Peripeties, as manifestations of narrative conflict, unfold in different versions, e.g. between the messenger report, the tragic hero, and the audience. Projects in this research frame examine multiple, regionally specific variants of change that collide or diverge significantly. The ascribed relevance, local impact, and medial transmission vary according to strategic interests or discursive pre-dispositions, e.g. regarding collective memory politics. The processing of counter narratives allows for acknowledgement of marginalised groups, but it has also proven to be vulnerable to deflection and political instrumentalisation, e.g. in terms of strategic self-marginalisation and appropriation.
Nelson Goodman’s take on conflicting versions of the world that we consider to be true can serve as a blueprint for diverging ‘lifeworld narratives’ or imaginations of the region’s entirety. This research frame allows for investigation of large-scale political narratives that are held to be true by opposing parties, colliding representations of an event, or the aftermath of the “Wende” years, as reflected in contemporary literature and current political debates.
Literary narratives about “the East”, “the West”, “the North” and “the South” can be used to establish the region on the imagined map. Numerous symbolic conflicts – such as memory or cultural ‘wars’ – reflect the significant transitional experiences the Baltic Sea region has undergone. These tensions arise from shifts in ideological paradigms, as well as from the overlapping national historiographies. Conflicting commemorations of World War II, for instance, fuel ‘clashes’ such as democracy vs. autocracy, communism vs. capitalism or neoliberalism. The different “ostalgias” and otherings resulting from these discourses are observable in many post socialist countries – from Ukraine and Poland to Germany. Ressentiments continue to contribute to alienation within the respective societies and exercise a significant impact on domestic politics.
Different perspectives on a particular event divide political opponents, states, or segments of society, and might motivate changes in policy or political participation (e.g. voting for a different party or participating in a demonstration). How do different public narratives of regional history and politics influence parliamentary debates and orientations? How does the interplay of different narratives influence public opinion and voter behaviour? How do conflicting historical narratives and identities shape party platforms and policy priorities?