’Integration’, ’Solidarität ’ and the Discourses of National Identity in the 1998 Bundestag Election Manifestos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the discourses of German identity in the manifestos of the parties elected to the Bundestag in September 1998, and analyses particularly the functions of the terms ‘Integration’ and ‘Solidarität’ as they apply (or not) to non‐German residents, German citizens, ethnic Germans and European integration. It also examines in a coda the uses of ‘Integration’ in the commentary accompanying the March 1999 bill to change the German citizenship laws. It concludes that within the two discourses of identity (the nation as an open community of rights or a closed community of ethnicity and custom) ‘Integration’ is a semantically empty verbal marker, used by all parties, around which to express attitudes of acceptance or covert rejection of non‐German groups in the central process of (re‐)defining ‘Deutsche/r’. ‘Solidarität’, on the other hand, is reserved by some parties for use in connection only with Germans. It is subjected to explicit re‐definition by one party in an attempt to claim the word for its particular ideology. Consequently the paper proposes that the concept of ‘Begriffe besetzen’ can be applied to ‘Solidarität’ but not to ‘Integration’, and situates these phenomena in relation to recent writing on political language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".