EXPLORING RACISM IN GERMANY

Presented by
Parimita Singh

In partial fulfilment of internal assessment in Sociology

Dated- March 20, 2024

Lady Shri Ram College for Women, New Delhi

ABSTRACT
This research paper analyses the relevance of racism with respect to Germany. To answer this
question, the concepts of race and racism are first clearly defined. This is then followed by a
detailed examination of the beginnings of racism in Germany, and a delineation of the
multiple trends that worked to create the ideology of racism in that context. This aims to
answer the “why” of racism in Germany. The research then navigates the minutiae of Nazi
racial theories and their institutionalisation, in an effort to answer the “how”. The ultimate
aim of the research is to investigate if the experience of communities such as the Slavs and
Jews can be accounted as a form of racism, and if so, how that particular strand of racism
functioned.

HYPOTHESIS
The experience of inequality in Nazi Germany cannot be called racism, since racism
presupposes the presence of a minimum of two races, where one is superior or inferior to the
other. However, since communities such as Slavs and Jews are not a separate race
biologically, their experience can not fall under the umbrella of racism.

INTRODUCTION
Necessity is the mother of all invention. Indeed, this research was necessitated and motivated
by an academic discussion in a sociology lecture. The matter of contention was whether the
experience of Jews in Nazi Germany could be accounted as a form of racism. This
necessitated a larger question, in turn- which among the multiple interpretations of race is
correct, and how does race translate to racism?

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, which means that race is
not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant
groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial
groups, and these definitions can change over time. For example, in South Africa, the
Population Registration Act, 1950 recognised only White, Black and coloured, with Indians
added later. On the other hand, the government of Myanmar recognises eight major races
within the nation itself.
When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality
through which social categorisation is achieved. If thought about in this sense, races can be
considered social constructs. These constructs may be the effect, rather than the cause, of
major social situations. While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most
scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through
institutionalised practices of discrimination.

The Nazi Party of Germany adopted and developed several pseudoscientific racial
classifications as part of its ideology in order to justify the genocide of groups of people
which it deemed racially inferior. The Nazi considered the ‘Aryan race’ as the superior
‘master race’ and they considered black people, mixed-race people, Slavs, Jews and others as
racially inferior ‘sub-humans’. It is the ideology against Jews and the consequent
discrimination meted out to them that is the focus of the research.

DEFINING RACE AND RACISM

Race is a categorisation of humans based on physical or social qualities into various groups.
The term ‘race’ was first used to describe people or societies in the way we now understand
ethnicity or national identity. Later, in the 17 th and 18th centuries, as Europeans encountered
non-European civilisations, Enlightenment scientists and philosophers gave race a biological
meaning. As such, race became understood as a biological or natural categorisation system of
the human species. As Western colonialism and slavery expanded, the concept was used to
justify exploitation and domination against people characterised as non-white. Today, race
often maintains its ‘natural’ connotation in folk understanding. However, scientific
understanding is that race does not exist as a biological category among humans, because
genetic variation has been found to be far greater within than between ‘racial’ groups. [1]

For most social scientists, ‘race’ is different from ‘ethnicity’. A major distinction is the
assumption of a biological basis in the case of race. Races are distinguished by perceived
common physical characteristics, while ethnicities are defined by perceived common
ancestry, history and cultural practices. Yet, both categories are socially constructed, and as
such, groups once seen as ethnicities have come to be seen as races, and vice versa.
Moreover, some groups that are now considered ‘white’, such as Jews, were once excluded
from this category.
From a sociological perspective, it is this social construction of race, not its ‘natural’
existence- that is the primary object of inquiry in the study of racism. Combined with 18 th
century classifications of various racial groups were assertions of moral, intellectual, spiritual
and other forms of superiority, which were used to justify the domination of one racial group
over others. This ‘ideology of racial domination’ is called racism, in which the presume
biological and cultural superiority of one or more racial groups is used to justify inferior
treatment or social position of other racial groups. The process of ‘racialisation’ differentiates
groups of people based on perceived patterns of physical difference, such as skin colour or
eye shape, thereby constituting them as races. Racialisation becomes ‘racism’ when it
involves the hierarchical valuation of racial groups.

ORIGINS OF GERMAN RACE-THINKING

Race thinking in Germany did not develop before the defeat of the Prussian army by
Napoleon. It owed its rise to the Prussian patriots and political romanticism, rather than the
nobility. German race-thinking was hence initially invented in an effort to unite the people
against foreign domination. Its pioneers did not search for allies beyond the borders of
Germany, but wanted to awake in the people a consciousness of common origin. This is in
contrast to, say, the French race-thinking, which was a weapon for civil war and for splitting
the nation. [2]

Since German race-thinking accompanied the attempts to unite the numerous German states,
it remained so closely connected with more general national feelings in its early stages, that it
is difficult to distinguish between mere nationalism or chauvinism, and clear-cut racism. This
situation is changed only after 1870, when the unification of the nation had taken place. It
was after then that German racism, together with German imperialism, fully developed.

Prussian noblemen felt their interests to be closely connected with the position of absolute
monarchy, which led to them seeking recognition as the legitimate representatives of the
nation as a whole. The Prussian king, up to 1809 the greatest landlord of the country,
remained the first among equals despite all efforts of reformers. Therefore, race-thinking in
Germany developed outside the nobility, as a weapon of nationalists who insisted on a
common origin because they wanted the union of all German-speaking people. As long as
this common origin was defined by common language, one can hardly think of it as race-
thinking.

It became quite characteristic after 1814 for this common origin to be described in terms of
‘blood relationship’, family ties, tribal unity and pure origin. These definitions primarily
arose out of a failure of the hopes of arousing true national sentiments in the German people.
Out of the failure to arise nationalist sentiments and the lack of common historical memories,
a naturalistic appeal was born which addressed itself to tribal instincts instead. The organic
doctrine of a history for which ‘every race is a separate, complete whole’ (J. Goerres) was
invented by men who needed ideological definitions of national unity as a desperate
substitute for political nationhood.

In these organic naturalistic definitions lie the seeds of later racist theories, which then
became an outstanding characteristic of German ideologies. Herein lies a contradiction, for
the same people who spoke in these ‘racial’ terms still maintain the need for the equality of
all people, which is the main pillar of genuine nationhood. Since the German national
feelings had not been the result of genuine national development but rather the reaction
against foreign occupation, it is for this reason that national doctrines had a peculiar negative
character, destined to create a ‘racial’ wall around people, to act as substitutes for boundaries
that could not be defined geographically or historically.

German intellectuals, in the fight between the middle class and the nobility in this context,
found their interests at stake when it came to social ranks. In order to enter the competition
with rights and qualities of birth, the concept of ‘innate personality’ was born. Just as the lack
of a common history was overcome by the naturalistic concept of organic development, blood
nature was itself supposed to supply a title when political reality wouldn’t help. Soon enough,
‘true nobility’ began to be boasted of instead of political titles, because unlike titles that could
be taken away, the natural privileges of one’s birth could not be taken away by any human.

The discriminatory aspect of this new social concept came to be affirmed during the long
period of anti-Semitism in Germany. During this period which introduced Jew-hating as a
political weapon, it was this lack of ‘innate personality’, the lack of tact and productivity, and
the innate disposition for monetary activities, which separated the attitude of the average
German from the behaviour of his fellow Jew.
This insistence on common tribal origin as the cornerstone of nationhood (formulated by
German nationalists during and after the war of 1814) and the emphasis laid on ‘innate
personality’ and ‘natural nobility’ prepared the way for race-thinking in Germany. As long as
these two trends ran side by side, they were only a temporary means of escape from political
realities. However, once they were welded together, they formed the very basis for racism as
a full-fledged ideology.

NORDIC RACISM
The writings of the Nordic school of racists, especially those of Hans Günther achieved broad
popularity in Central Europe after 1918, and heavily contributed to Nazi racist ideologies.

The term ‘Nordic’ came into vogue rather late. Most 19th century theorists preferred to speak
of ‘Aryans’, ‘Teutons’ and ‘Indo-Europeans’. Only in the 1920s did a strong partiality for
‘Nordic’ begin to reveal itself. The expression appeared in Günther’s writings as a well-
defined concept shortly afterwards. Mankind, he argued, was divided into historic races
which differed greatly in physical structure, mental and moral capacities. Subsequently, he
divided the Europeans into five types- the Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, Denarian and East
Baltic.

Nordic theorists argued the necessity of assuming responsibility for the future of mankind,
even if it was at the expense of invading those areas of individual liberty that are usually
considered sacrosanct. Though they emphasised that love of freedom was a salient
characteristic of the Nordic personality, they themselves were more preoccupied with what
they considered to be the dangers of racial deterioration and inter-racial breeding, and as a
result were inclined towards groups like the Nazis who promised drastic measures to
maintain racial purity. [3]

At the end of the nineteenth century, such bio-organic theories of the society received more
stimulus from genetic researchers and from the discovery of the Mendelian laws of heredity.
According to the Swiss eugenicist Dr August Forel, who achieved a considerable reputation
in Germany, the question for modern science was to know “which races can be of service in
the further evolution of mankind, and which are useless. And if the lowest races are useless,
 [4]
how can they be gradually extinguished.” The eugenics or racial hygiene movement
consisted of a broad range of viewpoints. Some writers focused on hereditary differences
among individuals, stressing the adverse effects of urban civilisation on the purity of races,
and emphasising such degenerative processes operative within a nation. Others concentrated
their studies on the differences among races and the evils of interracial breeding. All agreed
on one point- that natural selection had to be replaced by socially guided selection. Most
eugenicists shared Günther’s critique of mass civilisation and viewed the German Reich as
one of the last regions of superiority in a fast decaying world. Hence, race research was not a
privileged pursuit. From the perspective of race hygienists, it was quite literally a matter of
life and death.

Apart from these more respectable advocates of eugenic controls, there also developed a
more radical group of activists who favoured the immediate establishment of new kinds of
racial communities. An interesting example of these schemes of racial aristocracy was the
plan for an Aryan breeding colony suggested by Willibald Hentschel. In his work Varuna
(1907), Hentschel advocated a commune composed of 1000 women and 100 men. Casual,
unplanned sexual intercourse would be a serious crime, and “marriage” would be terminated
with pregnancy, allowing the male to re-join the breeding pool immediately while the woman
would spend two years nurturing the child. The best specimens were to be retained by the
community while the rest would be sent out to the society to improve its racial composition.
Experiments on these lines, such as the colony of Eden, proved to be successful, and
numerous small groups arose during the Weimar.

However, most Nordic racists were sceptical of, and sometimes totally opposed to the
“chicken farm mentality” of Hentschel that reduced individuals to the level of livestock.
Bernhard Kummer, an early Nazi and Nordic racist, was deeply outraged by the proposed
ratio of men to women, and claimed that it resembled an oriental harem.

This brings us to the difficult question of the relation between the Nordic racists and the Nazi
party. The two had significant differences, since the former were merely a group of theorists
and academicians, while the latter were administrators and politicians concerned with the
exercise of power, and had the capacity to twist and shape ideology to suit their needs.
NAZI RACISM
The beginnings of Nazi racism can be found in the work of certain theorists and
academicians, which amassed a following and gradually transformed theories of racial
difference to theories of racial superiority.

Arthur de Gobineau, a French racial theorist and aristocrat, blamed the fall of the ancient
French regime on racial degeneration caused by racial inter-mixing, which he argued had
destroyed the purity of the Aryan race, a term he reserved only for the Germanic people. His
theories, which attracted a strong following in Germany, emphasised the existence of an
irrefutable distinction between the Aryan and Jewish cultures.

H. S. Chamberlain, a German proponent of racial theory, also supported notions of Germanic

supremacy and antisemitism in Germany. In his work, he assert that the German spirit was
threatened by a ‘Jewish’ spirit of materialism. The book became popular in Germany.
Chamberlain also stressed a nation’s need to maintain its racial purity in order to prevent its
degeneration. [5]

These works that spread hate against specific sections of German society gained a devoted
following due to economic reasons. There was a widespread and growing belief that the Jews
were economically exploiting Germans, due to the ascendancy of many wealthy Jews to
positions of economic power after the unification of Germany in 1871. German Jewish
bankers and financiers played a key role in fostering Germany’s economic growth from 1871
to 1913 and they benefited enormously from this boom. This overrepresentation of Jews in
white collar commerce and finance jobs caused resentment among non-Jewish Germans
[6]
during periods of economic crisis. Thus, one can find that the roots of increased
antisemitism sprung from the economic dominance of the Jewish community. As an expected
by-product, various radical right movements also adopted anti-Semitic and racist themes.

Followers Nazism racial position also twisted biological theories to justify their stance that a
racial hierarchy existed- that all races were not the same in terms of physical and intellectual
capability. For instance, Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution by natural selection,
also known as ‘survival of the fittest’. This was distorted and applied to the society as Social
Darwinism- competition among races is the driving force in history, and thus humanity would
eventually be benefitted if certain ‘weaker’ races disappeared. Hence, Social Darwinism
[7]
invested racism with even more potential for violence. Another example is that of
Mendelian inheritance, or Mendelism, which declared that genetic traits are passed from one
generation to another. The Nazis used this theory to demonstrate that social traits could be
inherited, and claimed a racial nature behind certain general traits such as inventiveness or
criminal behaviour. This was a trademark example of a new form of racism, called ‘scientific
racism’. It is due to this scientific racism that Jews came to be seen as a “race”, since the
negative qualities that were falsely attributed to them were now seen as genetic, and therefore
irremovable.

Another stark aspect was the rampant institutionalisation of racism in Nazi Germany. [8] The
first step to institutionalisation of a practice in a state often is legislation. The Nuremberg
Laws enacted in 1935 by the Nazi state mandated the abidance of racist practices. For
example, marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans was forbidden.
Citizenship was to be granted only to non-Jew Germans. Later, in 1936, Jews were banned
from all professional jobs, thus preventing them from having any influence in politics,
education or industry. In 1938, Jewish children were banned from going to school. This
further reduced their human rights. The ultimate aim was to deprive the Jewish generations to
an extent that they become reduced to second-class compared to the non-Jewish populace.

The second step to institutionalisation is education. The Nazis effectively utilised the
education system to embed racist beliefs in the minds of young children, so that their attitude
and perspective later in life as adults would be coloured by a racist, anti-Semitic lens. School
syllabus was revised to promote racial purity, and teachers who didn’t preach Nazi
propaganda were punished. For instance, a cartoon published by Ernst Heimer in 1938
depicts a classroom where children are being taught- ‘The Jewish nose is bent at its point. It
looks like the number 6.’

In addition to the systematic social and economic exclusion which was exacerbated through
media that spewed racist propaganda, there lies one most unmissable example of
institutionalisation of racism- the systematic extermination of millions of Jews. From 1941
onwards, Jews from various parts of Europe were brought into concentration camps by goods
trains. Mass killings would take place through scientific techniques, such as the gas chamber.
Many more starved or wasted to death in the terribly crowded and unhygienic concentration
camps, the most memorable of which is the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp- the graveyard of a
million Jews.

CONCLUSION
We began with a hypothesis- that the experience of inequality in Germany cannot be called
racism, since the communities of Germany such as Jews were not biologically distinct races.
This could not have been possible without first fully understanding what race meant. Upon
careful inspection of literature on the subject, it was revealed that there was never a temporal
consensus on the definition of a ‘race’ in history, and that its meaning had been amenable to
change in accordance with the needs of the society. However, there is one thing that race is
clearly and absolutely not- a biological reality.

This implied that our initial understanding of the concept was marked by a bias, and our
hypothesis stands denied. However, a larger question loomed- the question of how the
German society came to be marked by racialisation and eventual racism. It was a surprising
discovery that the roots for this socially divisive concept actually lay in the desire to unify the
German people in the face of a lack of a geographical and historical boundary. However,
racial theorists at this stage still preached equality of the races. That something so polarising
could stem from the desire to unify!

The research navigated its way from this initial conceptualisation of a singular German race,
to the theories of Nordic racism that later emerged and sowed the seeds for Nazi racism.
Nordic racism established a racial hierarchy in Germany, where the Aryans were categorised
as the purest race, while Jews lay on the other end of the spectrum. It was here that the works
of Frans F. K. Günther gained prominence. However, the reaction of Nordic racists to Nazi
racism varied widely, ranging from sympathy and support to total opposition.

Borrowing the ideas of racial hygiene and eugenics from the Nordic racists but adopting a far
more exploitative approach, we saw a set of policies and laws being implemented in
Germany under the dictatorship of Adolph Hitler. Not only did they promulgate the notion of
a racial hierarchy, but the ones deemed inferior in that hierarchy were systematically targeted
for persecution, segregation, and ultimately genocide.
Research in sociology would be an exercise in futility if it did not contribute something
gainful to shape one’s attitude towards the society in a meaningful way. This study sheds
much-needed light on the continuities and discontinuities between early and late historical
forms of racism. While the specific manifestations of racism may vary across the space-time
fabric, studying its evolution has the potential to reveal underlying patterns and dynamics that
may also be applicable to the modern society.

Most importantly, one needs to view social injustices- such as that perpetrated against the
Jews of Germany- through a humane lens, even if the matter is being pursued in academic
interest. In the words of Hannah Arendt,
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to
be good or evil.”
While maintaining a level of objectivity and value-neutrality is crucial for a sociologist, it is
imperative to prioritise one’s humanity above all else. This includes recognising and
confronting the moral dilemmas that are inherent in the study of such injustices. In the pursuit
of knowledge, one must never lose sight of the fundamental duty to uphold human dignity,
and confront injustice with empathy and integrity.

REFERENCES
1. Clair, M., & Denis, J. S. (2015). Sociology of racism. The international encyclopaedia
of the social and behavioural sciences, 19(2015), 857-63.

2. Arendt, H. (1944). Race-thinking before racism. The Review of Politics, 6(1), 36-73.

3. Field, G. G. (1977). Nordic racism. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38(3), 523-540.

4. Gasman, D. (2017). The scientific origins of national socialism. Routledge.

5. Connelly, J. (1999). Nazis and Slavs: from racial theory to racist practice. Central
European History, 32(1), 1-33.

6. Brustein, W. (2003). Roots of hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust.

Cambridge University Press.

7. Cox, J. (2013). Racial Ideology, Imperialism, and Nazi Genocide. Global

Dialogue, 15(1).
8. Kershaw, I. (2015). The Nazi dictatorship: Problems and perspectives of
interpretation. Bloomsbury Publishing.