by Rüdiger Meyenberg

Hardly any other European country is able to afford such intensive scientific observation of young people as Germany. This is primarily for historical reasons, which can be traced back to the transition from the Third Reich to the parliamentary democracy of the Federal Republic. The "Shell Studies", commissioned since the 1950s, and the studies conducted by the state centres for political education on the political knowledge, values and attitudes of young people are eloquent examples of this.

Comparable studies in other (Western) European countries are rather rare, and when they do exist, they relate to partial aspects of young people's thinking and behaviour (e.g. consumer behaviour); it is only in Central and Eastern European countries that there is a growing need among researchers to sound out the effect of the democratisation of their political systems on young people's democratic awareness.

In this context, a publication in the Netherlands which analyses the image of Germany in the minds of young Dutch people comes as a surprise. Henk Dekker, Rob Aspeslagh and Manuela du Bois-Reymond (Duitsland in Beeld - Gemengde gevoelens blootgelegd. Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse 1997) present a comprehensive study on the knowledge and attitudes of young people aged 14 and 15 to 19 about the character of Germans. The authors refer to three studies (two empirical surveys conducted by the "Netherlands Institute for International Relations - Clingendael" and a qualitative study), which were carried out among around 1,800 pupils between 1993 and 1995 and caused a considerable stir in politics and the media. Among other things, the German Embassy in The Hague tried to influence the timing of the publication in order to give Federal President Herzog, who was on a state visit to the Netherlands in October 1995, the opportunity to comment. When the rather sobering, i.e. negative attitudes became known, the German side played down the results and referred to the good political and economic relations.

In essence - according to the results of the first study (Clingendael 1993) - young Dutch people have little knowledge of Germany and also have a poor opinion of the Germans. Of all EU countries, this country is held in the lowest esteem; right-wing extremism, World War II, violence towards asylum seekers are associated with Germany; in particular, the Germans are predominantly warmongering and want to dominate the world; their attitude is fundamentally arrogant.

These attitudes were also confirmed in the second study, which was conducted by the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden in 1995; Germany was not "peace-loving" and only received a low approval rating for "friendly, cosy, tolerant". The results of the third study by Manuela du Bois-Reymond, which focussed on children aged 11 to 13, are more differentiated. In order to be able to analyse their prejudices and possibly stereotypes, this group (58 participants) was asked to write an essay on the question: "Describe an English, Belgian and German child of your age. Which one would you most like to be friends with?" Here, too, the sceptical attitude towards Germans predominates, although normality with them is also expressed more strongly: "German children are pleasant and try to behave as pleasantly as possible towards foreigners in order to make up for Hitler's black war. That's how I thought about it. But now I know that we are all the same", says a 12-year-old boy; or another: "I don't think the German language is nice, but maybe they are pleasant". Here, traditional prejudices are mixed with the question of whether people can be inherently bad, intolerant or even domineering.

A fourth study, published by the Clingendael Institute in November 1997, essentially confirmed the negative basic attitudes towards Germans. Henk Dekker, Rob Aspeslagh and Bastian Winkel (Burenverdriet - Attituden ten aanzien van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie - 's Gravenhage, 1997) repeat the surveys they conducted in 1993 and 1995 and maintain their statement that young Dutch people judge Germany and Germans badly. All of the studies have triggered a lively response in the Netherlands, but also in Germany, especially in the media, and raised questions about the causes (du Bois-Reymond's third study was largely ignored). However, no consideration has been given to whether the sample drawn is representative of young people at all and whether the questions are scientifically tenable; I myself have major reservations, which I summarise in the following theses.

First of all, however, a major weakness of the studies lies in the isolated questioning; it reduces a complexity to one aspect that only becomes understandable when it is embedded in a whole. Obviously, the researchers want to analyse the political awareness of young people and also take into account aspects of attitudes towards Germany. But what, for example, is the respondents' interest in politics, in social events, what is their value orientation, which is an important basis for human judgement and behaviour? How do they judge current events (at the time), the Gulf War, the civil war in Yugoslavia, in which the Dutch military was also heavily involved? How about the appearance of neo-fascist groups in the Netherlands? Or what is the task/function of history lessons in the eyes of the pupils surveyed? But we search in vain for such questions and answers. Furthermore:

- The samples drawn are not representative of young people. Almost all international youth studies include 13 to 25-year-olds in their sample, and in some cases also 29-year-olds, who must be represented in the age groups according to the overall population. In the Dutch surveys (first, second and fourth surveys), over 70 % of respondents are no older than 16; a comparison with the total population is missing in the second and fourth surveys. There is a complete lack of analyses by age group, which would have contributed to a better understanding and greater differentiation of the study results, albeit not necessarily.

- It makes no sense to ask pupils about attitudes towards countries and people that they have neither travelled to nor "experienced" personally. What is the qualitative value of a statement from a young person who describes Germans as intolerant but neither knows the country nor has ever been in contact with Germans?

- The three main Dutch studies are quantitative studies that are completely lacking in qualitative aspects. Individual interviews or biographical accounts would have been necessary methodological additions and would probably have relativised many a statement.

- Some of the Dutch colleagues operate with normative suggestive questions and questions that completely ignore the socialisation development of young people and thus considerably impair the validity of the results. What do categories such as "democratic", "wants to rule the world" or "bellicose" mean to 12 to 15-year-olds?

- Some of the survey results are only referenced and interpreted too little; even minor "progress" in the respondents' assessment in 1997 compared to 1993 and 1995 is hardly rated positively. Why, for example, are France, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and Finland rated "worse" by the respondents than Germany? In 1993 Germany was still in penultimate place on the favourability scale, whereas in 1997 it moved up four places. How can this be explained?

- In interpreting their results, the Dutch colleagues do not take enough account of other studies conducted in their country on the attitudes of young Dutch people towards Germany and Germans. In his study "Nederlanders over Duitsers: Enkele empirische gegevens" (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1997), Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven comes to the following conclusions:

"The impression created by the so-called Clingendael study ... is not (or no longer) correct. 1. a indeed large group of Dutch people who have a negative image of Germany contrasts with a considerable group of Dutch people with a positive image of Germany. 2. young people do not think more negatively about Germans than other age groups; they find themselves more similar to Germans than older fellow citizens. 3. in a European comparison, Germans are not in last place, but Italians and French are even further behind."

- Last but not least, it would have been wiser in terms of education policy - especially for an Institute like Clingendael, which deals with international relations - to clarify the question of how young people in the Netherlands, who are obviously confronted with one-sided information about Germany and the Germans, can be prepared for a Europe that is growing together, rather than focussing on problematic research results.

What remains are the consequences of the not always incorrect results of the studies. In particular, the prevailing history lessons, but also the "culture of remembrance" of the Dutch, appear to be the main causes of these images of young people from the researchers' point of view.

In addition to the glorious times of the 16th and 17th centuries, Dutch history itself also has its dark sides: But where are the Dutch extermination campaigns against the Hottentots in South Africa and against South American Indians covered in schools? How important in the history books are the punitive expeditions against the treaty-breaking Spice Islands and the massacres during the Indonesian War of Independence? Why did the Netherlands impose such strict immigration regulations on Jews in the 1930s?

To avoid any misunderstanding: these questions cannot and must not excuse what Germans did to the Dutch people during the Nazi regime; it remains a serious crime. Nevertheless, they sharpen the idea that before we deal with the - sometimes not unjustified - accusations against other peoples, we must not make certain historical/political issues taboo in our own country. Only those who know their own past are aware of the present. That applies to every country.

If we know that many young Dutch people do not know Germany and the Germans, then it stands to reason that encounters, joint conferences, youth exchanges, the unbiased experience of each other, should be offered. The authors of the youth studies do make some constructive suggestions here. However, prejudices take centre stage.

Prejudices, but also the political attitude towards Germans, is first and foremost a political and educational task for the Dutch themselves; but it must not leave us Germans untouched either, as they often provide us with a mirror of ourselves.

The author

Prof. Dr Rüdiger Meyenberg, social scientist specialising in the didactics of political education at the Institute of Social Sciences II of Faculty 3 Social Sciences, has been teaching and researching at the University of Oldenburg since 1974 - after studying and working in schools. He heads the European Integration and Political Education (EURIPOL) and School Addiction and Drug Prevention centres.