This week the broad themes of the readings were globalization and architecture, specifically the history of the Berlin Wall, the most iconic physical manifestation of Cold War tensions. Attempting to reconcile these two seemingly disparate elements, I came to the conclusion that the Berlin Wall served as a physical means of separation, a forced manner of isolation, from the effects of globalization. The Wall, in short, attempted to curb the influence of the West’s hegemony, its capitalistic culture and structure, and separate the world into two binary spheres.
One of the strongest connotations attached to globalization is ‘interconnectedness,’ and Professor Sparke even goes so far as to argue that a true understanding of globalization requires academic interconnectedness—interdisciplinary thinking. Although there are many definitions of globalization floating around, each colored by the biases and agenda of their respective origins, one potential definition is the increasing transmission of information, culture, money, and political structures across national boundaries. A historical process that has been occurring for hundreds of years, globalization is a phenomenon that increasingly shapes our patterns of life.
I am particularly interested in how the Berlin Wall appears to have disrupted the patterns of life set in motion by increased globalization. The Wall served as a physical boundary between two ideologically opposite modes of life: capitalism on the Western side, Communism on the Eastern side. The path of motion from West to East, or East to West, ceased to exist (or was at least extremely limited). This caesura not only had profound implications for how the two halves developed economically and politically, but also how the two groups of people living on either side lived their lives. Ladd quotes Peter Schneider’s prophesy that “‘tearing down the Wall inside our heads will take longer than any demolition job on the visible Wall, ’” indicating that the disruption of the normal forces of globalization in Berlin affected people mentally in a sort of internment of the psyche (33). In The Wall Jumper, Schneider recounts the story of Kabe, who had a “pathological desire to overcome the Wall” (32). As globalization becomes more normal, any attempts to cut off that flow of information, people, and money results in a disruption of life and a sense of confinement—not just physically, but also in terms of the loss of the potential to move people and other goods freely across borders.
The interplay between globalization and the Berlin Wall opened up the possibility of further examining the question of economics and identity. I had previously extensively thought about the rebuilding of German national identity in the wake of WWII and the corresponding rebuilding of a broken German economy, but I had not thought about the different economic developments of Eastern and Western Germany. My economics textbook pointed out that the reincorporation of East Germany was difficult because of the weaker nature of the economy and the different demands workers placed on that side of the country (specifically, they were used to more socialistic working conditions and ideas). This variance in economic development further exemplifies the false “united Germany” illusion that many people thought to be true while the Wall was still up: once the Wall came tumbling down, rebuilding Germany would be easy because Germany was still whole, just separated by a strip of concrete. The truth was that the Wall truly divided Germany by launching each half on a different course of development for several decades, which was enough to create lasting differences by the time 1989 came around.
One of the strongest connotations attached to globalization is ‘interconnectedness,’ and Professor Sparke even goes so far as to argue that a true understanding of globalization requires academic interconnectedness—interdisciplinary thinking. Although there are many definitions of globalization floating around, each colored by the biases and agenda of their respective origins, one potential definition is the increasing transmission of information, culture, money, and political structures across national boundaries. A historical process that has been occurring for hundreds of years, globalization is a phenomenon that increasingly shapes our patterns of life.
I am particularly interested in how the Berlin Wall appears to have disrupted the patterns of life set in motion by increased globalization. The Wall served as a physical boundary between two ideologically opposite modes of life: capitalism on the Western side, Communism on the Eastern side. The path of motion from West to East, or East to West, ceased to exist (or was at least extremely limited). This caesura not only had profound implications for how the two halves developed economically and politically, but also how the two groups of people living on either side lived their lives. Ladd quotes Peter Schneider’s prophesy that “‘tearing down the Wall inside our heads will take longer than any demolition job on the visible Wall, ’” indicating that the disruption of the normal forces of globalization in Berlin affected people mentally in a sort of internment of the psyche (33). In The Wall Jumper, Schneider recounts the story of Kabe, who had a “pathological desire to overcome the Wall” (32). As globalization becomes more normal, any attempts to cut off that flow of information, people, and money results in a disruption of life and a sense of confinement—not just physically, but also in terms of the loss of the potential to move people and other goods freely across borders.
The interplay between globalization and the Berlin Wall opened up the possibility of further examining the question of economics and identity. I had previously extensively thought about the rebuilding of German national identity in the wake of WWII and the corresponding rebuilding of a broken German economy, but I had not thought about the different economic developments of Eastern and Western Germany. My economics textbook pointed out that the reincorporation of East Germany was difficult because of the weaker nature of the economy and the different demands workers placed on that side of the country (specifically, they were used to more socialistic working conditions and ideas). This variance in economic development further exemplifies the false “united Germany” illusion that many people thought to be true while the Wall was still up: once the Wall came tumbling down, rebuilding Germany would be easy because Germany was still whole, just separated by a strip of concrete. The truth was that the Wall truly divided Germany by launching each half on a different course of development for several decades, which was enough to create lasting differences by the time 1989 came around.