Between Colonial Violence and Socialist Worldview: The Conversions of Ernst Daumig

In 1900, Ernst Däumig (1866–1922) wrote to Karl Kautsky of his ‘bitter experiences’ of violence in the French Foreign Legion and then in the Prussian military that had led to his recent ‘conversion’ to the socialist worldview. This article takes up Däumig's letters, articles and travelogues, and a drama, to explore how he recast his experiences of colonial and military violence twice, first as a writer for a German soldiers’ journal and then as an aspiring socialist journalist. As well as a burden that pushed him to critique his past, Däumig's military and colonial experiences are shown to have been his starting capital in the world of journalism and politics. The article gives particular attention to the process of conversion, through which Däumig forged a new life narrative out of the moral tales offered by the adopted worldview and the events of his own past. In addition to providing a case study of worldview conversion, this article demonstrates how biographical research can challenge assumptions about the impact of colonial violence on German metropolitan culture. At the same time, this biographical analysis sheds light on the early career of one of the key figures in the German Revolution of 1918 to 1921. As co-chairman of the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), Däumig led the USPD into union with the Communist Party in 1920.

Laïcité is what Laïcité does: Rethinking the French cult controversy

France’s distinctive reaction towards “cults” is generally described as a result of laïcité’s consubstantial problems with religious diversity. The aim of this article is to present an alternative way of thinking about the French cult controversy and, ultimately, about the concept of “laïcité” as an explanatory framework for France’s response to religious diversity. It draws on empirical data to look at how notions such as “laïcité” and “cults” are used in official discourses and translated into administrative practice. This approach will underline that laïcité is not a driving force that predetermines a unilateral response to “cults”, but that laïcité is as laïcité does, in other words a highly claimed and contested value, reflecting divergent political and administrative approaches of the cult phenomenon. The framework “laïcité versus religious diversity” is also undermined by another crucial observation. While it sees the cult controversy as primarily a religious issue, it seems that the recent revitalisation of the combat against “cults” was made possible by its partial dissociation from the religious sphere and its extension to a wide range of practices and new areas.