How is the socio-cultural environment created

Socioculture - New Federal States

Tobias J. Knoblich

To person

M. A., born 1971; freelance cultural scientist and doctoral candidate; i.a. Freelance worker in the Saxon State Ministry for Science and Art, lecturer in cultural education at the Saxon Administration and Business Academy.

Address: Naugarder Strasse 37, 10409 Berlin; Jablonecer Stra├če 2 A, 08062 Zwickau.

Publications including: (together with Grit Hanneforth) The Saxon Cultural Area Act. Aims and perspectives of a cultural-political special path, in: Handbuch KulturManagement, A 1.13, Stuttgart et al. 2000.

The contribution tries to problematize the emergence of socioculture, but also its conditions. Based on a reformed concept of cultural policy, for example, the organization of socio-cultural centers is traced.

I. From history to perspective

Socioculture is a problematic factor, both against the background of its history and against that of its future prospects, because it cannot be clearly described. The two dimensions are often inadequately related, but their critical synopsis seems more and more urgent. If we assume that the history of what we call socioculture, like any history, has a quality of knowledge, then the present and the future are in an important relationship with it. This relationship is initially characterized by a fragility, because history is on the one hand the attempt to (re) construct the past (and thus lost), but on the other hand it also requires a certain interest in knowledge. "Anyone who tries to get closer to their own buried past," writes Walter Benjamin, "must behave like a man who digs. Above all, he must not be afraid to come back to one and the same situation over and over again - to spread it like you would earth to rummage over it as one ruffles the earth. " [1] Behind history there is a tireless will to knowledge, but at the same time a will to criticize, because every knowledge is determined from a point of view. According to Ortega y Gasset, perspective is a crucial component of reality [2]. After all, the story also embodies a will to power, to fix it in the truest sense, which will shape what is to come.

  • PDF version: 73 KB





  • A "history of socioculture" does not yet exist, but there are propaedeutic (introductory) and systematic attempts to say something about its nature. This may be due, among other things, to the fact that she has a necessary reluctance to develop traditions, but also to her practical success, which, as it were, only draws the analytical perspective after itself. Born from thoroughly critical impulses and acting in the present, the critical principle itself has become the object of searching retrospect. The more questions are asked about the why of the success, about contemporary, but also historical roots of sociocultural thinking, the more significant the historical reconstruction can be for the shape of future practice or theory. A theory of socioculture as it exists in general for the subculture [3], of course, is also still pending. But one thing is certain: where history is created - and it inevitably arises - questions about the past arise and Future, especially for those who were largely denied contemporary witnesses. The more productively the work on the story is perceived, the more diverse it will be, the more diverse will be the findings that find their way into the discussion about conceptual redefinitions.

    The following thoughts, which try to give an overview of the history and perspectives of socioculture, also want to be an impetus for a thorough and differentiated examination of concepts, history and previous practice. They assume that, despite definitional difficulties, socioculture can be described as a principle of modernity, the form of which is dependent on discourse and movement.