AW: Gruenendahl, German Indology and National Socialism (Was: No longer Language barriers --- financial barriers)

[Gruenendahl, Reinhold]

Pressure is building up to end this debate. So I'll be as concise as
possible:

 

Professor Franco's claim was:

> It is touching to see how whenever Prof. Slaje is involved in a debate

> Dr. Gruenendahl comes to his rescue.

Since not "anyone" has access to the archive of the German INDOLOGIE-list
where the exchange Professor Franco refers to took place, I have pasted the
two relevant messages below. I hope this will show that I argued first and
foremost in defence of freedom of information. If Prof. Franco feels that
this is enough to prove his claim, I'm still waiting for a second example to
prove the "whenever"-pattern.

_______________________

 

Meanwhile, Professor Franco has shifted the debate into yet another
direction, claiming that my contribution to the Festschrift Gustav Roth was
an "attempt to exonerate German Indology from its affiliation with National
Socialism". For those who want to hear it, the title of my article says what
it is about:

"Von der Indologie zum Völkermord. Die Kontinuitätskonstrukte Sheldon
Pollocks und seiner Epigonen im Lichte ihrer Beweisführung".

My "agenda", as Professor Franco put it, was to examine the evidence Pollock
and his epigones produce in support of their claim that "German Indology"
contributed to the formulation of the National Socialist ideology. The result
was that this supposed evidence was largely non-existent.

This has nothing to do with exonerating "German indology" (a term Pollock
leaves undefined). That some indologists were members of the NSDAP is
undisputed, but it still remains to be shown that they contributed to the
formation of NS ideology, and if so, that their contribution was in any way
informed by their being indologists.

My examination involved a differentiated look at the positions taken by
Walther Wüst and Erich Frauwallner. This part is the source of Professor
Franco's discontextualized quotes, and I must leave it to the discretion of
the reader whether they are an adequate representation of my article.

If required, I can discuss Professor Franco's charges point by point, but for
the time being I shall leave it at that.

 

Reinhold Grünendahl

 

 
 

________________________________

Von: Indology im Auftrag von franco at RZ.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE
Gesendet: Mo 16.03.2009 03:50
An: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Betreff: Gruenendahl, German Indology and National Socialism (Was: No longer
Language barriers --- financial barriers)



Quoting "Gruenendahl, Reinhold" <gruenen at SUB.UNI-GOETTINGEN.DE>:

> Since Professor Franco indicated that he was too busy for proving his
earlier
> claims it would indeed be too much to ask him to substantiate his latest
> charges.

Even this very statement is a distortion or ?fabrication.? I never 
said or indicated that I am too busy to prove my claims. Dr. 
Gruenendahl asked for one example (?may I ask you to give one 
example??) and I gave him one example. He may not like the example, he 
may think that the example is no good, but he cannot (or should not) 
claim that I did not take the time to write to him.

Further, I tried to take this discussion off the list, honestly 
thinking that ?everybody had enough of this.? But Gruenendahl knows 
better. The real reason why I do not want to discuss it on the list, 
he claims, is that I do not want to discuss the example in public (?I 
understand that this is the reason why he would rather not discuss it 
in public.?). Basically he accuses me of being dishonest. But this 
accusation is plainly absurd. We already discussed this example in 
public, and Gruenendahl knows it because he himself participated in 
the discussion. If anyone is interested, they can find the discussion 
in the archive of the German Indologie discussion group.

Evidence for ad hominem argument and cheap psychological analysis was 
already given in the last message, but if it needs to be ?proved?, I 
quote: ?I cannot see who expects to gain from
this, except in terms of attention - undeserved attention, in my 
view.?  It is clear from the context that this statement refers to me.

The most  significant point, however, which should have a broader 
appeal, is Dr. Gruenendahl?s attempt to exonerate German Indology from 
its affiliation with National Socialism. I think the issue is 
important and want to discuss it in some detail, without, however, 
being exhaustive.

The publication in question is Gruenendahl?s contribution to Gustav 
Roth?s Felicitation Volume, entitled ?Von der Indologie zum 
Völkermord,? In U. Hüsken, P. Kieffer-Pülz and A. Peters [eds.], 
Jaina-Itih?sa-Ratna. Festschrift für Gustav Roth zum 90. Geburtstag. 
Marburg 2006, pp. 209-236. Already when I first read it, I was 
dismayed not only by Gruenendahl?s occasionally spiteful criticism of 
Sheldon Pollock, but also by the way Gruenendahl misunderstands and 
misrepresents his sources, especially in his attempt to exonerate 
Frauwallner from the charge, made by Pollock, of having been 
affiliated with National Socialist ideology.

Gruenendahl (p. 217) argues (and this is typical for his emotional 
style) that one would thoroughly misunderstand Pollock?s intentions if 
one would drag them down to the level of facts, which are a negligible 
quantity in the age of ?polyvalent? discourse. He states that Pollock 
does not use facts to determine reality, but resorts to strategic 
choices and interpretations of the materials to draw maximum attention 
to himself (!). Had I tried, I could not have found a better way to 
describe Gruenendahl?s own approach to the topic.

I will illustrate the above with ?facts.? But let me first note 
Gruenendahl?s remarkable lack of sensitivity to the historical and 
political context. A racist or racialist statement made in Germany in 
1939 or 1942 cannot be divorced from this context, and to argue, as 
Gruenendahl does (e.g., p. 232 and passim), that similar statements 
were already made by racists of previous generations (such as 
Gobineau, Renan, etc.) and that it is therefore not evident that these 
ideas (as expressed e.g., by Frauwallner in 1944) are associated with 
National Socialist ideology, is not only naïve, but preposterous.

Here are a few examples of how Gruenendahl twists his source material.

Frauwallner (in 1944) approvingly quotes von Soden to the effect that 
only the Indo-Europeans, which are determined by the Nordic race, are 
capable of creating science properly speaking and states that ?on the 
basis of our investigations up to now we cannot but agree with this 
statement? (? ?daß Wis¬sen¬schaft im strengen Sinn des Wortes etwas 
ist, das nur von den von der nordischen Rasse bestimmten Indogermanen 
geschaffen werden konnte? (S. 556). Wir können dieser Behauptung auf 
Grund unserer bisherigen Betrachtungen nur beistimmen.?).

Gruenendahl (p. 232) interprets this statement to mean that 
Frauwallner at least signalized some reserve in his endorsement of von 
Soden?s statement (?? einen Vorbehalt zumindest angedeutet?). This 
interpretation of a stereotypical expression (?auf Grund unserer 
bisherigen Betrachtungen?) is simply tendentious and farfetched. There 
is certainly nothing in this context to support it.

Frauwallner?s confident perception of himself as a true pioneer of 
solid philological research into the history of Indian philosophy is 
misinterpreted by Gruenendahl (p. 231) to mean that Frauwallner stated 
that the relevant direction of Indological research (i.e., research 
that is programmatically determined by the aspect of race) was in its 
beginning?an unsuccessful attempt by Gruenendahl to show, on the 
alleged authority of Frauwallner himself, that Indologists up to this 
time had not yet followed this line of research.

Furthermore, in his polemical zeal Gruenendahl misre¬presents 
Frauwallner?s hypothesis of two distinct, racially conditioned 
historical phases of Indian philosophy and inverts Frauwallner?s 
judgement about the second period: he presents Frauwallner?s reference 
to the peak (occurring in the first half of the second millennium) of 
the development of Indian philosophy in its *second*, clearly inferior 
phase as the view that ?the mingling of the two races? was fruitful 
and even led to a new peak of its own kind of Indian philosophy (p. 
229)!

Gruenendahl seems to ignore that Frauwallner repeated his racist 
interpretation of Indian philosophy even after the war (and without 
any reservations) in his ?History of Indian Philosophy,? Vol. I, pp. 
26-27. In this context, Frauwallner?s usage of the typical Nazi term 
?Volkskörper? (nation?s body) has to be noted. As is well known, the 
National Socialists thought of the German nation as a body to be kept 
healthy, clean and free from disease, obnoxious influences and 
parasites (such as minorities belonging to so-called inferior races). 
The same racist historical interpretation is repeated as late as 1959 
in Frauwallner?s article ?Indische Philosophie.? This time at least he 
adds that a definitive statement about this, i.e., the racial 
background of the two developmental phases of Indian philosophy, seems 
?premature? (verfrüht).

That Frauwallner was an anti-Semite is certainly not an unfounded 
inference by Pollock (as Gruenendahl claims on p. 233), but a well 
attested fact. Even though there are no direct anti-Semitic statements 
in Frauwallner?s writings, there are other sources that testify 
clearly to his anti-Semitism well after WW II (cf., for instance, the 
sources utilized by Jakob Stuchlik?s dissertation submitted to the 
University of Vienna in 2005 and his forthcoming monograph on the 
background of Frauwallner?s ?Aryan hypothesis? to be published by the 
Austrian Academy of Sciences). It is arbitrary and unacceptable to 
form a judgement on the basis of published Indological studies alone.

Gruenendahl points out some differences between Frauwallner?s 
statements and those of Chamberlain (p. 228) and the agreement of the 
former with Gobineau?s positions (p. 229), but fails to indicate 
Frauwallner?s more immediate sources of inspiration. One such source 
is the renowned Vedic and Bud¬dhist scholar Hermann Oldenberg, whom 
Frauwallner admired; some of the former?s statements seem to have been 
of direct inspiration to him. I will quote from this source below 
because I believe that it is not well known and interesting reading 
(Die Literatur des alten Indien, pp. 132-133).

More details on the relationship between Frauwallner?s work on the 
history of Indian philosophy and his National Socialist ideology are 
available in a preface by Karin Preisendanz and myself to a 
forthcoming reprint of Frauwallner?s Philosophie des Buddhismus.

As for Gruenendahl?s confident statement that there is evidently no 
ideological consensus between Walther Wüst and Ludwig Alsdorf (p. 
213), and his denial that racist ideology did not at all affect 
Alsdorf?s scholarly work (p. 225), compare the first chapter of 
Alsdorf?s ?Indien? in the Weltpolitische Bücherei (supervised by 
Alfred Rosenberg himself), second edition, Deutscher Verlag Berlin, 
1942, especially pp. 12-13.

To be sure, Pollock?s statements and hypotheses are at times daring 
and sweeping, but they constitute the beginning of the exploration of 
this phase of the history of our discipline, all the more so as, more 
than sixty years after WWII, no German Indologist has attempted to 
undertake the task of coming to terms with Indology during this dark 
period of German history. In this sense, Gruenendahl?s announced 
monograph will be very welcome indeed. One only hopes that it will be 
less biased than his paper referred to above.

With best wishes,
Eli Franco

P.S. For Prof.  Slaje?s eloquent praise of Gruenendahl?s work and 
method, cf. his message to the list dated January 9, 2007.

H. Oldenberg, Die Literatur des alten Indien, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1923, 
pp. 132-133:
?Above all there were probably influences [by the indi¬genous people 
of India] that worked in a very pro¬found way which we can only 
surmise: through the gradually progressing transformation of the 
blood, which means a transformation of the Soul, through the constant 
influx of new quantities of the blood of savages and semi-savages into 
the veins of those who still called themselves Aryans. Zeus and Apollo 
continued to rule as long as there were Greek gods because the Greek 
nation remained the same. Indra and Agni had to leave the field to 
other gods because the Indian nation had become a different one. For 
these minds, in which an inscrutable jumble of anta¬gonistic powers, 
intertwined with each other, unleashed at each other, was at work, the 
Vedic gods were much too guile¬lessly simple; their being was all too 
easily exhausted. They had come from the North: now tropical gods were 
needed. These were hardly of fixed shapes any longer; they were whole 
tangles of shapes, bodies from which oozed heads upon heads, arms upon 
arms, multi¬tudes of hands holding multitudes of attributes, clubs and 
lotus flowers: voluptuous, sombre and grandiose poetry every¬where, 
exuberance and blurred shapelessness: a terrible disaster for the fine 
arts? (?Vor allem werden jene Ein¬flüsse (scil. der Urbewohner 
Indiens) in einer tiefsten Weise gewirkt haben, die wir nur ahnen 
können: durch die allmählich fortschreitende Wandlung des Blutes, die 
eine Wandlung der Seele bedeutet, durch das be¬ständige Ein¬strömen 
neuer Mengen von Wilden- und Halb¬wil¬den¬blut in die Adern derer, die 
sich noch immer Arier nann¬ten. Zeus und Apollon haben ihre Herrschaft 
be¬halten, solange es griechische Götter gab, denn das Grie¬chenvolk 
blieb dasselbe. Indra und Agni mussten andern Göttern das Feld räumen, 
denn das indische Volk war ein andres ge¬worden. Für diese Geister, in 
denen un¬er¬gründliche Mischungen widerstreitender Kräfte, 
mit¬einander ver¬schlungen, gegeneinander entfesselt, ihr Spiel 
trieben, waren die Vedagötter allzu kindlich einfach; gar zu leicht 
war ihr Wesen ausgeschöpft. Sie waren von Norden ge¬kommen: jetzt 
brauchte man tropische Götter. Es waren kaum mehr feste Gestalten; es 
waren ganze Gestal¬ten¬knäuel, Körper, aus denen Köpfe über Köpfe, 
Arme über Arme hervor¬quollen, Mengen von Händen, die Mengen von 
Attributen, Keulen und Lotusblumen halten: überall üppige und düstere, 
grandiose Poesie, Überfülle und ver¬schwommene Formlosigkeit: Ein 
böses Verhängnis für die bildende Kunst.?)











> [A pedantic correction: We met in Berlin on one or two occasions, and I
> remember them as rather pleasant.]
>
>
>
> Reinhold Grünendahl
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Indology im Auftrag von franco at RZ.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE
> Gesendet: Sa 14.03.2009 23:47
> An: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
> Betreff: No longer Language barriers --- financial barriers
>
>
>
> I guess I was wrong; unfortunately, not everybody had enough of this.
> So here we go for one more round, hopefully the last. I apologize for
> responding a bit late; I was busy during the last few days.
>
> Dr. Gruenendahl is right. Two times are not enough to establish a
> pattern. Perhaps next time he will side with me against a point made
> by Prof. Slaje, but I somehow doubt it.
>
> What I object to, of course, is not the fact that he takes sides in a
> discussion, but to his aggressive manner, malicious distortion of what
> I said, his use of ad hominem arguments, and cheap psychological
> analysis of the type ?Franco writes because he wants to draw attention
> to himself, undeserved attention.? In the same vein I could say, e.g.,
> ?Gruenendahl?s offensiveness is only due to some personal frustration,
> deserved frustration.? However, I do not want to regress to
> Kindergarten level.
>
> Some of you have voiced the concern that the list has become a place
> for personal and private battles. I can assure you that there was
> absolutely nothing personal in my remark about the Glasenapp
> Foundation. Furthermore, Dr. Gruenendahl and I do not know each other;
> at least I do not remember ever meeting him.
>
> Further, I do not think that Dr. Gruenendahl *purposefully* distorts
> what I said, but that his vision is blurred by some agenda. The same
> kind of distortion, at times even spiteful criticism he displays in
> some of his published work, notably in his attempt to exonerate German
> Indology from the charge of having been affiliated with National
> Socialism. There was a discussion about this last year on the list.
>
> With best wishes,
> Eli Franco
>
> Quoting "Gruenendahl, Reinhold" <gruenen at SUB.UNI-GOETTINGEN.DE>:
>
>> On 9 Mar 2009 at 21:09, franco at RZ.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to refresh Dr. Gruenendahl's memory off the list. I am sure
>>
>>> everybody had enough of this by now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies to everybody who has had enough of this.
>>
>> I thank Professor Franco for his kind assistance in refreshing my memory.
> As
>> I see it, the significance of the case he referred to offline lies not so
>> much in my agreement with Walter Slaje (actually I had endorsed his
>> forwarding of third-party information), but in my perceived disagreement
> with
>> Professor Franco, who was not altogether disinterested in the case and its
>> decision before a German court. I understand that this is the reason why
he
>> would rather not discuss it in public.
>>
>> So we still are where we were yesterday: I would have to consider
Professor
>> Franco's remark a mere fabrication unless he comes up with evidence that
is
>> presentable to the public, preferably a case in which he had no personal
>> interest, if that isn't asking too much. It goes without saying that at
> least
>> one more example would be needed to get anywhere near the
> "whenever"-pattern
>> insinuated in his remark.
>>
>> Talking about patterns, there is another one that seems all too familiar:
> "I
>> have made my point, and now that I have been asked to prove it I am sure
>> everyone had enough of it."
>>
>> Reinhold Grünendahl
>>
>> *****************************************
>>
>> On 9 Mar 2009 at 17:15, franco at RZ.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE wrote:
>>
>>> It is touching to see how whenever Prof. Slaje is involved in a debate
>>
>>> Dr. Gruenendahl comes to his rescue.
>>
>>> Best wishes
>>
>>> EF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


 

#################################################################

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "gruenendahl" <gruenen at mail.sub.uni-goettingen.de>

To: "Eli Franco" <e.franco at NUSURF.AT>; "Informationsaustausch der

deutschsprachigen Indologie" <INDOLOGIE at LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:56 AM

Subject: Re: Urteil Oberverwaltungsgericht Hamburg zu Berufungsverfahren

 

Ich kann weder erkennen, weshalb der Hinweis von Herrn Slaje auf eine

im Internet zugängliche Information "einiger Präzisierungen und

Ergänzungen" bedürfte, noch, welchen Beitrag die Einlassung von Herrn

Franco dazu ggf. leisten könnte. Gegenstand der Nachricht von Herrn

Slaje war die Bereitstellung der Information, nicht das Gerichtsurteil. Den

Hinweis von Herrn Slaje nehme ich dankend zur Kenntnis, die kaum

objektiv zu nennende Einschätzung des Berufungsverfahrens (" ... zum

Himmel stinkt ..." etc.) sowie des in der Sache ergangenen Urteils sollte

aus meiner Sicht nicht Gegenstand dieser Liste sein.

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Reinhold Grünendahl

*****************************************************************************
********

 

 

Absender: "Eli Franco" <e.franco at NUSURF.AT>

Empf nger: <INDOLOGIE at LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>

Datum: 27. Sep 2005 02:05

Betreff: Re: Urteil Oberverwaltungsgericht Hamburg zu Berufungsverfahren

Herr Gruenendahl liest nicht richtig. Herr Slajes Nachricht ist nicht bloss

ein Hinweis, sondern auch eine Behauptung, naemlich dass der Urteil des

Oberverwaltungsgerichts Hamburg "auch für die Indologie von erheblicher

Relevanz sein d rfte", und dies ist falsch oder "bedarf einer

Praezisierung", weil jedes Bundesland ein anderes Hochschulgesetz hat.

Welche Motivation hinter diesem angeblich neutralem Hinweis steht, vermag

ich nicht zu sagen.

Herr Gruenendahl folgert auch nicht richtig. Nur aus der Behauptung, dass

das Verfahren stinkt, kann man nicht erschliessen, dass die Behauptung nicht

"objektiv" ist. Manche Verfahren stinken auch "objektiv" und im vorliegenden

Fall wurden auch die durchaus nachweisbaren, objektiven Indizien dafuer

angefuehrt.

Mir ist ferner nicht ersichtlich warum er nur fuer eine gewisse Art von

Information dankbar ist, und nicht fuer eine andere.

Ich bin jedoch im Grunde ganz Herrn Gruenendahls Meinung. Das Urteil sollte

nicht Gegenstand

einer Diskussion in dieser Liste sein und ich haette auch nichts darueber

geschrieben, wenn Herr

Slaje nicht mit seinem "objektiven" Hinweis und seiner Behauptung eben eine

solche provoziert

haette.

Mit freundliche Gruessen

Eli Franco