MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408046191 · doi:10.3138/seminar.61.1.1

Between Stalin and Coca-Cola: Postsocialist Geopolitics and Utopian Ambivalence at Castorf’s Volksbühne

2025· article· en· W4408046191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Korte

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminar A Journal of Germanic Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicGerman History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceGeopoliticsCoca colaPolitical scienceArtAncient historyAestheticsHistoryLawPoliticsPsychoanalysisPsychologyAdvertisingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Frank Castorf’s engagement with East-West geopolitics at the Volksbühne, especially in light of the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the 1990s, Castorf’s productions focused primarily on postsocialism through an Ost-oriented lens. As NATO expanded eastward, Russia and the work of nineteenth-century novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky became a conceptual space for Castorf to explore the discontents of Western liberal democracies and to sustain a utopian ambivalence or openness. His interpretations of Dostoevsky, starting with Dämonen (1999/2000) and culminating in Die Brüder Karamasow (2015), however, reveal significant shifts in his reception of Russia. In Dämonen, Castorf projected onto Russia a combative, carnivalesque vitality that resisted the perceived consensus and conformism of Western liberal democracies. In Karamasow, the Russia that emerges is more violent, nationalistic, and authoritarian. Here, however, Castorf marks Russian Orthodoxy as the source of its otherness and hence as a terrain where existential questions of morality, politics, and religion remain open. Fully embracing these contradictions, Castorf treats contemporary Russia as a response to the postsocialist condition that takes us beyond the antipodes of Stalin and Coca-Cola.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminar A Journal of Germanic StudiesSame topicGerman History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207