In times of political or social crisis, issues of identity and affiliation
tend to become more salient. In response to the threatened or actual
disruption of the routines of material provision, social order, and
ideological legitimation, definitions of self and community that had
formerly been considered authoritative come under more frequent
and more extensive questioning. Responses to this condition of
uncertainty and doubt about identity and affiliation are typically
forthcoming from many different quarters: party politicians, leaders
of social movements, public intellectuals, religious authorities. Such
responses can also be quite varied as was the case, for example, in
the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Only months after the
event and with major questions about the future of the two Germanies
in the air, Jürgen Habermas surveyed the various possible sources of German identity that were on offer at that time—economic prestige
(“DM nationalism”), cultural inheritance, linguistic unity, ethnic
descent, historical fate, aesthetic experience, and constitutional patriotism—
and found all but the last seriously wanting.3 In any given
episode of crisis and questioning, most responses will ultimately
have little or no effect; the eventual reestablishment of the routines
of provision, order, and legitimation usually means that one or
another set of definitions of self and community has won out and
become authoritative for a critical mass of citizens.