Gender Identity and Authorship.
EVA & ADELE - just about “Over the Boundaries of Gender”1
“Over the Boundaries of Gender” is a central message of the artist duo EVA & ADELE. Oscillating between a lifestyle motto and an advertising slogan, “Over the Boundaries of Gender” is used in interviews and everyday conversation and is also stamped on many of their drawings and paintings. Grappling with their own sexuality, discernible in their motto, is an essential element of their artistic concept and plays out literally on their own bodies. Not only in words, but also and especially visually, they produce in their appearance a sexual identity that cannot be clearly defined as male or female. At the same time, this particular design for life constitutes their artistic oeuvre. Producer and product, subject and object overlap when one’s life is declared one’s work, creating constructive confusion. The expression “Lebenskunstwerk” (“living work of art”)2, coined by Paolo Bianchi, aptly characterizes this process by fusing the three words life, work, and art in that this blurs the eponymous categories of the analytical interpretation toolkit. To explain the oeuvre on the basis of the artists’ life and the life on the basis of the work is no longer feasible in the face of a work of art like EVA & ADELE.
The alliance of gender identity3 and artist identity or authorship is the focus of my interest. Following an initial glance at the specific formation of EVA & ADELE’s living work of art, we will first view them as prototypes of subversive gender-bending, i.e., a practice bending or shifting the limits of social gender. Then objections will be registered and supplementations suggested. For the fact of being an artist, in the rich field of meanings from producer through creator and originator to professional role lastingly colors the identity concept of EVA & ADELE.
EVA & ADELE: Life and Work
For some ten years now, EVA & ADELE have been mingling with the public at major art scene events such as exhibition openings, art fairs, and tours. The artistic duo creates an initial astonishment with their appearance in extremely colorful costumes of their own design and high-heeled shoes, always with shaven heads and perfectly made-up faces, calling themselves “hermaphrodite” twins. Their appearance deprives them of any sexual clarity and entices many watchers to photograph them. Once the photograph has been taken, a further stage in the work begins. EVA & ADELE give the photographer a postcard asking ask him or her to send them a print of the photo.
According to EVA & ADELE (and now the art critics, too), they started working together during an extended tour of Europe in a camper van in 1989. At this time, the first photographs of the artistic duo from Berlin, then still generally called the “birds of paradise”, appeared in the press. A decision to transform the EVA & ADELE project into a professional, strategic endeavor was made at their wedding in 1991, which was staged during the “Metropolis” exhibition. The pair both wore white bridal gowns and engaged doppelganger as witnesses especially for the occasion. This is the frame-tale of how the EVA & ADELE “living work of art” “came to us out of the future”, as they emphasize over and over again. A material oeuvre meanwhile also exists, which has been on show at a number of exhibitions4 and which has a single constant: all the works are based on photographic portraits of EVA & ADELE.
On the one hand, there are amateur snapshots sent from all over the world, which provide the basis for drawings in various techniques. On the other, EVA & ADELE use the image conveyed by the media as a starting point. Under the term “Mediaplastic”, they transform their image as reproduced in the print media into paintings or, alternatively, they produce “TV stills” from television footage featuring the artistic duo. The third source of their material works consists of polaroid self-portraits, which form the basis for pastel drawings, gouaches, and watercolors.
Thus, even if signed works do exist today, the first stage of the project is still invariably characterized by delegating the task of producing material images to the public, a process typical of EVA & ADELE’s particular approach to authorship. Perceived as a “living picture” thanks to their conspicuous styling, they count everyday snapshots as being as much a fixed element of their oeuvre as the dissemination of their likeness by the mass media. Other central characteristics of the project are the consistent, uncompromising expansion of the placement of EVA & ADELE in everyday life and, in conjunction with this, the maintenance of secrecy about their biography and origins. It is possible to meet the invariably smiling pair outside the context of art, perhaps on a campsite or a Berlin subway train.
When only physical measurements (height, bust, waist, and hips) are listed under “Biography” in the exhibition catalogue, the possibility of a life before or beyond EVA & ADELE is rendered absurd.
EVA & ADELE present identity as a self-determined construct not merely as a theoretical or abstract figure, but as a reality in their lived life. The fact that gender identity is one element of their image, if not the central element, also becomes clear in their verbal staging. Again and again, they emphasize the struggle for the “right to sexual self-definition” as the objective of their artistic work. In interviews, they stress that their “body image”, their living work of art, stands for a living, sexual self-identification, a life beyond the boundaries of gender, at once male and female and alternating between the two.5 The term they coined, “futuring”, characterizes a strategy for creating a fait accompli by living out their identity blueprint and thus expanding future possibilities of accepted models for life.
On first glance, EVA & ADELE’s visual presentation of gender seems dominated by the pattern of femininity. Costumes that accentuate the figure, preferably in pink, high-heeled shoes and silk stockings, make-up, handbags, jewelry, and painstakingly ladylike movements typify their image at public appearances. At the same time, two visual aspects ensure that EVA & ADELE are not incontrovertibly perceived as ladylike. On the one hand, this derives from Eva’s physique, the taller of the two. Although in conversations and interviews she repeatedly states that she is actually a man, she never tires of reiterating that she has never ever been “anything like a man” in her life.6 Transvestitism thus appears to play a role as a visual cipher in the living art of EVA & ADELE. Adele, whose figure and facial features make her identifiable as a woman, is nevertheless no more distinctively codified as female than Eva. Here lies the second visual anomaly, namely the relinquishing of heads of hair connoting femininity in favor of shaven heads. But the fact that both parts of the artistic figure favor baldness, their dress and make-up create an additional visual bond between them. The concept presented here of an entity beyond the two-sexed whole is also expressed in the mirror-image duplication of the figures and their invariable appearance as a pair. Looking back, EVA & ADELE explain that their living art has developed from realizing that they do not wish to define themselves unambiguously as either male or female. In this image of loving, symbiotic togetherness extending beyond precisely defined gender roles, the problem of the relationship between sex and gender and the question of gender identity appears to have been resolved by a radical self-construct. Can EVA & ADELE qualify as the prototypes of an anti-essentialistic feminism dedicated to the performative subversion of gender?
EVA & ADELE as Prototypes of a Performative Subversion of Gender?
With their slogan “Over the Boundaries of Gender”, EVA & ADELE occupy a position close to current theoretical positions in gender studies. For Donna Haraway and Judith Butler, for example, the critique of the gender category, of the sex/gender system as a whole, and of the associated essentialistic nature of “biological” sex plays a central role. By characterizing themselves as beyond the boundaries of gender, EVA & ADELE also imply a critique of the term “gender” itself, which is in no way merely a neutral analytical category, but which in the prevailing perspective of dichotomous thinking serves to accentuate its counterpart, “sex”. To prevent allowing the establishment of identity to be taken out of one’s hands or radically curtailed, one avoids the gender category.7 By beginning directly with their own bodies, EVA & ADELE appear to embody the “material-semiotic actor”8 described by Donna Haraway, who processually makes sex and gender arise and mutually erase each other at the same time. Parallel to this performative practice, EVA & ADELE refuse not only any traditional biography, but also any historicization of their bodies: the respectively current vital measurements measure only the surface structure of the persons.
EVA & ADELE carry out the process of establishing new body images and gender identities through their strategy called “futuring”. To continue this translation into a gender-related vocabulary, “futuring” is nothing other than Butler’s performativity: that continuously repetitive, quotational practice whereby the discourse produces the effect it designates with its name. In simple terms, this means that, through the continuous verbal and visual assertion that the boundaries of gender have been overcome, they have finally indeed been left behind. While, in her “Manifesto for Cyborgs”, Donna Haraway still dreams of a future “post-gender world”9, EVA & ADELE already appear to be energetically working on it. But how do they do that, concretely?
An essential element of their work lies in their proximity to the principle of travesty. In this connection, travesty plays with the incongruity between the performer’s anatomy and the gender performed (as in the case of Eva). Several women authors ascribe a subversive potential to travesty. Judith Butler emphasizes the capacity of travesty “to denaturalize and resignify bodily categories”10 and to duplicate them “beyond the binary frame”. This occurs, above all, through the specific relationship between imitation and original inherent in the gender parody, relative to gender identity. For it is not a previously imagined heterosexual original, a congruent combination of sex and gender, that is disturbed in travesty, but the notion of an “original” itself.11
Marjorie Garber, too, celebrates transvestitism as the embodied critique of binary thinking and the constructed nature of the sexes. She claims that transvestitism is even capable of casting doubt on such ideas “origin” and “identity”. Moreover, Garber describes the concepts of a “third sex” or “third term” expressed in historic and current texts as a strategy to dissolve ideas of binary, symmetrical relationships and subsequently to achieve contexualizations.12
A concept such as a “third sex”, which opposes the dominant binariness of the sexes, is also touched upon when EVA & ADELE use the term “hermaphrodite” in their self-descriptions.13 The artists are in no way referring to physical peculiarities, as in the sense of physiological hermaphroditism. Rather, they seek to inscribe themselves in a discourse on “hermaphroditism”, which, as Foucault notes, was established as a “heretical term” in the 19th century,14 but which has now undergone a positive change of meaning. In visual terms, too, EVA & ADELE relate to the tradition of a glorified hermaphroditic existence. Their so-called “wings”, costumes with angels’ wings, evoke a comparison between hermaphrodites and angels, who are invariably described as sexless beings.15
Whereas in gender theory to date, the woman has predominantly featured as the crisis figure of the modern era, appearing only when cultural, social, or aesthetic dissonances prevail, she now appears to have been replaced by the figure of the transvestite, who, moreover, is imbued with significant utopian potential. At the same time, it is conspicuous that in EVA & ADELE’s appearance, characterized in principle by transvestitism, patterns of femininity predominate. Their example seems to confirm that any critique of the paradigms of the naturalness of the binary frame is more radical against the background of the “image of woman”, since her physicality has been identified with the construct body=nature since the 18th century. .If EVA & ADELE’s living work of art is read in terms of gender theory, it turns out that they are pursuing an exceedingly successful form of gender bending. Their artistic credo might read, “Femininity is no fact of nature, but a cultural performance”. Are they, however, really “Over the Boundaries of Gender” as they themselves claim? Even though they undoubtedly demonstrate their independence from heterosexual gender stereotypes and the preformulation of their sexual identity, they do not in any way exist beyond the gender category. Merely by referring to feminine or masculine qualities in the opposite partner, for instance Adele’s “extremely masculine thinking”, they demonstrate their existence in the midst of patterns of gender. But they take the liberty of reshuffling these.
The individual pieces of the puzzle of EVA & ADELE’s identity thus appear to fit wonderfully well together and reveal a “pleasingly radical strategy”: identity as a construct. Nevertheless, caution is advisable in at least three ways:
1. Donna Haraway has aptly remarked that the reciprocal postmodern disintegration of academic subjects is purely symbolic and is, moreover, necessary “to stay in the knowledge and power game”.16 Against this background, new light is shed on art historians’ preoccupation with artistic works that are radically critical of identity. By endorsing and characterizing artistic deconstructions of subjectivity as contemporary and necessary reflections, the ennobling aura of self-reflecting activity also appears to envelop the scholar’s subject.
2. The role of the gender category in the process of establishing identity has undoubtedly been important since sexuality became the “cipher of individuality” in the 19th century, as described by Michel Foucault.17 In her concept of the “gender-determined identity”, Judith Butler goes significantly further. According to her, it is wrong to believe “that the discussion of
identity ought to proceed prior to a discussion of gender identity”.18 Her rejection of a broader general definition of identity seems to imply that she equates the term with a naive idea of a fundamental, unchangeable concept. In her view of “identity, asserted through a process of signification”,19 the gender-determined identity accordingly dominates, but may be successively augmented by the categories of race, class, and the notorious “etc.”. But if one favors a non-universal, shifting subject position, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider the determination of subjects as radically depending on the context, rather than to continuously expand the list of categories endowing identity? The gender category would then permeate all the other functions of identity determination while leaving room for other factors.
In the case of EVA & ADELE, this would mean more room for the category of artist. On the one hand, EVA & ADELE are received in the context of art while, on the other, they are perceived in parallel as “masters of the art of everyday life”. The person as work conceived by them is a concept embodying life and art at one and the same time. Their placement of gender identity is closely tied to the framework of the art system.
3. Even though the artistic duo appear to have taken every liberty in defining their personal gender and in designing their physical image, they are nevertheless subject to a peculiar constraint. In almost every interview, they are asked about their so-called “everyday life”. One of the most frequent questions is whether a day’s work at their concept of a “living work of art” is ever over. What this expresses is the necessity for consistency in identity: We want to be able to rely on the individuals we are associated with to stay as they are, despite changes in time and space. We put our trust in the substantive. Admittedly, EVA & ADELE treat this condition ironically in conversation when they refer to the “hard work” required by their daily styling of themselves, but ultimately they bend to the demand for consistency. To avoid being recognized in her “off-stage” condition when making an emergency purchase from the corner shop, Adele puts on a cap that she calls, with irony, her “cap of invisibility”.
Complex Identities: Gender Identity and Authorship
If one starts out with an idea of complex identities that are conveyed through the body and gender but that, at the same time, lie within a further, highly complex determinant structure, it is necessary to expand the perspective. However sensible the gender researchers’ explicitly political demand to consider only the overarching category of gender in the face of gender-coded social power structures, this also obscures the view of other factors in the creation of identity.
After the perspective of gender theory, now the viewpoint of art criticism, the art profession, and art theory should also be taken into account. In this connection, the “artist’s identity” is not to be examined on the basis of the “‘hermeneutic artist subject”, i.e., the idea of a consistent, substantive personality that is the cause of the works emerging from its innermost feelings. Instead, the discursive process of establishing authorship, that process by which EVA & ADELE become artists, should be described both in their descriptions of themselves and in descriptions by others. As the basis for a venture of this nature, the term “authorship” offers the necessary neutrality. It can embrace not only the figure of the “creator”, the “outsider in society”, and the “exemplary creative individual”, but also that of the “originator”, “producer”, or “recipient of royalties”, but without being any of these people.20 Concepts of being an artist as a practice essentially conveyed by communication underlie the following analyses of system-specific communications about the “artist-ness” and authorship of EVA & ADELE.
Through the constituting role that the mass media play in promoting the Lebenskunstwerk EVA & ADELE, the authorship of the two artists is split many ways. Although they stage themselves as the motif, at the same time they are reflected in the images of others: passers-by, professional photographers, and art tourists. They delegate the production of images. In the case of press photographs, for example, the photographer, the picture editor, and the printer are involved alongside EVA & ADELE in producing the latters’ public image.
The mass media, moreover, installed the original legend of EVA & ADELE. The seemingly automatic spiral process whereby media coverage generates more media coverage was set in motion with their first published photograph, for which several contenders now claim to have played the role of midwife. A typical example is the newspaper taz, which, in an article on EVA & ADELE, proudly claimed to have printed the first photograph of the “bizarre artistic duo eating ice cream” on August 11, 1989. By their own testimony, EVA & ADELE had arrived from the future at that very moment, so this could well have been (as the taz put it) “a moment in which art history was made”.21 Even anti-biographical artistic concepts seem to demand a narrative origin, and thus a date can be assigned to the beginning of “futuring”.
High vs. Low
Even if EVA & ADELE are today considered high art by many art historians, interviews in particular reveal how much discussion and communication are needed to achieve a reasonably satisfactory classification of artist, life, and work. Accordingly, EVA & ADELE provide very tangible assistance by resorting to familiar concepts from the history of art. The extent to which they are being ironic in so doing remains uncertain. “Every costume is a sculpture”,22 they announce, adding that the information about their physical proportions is the same as “the way one measures a work of art by height and width”.23 They remark on the numerous layers of their make-up: “it could be likened to the work of an old master”.24 Art critics then seize on such statements turn them into a discussion of “make-up as painting”.25 Likewise, Peter Sager takes the statement that “our smiles are a work of art”26 as underlining the “freedom of the artistic imagination”,27 noting the proximity to children’s laughter. Fleeting life, as a work of art, should apparently be capable of being accessed, at least verbally.
The Avant-Garde Trap
Just as the assignment to high culture appears to be indispensable, breaking away from the progress-oriented idea of the avant-garde is also difficult. EVA & ADELE’s material work make this especially clear . From an innovation-orientated perspective, its existence quickly qualifies as a regression from the radicality of the purely ephemeral concept of the Lebenskunstwerk. Art criticism and art history produce explanations. Renate Puvogel describes the entry of EVA & ADELE into the museum as “a form of giving back”,28 since most of the images derive from snapshots that were taken in the context of art and now return, transformed, to their place of origin . She also describes the decision for a clearly defined artistic practice and material works as a necessity for EVA & ADELE “in order to be assigned a more definite position in art history and the art business”.29 She thus implicitly characterizes the art history discourse as highly traditional and the art business as a system familiar only with tangible works. From a purely pragmatic point of view, she also describes the opportunity to display and sell works as a means of securing a livelihood.
EVA & ADELE are also originators in the legal sense. In “intellectual property”, judicial discourse has created a specific legal form aimed at identifying originators.30 Admittedly, EVA & ADELE have found this difficult with a purely ephemeral project whose existence is constituted in the media. As Robert Fleck rightly emphasizes, the artists potentially live “on the rights to the image created by them and spread by the masses”.31 But only potentially, since they cannot unequivocally be identified as a work complying with the definition adopted by the legal system. There are meanwhile even court judgements on the subject. The VG Bild-Kunst organization, with which EVA & ADELE signed a contract to protect their pictorial rights, sued the newspaper Die Zeit, which printed an interview with the pair and photographs taken on location. Admittedly they had agreed to publication, but the contract with VG Bild-Kunst was already in existence so, irrespective of any other agreement, the organization demanded a fee for publishing a work protected by copyright. Since the newspaper refused to pay, a suit was filed and eventually won. In the lower court, EVA & ADELE were actually identified as a work of art protected by copyright on the grounds that the “intellectual content of the work” lay in the “visual convergence of two individuals of different sexes to form an artistic pair of twins” and in the “crossing of the gender boundary”.32 According to the lawyers, then, the gender boundary was definitively crossed in this case. In the appeals court, this judgement was overturned and appearances by EVA & ADELE were no longer classified under the protected category of performance. Consequently, only their material works qualify under the law of artistic copyright.
The Relationship between Gender Production and Artistic Production
EVA & ADELE are thus engaged in an identity production based on two essential processes, namely the production of a gender identity and the production of art, the Lebenskunstwerk EVA & ADELE. The common link is the body, which is perceived simultaneously as a sexually ambiguous construct and as the “body of the artists”. The fact that this “body of the artists” is presented as a collage of bodies based on the visual language of travesty appears to signify the double marginalization of EVA & ADELE. Marked out not only in terms of their sexual self-definition as outsiders, they are also thrust into the traditional role of societal outsiders through their status as artists. In other words, the pattern of identity of an artist calls for a marginal status that is readily provided by a sexually deviant identity. After all, their self-presentation, each with attributes of the opposite sex, is linked to the pictorial tradition of the “cross-gender
self-portrait”, which has now become a cipher for the questioning of identity.33 Unlike static cross-gender self-portraits, the ever-changing work of EVA & ADELE becomes a mirror image and a mirror in one. The new mirror function that EVA & ADELE make use of is the mass media. In their work with the image created by the mass media, the relationship between work and producer becomes blurred and the relationships between imitation and original are duplicated. What is called into question is the category of authorship, whose limits are redefined. The same interplay between original and imitation also underlies the corporeal image they stage. Here it is above all the concept of authenticity, the coincidence of the “I” with external appearance that is surveyed anew. Their laying bare of the production process in this multifaceted correlation between imitation and original is the characteristic feature of EVA & ADELE’s concept of life and art.
1 This text is a revised version of the extensive article entitled „Over the Boundaries of Gender? Zum Verhältnis von Geschlechtsidentität und Autorenschaft bei EVA & ADELE” in: Körperproduktionen, ed. Alexandra Karentzos, Birgit Käufer and Katharina Sykora, Marburg 2002, pp. 42 55.
2 In the case of Bianchi, the term Lebenskunstwerk, however, coincides with the emotionalism of new integrity and freedom. Paolo Bianchi, Lebenskunst. Gastarbeit zwischen Kunst und Leben, in: Kunstforum International, Vol. 142, Oct-Dec 1998.
3 In the definition of Judith Butler, „gender identity“ is a „sexually determined identity” which is positioned at the level of the social identity formation of an individual.
4 Individual exhibition Catalogues: EVA & ADELE. Cum Die erste Ausstellung, exhibition catalogue Sprengel Museum Hannover, Ostfildern-Ruit 1997; EVA & ADELE. Wherever we are is museum, exhibition catalogue Neuer Berliner Kunstverein, Ostfildern-Ruit 1999; EVA & ADELE. LOGO. Mediaplastic, Wings, Lingerie, exhibition catalogue Saarlandmuseum Saarbrücken, Ostfildern-Ruit 2000.
5 Cf. e.g. Peter Herbstreuth, Haben Sie nie Schmunzelkater, EVA & ADELE?, in: Der Tagesspiegel, Berlin, 25 April 1996; Thea Herold, Der Ruf des Marco Polo. Ein Besuch bei EVA & ADELE in Berlin, in: EVA & ADELE. LOGO. Mediaplastic, Wings, Lingerie.
6 Fritz von Klinggräff, Sind Sie Nutte? EVA & ADELE verzaubern Weimar, die Kulturstadt, in: taz, 14/15 August 1999.
7 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York/London 1990, p. 7.
8 Donna Haraway, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective in Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1988, p. 595.
9 Donna Haraway, A Manifesto for Cyborgs. Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s, in: Socialist Review, Vol. 80, 1985, p. 67.
10 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. X.
11 Ibid., pp. 137 et seq.
12 Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests. Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety, New York / London 1992, p. 11 et seq.
13 With Garber it is necessary, on the one hand, strictly to distinguish this “third element” from terms such as “androgynous” or “hermaphrodite”; on the other hand, she herself refers to the long-standing historical change of meaning of these ultimately closely related terms. Ibid.
14 Michel Foucault, Der Wille zum Wissen. Sexualität und Wahrheit, Vol. 1, Frankfurt/Main 1999, pp. 58 et seq.
15 In her study of „discourses on transsexuality“, Annette Runte refers to the advent of the angel metaphors in 19th century, whereby, in the first received personal testimonies of a woman-to-man hermaphrodite, the special, painful status is described as “angel-like”. Annette Runte, Biographische Operationen. Diskurse der Transsexualität, Munich 1996, pp. 267 et seq.
16 Haraway, Situated Knowledges, p. 583.
17 Foucault, Sexualität und Wahrheit, p. 174.
18 Bulter, Gender Trouble, p. 16.
19 Ibid., p. 143.
20 On of the ways proposed by Michel Foucault to clarify the question „What is an author?“ consists of investigationthe position of the author in various types of discourse and corresponding fields. His view of the term “author” is aimed less an individual than at the author as a rhetorical figure, as a method of communication. In precisely the same way, Niklas Luhmann describes the word “artist” as a “compressive term” which, like the term “work of art”, possesses a “structural function” within the communicative system that is art. Michel Foucault, Was ist ein Autor? (1969), in: Schriften zur Literatur, Frankfurt/Main 1993, pp. 7 31; Niklas Luhmann, Die Kunst der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/Main 1995, pp. 87 et seq.
21 Klinggräff, Sind Sie Nutte?
22 Peter Sager, Eigentlich sind wir vier (Interview), in: Zeit Magazin, Hamburg, 30 May 1997, p. 28.
25 Herbstreuth, Unser Lächeln ist ein Werk, p. 318.
26 Sager, Eigentlich sind wir vier, p. 29.
27 Paolo Bianchi, Kunst als Erfindung des Lebens. Interpretation eines Gesprächs mit EVA & ADELE, in: EVA & ADELE. CUM Die erste Ausstellung.
28 Renate Puvogel, EVA & ADELE Wherever we are is museum, in: EVA & ADELE. Wherever we are is museum, pp. 17 27.
30 Cf. Gerhard Plumpe, Kunst und juristischer Diskurs. Mit einer Vorbemerkung zum Diskursbegriff in Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft, ed. Jürgen Fohrmann and Harro Müller, Frankfurt/Main 1988, pp. 330 345.
31 Robert Fleck, EVA & ADELE, in: EVA & ADELE. Wherever we are is museum, pp. 59 66-
33 Cf. Katharina Sykora, Das Kleid des Geschlechts. Transvestismen im künstlerischen Selbstportrait, in: Das textile Medium als Phänomen der Grenze Begrenzung Entgrenzung, ed. Heide Nixdorff, Berlin 1999, pp. 123 151.