling, and terrorism. Instead, the construction
of walls leads to smugglers and migrants, adjusting their tactics to circumvent the restrictions
walls have placed upon them. It has also been shown that walls can exacerbate these problems
by (1) making migration more expensive and dangerous, (2) producing more sophisticated
crime rings that not only smuggle drugs but migrants as well, which then subsequently (3) leads
to a more hostile environment surrounding these border regions. Moreover, my analysis showed

9
that Brown’s four fantasies provide a general groundwork that allows us to analyze other border
walls and assess the underlying reasons these walls were put up in the first place. As explained
earlier, the construction of walls creates an illusion of safety and security. Simultaneously, it
serves as a symbol of a narrative that sees the outside world as an aggressor, waiting for the
perfect opportunity to rob the nations of the West of their self-ascribed purity, goodness, and
prosperity.

I want to conclude this chapter with Brown’s answer to her thesis, postulated at the beginning
of this chapter. She indicates that the nation-state walls act like modern-day temples, housing
the ghost of political sovereignty. They represent the idea that the future of the country can be
aligned with an idealized past of sovereignty and safety. Building upon Freud’s understanding
of the defense, she argues that walls confer almost magical protection against powers outside
the control of the nation-state (Brown, 2010, p. 133). This explains why so many still desire
walls, even though walls themselves are rather inefficient. They create the illusion of safety,
the illusion that through rather crude and simple measures, one can ward off complex problems
of a modern and interconnected world.

3. The Berlin Wall

Before assessing the reasoning behind the construction of the Berlin Wall, it is critical to
understand the circumstances that led to the erection of the Berlin Wall in the first place. This
will help us later to fully grasp the effect the border wall had on its environment. It is also
important to note that a general discussion of the Berlin Wall opens up countless avenues of
interpretation and analysis. One could for example explore the effects the wall had on economic
or social development in the West and the East. Furthermore, one could delve deeper into
Freud’s analysis of defense and religion to gain a deeper understanding of the motives that led
to the erection of border defenses. This, however, would exceed the scope of this essay. Instead,
I will solely focus on Brown’s four fantasies to explain the official reasoning behind the
construction of the Berlin Wall and, to a lesser degree, the border fence that divided a people
for almost thirty years.

After the End of the Second World war, the allies and the Soviet Union agreed to partition
Germany into four occupied zones. In May of 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was

10
established. Not to get left behind, the Soviet Union authorized the creation of the German
Democratic Republic, or GDR for short (Langerbein, 2009). A soviet-style republic in nature,
it differed greatly from the newly formed country to the west. Instead of adopting a market
economy and a political system built on federalization and a clear separation of powers, it
became highly centralized with an emphasis on communist values and ideals (Hirschman,
1993). With the Cold War on the horizon, the Soviet Union and its satellite states started to seal
themselves off from the West, both economically and politically. However, in Berlin, people
could still cross the border relatively unhindered. While East Berliners continued to work and
study in West Berlin, West Berliners made the trip to East Berlin to meet family and friends or
to buy cheap goods (Klausmeier & Schmidt, 2014). This not only allowed for an exchange of
goods and services, but also an exchange of ideas, morals, and values among Berliners. It not
only preserved but also deepened a common identity, shared by East and West Berliners alike.
Moreover, this easy access into the West led approximately one million East Germans, Poles,
and Czechs to flee the communist East and seek asylum in West Germany (Hirschman, 1993).
Wanting to close this loophole and secure the East against a potential western attack, the GDR
erected a border wall, separating East and West Berliners from one another and making it, at
least at first glance, virtually impossible to cross over into the other part of the city. Throughout
its twenty-eight-year lifespan, the wall went through multiple iterations (Nooke, 2009). A
flimsy and less than two-meter-high wall at first, it was transformed into an elaborate series of
walls, fences, guard towers, minefields, and other devices that were supposed to shield the
communist East from Western aggressors (Klausmeier & Schmidt, 2014). Officially named the
Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Anti-Fascist-Protection-Wall), it became the last piece of the
puzzle in an elaborate strategy to contain outside interference and to preserve and strengthen
the supposedly superior political system of the East (Langerbein, 2009).

Figure 1: Computer visualization of the border from the east; Source: (Klausmeier & Schmidt, 2014, p. 861)
11
 3.1 The fantasies of walled democracies and the Anti-Fascist-Protection-Wall

While initially structuring this chapter, my goal was to separately analyze certain aspects of the
Berlin Wall, using Brown’s fantasies of walled democracies. Applying these fantasies one by
one, this structure would have allowed me to clearly show how Brown’s groundwork can be
used to gain a better understanding of what led to the construction of the border wall. However,
after my initial research on the topic, I concluded that a different structure would be better suited
to explain my thesis. Even though being prominently featured in propaganda material, the
official name of the Berlin Wall – Antifaschistischer Schutzwall – has not been discussed a lot
in contemporary literature. This can be partially explained with different agenda-setting by the
authors, with most of them focusing on the political and economic impact of the wall. In the
context of my essay, however, I believe it is necessary to take a closer look at the name of the
structure that to this day serves as a symbol of separation and division.

Language, and more specifically names, carry weight and meaning. Not only do they describe
an object, but they also convey an idea of what the object or the person it’s describing is
supposed to be. It gives room for interpretation as well as discourse. Language is ever-evolving
and helps us understand how and why things are (Charmaz, 2006). In a similar vein, the choice
of words that led to the creation of said name can, when observed through the lens of Brown’s
fantasies of walled democracies, explain the supposed reasons that motivated East German
politicians to build the wall.

The German word Schutzwall is a composite word, consisting of Wall, meaning rampart or
wall, and Schutz, which can be translated into protection, shelter, or defense. Taken together,
both words can be interpreted as protection-wall or defense-wall, signifying its supposed
purpose of protecting or shielding someone/something against someone/something else.
Antifaschistisch is an adjective that modifies a noun to make the meaning behind said noun
clearer or more specific (Sherman, Slawson, Whitton, & Wiemelt, 2011). Anti, just like the
English word anti, can be understood as an action taken against or as a reaction to someone or
something. Faschistisch or Faschist can be translated with fascism or fascist. Together, they
represent a desire to be anti-fascist. In sum, Antifaschistischer Schutzwall can be translated with
the wall that protects us against fascism or, for a cleaner, more expressive translation, Anti-
Fascist-Protection-Wall.

12
As mentioned before, names carry weight and describe not only what things are, but also what
they represent. In our case, the wall is supposed to represent a bulwark, protecting the young
nation against a foreign and dangerous foe, trying to undermine our way of life (Klausmeier &
Schmidt, 2014). This understanding of the Berlin Wall is consistent with Brown’s findings in
her essay on walls. Like the US-Mexico border wall and the Israeli’s Anti-Terrorist Fence, it
creates a narrative that sees the outside world as an aggressor, waiting for the perfect
opportunity to destroy the nation. This, in turn, transforms the perception of the Berlin Wall
from a tool of aggression into a mechanism of defense against these powerful forces, which is
also congruent with Brown’s argument.

As I have stated before in chapter two, the fantasies of goodness, purity, and innocence help
define which of the sides is good and which is evil. In the minds of the East German politicians,
it is clear which side is which. By proclaiming that the Berlin Wall is supposed to shield the
GDR against a fascist takeover, they can reaffirm that they are the good and righteous side in
this struggle. Instead of a country that shuts itself off from the Western world, it plays the role
of the heroic defender, using the wall as a shield against western encroachment. Since there are
only two sides to this conflict, it follows then that the GDR and its people are therefore the ones
who are good, pure, and innocent. At the same time, this narrative creates the existence of a
dangerous alien. However, instead of Mexican migrants or drug smugglers, the people of the
West become the “threatening figures of otherness” (Brown, 2010, p. 115). Suddenly, these
people are no longer friends and family members which share a common language, culture,
history, and customs. Instead, they get transformed into fascists. Face- and nameless vessels of
evil that one must protect itself against. It creates an “Us” versus “Them” mentality that aims
to construct a feeling of national pride and identity while at the same time excluding “Them”,
meaning the people of the West, from this very process. This thinking can then further reinforce
the belief in inherent superiority, purity, and goodness. In response to this dangerous alien, the
GDR must contain the dangers to the nation by securing its borders, therefore strengthening its
sovereignty, and containing the dangers to the outside world. Lastly, the name Anti-Fascist-
Protection-Wall also plays into the fantasies of impermeability. It creates the illusion of a clear-
cut separation of the nation and the hostile outside world, which can be achieved by creating
tangible, or concrete, defenses. The nation, the name implies, is under siege and vulnerable.
The only way to protect itself against these dangers is through impermeable if not impenetrable
defenses. Furthermore, through these defenses, the nation can achieve progress, sovereignty,
and self-sufficiency from the rest of the non-Soviet world.

13
In our contemporary world, walls, built by liberal democracies, do little to prevent illegal
migration, drug smuggling, or terrorism. Instead, these modern walls only exacerbate the
problems by making the act of crossing the border more dangerous and expensive, by producing
more sophisticated crime operations, and by making the border regions a more hostile place
overall. Instead of providing a solution to complex problems, they only create the illusion of
safety, security, and goodness. Up until now, I was only able to show how the fantasies of the
walled democracies can be applied to the Anti-Fascist-Border-Protection-Wall to identify and
understand some of the deeper reasons behind its construction. However, I was so far not able
to answer the question of inefficiency. Was the Berlin Wall, like the walls in Brown’s essay,
also inefficient at what it was supposed to do? Or was it, unlike the US-Mexico border wall or
the Israeli Anti-Terrorist-Fence, able to protect the nation against western interference and
aggression?

3.2 On the efficiency of the Berlin Wall

From 1949 until 1961, the year the Berlin wall was built, around 150,000 refugees from the
GDR were able to cross into the FRG every year. After the construction of the Berlin Wall,
these numbers fell sharply to just a few thousand with the bulk of departures now consisting of
authorized migrants (Hirschman, 1993, p. 179). Looking at these numbers, one might argue that
the Berlin Wall and the fence along the inner-German border were a success. It appears that the
wall was able to stop the pull of western influence and to keep East Germans secure within their
borders. I, however, would argue that these figures should be interpreted differently. In my
opinion, these figures don’t show the degree of success, but the degree to which the Berlin Wall
failed to stop emigration and western interference. They show that even though being near the
border meant the risk of detention or even death, people still attempted to illegally leave the
GDR (Hirschman, 1993). Similar to the migrants at the US-Mexico border, they adjusted their
escape plans to accommodate tougher circumstances. Instead of trying to cross the border
directly, they tried to tunnel the wall, swim around the border, or try to use different escape
routes altogether, such as making their way through Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia
(Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung, n.d.). Even though most of these escape attempts failed, the ones
that succeeded gave hope to similarly minded individuals that freedom and a life outside the
GDR were possible.

14
This also reveals the true intentions behind the construction of the Berlin Wall. Even though
East German officials were always quick to point out that the wall was indeed facing the west,
the reality was quite different. Its primary focus then was not to only repel western aggression
and influence but to prevent Eastern Germans from leaving their own country. Therefore,
instead of containing the outside world, the wall was intended to make it impossible to escape
from one's own country. (Klausmeier & Schmidt, 2014). Furthermore, the wall couldn’t contain
outside influence either. While it is true that the wall made it harder for ordinary citizens of
both countries to directly interact with one another, it was not able to contain the flow of
information. For example, most of the East German population was able to receive West
German television and radio stations, making it possible to keep up with current events
(Crabtree, Darmofal, & Kern, 2015). This undermined the efforts of the East German
government to block out western ideals from reaching its people, indirectly mitigating the
effects the Berlin Wall had on creating unity and national identity, completely detached from
the west. Like the contemporary walls of today, the Berlin Wall was a crude answer to complex
issues that far exceeded the scope of what a mere wall could aim to stop, hide, or contain.

4. Limitations of the essay and potential criticism

As I have stated in the introduction, I only used Brown's fantasies of the walled democracies to
analyze the official purpose of the Berlin Wall. However, as seen in chapter 3.2, this analysis
largely ignores the dual purpose the wall was supposed to fulfill. It might be objected then that
this invalidates my analysis. One could perhaps argue that the official purpose of the wall was
nothing more than a smokescreen, which was supposed to fool East Germans into believing
that this wall was constructed not to contain them but to secure and defend them against the
outside world. I, however, disagree with such an assessment. While it is true that the purpose
of the Berlin Wall was multi-dimensional, completely disregarding the official reasoning
behind the erection of such elaborate defenses that cost the state a significant amount of money
would discount a lot of the significance the wall had on the GDR (Langerbein, 2009). Even
though being eventually torn down in late 1989, the separation, brought about by the
construction of the wall, indirectly did help in creating a distinctly East German identity.
However, just like the Berlin Wall, this newly created identity was torn. While the government
and supporters of communist ideals saw the wall as a symbol of a clear separation from the
15
west that helped create a distinct identity, others experienced it as an oppressive symbol of
tyranny, which in turn fueled the desire to break free from it (Gready, 2003). Furthermore,
measuring the specific amount of influence the wall had on the East German identity is
impossible since the creation of identity requires more than just a crude wall. However, my
analysis has shown that the wall, at least to some degree, did have an impact in creating a
distinctly different identity. For these reasons, my analysis is not only useful but perhaps also
offers an interesting approach to understanding other, non-contemporary, walls. This
discrepancy I have just described might be an interesting topic for further discussion.

Another point of contention might be that some might argue that Brown's four fantasies can
only be applied to modern democracies. This might seem only logical as Brown refers to them
as “fantasies of walled democracies”. However, she also notes that the desire for walls is not
dependent on the form of government. Instead, the walling and therefore the fantasies respond
to the subject’s desire to counter anxieties and wishes (Brown, 2010, p. 109). These anxieties,
namely loss of sovereignty, a diluted notion of nationhood, and a fear of the dangerous alien
transcend different forms of government, as I have sown in my analysis. Therefore, I maintain
that employing Brown’s fantasies of walled democracies to analyze non-democratic nations
and their reasons for building walls is valid.

5. Conclusion

As I have shown in this essay, Brown’s fantasies of Walled Democracies can be used to analyze
other, non-contemporary walls, and to gain a deeper understanding as to why people build
walls, border fences, and other border installations. Similar to the US-Mexico border wall or
the Israeli Anti-Terrorist fence, the Berlin Wall originated from a desire to guard the nation
against a hostile and dangerous world and was supposed to create the illusion of a sovereign
state, free of hostile propaganda and interference. This in turn stemmed from the belief in
inherent innocence, purity, and goodness. However, unlike contemporary walls, mostly built
by western democracies, the Berlin Wall was also supposed to keep the citizens of the GDR
from leaving the Soviet east. Therefore, the wall was supposed to simultaneously shield the
people against western influence while at the same time keeping them inside their own country.
I was also able to show how the Berlin Wall was ultimately inefficient at securing the nation

16
against western influence and at keeping its people from leaving. Even though official
government sources always highlighted the alleged efficiency of their border fortifications,
citing the thousands of curbed escape attempts, contemporary sources come to a different
conclusion (Klausmeier & Schmidt, 2014).

Today, we have enough evidence to make the case that the wall was ultimately ineffective at
neutralizing the powers it was supposed to protect against. Unable to reverse or even stop the
influence of western media, culture, and ultimately the will of their people, the wall was toppled
on November ninth, 1989. Today, more than thirty-three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall,
little remains of the nation that believed itself to be the pure and innocent one in a struggle for
political, cultural, and economical superiority. The impermeable wall, responsible for the
suffering of thousands, has been turned into an attraction and a memorial, symbolizing not only
division and hate but also the pursuit of freedom and hope.

17
Appendix

I. Table of Contents

Abzianidze, N. (2020, June 2). Us vs. Them as Structural Equivalence: Analysing Nationalist
Discourse Networks in the Georgian Print Media. Politics and Governance, 8(2), pp.
243-256.

Brown, W. (2010). Desiring Walls, Waning Sovereignty. New York: Zone Books.

Budiman, A. (2020, August 20). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Retrieved February 10,
2022, from Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung. (n.d.). Informationen zur Geschichte von Flucht, Fluchthilfe und
Freikauf. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung:
https://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/de/recherche/dossiers/flucht-fluchthilfe-
und-freikauf/geschichte

Charmaz, K. (2006, August). The Power of Names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,

35(4), pp. 396-399.

Crabtree, C., Darmofal, D., & Kern, H. L. (2015, February). A spatial analysis of the impact of
West German television on protest mobilization during the East German revolution.
Journal of Peace Research, 52(3), pp. 269-284.

Gready, P. (2003). Political Transition: Politics and Cultures. London: Pluto Press.

Hirschman, A. (1993). Exit, Voice, and the Fate of the German Democratic Republic: An Essay
in Conceptual History. World Politics, 45(2), pp. 173-202.

Klausmeier, A., & Schmidt, L. (2014). Berlin Wall. In C. Smith, Encyclopedia of Global
Archaeology (pp. 857-862). New York: Springer.

Langerbein, H. (2009, November). Great Blunders?: The Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall,
and the Proposed United States/Mexico Border Fence. (S. f. Education, Ed.) The History
Teacher, 43(1), pp. 9-29.

18
Leutert, S. (2018, April 3). Drug and Migrant Smuggling Across the US-Mexico Border: An
Interview With Natalia Mendoza. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from Lawfare:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/drug-and-migrant-smuggling-across-us-mexico-border-
interview-natalia-mendoza

McMinn, S., & Klahr, R. (2019, January 10). Where Does Illegal Immigration Mostly Occur?
Here's What The Data Tell Us. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from NPR:
https://text.npr.org/683662691

Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006, March). Reactance Theory - 40 Years Later. Zeitschrift
für Sozialpsychologie - Z SOZPSYCHOL. 37. 9-18.

Nooke, M. (2009, Juli). Vom Mauerbau zum Mauerfall - Kurze Geschichte der Teilung.
Retrieved from Gedenkstätte Berliner Mauer: http://lettere-
old.uniroma2.it/sites/default/files/kurze_geschichte_der_teilung%20%283%29.pdf

Patteri, A. (2022, January 12). Deconstructing Border Walls in the EU. Retrieved February 11,
2022, from University of Oxford, Faculty of Law: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-
subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-
criminologies/blog/2022/01/deconstructing

Pruitt, S. (2018, August 29). Where did the word "barbarian" come from? Retrieved February
11, 2022, from History: https://www.history.com/news/where-did-the-word-barbarian-
come-
from#:~:text=Late%20in%20the%20Roman%20Empire,putting%20pressure%20on%
20Rome's%20borders.

Republican National Committee. (2003). Resolution in Support of Secure Borders, Economic

Growth, Prosperity, and National Immigration Policy Reform. Washington, DC, USA.

Sherman, D., Slawson, J., Whitton, N., & Wiemelt, J. (2011, July). Adjectives. Retrieved
February 13, 2022, from Southeastern Writing Center:
http://www.southeastern.edu/acad_research/programs/writing_center/handouts/pdf_ha
ndouts/adjectives.pdf

Woods, J., & Arthur, C. (2014, September). The Threat of Terrorism and the Changing Public
Discourse on Immigration after September 11. Sociological Spectrum, 34(5).

19
 II. Table of Figures

Figure 1: Computer visualization of the border from the east; Source: (Klausmeier & Schmidt,
2014, S. 861) ............................................................................................................................ 11

III. Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich, Jan Brandtner, versichere an Eides Statt durch meine Unterschrift, dass ich die vorliegende
Arbeit selbständig und ohne fremde Hilfe angefertigt und alle Stellen, die ich wörtlich oder dem
Sinne nach aus Veröffentlichungen entnommen habe, als solche kenntlich gemacht habe und
ich mir auch keiner anderen als der angegebenen Literatur oder sonstiger Hilfsmittel bedient
habe. Ich versichere an Eides Statt, dass ich die genannten Angaben nach bestem Wissen und
Gewissen gemacht habe, die Angaben der Wahrheit entsprechen und nichts verschwiegen
wurde.

Ort, Datum

Aumühle, 15.3.2022

20