Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues ALISON FURLONG THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Action requires sound. Action requires the audible presence of those people engaged in it. Political action is most commonly associated with a specific type of sound: that is, speech. In The Human Condition, German political theorist Hannah Arendt writes: «No other human performance requires speech to the same extent as action. In all other performances speech plays a subordinate role, as a means of communication or a mere accompaniment to something that could also be achieved in silence» (Arendt 179). This is no metaphor, and can be expanded beyond mere speech to include other sounds, including (but not limited to) music. Public political action can take the form of speeches, or of chanting at a protest march, but it can also be heard in church bells or in collective singing. Sound creates a world, and is thus never only about itself; rather, sound makes a claim on our attention, bringing us into the world it creates. Sound acts upon us. And action, by definition, makes noise. In the context of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), sound also had the power to challenge a discourse that sought to keep the religious domain wholly apart from the public sphere. Indeed, debates over sound - as distinguished from music on one hand, or noise on the other - are always entwined with concerns over political and social power. In his discussion of discord between American religious groups, the scholar of religion Isaac Weiner points out that noise is a label used to demarcate «threats to a dominant social order» (Weiner 5). Similarly, in his work on jazz funerals in post-Katrina New Orleans, Matt Sakakeeny writes that «one’s experience of a soundscape is dependent on an orientation toward sound, in terms of both physical proximity (near or far, loud or soft) and evaluative listening (music or noise, pleasurable or intrusive)» (Sakakeeny 4). Finally, in her work on Latin American popular music circulation, Ana María Ochoa Gautier argues that «the public sphere is increasingly mediated by the aural. [. . .] [It] is being redefined to include forms of participation which are not channeled by the forms of debate or participation historically recognized as such by the official polity» (Gautier 807). In the case of the late GDR, churches sought to use sound not merely to mediate a public sphere, but to create one. The growing heterogeneity of sounds in East Berlin churches at the time can be read as a signifier of the diverse new social movements that coalesced in church spaces. On 1 June 1979, Jugendpfarrer Rainer Eppelmann of East Berlin’s Samariterkirche, together with blues musician Gunther «Holly» Holwas, Pfarrer Heinz-Otto Seidenschnur, Diakon Bernd Schröder and other members of the Church, hosted the first so-called «Blues-Mass.» This new genre took advantage of increased religious freedom in East Germany by combining popular music, skits about social and political concerns, and religious content. In creating this hybrid genre, Schröder, Holwas, Eppelmann, and Seidenschnur were entering into a debate not only over how church spaces could and should be used, but also how they might be heard. Within the Blues-Mass genre, sound, broadly conceived, became a signifier of pluralism and of political action, within the protected context of a Protestant worship service. Still, the Church’s protection was constantly being renegotiated. The Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) scrutinized events in churches, looking for anything that might cross the line into political advocacy, and regular churchgoers did not always approve of the nontraditional groups the Blues-Masses brought into their religious spaces. Between 1979 and 1986, twenty Blues-Masses took place at the Samariterkirche, Auferstehungskirche, and Erlöserkirche in East Berlin, and Blues- Masses became a genre unto themselves. A re-engagement with the social and sonic world of Blues-Masses creates a rich portrait of the ways in which participants in the genre engaged in political action through sound: musical or theatrical performance, religious speech, or political rhetoric. At the same time, such an investigation reveals how churches and Blues- Mass organizers balanced their spiritual missions with social engagement. To this end, I will examine the structure and generic conventions of the Blues- Mass, paying special attention to the mass on 29 February 1980. This microhistory, supported by examples from other Blue-Masses and ethnographic interviews with organizers and participants, shows that these events created a heightened sense of pluralism within the Church, in contrast to the homogeneity of the official public sphere. 1 Each of the discrete elements of a Blues-Mass - the performative frame, theatrical pieces, musical performances, and religious content - were tied together into a coherent whole that simultaneously brought multiple publics into coalition. That coalition was always being recreated and renegotiated, however: established groups sought to strengthen their claims on the social space, while fresh groups joined and made new demands. Pluralism, as pursued by Blues-Mass participants and organizers, was paradoxically both the reason for the genre’s success and the source of its ultimate demise. That pluralism can 434 Alison Furlong be traced through the increasingly heterogeneous sounds of the Blues-Mass, which at its best reflected a thrilling harmony amongst participants. In later years, that multiplicity of sounds became discordant, as myriad participating groups vied to make their voices heard. In order for the pluralistic social groups created within the Blues-Mass space to produce real social change, and to have a voice in the broader public sphere of East Germany, they needed to leave the safe, but limiting, space of the Church. The event that made the Blues-Masses possible in the first place occurred on 6 March 1978, when East German Head of State Erich Honecker met with Bishop Albrecht Schönherr to discuss Church-state relations in the GDR. This was the first formal meeting of its kind between the Church and state hierarchies. Sabrina Ramet points out the unique situation in East Germany, «the only communist system in which Protestantism was clearly the predominant religious force,» giving individual parishes and pastors relative autonomy in their ministry (Ramet 53). Officially, freedom of religion was provided by the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, adopted 7 October 1949. Section Vof that document dealt entirely with «Religion and Religious Associations,» and stated: (1) Jeder Bürger genießt volle Glaubens- und Gewissensfreiheit. Die ungestörte Religionsausübung steht unter dem Schutz der Republik. (2) Einrichtungen von Religionsgemeinschaften, religiöse Handlungen und der Religionsunterricht dürfen nicht für verfassungswidrige oder parteipolitische Zwecke mißbraucht werden. Jedoch bleibt das Recht der Religionsgemeinschaften, zu den Lebensfragen des Volkes von ihrem Standpunkt aus Stellung zu nehmen, unbestritten. («Verfassung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik» Artikel 41) This statement engendered relatively good conditions for religious individuals during the early years of state socialism in Germany and kept active prewar relationships between East German and West German churches. During Walter Ulbricht’s presidency (1960 - 73), however, this relatively tolerant stance began to slip. The official policy of religious freedom was undermined by the consequences of actual religious practice. For instance, beginning in 1964, Christians objecting to military service were permitted to join the Baueinheiten («Anordnung des Nationalen Verteidigungsrates»). Bausoldaten, as they were called, could fulfill their required service on construction projects to benefit the national infrastructure. In practice, however, participation in this program marked an individual as «negativfeindlicher»; Bausoldaten were not allowed to attend university, and many careers were immediately foreclosed. 435 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues In the 1968 Constitution, mention of religious practices was kept to a minimum, and protection reduced considerably. That document stated: (1) Jeder Bürger der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik hat das Recht, sich zu einem religiösen Glauben zu bekennen und religiöse Handlungen auszuüben. (2) Kirchen und andere Religionsgemeinschaften ordnen ihre Angelegenheiten und üben ihre Tätigkeit aus in Übereinstimmung mit der Verfassung und den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Näheres kann durch Vereinbarungen geregelt werden («Verfassung Der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik» Artikel 39). Although individual citizens were still guaranteed freedom of religious belief, religious institutions were now more heavily restricted and required to act in accordance with state dictates, with details worked out on a case-bycase basis that invariably favored the state. At the same time, the East German Church separated formally from the West German Evangelical Church (EKD), leading to increased isolation for East German Christians. 2 The 1978 Honecker-Schönherr meeting resulted in a tentative rapprochement between the Protestant Church and the state that allowed Christians to take the Abitur examination and attend university, included pastors in the state pension plan, and offered churches improved (albeit limited) access to media. Perhaps most important, this meeting marked the state’s reluctant acknowledgment of the Church’s autonomy and its value to society. In exchange for official political neutrality, people in church spaces were Figure 1: Map: Three East Berlin churches in relation to the border zone. United States. Central Intelligence Agency, «Berlin Region,» map (Washington DC, June 1989). 436 Alison Furlong allowed to express themselves freely, and religious content could not be forbidden. State officials, including employees of the Staatssekretariat für Kirchenfragen, agents of the Stasi, and «Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter» - civilians recruited by the Stasi for surveillance work - watched church spaces carefully. The Stasi’s infamous Hauptabteilung XX was tasked with investigating underground political activities, along with what it called the «abuses» of churches, but it could not prevent a Church from holding worship services. The Church’s position as a relatively safe venue made it a crucial space for the social movements of the late 1970s and 1980s, even as those movements served to challenge the new detente between Church and state. The first Blues-Mass, not yet called by that name, took place on the evening of Friday, 1 June 1979, at the Samariterkirche in East Berlin’s Friedrichshain neighborhood. Although the event had been publicized only through word of mouth, it drew between 250 and 350 visitors, a dramatic contrast to the usual turnout for Sunday services, which Pfarrer Eppelmann told me ranged between thirty and fifty people. A second event was planned almost immediately for 13 July, this time under the theme «Zwischen Haß und Hoffnung.» As Eppelmann relates the story, with each successive Blues- Mass, the crowd in the church doubled. While that is an exaggeration, it is only a slight one. The second Blues-Mass drew between 450 and 500 people, and by the fifth Blues-Mass on 25 April 1980, the Samariterkirche could no longer contain the 1,500 participants, forcing organizers to move the events (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, 25 April1980, «Betr.: Blues-Messe in der Samariter- Kirche am 25. 4. 80 von 19.30 [Uhr] bis ca. 21.30 [Uhr]»). As an interim solution, Blues-Masses were held at both the Samariterkirche and the Auferstehungskirche. Visitors who found the first church full for the 4: 30 p. m. service could either walk or take the U-Bahn to the Auferstehungskirche and arrive in time for a 7 p. m. Blues-Mass with different musicians but the same spoken text. Finally, the Blues-Masses found a home at the Erlöserkirche in the more remote neighborhood of Berlin- Lichtenberg. The Erlöserkirche, besides being substantially larger, also sat on roughly half an acre of land bordered by the S-Bahn tracks. This gave visitors a place to gather outside the church building before or after an event, while also providing a sound buffer between the often loud performances and nearby residents. Some attendees chose to camp for the weekend on church grounds. At the height of their popularity in 1982, between 3,500 and 4,000 people were attending these Blues-Masses, which were by then being held as four consecutive events on a single day. 437 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues As a purposefully popular genre performed in a church space, the Blues- Mass brought together heterogeneous groups of people to create a new public. We might here borrow Michael Warner’s definition of a public as a group that organizes itself through attention to a particular text or performance (Warner 49). Warner takes care to distinguish a public from the more concrete notion of an audience, and, critically, from the public writ large. Rather, a public is an «addressable object [. . .] conjured into being in order to enable the very discourse that gives it existence» (Warner 51). Each of the performance types represented in a Blues-Mass «conjured into being» a distinct public: Christian youth attended to the psalms and sermon, burgeoning grass-roots groups were drawn to political skits, and musical performances brought in fans of blues, folk, and eventually rock and punk music. Once within the church, however, these groups and their multiple desires united into a single heterogenous counterpublic, convened through their attention to the performance and bound by their conflict with both the dominant discourse in the GDR and with the social norms that reproduced that discourse. This assemblage was key to the success of the Blues-Masses; its noisy messiness was also its appeal, as it provided a contrast to the conformity demanded in official spaces. Hannah Arendt called «plurality,» or the coming together of contrasting views, essential for any kind of meaningful political engagement (Arendt 7). The Blues-Mass genre became an overt performance of plurality through sound and reflected a serious effort to address multiple constituencies as a coherent (if diverse) whole. Within this pluralistic framework, peace activists, hippies, Christians, blues fans, singersongwriters, and punks vied for space and voice, sometimes during the same event. Warner’s model stresses that «[a] public organizes itself independently of state institutions, law, formal frameworks of citizenship, or preexisting institutions such as the church» (Warner 51). Although the Blues-Mass public organized itself around discourse provided by church organizers, and presented on church grounds, they endeavored to remain independent from the Church as an institution. This separation between the Church and the Blues-Mass public, however, became ever more fraught, and harder to maintain. Some participants worried (and rightly so) that if the Church was pressured by the ruling Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED), it would protect itself before it would protect them. Just as importantly, as long as the grassroots groups who made up the Blues-Mass public relied on church spaces, their reach was limited. As individual interest groups gained strength and confidence, they left the Blues-Masses to create new texts and perfor- 438 Alison Furlong mances, centered around their own specific interests. By 1986 the Blues- Masses had outlived their usefulness, lost their public, and came to an end. From the original inception of the Blues-Masses, organizers balanced political, social, and sacred concerns with musical ones. The use of popular music styles in the context of worship was not completely new; Pfarrer Walter Schilling used jazz as an important element of his Open Youth Work in the early 1970s (Tyndale 68). What was new about the Blues-Masses was its direct appeal to non-believers. As Pfarrer Eppelmann described his first meeting with Holwas, the project began as a compromise between the sacred and the secular. Holwas, a self-taught blues musician and former Bausoldat, had been denied a license to perform by the SED’s Committee for Entertainment Arts. He proposed to give blues concerts at the church, perhaps to raise money for some worthy cause. Eppelmann’s position was that, while a purely secular concert was not feasible, blues music would be permissible as part of a religious service (Eppelmann). Pfarrer Seidenschnur’s recollection of early meetings confirmed the importance of blending the sacred and the secular; Diakon Schröder concurred, citing increasing openness to social ministry within the Church hierarchy and a willingness to engage with non-Christians as prerequisites to the Blues-Mass (Seidenschnur; Schröder). Given how tightly the East German music industry was regulated, it is easy to see how appealing the idea of a church performance would have been to Holwas. All professional musicians needed to be licensed, not only to record through the state-owned Amiga record label, but also to perform at any official venue, which is to say at almost any venue at all. One man I interviewed, himself an officially licensed Liedermacher (singer-songwriter), explained that the system was in place so that musicians could live as musicians without needing to hold down other jobs. The Liedermacher, who uses the pseudonym «Malcolm,» explained the value of the state’s measures to ensure quality and «proper training» for musicians. Conspicuously absent from Malcolm’s account, however, were the restrictions placed on political speech by musicians, whether on stage or off, or the fact that licensing could be rescinded at any time («Malcolm»). In 1975 the Klaus Renft Combo, one of the most popular GDR rock bands, was banned from performance, and in 1976 the SED forcibly expatriated popular Liedermacher Wolf Biermann. These events brought into sharp focus the precarious nature of life as a working musician under state socialism, leading many musicians to seek alternative performance venues. Non-licensed musicians, including Liedermacher, rock and blues bands, and punk bands, were left with limited options. Many performed in 439 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues apartments or squats, especially in the East Berlin neighborhood of Prenzlauer Berg, with publicity handled through word of mouth. Use of a church space, by contrast, opened a world of possibilities. Unlike an apartment, a church could hold an audience of hundreds, even thousands of people. Further, as large non-state-run spaces, churches were unique. They could allow unlicensed bands to perform in an arena that was accessible to citizens at large, but also offered some protection from official interference. As the popularity of the Blues-Mass increased, the format began to take on certain generic conventions, inspired by a traditional Evangelical worship service, but with some notable differences. Each event centered on a single theme, typically rooted in some problematic aspect of everyday life in the GDR. Themes included «Angst überwinden,» «Lustlosigkeit,» and «Hin- und Hergerissen.» A typical Blues-Mass opened with a greeting, followed by a blues or other popular song. After this, short skits would be separated by additional musical performances, often with one or two Psalm readings in the mix. Music also flanked the sermon (sometimes replaced with something more akin to a dramatic monologue). Finally, there would be intercessory prayers, a collection of money for youth ministry, announcements, a farewell to the participants, and a closing musical number. Each of these elements had a parallel in the traditional Evangelical service - skits served the function of biblical readings and gospel selections, while popular music stood in for hymnody - but at the same time they created a wholly separate type of event, aimed as much at non-believers as believers. Each element of the Blues-Mass genre - musical, dramatic, and liturgical - appealed to a different portion of its larger public, and their juxtaposition made clear the diversity of the Blues- Mass audience. As in a traditional worship service, the Blues-Mass opened with a greeting to participants. Unlike a more traditional service, however, that greeting specifically included words of welcome to visitors from other regions of the GDR. After Rainer Eppelmann called out each place name, the «Trampers» who had hitchhiked or traveled by train from Sachsen, Thüringen, or Mecklenburg would cheer and applaud. In this way the greeting made audible the broad geographical range of the Blues-Mass, as well as giving those from the provinces an opportunity to make themselves heard within the capital city. Another aspect of the greeting draws attention to the multiple subcultures who would be addressed by the individual elements of the Blues-Mass. The introduction to a 29 February 1980 Blues-Mass in the Samariterkirche, built around the theme «Frieden - Konfliktklärung ohne Gewalt,» is a particularly striking example of this appeal: 440 Alison Furlong Finde es auch dufte, wenn wir versuchen aufeinander Rücksicht zu nehmen. Das heißt: Einige kommen wegen der Musik, um zu träumen, um sich irgendwie zu fühlen, zu merken, daß da jemand bei mir ist. Und andere kommen, um auf die Texte zu hören, die dabei verlesen werden. Andere wieder kommen um zu beten, und auf das Wort der Verkündigung zu hören. Ich finde, daß alles seinen gleichen Rang heute bekommen soll. Und daß wir die Kraft haben für die paar Stunden, die wir hier zusammen sind, miteinander tolerant zu leben. («29 February 1980 Blues- Messe») This greeting calls upon participants to show respect for one another’s differences and to come together in celebration. In their reports on the event, Stasi agents took a different view of the greeting’s call for pluralism, cynically commenting that «Man wolle sich bemühen, allen gerecht zu werden» (BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 1449, 5 March 1980, «Information über die Blues-Messe des Kreisjugendkonventes der Evangelischen Kirche Berlin Friedrichshain am 29. 2. 1980 von 19.30 Uhr bis 22.00 Uhr in der Samariter-Kirche»). Just as in a traditional Evangelical service, the greeting served as a framing device to set the Blues-Mass, and the church event more generally, apart from everyday life. It marked the Blues-Mass as what Victor Turner would have called a liminal space: a «moment in and out of time,» in which usual social restrictions no longer applied (Turner 96). As in a traditional service, the greeting was used to establish the Blues-Mass as a spiritual occasion, but it also created a zone of protection, in which religious freedom could take on the form of political and social freedom. Here participants could exercise «the powers of the weak,» as Turner calls it, and share the space in a sense of communitas. 3 An interview with photographer Harald Hauswald confirmed that the Blues-Masses served as a special social space, set apart from the mundane world. When I inquired about his photography, much of which deals with the everyday in East Berlin, and asked him to place his photographs of Blues-Masses into that context, he replied, «That was something different. The Church was different. It was the only place we could speak freely» (Hauswald). He went on to point out that, although he was an atheist, he remained «grateful» for the existence of the Blues-Masses and the opening of churches as a «freier Raum» for expression. Indeed, churches in East Germany had been steadily expanding their reach to reform-minded groups for many years at this point. Since Schönherr’s appointment as Bishop of Berlin-Brandenburg, he had made strides toward solidifying the Church’s position, spearheading the 1969 founding of the new Federation of Protestant Churches (BEK), which unified the eight regional churches of East Germany into a single umbrella organization, and establishing the «Church within socialism» policy that marked Church-state inter- 441 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues action through the 1970s. Wendy Tyndale points out the deep connection between Schönherr’s work and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology. As a twentyone-year-old student, Schönherr had befriended and studied under Bonhoeffer, embracing his vision of a «Church for others» (Tyndale 36). While the new Federation was met with some skepticism from Christians who viewed it as a capitulation - that it amounted to an admission that Germany would remain divided for the foreseeable future - it was also a savvy political maneuver. With the rise of the BEK, it became harder for the SED to divide and conquer. It could no longer effectively deal with each church individually, assisting those who where politically convenient whilst punishing those who criticized the regime (Tyndale 37). At the same time, the narrow path implied by the «Church within socialism» policy produced a stability that allowed Church hierarchy to operate within the socialist structure while still pursuing its mission to be a «Church for others.» With these two actions, Schönherr effectively set the stage for what would follow. Political and theatrical performances formed the core of the Blues-Mass, and these performances drew the most attention from state observers. These skits were designed in a manner similar to parables, often using broadly drawn character types with symbolic names. A skit from 23 April 1982 featured Diakon Ralph Syrowatka as «Herr Lustlos,» who bemoans his grey everyday life, and begs God to help him find a way to change his «broken world» (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, n. d., «Information über eine Kontrolle von sogenannten ‹Bluesmessen› in der Erlöserkirche Berlin-Lichtenberg, Noldnerstraße 43»). Another sketch, from the 4 July 1980 Blues-Mass, makes explicit reference to the constant surveillance of the Blues-Masses: using the German term for coward, Angsthase, this sketch takes place in «Angsthasen-Land,» and features performers in long ears playing the parts of four Angsthasen as a narrator describes various things they fear. 4 One segment casts the Angsthasen as secret police, ordered to find out why so many young people were gathering in churches, and using the motto «trust is good but control is better! » At the conclusion of the skit, the narrator announces: «They, the four secret police, didn’t give up, and we can therefore now observe them at work.» Whereupon, the Angsthasen left the sanctuary and sat down among the worshippers. Throughout the rest of the Blues- Mass, they kept their long ears, a visible reminder of ongoing surveillance (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, n. d., «Anlagekarte 6 - Blues-Messe am 4. 7. 1980»). The theatrical piece used in the 29 February 1980 Blues-Mass, while less incendiary than the Angsthasen skit, made direct reference to the frustrations of everyday life in East Germany. In this skit, two men (played by Syrowatka and Uwe Kulisch) held up signs - one white and one black - as they read 442 Alison Furlong conflicting «headlines» about current events (see Figure 2). During the backand-forth, Eppelmann stood between the two, finally holding up a sign with a large question mark, and pretending to faint from dizziness. Weiß Schwarz 2 - 4 Millionen Menschen durch Pol-Pot-Regime ermordet. Militärische Einmischung Vietnams in Kampuchea. Entspannungspolitik muß fortgesetzt werden. Erdölvorkommen müssen militärisch gesichert werden. In Kampuchea geht es nicht um unseren Wohlstand, nicht um das Öl, nur um Menschen. Kampucheaner dem sicheren Hungertod ausgeliefert - Hilfsgüter erreichen die Menschen nicht. NATO-Raketenbeschluß gefährdet die Menschheit. Sowjetische Mittelstreckenraketen bedrohen den Frieden. USA-Schützenhilfe für Israel spitzt Lage in Nahen-Osten zu. Mit palästinensischer Terrororganisation wird nicht verhandelt. Afghanischen Freunden wird alle Hilfe zuteil. Sowjetunion beugt in Afghanistan militärisch ein Ausweiten der islamischen Revolution (im eigenen Lande) vor. Jugendliche Rowdys stören das Geburtstagsfest der DDR auf dem Alexanderplatz. Jugendliche Opposition protestiert am 7. Oktober in Ostberlin. Beschluß des Staatsrates über eine Amnestie aus Anlaß des 30. Jahrestag. Der Jugendliche Günther D. seit Januar 1980 wieder wegen asozialem Verhalten verurteilt. FDJ-Plan - Freizeitangebote für Jugendliche müssen verbessert werden.: -) Unsere Fußballstadien nun auch Tummelplatz für mutwillige Zerstörer. Unser Soziale Menschengesellschaft wurde immer gefestigt. Opa Ela nach sein Tot ist seit 5 Monat unbemerkt in seine Wohnung. Figure 2: Table: «Weiß-Schwarz» placards from 29 February 1980 Blues-Mass. Transcribed from 29 February 1980 Blues-Messe. Berlin: Robert-Havemann- Gesellschaft, 2008. CD supplement to Moldt. 443 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues Of these contradictory pairs, the last four drew the most attention. The «headlines» dealing with the 7 October 1977 protests on the Alexanderplatz drew catcalls and loud applause. The crackdown on those protests by police and state security had resulted in three deaths and two-hundred injuries, and the response at the Blues-Mass that day reveals how fresh the psychic wounds from that incident still were more than two years later. Similarly, the contradiction between the very public amnesty program for certain prisoners (instituted in honor of the 30th anniversary of the GDR), and the ongoing detention of others, was marked by applause from the crowd. Finally, the juxtaposition of jingoistic statements about the strength of the society and the idea of someone’s poor grandfather lying dead and unnoticed in his apartment for five months elicited laughter: a damning indictment of the failures of actually-existing socialism. Blues-Mass organizers were acutely aware that they were serving several publics, including the many atheists who attended. In many respects, the Blues-Mass was a Church service that was especially designed for nonbelievers. Although structured as a worship service, Biblical content was not the focus of the event. Rather than starting with Biblical texts, and using a sermon to connect those texts to the present day, the Blues-Mass inverted the structure: scripted skits dealing with the issues of everyday life in East Germany, whether about work, the desire to travel, or fear of surveillance, formed the backbone of the service. There was no statement of belief, such as the Apostles’ Creed, nor any group prayer such as the Our Father to be recited by participants. Blessings and psalms were typically read to the assembly by one of the participating pastors and, based upon recordings I have heard, only a small handful of people joined to recite the closing «Amen.» In place of group prayer to unify the crowd, there was communal clapping to music, shared rhythm producing a sense of shared presence and communitas. 5 Religious texts were nevertheless part of the proceedings. Psalms and other sacred texts, along with a sermon, tied the (secular) theme to a broader Church ministry. In this way, organizers addressed two issues critical to the success of the Blues-Masses. First, use of sacred texts provided a justification for protecting the Blues-Masses as «religious content.» As Pfarrer Heinz- Otto Seidenschnur told historian Dirk Moldt in a 2005 interview, «Vielleicht wären wir selber gar nicht so sehr stark auf diese gottesdienstliche Schiene gekommen, wenn es nicht diese Angriffe von außen gegeben hätte» (Seidenschnur). Because the Stasi was watching, and had threatened to end the Blues-Masses on numerous occasions, organizers needed to present a clear 444 Alison Furlong religious character for these Church services. Subtlety would have been lost on those surveilling. Nonetheless, religious texts also exercised a second function: organizers used the juxtaposition of these texts with secular material to make a claim for the Church as the proper venue to address the questions of everyday life. In the 29 February 1980 Blues-Mass, which included a direct appeal to tolerance and pluralism, the psalm was explicitly connected to the secular aspects of the service, reinforcing the idea of pluralism. Immediately preceding the psalm, Liedermacher Steffen Marschall performed a song entitled «Fahne im Wind.» By way of transition to the psalm, Seidenschnur told the crowd that they had just heard from a young singer-songwriter, and that they would now hear from «ein sehr alter Liedermacher [. . .] ein alter Dichter, der hat seine Texte in der Bibel veröffentlich.» As if to underscore the status of the psalm as song, a bass guitar accompanied Seidenschnur’s spoken words, the sound of the instrument - used earlier for a performance of the blues - now inflecting the sound of the psalm text. Over this accompaniment, Seidenschnur offers a decidedly worldly interpretation of Psalm 12. Consider the differences between Psalm 12 as written in the 1962 Lutheran Bible, and the adaptation of the same psalm read at the Blues-Mass: Psalm 12: Lutheran Bible Psalm 12: February 29 Blues-Mass Hilf, HERR! die Heiligen haben abgenommen, und der Gläubigen ist wenig unter den Menschenkindern. Einer redet mit dem andern unnütze Dinge; sie heucheln und lehren aus uneinigem Herzen. Der HERR wolle ausrotten alle Heuchelei und die Zunge, die da stolz redet, die da sagen: Unsere Zunge soll Oberhand haben, uns gebührt zu reden; wer ist unser HERR? Weil denn die Elenden verstört werden und die Armen seufzen, will ich auf, spricht der HERR; ich will Hilfe schaffen dem, der sich darnach sehnt. Hilf Herr, die, die zu dir gehören, werden immer weniger, und die Gleichgültigen werden immer mehr. Eine Lüge fällt ihnen schneller aus dem Mund als die Zeitung aus der Tasche. Sie haben Köpfe mit zwei Gesichtern und machen sich gegenseitig ein X für ein U vor. Sollte da nicht Gott dazwischenfahren? Ihnen ihre Lügenblätter um die Ohren schlagen, ihre Zeitungen, die ewig Phrasen drucken, von «Unser-Kurs-ist-richtig! » Ach, wenn doch Gott ihre Radiosendungen stören würde, die Nichteinmischungspolitik verkünden und dich doch Einmischung und dies Freundschaftsdienst nennen. 445 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues Psalm 12: Lutheran Bible Psalm 12: February 29 Blues-Mass Die Rede des HERRN ist lauter wie durchläutert Silber im irdenen Tiegel, bewähret siebenmal. Du, HERR, wollest sie bewahren und uns behüten vor diesem Geschlecht ewiglich! Denn es wird allenthalben voll Gottloser, wo solche nichtswürdige Leute unter den Menschen herrschen. (Bibel, Psalms 12: 1 - 8) Aber wir glauben, Gott, daß eher eines Tages den Spieß umdrehen wird, und schon heute erfahren wir, daß wir nicht von allen guten Geistern verlassen sind, daß Gott uns hinweghilft über den Berg aus Haß, aus Gewalt, aus Lüge. Denn Gottes Wort ist verläßlicher als alle Nachrichten aus Ost und West. Diese Zeitung bringt gute Nachrichten, die Bibel, frohe Nachrichten, weil sie nicht Partei ergreift für eine Ideologie, nicht Partei ergreift für eine Partei, für die Macht weniger, nicht Partei ergreift für ein politisches Lager. Sondern die Bibel bringt gute Nachrichten, indem jeder Artikel Partei ergreift für die Menschen. Figure 3: Table: Psalm 12 as presented in the Lutheran Bible and at the Blues-Mass. Bibel: oder, Die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962. Transcribed from 29 February 1980 Blues-Messe. Berlin: Robert- Havemann-Gesellschaft, 2008. CD supplement to Moldt. Although Seidenschnur’s rendition of the psalm begins in much the same vein as its source, he quickly shifts from theological concerns to sociopolitical concerns, challenging the politics of Eastern and Western news media that was lampooned in the earlier theatrical piece. In his first stanza, he introduces the idea that not only are the numbers of believers dwindling, but that the ranks of the apathetic have swelled. He goes on to speak in the voice of those apathetic masses, asking why God himself does not intervene to stop the purveyors of falsely optimistic headlines. In the final portion of his psalm, however, Seidenschnur posits his alternative to «hatred, violence, and lies.» The word of God, he says, brings the real «good news,» in a way that neither the Eastern nor Western newspapers can equal. Shortly after this psalm adaptation, Seidenschnur reads verses 3 - 5, 14 - 16, and 20 - 22 of Psalm 69. The text of that psalm, which cries out to God for deliverance, becomes, in the 446 Alison Furlong context of the previous reading, a cry to be delivered from doubt and hopelessness, and a prayer for strength in the face of state oppression. In a similar fashion, Rainer Eppelmann begins his sermon with the statement «Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword» (Matthew 26: 52), but transforms it into a statement not only against the increasing militarization of everyday life in East Germany, but also into a call to resist other, metaphorical, types of «armament.» Specifically, he recites the litany of messages instilled in East German citizens through education, media, and work: «Setz Dich durch - denke zuerst an Dich - sei Dir selbst der Nächste - Leben ist Kampf - die anderen sind die Bösen, sie haben nur Arges im Sinn - wer Frieden will, muß bewaffnet sein - die Feinde mußt Du hassen - willst Du etwas werden, mußt Du Dich - auch brutal - durchsetzen» (29 February 1980 Blues-Messe). Several of these slogans would have been immediately recognizable. «Der Frieden muß verteidigt werden - der Frieden muß bewaffnet sein» was the name of a well-known campaign by the Free German Youth (FDJ), the youth movement of the SED; and Alles Leben ist Kampf was the title of a 1937 Nazi propaganda film. Eppelmann not only juxtaposes the Nazi-era slogan with that of the FDJ - a dangerous rhetorical move, to be sure - but he then presents the Church’s alternatives to both these messages: engaging in open discussion with those with whom you disagree, opting for alternative military service, and assisting those who are working for peace. Both of these segments were typical of the Blues-Mass genre: they served to connect religious, social, and political themes. In this case, they also became a means of expanding the theme for the evening: «Konfliktklärung ohne Gewalt.» Where Seidenschnur’s Psalm readings urge participants to reject violence and despair and rely instead on God’s help, both he and Eppelmann also make a claim for official state-socialist doctrine as a form of violence in its own right, an abuse of power that must be resisted as well. This sort of discourse was typical of resistance and reform movements within the GDR; it was common to repurpose an existing socialist image or phrase to convey a new message. One noteworthy example of such refashioning can be seen in the «Schwerter zu Pflugscharen» anti-war movement. In 1959, the Soviet Union had presented a sculpture to the United Nations, engraved with the text «We shall beat our swords into ploughshares»; starting in 1980, the East German anti-war movement used as its emblem an image of that sculpture. Like the «Schwerter zu Pflugscharen» emblem, Eppelmann’s and Seidenschnur’s discourse brought into focus the differences between the socialist ideal and the realities of socialist life in East Germany. 447 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues The use of popular music styles, including American-influenced blues music, was a crucial means of appealing to a public who might not otherwise have attended a Church event, and of creating a sense of communitas amongst participants. Believers, too, found themselves drawn to this space in part for the musical performances. One man I interviewed, «Wolf,» came from a religious family in a small town outside Magdeburg; his sister had played the organ in their local church. He told me: «It was not until I came to Berlin as a young man that I went to anything like a Blues-Mass. I could not believe that something that sounded so modern was happening in a church» («Wolf»). Most of the music for the 29 February Blues-Mass was performed by the duo «Holly & Plent» (Holly Holwas and Thomas «Plent» Reiner), accompanied by Frank Gahler, harmonica player and singer for the popular Monokel Blues-Band; two numbers were played by a young Liedermacher named Steffen Marschall. It is worth noting here that «blues music» experienced some generic slippage in the context of the Blues-Mass. Although «Holly & Plent» unquestionably worked in the blues form - much of it covers of songs by African-American artists - Marschall’s first number, «Fahne im Wind» fits more clearly into the specifically German Liedermacher tradition. Marschall sings with acoustic guitar, his voice somewhat breathy (a contrast to Holly’s growling blues), and the song is a simple verse form in triple meter, with the frequent rubato and tempo shifts commonly used by Liedermacher. Nonetheless, in the plans for the event, as well as in all Stasi reports, the song is identified as a blues number. Blues was as important an idea as it was a genre. Identifying oneself with the music of African Americans meant identifying with the oppressed. The state itself was partly responsible for this narrative about blues music: when the state softened its position on jazz music in the 1960s, stressing its proletarian origins and identifying its performers (African Americans) as victims of American imperialism, it created a similar story for blues music. Performance of blues music outside accepted state venues, however, could undermine that story. An unlicensed blues musician performing at a Blues- Mass was a link between victims of American imperialism and those who felt disenfranchised under the socialist state. In an interview with historian Dirk Moldt, Pfarrer Heinz-Otto Seidenschnur referred to the symbolic importance of blues as a type of African-American protest: «Wir verstanden auch, dass das die Sprache und Ausdrucksform des schwarzen, amerikanischen Protestes ist und dass das durchaus in unsere andere Gesellschaft hineingetragen werden und eine Form des Protestes sein kann. Es erschien uns auch jugendgemäß» (Seidenschnur). By virtue of its status as African American music, as the music of an oppressed underclass, and as music associated in 448 Alison Furlong German minds with the U. S. civil rights movement, even an instrumental blues number became politically inflected. Moreover, blues music made a claim on behalf of Churches: within the proper context, even wholly secular music could become central to spiritual practice. In fact, most of the pieces chosen for the 29 February Blues-Mass were neither explicitly political nor religious in their texts. Even the surveilling agents at the event deemed the musical content to be «politically neutral.» This comparative lack of concern by the Stasi may have been rooted in their focus on text over sound. Indeed, of the pieces performed, only three - «Fahne im Wind» and two newly composed blues numbers - had German texts at all. The remainder were instrumental, or English-language covers of African-American blues songs by B. B. King («Rock Me, Baby,» and «Every Day I Have the Blues»), Muddy Waters («Honeybee»), and Elmore James («Dust My Blues»). Clearly, these pieces were not chosen for either religious or political lyrics, and few of those in attendance would have understood the English texts in any case. 6 Rather, it was the sound of the music, the feeling of communitas produced by the sharing of this music, and the mere fact of its performance in a non-state-controlled setting, that was central to its importance. That sense of communitas was most evident during the opening instrumental piece, during which the disparate members of the audience, people who had come to the Blues-Mass for a variety of reasons, joined together and clapped in time to the music. Just as Eppelmann’s greeting to the visitors from the provinces of the GDR was an audible way to unite a broad geographical space under one roof, this instrumental blues, and the clapping that accompanied it, made audible the coalition created among the people in attendance. Among the various publics who attended the Blues-Masses - musicians, music fans, believers and non-believers, political activists - was another group whose presence was intensely felt, even when it wasn’t openly discussed. Surveillance within church spaces had been a priority for the Stasi from its inception. An entire division of the security service was tasked with investigating Churches and other aspects of the «political underground.» Pfarrer Eppelmann’s residence was bugged, and an entire operation, code named «Blues,» was dedicated to the surveillance and obstruction of Blues-Masses. Obstruction, while less common than surveillance, typically took the form of pressure to reschedule events, often at the last minute. 7 Stasi employees, meanwhile, scrutinized and documented Blues-Masses, categorizing photos of visitors as «participants with alcohol,» «participants with musical instruments,» «participants at the park entrance,» and so on. 449 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues 450 Alison Furlong Figure 4, 5, 6: «Beobachtung ‹Blues› vom 26. 06. 1981, Teilnehmer mit Musikinstrumenten». Photographs (n. d.), 56, BStU MfS BV Berlin Abt. XX Nr. 4923, Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. In addition to official surveillance there was also unofficial surveillance in the form of Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter who reported back to handlers about whom they recognized, what took place, and what sorts of «politically negative» acts or speech they might have witnessed. The Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter program is perhaps the most infamous aspect of the Stasi’s all-pervasive surveillance structure, and informants were routinely recruited from those professions with greatest access to people’s personal lives, including clergy. Between 1969 and 1989, estimates are that nearly eight percent of clergy were listed as Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter, along with many more laypeople (Gieseke 112). Blues-Mass organizers and participants were aware that Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter were present, but it was not always clear who they were. In a discussion with Stefan Krawczyk, a singer who performed at one of the later Blues- Masses, I asked if he ever feared that surveillance. He replied that he only really felt fear when an individual did not come to the next event, that this was a sign that either they had been arrested or had been informing (Krawczyk). One informant, code-named «Burkhard,» seems to have been tasked primarily 451 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues with reporting on Eppelmann and the Blues-Masses. The General Superintendent of Churches for the Berlin-Brandenburg region, Günter Krusche, one of the harsher critics of the Blues-Masses within the Church, was later revealed to have been an informant for the Stasi. State agents were hardly the only source of pressure on the Blues-Masses. Many churchgoers themselves were concerned about these new groups coming into their church. Prior to their move to the Erlöserkirche, neighbors of the Samariterkirche wrote letters complaining about the noisiness and bad behavior of Blues-Mass visitors. Several put their complaints in specifically religious terms, referring to scriptural accounts of Jesus and the moneylenders, or comparing the scene at the Samariterkirche to a «Bastschuppen.» Others complained of «repulsive dress» and the presence of «hippies and bums.» In a 23 September 1980 report to the Friedrichshain district government, the following passage was highlighted by a staff member of the Staatssekretariat für Kirchenfragen: Die Bürger bringen gegenüber der Kirche und den verantwortlichen Pfarrern ihr Mißfallen zum Ausdruck. Sie anerkennen, daß Glaubensfreiheit in der Verfassung der DDR garantiert ist, aber dieses Treiben, wie es sich in und um der Samariterstr. zutrug, nichts mit gottesdienstlichen Handlungen zu tun hat. (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, 23 September 1980, «Zusammenfassung der Hingaben von Bürgern der umliegenden Wohngebiete an der Samariterkirche in Durchführung der Blues-Messe am 12. 09. 80 in der Zeit von 16.00 [Uhr] bis ca. 23.00 Uhr») Indeed, from its inception, the Blues-Mass’s status as a worship service was always in question, and debates over its status became debates over the Church’s proper role. A report from East Berlin Oberbürgermeister Günter Hoffmann summed up the stance of the SED: «kaum religiöse[r] Charakter» (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, 5 July 1980, Memo to Konrad Naumann). Those issues that Blues-Mass organizers saw as central to the Church’s mission - questions of environmental stewardship, peace, and human rights - were viewed by government officials as an abuse of the Church’s protected status. Even among those who supported the Blues-Mass project, there were concerns that some of the newcomers were insufficiently respectful ofthe church as a sacred space. Several people mentioned instances of public drunkenness, smoking in the pews, or urinating on walls. Wolf commented that he didn’t think people «from outside» felt the same connection to the church as a religious space («Wolf»). Another Blues-Mass visitor, Luise, distinguished between practices at her church (the Gethsemanekirche) and at the Blues-Masses, claiming «we always remembered it was a church first» (Wekel). Maintaining Church approval was particularly important for Blues-Mass organizers, for they relied on the Church to defend their work, and its 452 Alison Furlong centrality to the Church’s mission, to the state. Martin-Michael Passauer, Jugendpfarrer for the city of Berlin, along with Church General Superintendent Hartmut Grunbaum (and, later, Grunbaum’s successor Günther Krusche), had the unenviable task of meeting with the Deputy Mayor for Internal Affairs, Günter Hoffmann, to discuss the Blues-Masses, their perceived religious content (or lack thereof), and the extent to which they were or were not acting within the bounds of the Church’s mandate. Prior to the 29 February 1980 Blues-Mass, at a meeting of the Friedrichshain District Council, Deputy Interior Minister for Berlin-Friedrichshain Kunth demanded an end to the Blues-Masses; the events were allowed to continue only on the condition that they would use a written script, and that all participants would adhere to that script (this would be verified by agents sent specifically to check conformity with the rules) (C Rep 104 Nr. 436, 22 February 1980, «Sitzung im Rat des Stadtbezirks»). It is worth noting, however, that participants in the 29 February Blues-Mass did deviate from the script, including one of the musicians, who offered a special welcome to those who were in the audience «on official business (for the Stasi)» (BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 1449, 5 March 1980, «Information über die Blues- Messe») Moreover, despite repeated meetings, in which Kunth and Councilman Gerd Hoffmann decried the Blues-Masses as an abuse of the Church’s status and demanded their end, these demands appear to have had no teeth. The struggle between the Church and the state became a war of inches. Licensed musicians were threatened with the loss of state approval, and Holly Holwas was forced to leave the GDR in 1981. At the same time, other musicians in a broad range of styles flocked to the events, replacing those who had left. Some licensed bands performed under assumed names, and those who were already out of favor with state officials had little to lose by appearing at a Blues-Mass. Chanteuse Regine Dobberschutz, well-known for her performance on the soundtrack to Konrad Wolf’s «Solo Sunny» (1980), appeared with her band at a 1983 event, after her request for an exit visa left her unwelcome in official venues. Liedermacher like Stefan Krawczyk and Kalle Winkler continued to perform, and punk bands (most notably the band Namenlos) became a common sight at Blues-Masses. In fact, the pressures placed on musicians by the state led to a broadening of the musical repertoire and a shift toward performances by «outsider» groups. 8 In response to the public complaints about noise and participant behavior, Church officials agreed to move the Blues-Masses to the Erlöserkirche in late 1980. Although this shift forced the events to a relatively remote locale, it also gave them a larger venue, with a plot of land on which participants could camp before and after the Blues-Masses. The events at the Erlöserkirche took 453 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues on a festival atmosphere, with sandwiches provided by Blues-Mass organizers, and individual grassroots groups displaying banners and posters about their particular concerns. Thus, the scope of the Blues-Mass expanded in both space and time, and the influence of participating groups grew stronger. As long as the events enjoyed Church protection and - more importantly - as long as participants believed themselves to be operating within a sphere of safety, the Blues-Masses flourished. Figure 7: Blues-Mass participants at the Erlöserkirche. Photograph (n. d.), 237, BStU MfS HA XX/ 4 Nr. 267, Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. As the Blues-Masses grew in popularity and in diversity, though, fissures started to appear within the events. These internal pressures proved more instrumental in their demise than those from outside. Each of the diverse groups who made up the Blues-Mass audience had its own goals and priorities, which did not necessarily match the priorities of the Church or Blues-Mass organizers. Groups like «Schwerter zu Pflugscharen» were primarily concerned with the increased militarization of everyday life in the GDR. Other groups focused on environmental issues; like the peace groups, they advocated for nuclear disarmament, but they were also concerned with the disastrous environmental impact of East Germany’s brown coal industry. 454 Alison Furlong Still other groups dealt primarily with the concerns of women, gay men, or lesbians, and many religious participants remained focused on issues of religious freedom and the right of conscientious objection. Meanwhile, as the musical makeup of the Blues-Masses grew in diversity, the musicians, too, found themselves factionalized. Although they shared anxieties over the lack of free expression in the broader culture, blues fans, goths, and punks all belonged to distinct subcultures, which were only bound together through their mutual alterity. The Blues-Masses succeeded in bringing these groups into coalition, but a coalition by its very nature is a temporary association. Erving Goffmann describes a coalition as «a joining of two or more, ordinarily opposed, parties, and their functioning, temporarily and in regards to specific aims, to promote a single interest» (Goffman 86). In the case of the Blues Mass, groups participated with the mutual agenda of creating an alternative public sphere. In time, however, groups became more focused on giving their own particular issues a voice in that sphere. Specific interests began to outweigh a singular, common one. As these groups grew in confidence and influence, their ideals came into conflict with one another and with the church that hosted them. Tensions between the political grassroots groups and the more anarchic punks seem to have run especially high. One example of this tension arose during a discussion of the 24 June 1983 Blues-Mass: Gen. Hoffmann belegte dies mit Beispielen. Am ‹Informationsstand› gab es Vermerke wie ‹Wir haben die Macht, wir müssen sie gebrauchen. Wo Mauern sind, kann keine Freiheit gedeihen. Gegen Naziregime in Ost und West.› Eine Punker-Band trat mit einem Titel auf ‹MfS MfS-SS› oder mit der Feststellung ‹Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg› und ‹Nazischweine raus aus Ostberlin.› [. . .] Aggressionen wurden insbesondere durch die anderen Teilnehmer gegen die Punker wach. [. . .] So habe es obszöne Zurufe gegeben. An der ‹Informationswand› hätte es nur zwei Anwürfe gegen den Staat, dafür aber eine Vielzahl gegen die Punker gegeben. (BStU MfS HA XX Nr. 6015, n. d., «Information über ein Gespräch des Stellvertreters des Oberbürgermeister für Inneres, Genossen Hoffmann, mit Generalsuperintendent Krusch und Stadtjugendpfarrer Passauer am 30. 6. 1983») Although Passauer defended the rights of punk groups to participate in Blues-Masses, Church officials were beginning to crack down on the sorts of behavioral offenses that most often attracted state attention. Organizers began to confiscate alcohol on church property, and inappropriate language was discouraged onstage. In 1985 organizers made a grave tactical error when they attempted to schedule a Blues-Mass with the theme «Von der Befreiung zur Befreiung» on 5 May 1985, opposite the state Liberation Day festivities. Pushback from 455 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues Hoffmann resulted in a month-and-a-half delay of the event. Significantly, one of the key pieces of evidence officials offered for the unsuitability of a Liberation Day Blues-Mass was the planned musical performance: Es wurde betont, daß der vorgesehene Zeitpunkt der Veranstaltung politisch nicht vertretbar und im besonderen Maße für das Verhältnis Staat-Kirche konfliktträchtig sei. Mit dem Hinweis darauf, daß alle Mitglieder der Gruppe «fade out», die den musikalischen Teil der Bluesmesse gestalten sollte, Anträge auf Übersiedlung in die BRD/ WB gestellt haben, wurde diese Einschätzung unterstrichen. (BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 3962, 15 May 1985, «Information über die am 5. 5. 1985 geplante Bluesmesse in der Erlöserkirche») Visitors who had not heard about the postponement (and Western journalists who had) arrived on 5 May to find no Blues-Mass, and no indication of when it would take place. The delay of the event heightened fears that, when faced with enough pressure, the Church hierarchy was likely to submit to the wishes of SED functionaries. Visitors on that day left a «complaint board» for organizers, covered with criticisms of the decision. The most pointed called for a new Church leadership; one simply read «Staatskirche» (BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 3962, 15 May 1985, «Information»). When the planned Blues-Mass finally did take place more than a month later, attendance was down significantly. Whereas the 17th Blues-Mass drew roughly 2,500 participants over four consecutive events, the 18th drew only 500 and was followed by a nearly yearlong hiatus. By September 1986, only 400 participants attended. Although this attendance remained considerably higher than that of pre-Blues-Mass services, it was far from the overwhelming number of participants seen in 1982 (see Appendix for a complete list of Blues-Masses with dates and attendance figures). It is critical to understand that the end of the Blues-Mass phenomenon came not as a result of a state crackdown, but rather as the result of growing fissures among the groups who had been its core audience, and between those groups and the Church hierarchy. The alliances formed at the Blues-Masses emboldened East German grassroots organizations, but at the same time balkanized them. Although the official end came in 1987, many of the grassroots groups who had been involved used the Blues-Masses’ hiatus in 1985 and 1986 to find other avenues to pursue their interests. Peace groups that began in the early 1980s drew membership and publicity from their participation in the Blues-Masses to become national organizations. The group «Schwerter zu Pflugscharen» had used the Blues-Masses as an opportunity to distribute posters and patches displaying their logo, and to publicize the «Friedenswerkstätten» that were also being held on the Erlöserkirche grounds. Other grassroots groups like «Frauen für den 456 Alison Furlong Frieden» and «Konkret für den Frieden» seem to have avoided the Blues- Mass scene entirely, but their presence in Church-owned spaces drew some of the more politically minded away from the hybrid Blues-Masses to singleissue events. Now these peace groups scattered to numerous parishes, including those in farther-flung areas of the GDR, so that their members no longer needed to make the risky trip to Berlin for sonic community. Environmentalists founded the Umweltbibliothek in the basement of the Zionskirche Gemeindehaus in 1986, where they became an important underground publishing house: rather than asking their public to come to them, they sent their texts out to an increasingly broad public. That library also became a popular venue for secular concerts and art exhibits. Meanwhile, some individuals and groups (especially the growing number of punk rock bands) found themselves as unwilling to accept the restrictions of the Church hierarchy as those of the state, and mistrustful of organizers following the Liberation Day fiasco. Several punk groups took up residence in the Erlöserkirche, which began to host purely secular concerts and festivals on its grounds. Finally, some of the strongest political voices, including the «Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte (IFM),» several area «Peace Circles,» and the Umweltbibliothek launched the «Kirche von Unten (KvU),» the Church from Below, as a direct challenge to the Church hierarchy. The first «Kirchentag von Unten» was held 24 - 26 June 1987 opposite the official Church Day celebration of the 750th anniversary of Berlin’s founding. That event drew as many as 6,000 people by some accounts, eclipsing even the largest Blues-Masses in scope. The KvU became a way for these groups to advance their agenda without going through a hierarchy that they increasingly viewed as corrupt. In this way, each of the diverse groups that had coalesced into a single Blues-Mass public could continue to pursue its own goals, whether sacred or secular. With inclusive ideas about music, space, and community, Blues-Masses thus served as an incubator for broader social reform movements in East Germany, allowing grassroots groups to convene, develop their own agendas, and recruit new members. But the church settings could not adequately contain these groups once they had come to adulthood. We can see here a parallel to the rapid rise and fall of new East German political parties in 1989. Like the Blues-Mass audience, the varied collection of reform movements in the GDR was not a monolithic group. These movements formed an alliance under the common banner «Wir sind das Volk.» Later that battle cry became «Wir sind ein Volk,» a statement that, even as it appeared to call for German unification, simultaneously glossed over the very real differences that still existed amongst «the people.» 457 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues In the end, while state officials exerted direct pressure on Blues-Mass organizers, the effect of their efforts was indirect. Officials could not forcibly stop the events from occurring, or quash the dialog that took place within church walls; on the other hand, they were expert at sowing the seeds of discord. The more significant factor causing the splintering of the Blues- Masses was the diverse makeup of the publics it served and the uncertainty of the relationships between those groups. The pressures brought by Stasi agents and SED functionaries merely exacerbated those internal stresses. In a sense, the Blues-Masses were undone by their own success. In many respects, the Blues-Mass was a microcosm of the pluralistic society Hannah Arendt called for. With this pluralism, however, came new debates over sound, and new «threats to the social order» (Weiner 5). A single church space on a weekend was insufficient to accommodate such diversity of sound. Moreover, in order to engage with the broader society of the GDR, the actions of these grassroots groups, along with the sounds those actions produced, could not remain contained. Through sound, therefore, we may consider structures of power: what is music, what is beautiful, what is inappropriate, what is noise, and who decides. Action in public requires and produces sound, whether that be through sermons, organ music, or the ringing of church bells; the pluralistic subcultures who used churches each brought their own sounds with them, including electric guitar and harmonica, political speechifying, and rapid-fire punk drumming. Arguments over the Church’s public role are deeply intertwined with questions about how a church should sound. During the final years of the GDR in particular, the line between appropriate and inappropriate sounds grew ever blurrier as new groups laid claim to their own voice in this alternative public sphere. Notes 1 For a more complete analysis of the significance of the Blues-Masses over the seven years of their existence, please refer to my dissertation, «Resistance Rooms: Sound and Sociability in the East German Church» (Furlong). For a historical outline of the Blues-Mass phenomenon see Moldt. 2 For further analysis of the split from the West German Evangelical Church, as well as of debates over the 1968 Constitution see Goeckel. For discussion of the broader problems faced by the «Church within Socialism» as it tried to balance its religious and social missions see Tyndale. 3 Turner includes special mention of hippies, beatniks, and other members of the «optout» movements of the mid-twentieth century as emblematic of the «power of the weak.» They «‹opt out› of the status-bound social order and acquire the stigmata of the 458 Alison Furlong lowly, dressing like ‹bums,› itinerant in their habits, ‹folk› in their musical tastes [. . .].» In adopting this deliberately low status, he says, they bring the contrast between communitas - that of the eternal now - and structure - of the past and future - into relief, acting as living critiques of those structures. There are clear parallels with the hitchhikers and blues fans who frequented the Blues-Masses, and although this study concerns the bounded space of those events, there is work to be done on individuals in the GDR who adopted such a stance (Turner 112 - 13). 4 It is hard to ignore here the rhetorical similarity to «100 Points» by the Czech band Plastic People of the Universe. 5 For a discussion of music’s (and especially rhythm’s) contribution to ritual performance and communitas see Basso. 6 Although Walter Ulbricht reinstated English as an elective language in 1958, instruction seems to have been rudimentary at best, taught via a television series called «English For You» (EFY). Students were offered no opportunity to practice the language. 7 One pretext for starting Operativer Vorgang «Blues» in January 1981 was to prevent Eppelmann from scheduling a Blues-Mass in April of that year, opposite the Volkswahlen and the X. Parteitag der SED. Specific documentation of the obstruction process in this case was unavailable, but the next Blues-Mass did not occur until 26 June 1981 (BStU MfS HA XX/ 4 Nr. 267, 16 October 1981, «Sachstandsbericht zum OV ‹Blues›»). 8 For more on Namenlos and the Berlin punk scenes on both sides of the Berlin Wall see Hayton. Works Cited Archival Collections Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (BStU): BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 1449. BStU MfS BV Berlin AKG 3962. BStU MfS HA XX/ 4 Nr. 267. BStU MfS HA XX Nr. 6015. Landesarchiv Berlin: C Rep. 104 Nr. 351, «Kirchliche Kinder- und Jugendarbeit 1955 - 1985.» C Rep. 104 Nr. 436, «Kirchliche Jugendarbeit 1979 - 1982.» Personal Interviews Eppelmann, Rainer. Personal interview. 19 Feb. 2013. Hauswald, Harald. Personal interview. 21 Feb. 2013. Krawczyk, Stephan. Personal interview. 29 Jan. 2013. «Malcolm.» Personal interview. 7 July 2012. Wekel, Luise. Personal interview. 12 July 2012. «Wolf.» Personal interview. 16 May 2012. 459 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues Secondary Literature «29 February 1980 Blues-Messe.» Berlin: Robert-Havemann-Gesellschaft, 2008. CD supplement to Moldt. «Anordnung des Nationalen Verteidigungsrates der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik über die Aufstellung von Baueinheiten im Bereich des Ministeriums für Nationale Verteidigung.» Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 16 Sept. 1964: 129. Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1958. Basso, Ellen B. «A ‹Musical View of the Universe: › Kalapalo Myth and Ritual as Religious Performance.» Journal of American Folklore 94 (1981): 273 - 91. Bibel: oder, Die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962. Furlong, Alison M. «Resistance Rooms: Sound and Sociability in the East German Church.» Diss. Ohio State U, 2015. Gautier, Ana María Ochoa. «Sonic Transculturation, Epistemologies of Purification and the Aural Public Sphere in Latin America.» Social Identities 12.6 (2006): 803 - 25. Gieseke, Jens. The History of the Stasi: East Germany’s Secret Police, 1945 - 1990. New York: Berghahn Books, 2014. Goeckel, Robert F. The Lutheran Church and the East German State: Political Conflict and Change Under Ulbricht and Honecker. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1990. Goffman, Erving. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1969. Hayton, Jeff Patrick. «Culture from the Slums: Punk Rock, Authenticity and Alternative Culture in East and West Germany.» Diss. U of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign, 2013. Moldt, Dirk. Zwischen Hass und Hoffnung: Die Blues-Messen 1979 - 1986: Eine Jugendveranstaltung der Evangelischen Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg in ihrer Zeit: Eine Dokumentation. Berlin: Robert Havemann-Gesellschaft, 2008. Ramet, Sabrina P. Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1998. Sakakeeny, Matt. «‹Under the Bridge›: An Orientation to Soundscapes in New Orleans.» Ethnomusicology 54.1 (2010): 1 - 27. Schröder, Bernd. Interview. 15 Sept. 2005. Transcript. CD supplement to Moldt. Seidenschnur, Heinz-Otto. Interview. 2 May 2005. Transcript. CD supplement to Moldt. Turner, Victor W. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1969. Tyndale, Wendy. Protestants in Communist East Germany: In the Storm of the World. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010. «Verfassung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.» Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 7 Oct. 1949: n. pag. «Verfassung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.» Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 6 Apr. 1968: n. pag. 460 Alison Furlong Warner, Michael. «Publics and Counterpublics.» Public Culture 14.1 (2002): 49 - 90. Weiner, Isaac. Religion Out Loud: Religious Sound, Public Space, and American Pluralism. New York: New York UP, 2014. Appendix: Blues-Mass Dates, Themes, and Attendance Samariterkirche 1. 6. 1979: 1st Blues-Mass 13. 7. 1979: «Zwischen Haß und Hoffnung» - 400 to 500 in attendance 14. 9. 1979: «Aus Hoffnung leben» - 900 to 1,000 29. 2. 1980: «Frieden - Konfliktklärung ohne Gewalt» or «Gewalt - Gewaltverzicht! » - ca. 900 25. 4. 1980: «Zur Freiheit berufen» or «Freiheit - die wir meinen . . .» - ca. 1,500 Samariterkirche/ Auferstehungskirche 13. 6. 1980. «Leben macht Spaß» - 900 to 1,100 at two events 4. 7. 1980: «Angst überwinden» - 1,450 - 1,500 at two events 12. 9. 1980: «Nach dem Urlaub - Partnerschaft» - ca. 1,600 at two events Erlöserkirche 14. 11. 1980: «Umweltschutz (Wie gehe ich mit mir, mit Dir, mit der Erde um? )» - ca. 1,600 to 2,000 at three events 26. 6. 1981: «Hin- und Hergerissen» - ca. 2,000 27. 11. 1981: «Möglichkeiten zu leben» - 2,000 to 2,200 at three events 23. 4. 1982: «Lustlosigkeit» - ca. 2,600 at four events 2. 7. 1982: «Gewogen und als zu leicht befunden» - ca. 2,400 at four events 29. 4. 1983: «Versuchung» - ca. 2,500 at four events 24. 6. 1983: «Protestanten» - ca. 2,350 at four events 30. 9. 1983: «Wagnis um des Lebens willen» - ca. 2,850 at four events 27. 4. 1984: «Ein Tag wie jeder andere» (or «Zwischentöne») - ca. 2,500 at four events 16. 6. 1985: «Von der Befreiung zur Befreiung» - ca. 1,500 at four events 1. 6. 1986: «Rückgrat gefragt» - ca. 550 20. 9. 1986: «Betrogene Betrüger» - ca. 400 461 Politics, Faith, and the East German Blues