Monatshefte

In this monograph, O'Brien examines "the rhetoric of emancipation" used in works by Ida von Hahn-Hahn (1805-1880), Fanny Lewald (1811-1889), and Ottilie Assing (1819-1884). The unifying concept of this analysis is not an emphasis on a narrowly defined message but on a common rhetorical strategy. All three authors are critical of the nineteenth-century, bourgeois liberal, exclusionary, white-male enactment of the Enlightenment's universal notions of personhood and citizenship and argue for the inclusion of women (Hahn-Hahn and Lewald), Jews (Lewald), or blacks (Assing). However, as O'Brien demonstrates, "their expanded view of selfhood or individuality" is equally rooted in these Enlightenment ideals and thus re-enacts the same exclusionary-inclusionary dynamic (56). O'Brien's purpose is to make her readers aware of the contradictory "logic of these texts" (86) which allows for an arguably progressive "defin[ition] of the individual" but one that is based on an "excluded non-individual" (154). Specifically, each author makes use of a racialized other—the Oriental (Hahn-Hahn, Lewald), the black (Hahn-Hahn, Lewald), or the Native American (Assing)—to support her expanded definition of personhood.

In setting up her theoretical framework, O'Brien uses Isabel Hull's Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700-1815 (1996) to lay the foundation for her argument that "universal rights and particular exclusions could come to peacefully coexist" in bourgeois liberal society (25). For O'Brien, Hahn-Hahn, Lewald, and Assing use "the universal concept of the individual as a source of power for women" (44). This allows them, primarily through their writing, to be contributing members of society, a central pillar to their understanding of personhood. O'Brien then goes on to layer this theoretical cornerstone with theoretical discourses on gender (Frevert et. al.), race (Eigen and Larrimore et. al.), colonialism (Zantop et. al.), orientalism [End Page 338] (Said et.al.), and imperialism (Yeǧenoǧlu et. al.). This is necessary because what she writes in particular about Hahn-Hahn applies equally to Lewald and Assing: "concepts of human development, gender, race and knowledge are inextricably linked" (146). In using this complex of theoretical approaches, as opposed to a single-strand model, O'Brien shifts her readers' attention from focusing solely on what the authors argue for (inclusion) to how they make their arguments (exclusion). O'Brien's point is not to minimize these women's progressive, emancipatory impulses but to highlight the dynamic between the what and the how in order to "reveal [ . . . ] a desire to acquire power of the self and achieve autonomy" (306). In the chapters on the individual authors, O'Brien analyzes their use of a "non-individual [racialized] other" as a key rhetorical strategy that allows them "to expand the notion of individuality" (299). Although the rhetorical strategy employed is similar, O'Brien is careful to articulate the differences between the authors. This is perhaps best illustrated by the contrast in their use of blacks.

In the cases of Hahn-Hahn and Lewald, whose primary concern is women's emancipation, O'Brien reads their use of the black as a metaphor "to endorse the female self" (cf. 280). Hahn-Hahn, according to O'Brien, "render[s] the [black] Oriental invisible, inhuman, and unworthy of space" (153) in order to underscore her own development as a European female capable of producing knowledge (cf. 154-56). Lewald, she argues, often makes use of an "Uncle Tom" analogy in order to highlight the unjust oppression of women in her and her readers' space (Europe) while expressing no "empathy [ . . . ] for the situation of actual slaves" (233). Assing, "in contrast to both Hahn-Hahn and Lewald, [ . . . ] depicts actual slaves as the truly oppressed" (239). As an Abolitionist who seeks to expose the pronounced discrepancy between the Constitution and the practice of slavery, Assing sets up a "primitive" (Native American) in contrast to "civil" society. Blacks, most notably exemplified by Frederick Douglass, a self-educated, articulate former slave, can belong to civilized society and gain access to " 'Enlightened' culture" (cf. 279). Native Americans, on the other hand, are depicted as "uncivilized" and "uncivilizable" (241). In the logic of Assing's argument, this is due to cultural, not racial inferiority (cf. 241). O'Brien's point, however, is that in reality, it is still the "white, European cultural majority" who define the essence of civilized society and who have access to it. Therefore, at its core, Assing's call for expanded civil rights does not move beyond race (241-2).

At the level of discourse analysis, O'Brien's readings are quite compelling and she provides textual evidence to support her argument that each of the authors uses "racializ[ed] depictions of other groups [ . . . ] which are bound up with the emancipatory thrust of their texts" (299). However, there is an unresolved tension in her argument between attempting to locate these women authors' use of race in their own time and space ("they are not simply 'racist' ") and the modern readers' negative reaction to "the blatantly racist moments in their texts" (207). This implicit universalization of the modern reader as someone who has moved beyond racially-based inclusion/exclusion is problematic and does not serve to strengthen her argument. Rhetorical strategies may have evolved, but as recent work on racism (Bonilla-Silva, Racism without Racists,3 2009) and whiteness (Di Angelo, What does it Mean to Be White?,³ 2012) show, this has only allowed racist rhetoric (and actions) to become more subtle. On the one hand, this research affirms the importance of O'Brien's study because she does carefully read and analyze the rhetoric of these nineteenth-century [End Page 339] German women authors and makes this work a useful resource for graduate students and scholars working in this period. On the other hand, the question we must ask ourselves is who is this "modern reader," and if it is us, the predominantly white, highly-educated academics of German Studies, how we might still be excluding "the racialized other" in our discourse and in our practice.