Chapter  XI:                

                     Language  in  the  State  and  State  of  Exception      

 

 

 

                                                                                         “Domination  itself  is  servile  when  beholden  to  opinion,  

                       for  you  depend  upon  the  prejudices  of  those  you  govern  by  means  of  their  prejudices.”i  

 

 

“It  is  not  a  question  of  suppressing  the  spoken  language,    

but  of  giving  words  approximately  the  importance  they  have  in  dreams.”ii  

 

 

 

   

201  

                           Chapter  XI:  Language  in  the  State…    

 

Language   is   not   examined   independently   as   one   of   the   three   contributing   factors   to  

Shoah   because   it   is   not   a   social   epiphenomenon,   as   is   rationality/irrationality,   legality   or  

identity,  It  is  sui  generis,  incomparable  to  that  which  it  engenders,  such  as  tradition  or  culture.  

Language  encompassed  by  the  Reich  state  defied  Wittgenstein  –  to  that  which  the  state  could  

not   speak,   it   did;   further   it   produced   a   speech   especially   shaped   and   engineered   to   pre-­‐

emptively  counter  any  claims  of  legitimacy  the  homo  viator  may  have  found  in  his  attempts  to  

communicate,   to   survive   even,   within   the   new   Nazi   regime.   These   claims   of   legitimacy  

expressed   in  both  verbal  and  non-­‐verbal  expression  were  usurped  by   the  primacy  of   the  Nazi  

lexicon   and   gestural   monopoly.   Language   was   at   once   the   ballast   and   vehicle   by   which   to  

support   and   further   factors   of   rationality/irrationality   and   legality   employed   in   identity  

formation.  Lexical  items  could  therefore  be  as  geographically  or  physically  bound  to  either  the  

Reich  state  or  Auschwitz,  depending  on  the  context  and  intent.  Thereby  rather  than  drawing  on  

state   signifiers   for   death   and   hate   coined   for   the   barest   comprehension   of   a   citizen,   such   as  

Sonderbehandlung   (“special   treatment”),   those   in   the   physical   state   of   exception   and   those  

constructing   camp   mechanisms   relied   on   the   terms   that   were   openly   abusive   and   geared  

towards  dominance  of  SS,  such  as  Vernichtungsstelle,  (“extermination  institute”).  

It  is  the  continuing  academic  and  cultural  norm  to  paradoxically  label  the  preponderance  

of  Nazi  items  signifying  the  national  project  of  oppressive  and  genocidal  traits  as  “euphemisms”,  

as   derived   from   “eu”,   the  Greek   prefix   of   “good,   beneficial.”   However,   the  monstrosity   of   the  

Nazi  vocabulary  isolates  itself  in  the  absolute  opposite  category  as  both  a  semantic  and  phonetic  

   

202  

cacophony   and   kinesthetic   abhorrence.   It   is   the   purpose   of   this   chapter   to   deconstruct   this  

linguistic  and  gestural  dissonance  whereby  to  illustrate  how  Reich  linguistically  dissimulated  then  

and  distributed  its  genocidal  project.  This  chapter  investigates  two  binary  categories  selected  for  

both  their  universal  presence  in  communication  techniques  and  their  extraordinary  manipulation  

for   new   and   perverted   operation   in   the   Nazi   regime:   verbal/gestural   and   propaganda/daily  

communication.  The  two  categories  examine  the  role  of  language  as  an  operation  in  the  daily  and  

bodily  realm  of  the  citizen.  The  discussion  of  these  two  binaries  is  inclusively  framed  within  both  

the   state   and   in   the   state   of   exception,   in   order   to   display   the   constant   possibilities   for  

morphological  and  semantic  innovation  between  the  two  spheres.  It  is  the  goal  of  this  chapter  to  

illustrate  how  these  methods  of  interpersonal  linguistics  each  contributed  to  the  means  by  which  

the  genocidal  project  was  laid  out  and  enacted  by  the  Nazi  citizenry  and  state.    

The   literal  movements  of  an  agent  within  his  habitus,  or   typical   social   spaces   inside   the  

state  or  state  of  exception  evinces  the  manner  by  which  language  engenders  the  agent’s  reality.  iii  

His  language,  just  as  his  movement,  is  limited  by  the  quality  and  quantity  of  power  contained  in  

his  social  capital.  This  power  produces  a  tangible  condition  of  possibility  for  by  which  an  agent’s  

reality  is  actualized;  significantly,  the  language  operated  is  the  power  re-­‐produced  which  in  each  

interaction   could   serve   to   his   benefit   or   detriment.   These   interactions   as   occurrences   in  

variegated  locations  of  geography  and  loci  of  state  enunciated  purpose  is  manifested  through  the  

re-­‐signification  of  state  specific  lexical  items  and  linguistic  tokens,  the  latter  of  which  as  verbal  or  

gestural.   The   malleability   of   meaning   evinced   in   heterogeneous   state   zones   thus   serves   as   a  

spotlight  illuminating  the  locus  of  language’s  strength  “in  the  interplay  between…  two  aspects  of  

meaning  and  in  the  room  for  development  afforded  by  the  adaptability  of  conventions.iv    

   

203  

Verbal   communication   is   defined   in   this   thesis   as   a   meaningful   exchange   between  

members  of  a  linguistic  community  via  transcribed  and  oral  methods.  Gestural  communication  as  

general,  unsubstantiated  term  contains  a  myriad  of  bodily  possibilities;  however,  in  this  chapter  

the  term  refer  to  the  kinesthetic  movements  which  can  either  contain  a  common  meaning  which  

does    not  require  the  aid  of  speech  or  serve  as  a  complement  to  the  primary  speech  operation.  In  

regards   to   the   substantive   difference   between   the   state   propaganda   and   the   speech   of   daily  

correspondence  is  intent.  The  state’s  primary  motivation  when  disseminating  a  novel  propaganda  

item  was  to  offer  to  the  state    new  instructions,  commands,  impersonal  interrogations,  whereas  

the   intent  of  daily  communication  in  the  Nazi  state,  and  elsewhere,    encompasses  a  far  greater  

range   of   possibility,   from   the  mundane,   phatic   greeting   to   the   intimate,   deeply   inter-­‐personal  

sharing  of  unguarded  emotion.  However,  this  accessibility  of  sincere  interaction  in  the  quotidian  

conversation   carries   the   additional   contingencies   for   a   denial   or   lie,   or   even   of   a   statement  

turning-­‐back  on   itself,   as   Scarry   argues,   “…each   verbal   utterance  has   at   all   times   the  explosive  

duality  of  being  at  once  very  possibly  true  and  very  possibly  false...v  It  is  no  coincidence  that  Nazi  

Party   informers   more   frequently   reported   their   friends   and   family,   close   relations   who   had  

revealed  anti-­‐Party  emotion  inadvertently  through  the  spontaneous  intimacy  characterizing  daily  

speech.    

 

I. Verbal  

…  the  voice  becomes  a  final  source  of  self  extension;  so  long  as  one  is  speaking,  the  self  extends  out  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  body,  occupies  a  space  much  larger  than  the  body…  Their  ceaseless  talk  articulates  their    unspoken  understanding  that  only  in  silence  do  the  edges  of  the  self  become  coterminous  with  the  edges  of  the  body  it  will  die  with.vi  

 

   

204  

As  illustrated,  Scarry  therefore  outlines  her  metaphoric  extension  of  the  body  through  the  

articulated  voice.  When  the  voice  has  been  silenced,  whether  literally  or  figuratively,  similarly  has  

the  body  been  denied  its  opportunity  for  continued  presence.  A  death,  metaphorically,  has  begun  

for   the   silenced   figure.   This   metaphoric   death   takes   shape   in   the   Reich   state   and   state   of  

exception  through  the  homo  viator;  he  who  has  been  denied  his  voice  in  the  state  finds  his  body  

denied  experience  and  vitality  in  the  camp.  The  guard  and  doctor  are  privileged  with  the  voice  in  

both   realms,   as   demonstrated   through   the   guards’   continuous   creation   and   coinage   of  

neologisms;  liquidiert  (“liquidated”),  Liquidierung  des  Judentums  (“liquidation  of  Jewry”),  erledigt  

(“finished   off”),   Sonderaktionen   (“special   actions”),   Sonderbehandlung   (“special   treatment”),  

Vollzugstatigkeit   (“execution   activity”),   entsprechend   behandelt   (“treated   appropriately”),  

Bereinigung   der   Judenfrage   (“cleaning   up   of   the   Jewish   question”),   and   juden   frei   gemacht  

(“made  free  of  Jews”).vii  As  the  popularization  of  these  terms  implies,  the  guards’  voice  remained  

as   present   and   unthreatened   as   his   body.   Through   this   dichotomous   relationship   of   guard’s  

articulated  voice  to  the  sacer’s  de-­‐signified  body,  the  Nazi  “mime  of  power”  presented  itself  once  

more,  “for  power  is   in  its  fraudulent  as  in  its   legitimate  forms  is  always  based  on  distance  from  

the  body.”viii  

One   of   the   most   well   known   terms   from   the   Nazi   lexicon   is   “Die   Endlösung”   (“Final  

Solution”).   The   implications   and   unspoken   purpose   of   the   phrase   were   as   clear   to   the   Nazi  

officials  as  fiercely  contested  its  literal  translation,  a  contestation  especially  well  recorded  in  the  

heated   exchange   between   Chief   Prosecutor   Robert   Jackson   and   Hermann   Goering   during   the  

Nuremberg  Trials.  The  matter  concerning  the  meaning  and  translation  of  the  phrase  arose  again  

twenty  years   later,  at  Eichmann’s  own  trial   in  1961.  Eichmann,  not  surprisingly,  had  coined  the  

   

205  

phrase,  then  using   it   in  all  his  subsequent  documents.  He   later  explained,  during  an  attempt  to  

mitigate   his   personal   responsibility   for   the   genocide,   “I   suggested   these   words.   At   the   time   I  

meant  by  this  the  elimination  of  the  Jews,  their  marching  out  of  the  German  nation.  Later…  these  

harmless  words  were  used  as   camouflage   for   the  killing.”ix   Eichmann’s  excuses  aside,   the   term  

itself   serves   as   a   useful   linguistic   representation   for   one   of   the   (im)potential   fallacies   in  

semiological  analysis:  “In  the  linguistic  model,  nothing  enters  the  language  without  having  been  

tried  in  speech,  but  conversely,  no  speech  is  accessible…  if  it  is  not  drawn  from  the  “treasure”  of  

the  language.”x  The  term  ‘Final  Solution’,  in  other  words,  could  only  have  summoned  or  sustained  

its  monstrous  power  and  constant  use  through  its  clear  possibilities  for  individual  understanding  

and  lexical  functionality.    

Eichmann’s  excuse  alludes  to  one  of  the  few  mutual  factors  between  Party  speech  and  the  

intimate   dialogue:   the   ongoing   reliance   for   metaphors   metaphors   to   relay   a   speaker’s   ideas,  

concepts,  goals,  and  strategies  which  are  otherwise  incomprehensible  to  the  listener.  Lakoff  and  

Johnson   describe   metaphors   as,   “not   merely   things   to   be   seen   beyond.   In   fact   one   can   see  

beyond  them  only  by  using  other  metaphors.   It   is  though  the  ability  to  comprehend  experience  

through  metaphor  were  a  sense…  providing  the  only  ways  to  perceive  and  experience  much  of  

the  world.”xi   Through  metaphors,   state   speeches   urging   on   the   oppression   of   the  homo   sacer  

most  frequently  employed  metaphors.  Through  this  lexical  placeholders,  the  regime  propaganda  

could   set   forth  one  anti-­‐Semitic   concept  or   visual  depiction  of   Jewish   thievery   and  despite   the  

diversity  of  the  Reich  population,  inevitably  generate  a  responsive  comprehension  through  each  

individual’s  mental  associations  to  that    concept  or  depiction.  Through  this  manipulation  of  just  a  

   

206  

single  figure  of  speech,  a  cautious,  momentary  but  genuine  parity  could  unite  the  single  citizen  to  

the  state  body.  

 

II. Non-­‐Verbal/Gestural  

The   fluidity  of   the  state   instruction’s   transference  of   into  common,  non-­‐verbal  habits  of  

individuals  was  most  clearly  displayed   in   the  common  Reich  greeting,  which  under  Hitler’s   rule  

‘became   (an)   expression   of   the   individual’s   inner   acceptance   of   the   allegiance   demanded   by  

others.”xii  Allert’s  interpretation  of  the  regime’s  strict  employment  of  bodily  gestures  and  rituals  

of  gestural  social  acknowledgment  differs  from  the  traditional  analysis  of  greetings,  which  tend  to  

facilitate  communication  between  two  or  more  people  in  the  same  spatial  and  temporal  location  

with  an  array  of  options   for  greeting  sequences  and  opportunities  to  express  a  unique  self   in  a  

micro-­‐social   process.   It   is   apparent   a   drastic   shift   occurred   from   the   basic   element   of  

acknowledgment   popularized   in   the   Weimar   greetings   to   greetings   with   explicit   and   novel  

political   functions.   Through   the   constraints   exercised   deliberately   by   the  Nazi   this   drastic   shift  

altered  reasons  for  and  methods  in  speech  production;  a  highly  significant  move  which,  according  

to  Artaud,   required   the   complete   re-­‐interpretation  of   speech   in   a   “concrete   and   spatial   sense,  

combining   it  with  everything…  significant   in  the  concrete  domain  –  to  manipulate   it   like  a  solid  

object…”xiii   In   other   words,   in   order   to   maintain   the   new   meaning   and   function   of   a   gesture  

inscribed  in  the  typical  Nazi  greeting,  its  verbal  accompaniment  had  to  reflect  and  reinforce  this  

meaning  and  function  as  well.  

Similar   to   Mary   Douglas’   argument   discussed   in   Chappter   III   is   Hugh   Dalziel   Duncan’s  

thesis  Symbols   in  Society,  proposing  whomever  controls  the  creation  and  distribution  of   images  

   

207  

used   in   daily   communication   controls   the   whole   of   society.   Further,   who   controls   that  

communication   then   has   the  monopoly   over   the   official   national  memory   of   the   past,   of     the  

nation’s   historical   recollection.xiv   Through   the   authority   to  monitor   and   radicalize   discourse   in  

each   variegated   node   constituting   national   population,   a   coeval   authority   emerges,   granting  

access  to  redefine  and  reinvent  societal  possibilities.  

Artaud   claims   that   verbal   aspects   of   language   which   remain   viable   and   plausible   as  

systems   for   speech   production   are   only   shadows,   base   ‘responses’   in   the   collective   theatre   of  

communication,   it   is   in   fact   through   the   petrifaction   of   gesture   that   entire   ranges   of  

communicative  possibilities,  the  ‘true  abstractions’  potential  in  speech  and  gesture  are  achieved,  

“…  for  besides  the  language  of  words,  there  is  the  culture  of  gestures.”xv  This  range  of  possibility  

remained  under  strict  control  in  the  Nazi  state,  where  linguistic  novelties  would  be  introduced  or  

constantly   practiced   with   the   entire   citizenry   during   mass   rallies   and   parades,   as   though   to  

prevent  any  misinterpretation  or  subversive  re-­‐presentation  of  its  meaning  or  physical  method  of  

display.   One   such   example   of   the   state   monopoly   over   a   gesture   and   accompanying   verbal  

enunciation  was   the  Hitler   salute,   in  which   the   right   arm   is   extended   from   the   chest   at   a   45*  

angle  tilted  slightly  to  the  right,  with  a  simultaneous  exclamation  “Heil  Hitler!”  and  clicking  of  the  

heels.   This   salute,  which  exercised   the   full   range  of   the  body  and  voice  during   the   regime,  has  

continued   on   as   a   movement   and   utterance   still   monopolized   by   the   Nazi   state,   a   two   fold  

illustration  which   particularly   demonstrates  Artaud’s   above   statement   on   the     potential   of   the  

‘culture  of  gestures.’    

The  charged  environment  of  altered  and  un-­‐made  familiar  or  known  gesturexvi  unfolded  

as  part  of  the  ongoing  dehumanizing  project  wrecked  upon  the  viator:  to  unmake  his  world  was  

   

208  

to  unmake  his  originality  and  previously  unquestioned  right   to  exist.  This  externalization  of   the  

viator’s   figurative   disintegration   was   represented   through   the   state’s   de-­‐objectification   and  

subsequent  re-­‐signification  of  certain  objects  previously  taken  for  granted.  Two  examples  of  this  

dual  step  towards  dehumanization  are  the  shower  heads  in  the  gas  chambers  and  the  trucks  used  

for  transporting  the  victims,  both  of  which  are  explored  in  more  detail  in  Chapter  XII.    

The   differentiation   of   purpose   was   exhibited   through   the   converted   use   of   objectsxvii  

unique   to   the   camp,   for   example,   the   prisoner   barracks.   From   its   interior   structure   purposely  

quashing   occupants,   to   its   temporary   architectural   materials   metaphorically   signifying   the  

temporary  state  of  the  occupants,  the  semiotics  of  the  barracks  continuously  harmed  the  body  of  

the  sacer   in  order  to  hasten  both  psychological  and  physical  demise.  As  clarified  by  Scarry,   this  

unfolding   process   of   the   sacer’s   death   had   in   fact   begun   with   the   state’s   denial   of   his   viator  

history,  his  legitimacy  as  a  citizen:  

Whenever  death  can  be  designated  as  “soon”  the  dying  has  already  begun…  dying  not  because  he  has  yet  experienced  the  damage  that  will  end  his  life  but  because  he  has  begun  to  experience  the  body  that  will  end  his   life,   the  body  that  can  be  killed,  and  which  when  killed  will  carry  away  the  conditions  that  allow  him  to  exist.xviii  

 

III. Propaganda  

Who  in  the  state  delegated  the  force  behind  certain  words?  How  does  this  originary  force  

remain  intact  once  distributed  among  each  citizen  and  civil  organization,  considering  the  natural  

habit   for   individuals   to   imbue   and   digest   new   and   unfamiliar   terms   with   meaning   provided  

through  personals  frames  of  references?  Horkheimer,  himself  profoundly  influenced  by  the  Nazi  

regime,  addresses  this  problem  by  explaining  the  potential  danger  in  granting  State  control  over  

reason,  and  ultimately   rationality.xix  Adorno  adds   to   this  unflattering  conceptualization  of  State  

   

209  

and  its  potentially  fascist  grip  over  language  by  presenting  language  as  a  system  thrown  into  an  

intentional   state   of   chaos   and   seeming   disorganization   by   the   State   in   order   to   maintain   a  

capitalist  system  over  the  people  and  the  various  state  power  relations.xx  Unfortunately,  common  

citizens  further  their  own  unknowing  manipulation  by  repeating  the  stereotypes  and  false  truths  

popularized  and  distributed  in  the  public  forum.  Thus,  the  full  crisis  which  germinated  in  the  Nazi  

regime  through  the  perversion  of  language  comes  to  light  at  the  nexus  of  these  two  philosophers’  

theories.   The   State   is   capable   of   manipulating   situations   and   people   by   manipulating   their  

language,  or   ‘jargon’,  and   language  use.  Through  power  gathered   in   that  original  manipulation,  

the  State  perpetuates  ever  increasingly  violent  stereotypes  and  prejudices  among  its  population.  

It  becomes  simpler  to  forget  the  internal  problems  of  the  society  when  there  is  a  common  enemy  

to   hate,   as  Marcuse   outlined   in  One-­‐Dimensional  Man.   Echoing   these   thoughts,   Agamben   also  

urges   one   to   be   “…only   your   face.   Go   to   the   threshold.   Do   not   remain   the   subject   of   your  

properties   or   faculties,   do   not   stay   beneath   them;   rather,   go   with   them,   in   them,   beyond  

them.”xxi  

  Nazi   propaganda   was   not   merely   the   “means   of   affecting   the   use   of   mass   media   of  

communications,   the  manner   in  which  a  mass  audience  perceives  and  ascribes   the  meaning   to  

the  material  world;”xxii  it  was  a  unique  combination  of  mythical  and  practical/political  speech  and  

historical   civil   conception.   “At   many   points   German   biases   became   indistinguishable   from  

National   Socialist   thought,   a   situation   the   Party   exploited   by   claiming   sole   authority   to   define  

genuine  Germanness.”xxiii  Part  of  this  Germanness  was  the  acceptance  of  the  stereotyped  ideal  of  

the  Jews,  which  was  expressed  in  “virulent  resentment.”  This  acceptance  was  necessary  because  

belief  constantly  undergoes  its  own  verification  through  production,  and  thus  the  power  of  words  

   

210  

“is   a   belief   in   the   legitimacy   of   the   words   and   he   who   utters   them,   a   belief   which   words  

themselves  can’t  produce.”xxiv  

The   production   of   linguistic   elements   in   propaganda   therefore   performed   beyond   the  

mere  mono-­‐dimensional  utilitarian   speech  act,  perpetually   limited   to  basic  expressions   such  as  

delineating   friend   from   foe.   It   was   also   the   force   behind   radio   and   movie   propaganda  

encapsulating   ideas  such  as   ‘nationalism’,  which  had  taken  hold  over  the  ever  creative  German  

imagination.   Through   common   linguistic   elements   vocalized   and   displayed   repeatedly   in  

conjunction   with   certain   words   or   phrases   during   state   radio   and   film   programs,   the   usual  

individualization   process   through   which   imagery   connects   to   words   begins   to   become   a  

communal   process   with   similar   images   connecting   to   similar   phrase.   Significantly,   when   this  

collective  process  of  a  collective  bonding   through  the  visual,  verbal,  and  oral   senses  deals  with  

the   establishment   of   anti-­‐Semitic   attitudes   or   oppressive   legislative   mechanisms,   parallels  

between  the  Nazi  rejection  ritual  and  the  ancient  Greek  and  Roman  once  more  emerge.  

 Further   state   maneuvers   to   gain   and   maintain   collective   control   over   associative  

processes  eventually   took  on  form   in  an  all  encompassing  propaganda  system  resembling  a   tri-­‐

level   pyramid.   The   lowest   tier,   composed   largely   of   blatantly   untrue   stereotypes   ala   Julius  

Streicher,  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  uneducated  and  uncritical.  The  second  middle  tier  focused  

on   the   generally   well   educated,   middle   income   families   or   young   professionals   who   were  

unwilling  to  accept  an  open  persecution  of  neighbors  without  at   least  a   lightly  theoretical  basis  

and   largely   visual   explication   of   the   Jewish   damage   and   danger   to   the   Reich.   The   third   and  

highest  tier  was  composed  of  the  most  ‘scientifically’  justified  propaganda.  This  minute  level  was  

shaped   for   the   benefit   of   intellectuals,   scientists,   and   lawyers.   Drawing   on   phrenology   studies  

   

211  

conducted   in   the   pre-­‐Nazi   state   in   universities   and   in   the   asylums   during   the   Aktion   T4,   this  

method   of   propaganda   justified   eugenics   and   extermination   couched   in   heavy   scientific   or  

otherwise   field   specific   jargon.   This   particular   tier   found   prevalent   support   among   the   more  

intellectually   inclined   officials   of   the   Party,   such   as   Hoess,   “who   professed   to   despise   …the  

pornographic   anti-­‐Semitism   propagated   by   Streicher.”   During   his   Nuremberg   interrogations  

following   the   Nazi   surrender,   he   admitted   to   believing   that   his   anti-­‐Semitism   was   therefore  

“more  rational…rather   (his  primary  concern  was   in)   the   International  world   Jewish  conspiracy…  

by  which  Jews  secretly  held  the  levers  of  power.”xxv  

These   innovative  forms  of  propaganda  allowed  the  citizen  to  mindlessly  digest  the  state  

hunger   for   persecution   in   his   own   mind,   building   often   unarticulated   and   unquestioned  

justifications   built   out   of   unique   prejudices   and   knowledge.   This   privatized   movement   was  

reinforced   by   the   public   speeches   and   rallies,   which   in   turn   was   reinforced   by   the   belief   in  

propaganda.   For   example,   the   underlying   stress   of   the   uncertain   political   and   economic  

development   of   Germany   was   expressed   in   propaganda   as   the   stress   caused   by   the   Jewish  

presence.xxvi  This  expression  of  a  “national  misfortune”  moved  individual,  private  concerns  of  the  

citizen  into  the  public  forum,  a  space  and  opportunity  for  unifying  citizen  with  fellow  citizen.  On  

occasion,   these   opportunities   for   unity   were   staged   for   dramatic   effect,   creating   Stunden   der  

Nation,   (‘national   moments’)   in   which   the   community   as   a   whole   paused   in   conscious  

participation  of  the  Fuhrer  expressing  his  presence.xxvii      

Propaganda  in  the  Third  Reich  would  not  have  achieved  such  staggering  levels  of  success  

had   it   remained   solely   in   the   intellectualized   frame   of   reference   in   the   citizen’s   life-­‐world.   In  

order  for  the  citizen  to  even  partially  accept  the  barrage  of  information  and  instruction  spelt  out  

   

212  

through   various   manifestations,   a   successful   “hidden   correspondence”xxviii   had   to   transpire  

between  the  habitus  of  the  state  and  the  habitus  of  the  citizen.  This  successful  interaction  would  

bring   the   citizen   into   the   social   space   of   the   state,   and   the   state   into   the   social   space   of   the  

citizen.xxix   Artaud’s   discussion  on   the   stage   and   the   audience   in   the   theatre   runs   alongside   the  

logic  behind  Nazi  spatialization  techniques:    

We   abolish   the   stage   and   the   auditorium   and   replace   them   by   a   single   site,   without  partition   or   barrier   of   any   kind,   which   will   become   the   theatre   of   the   action.   A   direct  communication  will  be  re-­‐established  between  the  spectator  and  the  spectacle…  from  the  fact  that  that  the  spectator,  place  din  the  middle  of  the  action,  is  engulfed  and  physically  affected  by  it.xxx  

   

However,   even   as   the   Reich   Ministry   for   Public   Enlightenment   and   Propaganda   was  

compelled  to  occasionally  offer  points  of  veracity  in  order  to  maintain  a  relationship  of  trust  with  

the   independent   citizen   and   spectator,   the  messages   put   forth   in   the   propaganda  would   have  

only  remained  a  tangential  element,  a  stage  of  irrelevant  spectacles  so  to  speak,  in  the  citizen’s  

life   if   it   could   not   eventually   and   smoothly   be   incorporated   into   a   corporeal   reality.xxxi   This  

incorporation  was  the  ultimate  goal  of  Minister  of  Propaganda,  Joseph  Goebbels,  as  illustrated  in  

his   1933   speech   to   the  managerial   staff   of   German   radio   in   the   Haus   des   Rundfunks:   “As   the  

piano   is   to   the   pianist,   so   the   transmitter   is   to   you,   the   instrument   you   play   on   as   sovereign  

masters   of   public   opinion.”xxxii   He   later   expanded   his   lectures   on   the   task   of   managing   public  

opinion,  this  time  regarding  the  government’s  responsibility  to  not  merely  “inform,  but  instruct”  

the  press  to  adopt  a  “crusading”  spirit  which  would  reflect  the  spirit  of  the  times,  and  in  this  way  

avoid  a  “daily  war”  with  the  press  corps.  

The  expression  of  anti-­‐Semitism  is  evidenced  through  cinematic  propaganda  tools,  such  as  

the  1940  film,  Der  ewige  Jude   (The  Wandering  Jew)  which   illustrated  the   impermanence  of   the  

   

213  

body   and   loyalty   of   the   “wandering   Jew.”   The   tacit   state   disapproval   of   this   wandering   was  

justified  through  his  literal  movements  allegedly  spreading  plagues  through  Medieval  Europe  and  

continuing   to   defy   the   commitment   to   ongoing  manual   labor  which   had  defined   the   existence  

and  history  of  his  settled  counterparts.xxxiii  

Through  an  updated  Reich  Cinema  Law  drafted  and  released  in  1934,  films  were  judged  by  

a  new  use  of  distinction  marks,  Pradikate,  which  had  been  originally   introduced   in   the  Weimar  

era.  Although  the  Pradikate  system  under  the  Weimar  Republic  had  been  considered  an  covetous  

honor  because  of  their  accompanying  tax  reduction,  in  the  Reich  film  industry,  these  marks  were  

a  troublesome  but  compulsory  purchase  for  a  film  seeking  to  be  released  in  the  state.  The  Reich  

further   expanded   upon   this   system   by   dividing   the   distinctions   into   eleven   categories   which  

ranged   from  “culturally   valuable”   to   “politically   and  artistically   especially   valuable”,   the   former  

category   reserved   for   films   produced   by   established   directors   or   films   created   solely   for  

exportation,  with  the  latter  maintained  for  Nazi  youth  organizations  or  school  events.xxxiv  

The  Nazi  program  of  anti-­‐Semitism  focused  on  three  major  themes  which  were  nebulous  

and   malleable   enough   to   fit   into   the   three   tiers   which   conformed   to   the   three   basic   socio-­‐

economic   classes   of   Germany.   The   three   views   expounded   on   themes   of   Jewish   support   of  

exploitative   capitalism,   Jewish   support   of   Marxist   Socialism,   and   the   Jewish   struggle   against  

Aryan  interests  both  nationally  and  internationally.xxxv  Nazi  anti-­‐Semitism  focused  on  “struggles”  

between  the  races,  which   found  expression   in   the  various  symbols  of  bellicosity  and  combat   in  

not  only  propaganda,  but   in  the  German  world  view.  War  became  not  only  a  means  to  an  end,  

rather  it  was  celebration  of  the  German  spirit,  a  “life  spirit”  which  was  sanctified  and  validated  by  

fallen  soldiers.  This   “life   spirit”   led   to  a  novel  hero-­‐ization  movement  of  Germany   in  which   the  

   

214  

characteristics  of  deceased  soldiers  took  on  near   immortal  status  and  importance.  This  attitude  

was  expressed  not  only  in  films  and  speeches,  but  in  the  everyday  songs  sung  by  soldiers:  

  …And  even  if  heaven,  hell,  and  the  world     Were  to  be  allied  against  us,       We  would  hold  our  heads  high     And  fight  until  the  last  man  fell  wounded…xxxvi    

This  song   illustrates  the  unbreakable  commitment  held  by  German  soldiers  on  the  front  

lines  to  unite  and  fight,  even  against  a  figurative  heaven  and  the  world;  further,  it  was  constantly  

validated  by  the  nationalist  feelings  abound  in  the  state.  According  to  Hoess,  “The  Fuhrer  lives!  In  

boundless  gratitude  we  all  feed  today  as  if  he  has  been  given  to  us  anew.  Providence  has  spare  

our  Fuhrer  in  the  past,  and  Providence  will  spare  our  Fuhrer  in  the  future,  because  he  has  been  

sent  on  a  great  mission…”xxxvii  This  level  of  frenzied  faith  and  expressed  love  for  the  Fuhrer  and  by  

extension,  the  German  spirit,  was  termed  Steigerungsmoglichkeit.  The  flames  of  these  nationalist  

passions  were  constantly  finding  shape  and  form  in  the  skills  of  Nazi  propagandists  and  leaders,  

as  seen  in  the  May  1940  order  from  Goebbels  to  Hans  Fritzche  regarding  German  fear  of  French  

and  British  military  reprisals,  “Intensify  the  panic  which  is  beginning  to  spread,  and  do  everything  

possible   to   incite   more   unrest   and   to   bring   tensions   to   a   peak.”xxxviii   Such   tensions   of   future  

judgment   had   far   earlier   affected   those   charged  with   the   duty   as   executioner   of   homo   sacer,  

directed   the   shooting,   they  began   to   repress   as  well   as   justify   their   activities…   (which   is)  quite  

noticeable   in   the  choice  of   language   for   reports  of   individual  killing  actions.   ..  employing   terms  

that  tended  to  either  justify  the  killings  or  to  obscure  them  altogether.xxxix  

As  with  all  forms  of  effective  propaganda,  the  Nazis  always  included  the  element  of  truth  

in  their  rabid  canards,  speeches,  and  films.  Half  of  the  Jewish  population  within  the  Reichstag  had  

   

215  

indeed   voted   against   war   credits.xl   Further,   the   percentage   of   the   Jewish   population   which  

enlisted  for  the  army  in  WWI,  was  disproportionately  low  to  their  German  population.  To  add  to  

these   alleged   insults,   Jews,   historically   loyal   to   governments,  were   visibly   active   to   the   interim  

government,  hastily  formed  to  surrender  to  the  Allies.xli  Furthermore,  unlike  other  minorities,  the  

German  Jews  were  largely  concentrated  in  urban  settings.  By  1933,  more  than  1/3  of  the  Jewish  

population  was  living  in  Berlin.xlii  This  level  of  visibility  in  cities  exposed  the  Jewish  population  in  a  

more  extreme  manner  than  if  it  had  been  leveled  more  evenly  across  the  German  state.    

 Nazi   propaganda   also   made   use   of   the   over-­‐representation   of   Jews   in   the   German  

employment  pre-­‐1933.  Citing   the  61%   involved   in   labor   force  against   the  18%  ethnic  Germans,  

the  2%  of   Jewish  workers   involved   in  manual   labor,   such  as  agriculture,   versus   the  29%  ethnic  

Germans.xliii  Further,  Jews  had  attained  their  comparatively  higher  statuses  in  society  because  of  

their  educational  achievements.  Once  German  universities  had  become  to  accept  Jews  in  1790,  it  

was  only  80  years  before  Jews  were  over-­‐represented  within  academia,  both  as   instructors  and  

students.  Between  1870-­‐1933,  Jews  comprised  12%  of  lecturers,  and  between  1905-­‐1931,  25%  of  

students  in  grammar  schools  were  likewise  Jewish.    

 Staring   into  the  margins  of  the  state  apparatus,  the  average  citizen  could  not  wage  war  

against   such  an  overwhelming   force  which  appealed   to  his  mind  and  emotions,  even   if  he  was  

pre-­‐disposed  to  such  subversive  action.  “It  is  the  ordinary  citizen  who  is  oppressed…the  ordinary  

citizen   is   ill-­‐equipped   to   do   battle   on   a   field   of   unpunctuated   clauses   and   strewn   with   legal  

jargon.  But  what  is  worse  is  that  if  he  wants  to  do  battle  it  is  only  with  great  difficulty  he  can  find  

anyone  to  do  it  with.  The  man  behind  the  counter  has  not  the  slightest  idea  what  is  in  the  form,  

nor  the  man  behind  him,  nor  the  man  behind  the  managing  director’s  desk…”xliv  

   

216  

How   did   political   speeches   influence   the   choices   and   developing   acceptance   of   Nazism  

within   society?   Herbert   claims   that   in   the   pre-­‐Nazi   era   it   was   more   from   “indifference   and  

readiness   to   accept   the   persecution   of   the   Jews   and   to   ignore   it   as   ‘unimportant’   which  

characterized   the   attitude  of   ‘normal  Germans’   in   those   years.”xlv   This   level   of   apathy   towards  

individual  rights,  protection  of  minorities  and  belief   in  tolerance   in  society   indicates  a  relatively  

weak  civil  society.  This  level  of  unseated  civil  society  in  Germany  was  demonstrated  in  a  lack  of  

protest   towards   authorities   in   November   1938   when   over   20,000   Jewish   males   were  

incarcerated.  As  far  as  the  heads  of  the  Nazi  state  were  concerned,  “the  murder  of  Jews  would  no  

longer  involve  legal  repercussions…as  long  as  one  avoided  public  sensations,  uproar…nothing  was  

to   be   expected   from   the   German   population   than   indifference.”xlvi   “A   free   mortal   forecloses  

alternative  possibilities  when  it  chooses  to  do  or  become  x;  and  every  act  of  freedom  is  therefore  

bound  up  with  the  possibilities  it  must  forgo.”xlvii  

Initials  acts  of  anti-­‐Semitic  legislation  were  furthered  in  “bureaucratic  momentum,”  which  

required   the   adaption   of   civil   servants   to   positions   which   handled   matters   related   to   Jewish  

policies   which   came   to   exist   within   their   civic   realms.   Eventually,   the   allure   of   a   career   as   a  

Judensachbearbeiter   drew   the   attention   of   many   disinterested   with   their   tedious   civil   servant  

jobs.  In  the  beliefs  of  Christopher  Browning,  it  was  in  this  arsenal  of  bureaucratic  man-­‐machines  

that  the  Nazi  regime  found  professional  legitimation.xlviii  

     Under  Nazi  logic  and  later  under  law  within  the  regime,  it  followed  that  “the  notion  of  race  

functions  (so  it)  does  not  refer  to  any  situation  of  external  fact  but  instead  realizes  an  immediate  

coincidence  of   fact  and   law…a  zone   in  which  the  distinction  between   life  and  politics,  between  

questions  of  fact  and  question  of  law,  has  literally  no  more  meaning.”xlix  To  create  a  retroactive  

   

217  

genealogy,  the  Nazi  Party  called  upon  real  and  imagined  historical  “confrontations”  of  Judaism  to  

German  identity  which  could  no  longer  be  ignored,  else  the  indistinct  Jewish  threat  of  domination  

would   be   realized   by   destroying   Volkish   ideology.   The   use   of   this   genealogy   was   noted   by  

Connolly  as  a  means  of  drawing  upon  concepts  “of  intrinsic  identity  and  otherness  into  question  

in  order  to  tap  agonistic  care  for  difference  from  the  experience  of  not  being  exhausted  by  the  

identities   that   fix   a   particular   life…   drawing   on   the…   powers   of   imagination   derived   from   it.”l  

Bourdieu  adds  to  this  illustration  of  confronting  and  resolving  alterity  by  framing  the  reliance  on  a  

lingua  franca  as  a    “paradox  (which)  presupposes  a  common  medium,  but  one  which  works…  only  

by  eliciting  and  reviving  singular,  and  therefore,  socially  marked,  experiences.li  

This  view  was  not  limited  to  politics,  even  in  the  musical  world  in  the  operas  of  Wagner,  

this   anti-­‐Semitism   was   expressed.   In   the   composer’s   mind,   the   Jews   “could   not   share   the  

Leidenschaften   (passions)  of   the  nation,  had  no  claim  on  Volksgeist   (national   spirit).   Jews  were  

soulless  wanderers  hostile  to  European  art  and  civilization.”lii  Bringing  Judaism  into  the  realm  of  

racial   identity   brought   likewise   the   relationship   of   German   to   Jew   into   violence.   As   Hitler  

pronounced   in   an   early   speech   outlining   this   new   relationship,   “Whoever   wants   to   live   must  

therefore  fight  and  whoever  does  not  wish  to  do  battle  in  this  world  of  eternal  struggle  does  not  

deserve  to  live.”liii  This  call  for  violence  and  German  assertion  was  proclaimed  even  by  academics,  

such  as  Heinrich  Treitschke,  a  professor  at   the  University  of  Berlin  at   the   time  of  Bismarck.  He  

called  upon  the  German  state  to  first  condemn  the  Jews  as  “our  national  misfortune”  and  then  to  

recognize   itself   as   an   “organic   entity   embodying   the   aspirations   of   its   people,   it   was   born   in  

violence   and   entitled   to   seize   Lebensraum   by   any   means.”liv   Similarly,   German   philosopher  

Johann   Gottlieb   Fichte   expressed   the   stereotypical   Jewish   drive   for   conquest,   “A  mighty   state  

   

218  

stretches   across   almost   all   the   countries   of   Europe,   hostile   in   intent   and   engaged   in   constant  

strife  with  everyone  else…this  is  Jewry.”lv    

 

IV. Daily  Communication    

Discourse   in   the  Nazi   regime   flowed   in  a  vertical  direction,  originating   from  Party  heads  

and  propaganda  ministers  downwards  to  the  lower  Party  members  and  citizens.  The  opportunity  

for  communicative  reciprocity  was  scarce  between  higher  Party  official  and  citizen  and  naturally  

non-­‐existent  from  homo  sacer  to  any  in  the  state.  Under  the  newer  and  reasoned  anti-­‐Semitism,  

however,   the   Nazis   had   to   re-­‐justify,   re-­‐explain   and   reiterate   in   multiple   formal   and   informal  

exchanges   the   reason  why   the   Jewish  homo  viator  was  unwelcome  and  unwanted   in   the  new,  

glorious   Reich.   All   these   newer   forms   of   anti-­‐Semitic   explanations   were   focused   around  

academically  and   scientifically  based   reasoning.  Necessarily,   these  purported  academic   reasons  

and   explanations   decreased   in   formalized   logic   and   empirical   study   the   further   it  moved   from  

educated,  top  tiered  Nazi  society.  Thus  the  necessity  remained  for  older,  more  traditional  forms  

of  anti-­‐Semitism  based  in  emotion.  Having  already  been  established  in  the  collective  memory  of  

citizens,   these   forms   of   prejudice   called   for   no   citation   to   further   justify   the   new   regime,   nor  

explanation  for  their  having  been  formed  at  all.    

In   at   least   one   respect,   the   newer   forms   of   anti-­‐Semitism  were   far  more   vile   than   the  

traditional   resentment   –   by   using   Jewish   texts   and   beliefs   as   a   legitimized   springboard   for  

justification  of  Nazi  anti-­‐Semitic  policies.  When  these  actual  sources  fell  short,  Nazi  scholars  relied  

on  distorted   translations  and  even  utterly   falsified   texts,   such  as  The  Protocols  of   the  Elders  of  

Zion.    

   

219  

Even   in   the   realm  of   politics,   a   field   ostensibly   dominated   by   the   Jew,   this   anti-­‐Semitic  

vein  was  popularized.  This  attitude  was  exemplified  in  one  lengthy  speech  in  the  Reichstag  by  a  

member  of  an  anti-­‐Semitic  party:  

…and  that  every   Jew  who  at   this  moment  has  not  done  anything  bad  may  nevertheless  under   the  proper  conditions  do  precisely   that,  because  his   racial  qualities  drive  him  to  do   it…   if   it  were  a  matter  of   fighting  with   honest   weapons   against   an   honest   enemy;   then   it   would   be   a  matter   of   course   that   the   Germans  would  not  fear  such  a  people.  But  the  Jews,  who  operate  like  parasites,  are  a  different  kind  of  problem…the  Jews  are  cholera  germs.lvi      

Due  to  the  tension  between  a  diminished  of  quickly  emigrating  Jewish  population  and  the  

zealous   drive   by   German   jurists   for   legally   enacted   anti-­‐Semitism,   German   Jews   soon   became  

over-­‐represented  in  the  Nazi  court  convictions  in  terms  of  racial  policy  defiance.  In  1939,  12%  of  

convicted   passport   offences   were   committed   by   Jews;   likewise   62%   convicted   for   “racial  

defilement”   were   from   the   dwindling   Jewish   population;   and   finally   Jews   were   likewise   over-­‐

represented   in   a   third   legal   situation,   with   29%   convicted   of   “foreign   currency   offenses.”lvii  

Through  the  decreasing  numbers  of  Jews  available  to  bodily  defy  or  dispel  stereotypes,  it  became  

simpler  to  preach  anti-­‐Semitism  from  the  pulpit,  classroom,  and  courtroom.    

In  conclusion,  through  the  conscious  categorizing  of  these  four  methods  of  indoctrination  

and   their   occasional   compilation   for   mass   rallies   and   parades,   the   language   of   the   Nazi   state  

usurped  the  private  lexicon  and,  by  extension,  the  entire  linguistic  structure  held  by  each  citizen  

through  a  twofold  arbitrary  and  deliberate  substitution  of  previous  definitions  and  implications  in  

the  common  language.    

 

       

   

220  

                                     

                                                                                                                 i  Jean-­‐Jacques  Rousseau,  Emile,  (New  York:  Basic  Books,  1979),  83.  ii  Antonin  Artaud,  The  Theatre  and  Its  Double,  (New  York:  Grove  Press,  1958),  94.  iii  Donna  Harraway,  as  quoted  in  The  Female  Body  and  The  Law,    Zillah  Eisenstein.  (Berkeley:  University  of  California,  1989),  23.  iv  Penelope  Eckert  and  Sally  McConnell-­‐Ginet,  “Power:  Gender  Relations.”  Annual  Review  of  Anthology,  Vol.  21  (1992),  474.  v  Elaine  Scarry,  The  Body  in  Pain:  The  Making  and  Unmaking  of  the  World,  (Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  1985),  136.  vi  Scarry,  The  Body  in  Pain,  33.  vii  Ibid.  viii  Ibid.,  45-­‐46.  ix  Gideon  Hausner,  Justice  in  Jerusalem,  (Jerusalem:  Herzl  Press,  1978),  40.  x  Roland  Barthes,  Elements  of  Semiology,    Trans.  Annette  Lavers  and  Colin  Smith,  (New  York:  Hill  &  Wang,  1964),  31.  xi  George  Lakoff  and  Mark  Johnson,  Metaphors  We  Live  By,    (Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press,  2003),  239.  xii  Allert  Tilman,  The  Hitler  Salute:  On  the  Meaning  of  Gesture,  (New  York:  Henry  Holt  &  Company,  Inc.,  2008),  11.  xiii  Antonin  Artaud,  The  Theatre  and  Its  Double,  (New  York:  Grove  Press,  1958),  72.  xiv  Hugh  Dalziel  Duncan,  Symbols  in  Society,  (New  York:  Oxford  University  Press,  1968),  23.  xv  Artaud,  The  Theatre  and  Its  Double,  108.  xvi  Scarry,  The  Body  in  Pain,  41.  xvii  Ibid.,  41.  xviii  Ibid.,  31.  xix  Max  Horkheimer,  Eclipse  of  Reason,  (Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  1947),  61.  xx  Theodor  Adorno,  The  Jargon  of  Authenticity,  (London:  Routledge,  2003),  vii.  xxi  Giorgio  Agamben,  Means  Without  End:  Notes  on  Politics,  trans.  Vincenzo  Binetti  and  Cesare  Casarino.  (Minneapolis  and  London:  University  of  Minnesota  Press,  2001),  31.  xxii  Jay  Baird,  The  Mythical  World  of  Nazi  War  Propaganda,  1939-­‐1945,    (Minneapolis:  University  of  Minnesota  Press,  1974),  3.  

   

221  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           xxiii  Ibid.,  4.  xxiv  Pierre  Bourdieu,  Language  and  Symbolic  Power,  (Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press,  1992),  70.  xxv  Laurence  Rees,    Auschwitz,  (New  York:  Perseus  Books  Group,  2005),  3.  xxvi  David  Welch,  The  Third  Reich:  Politics  and  Propaganda,  (London:  Routledge,  1993),  76.  xxvii  Ibid.,  115.  xxviii  Bourdieu,  Language  and  Symbolic  Power,  41.  xxix  Ironically,  despite  historical  horrors  resulting  from  this  porous  relationship  between  State  and  citizen,  public  and  private,  this  breakdown  of  border  remains  the  steadfast  goal  of  the  progressive  feminist  car  ethics  project.  xxx  Artaud,  The  Theatre  and  Its  Double,  96.  xxxi  Welch,  The  Third  Reich,  35.  xxxii  Ibid.,  30.  xxxiii  Ibid.,  78.  xxxiv  Ibid.,  45.  xxxv  Sarah  Ann  Gordon,  Hitler,  Germans,  and  the  ‘Jewish  Question’,  (New  Jersey:  Princeton  University  Press,  1984),  78.  xxxvi  Baird,  The  Mythical  World  of  Nazi  War  Propaganda,  8.  xxxvii  Ibid.,  66.  xxxviii  Ibid.,  87.  xxxix  Raul  Hilberg,  Destruction  of  the  European  Jews,  vol.  I,  (New  York:  Holmes  &  Meir  Publishers  Ltd.,  1985),  329.  xl  Gordon,  Hitler,  Germans,  and  the  “Jewish  Question”,  76.  xli  Ibid.,  98.  xlii  Ibid.,  87.  xliii  Ibid.,  98.  xliv  Patrick  Devlin,  The  Enforcement  of  Morals,  (Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  1965),  49.  xlv  Ulrich  Herbert,  National  Socialist  Extermination  Policies:  Contemporary  German  Perspectives  and  Controversies,  (New  York:  Berghahn  Books,  2000),  23.  xlvi  Ibid.,  24.  xlvii  William  Connolly,  Identity/Difference:  Democratic  Negotiations  of  Political  Paradox,  (Ithaca:  Cornell  University  Press,  1991/2002),  18.  xlviii  Christopher  Browning,  Origins  of  the  Final  Solution:  The  Evolution  of  Nazi  Jewish  Policy  September  1939-­‐March  1942,    (London:  William  Heinemann,  2004),  11.  xlix  Giorgio  Agamben,  Homo  Sacer:  Sovereign  Power  and  Bare  Life,  (Stanford:  Stanford  University  Press,  1995),  172.  l  Ibid.,  182.  li  Pierre  Bourdieu,  Language  and  Symbolic  Power,  (Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press,  1991),  39.[  lii  Saul  Friedman,  A  History  of  the  Holocaust,  (Oregon:  Vallentine  Mitchell,  2004),    45.  liii  Gordon,  Hitler,  Germans,  and  the  ‘Jewish  Question’,  87.  liv  Friedman,  A  History  of  the  Holocaust,  39.  lv  Ibid.,  38.  lvi  Ibid.  lvii  Nikolaus  Wachsmann,  Hitler’s  Prisons:  Legal  Terror  in  Nazi  Germany,  (New  Haven  and  London:  Yale  University  Press),  159.