The matter of group-identity
is salient in the film, The Aryan Couple (2004), which actually centers
around two couples: Joseph and Rachel Krauzenberg, and Hans and Ingrid
Vassman. The Krauzenbergs contract with Himmler, the man whom in Nazi Germany
was tasked with riding the Reich of its Jewish population, to exchange the Krauzenbergs’
asset-rich and sprawling conglomerate for safe passage of the entire
Krauzenberg family out of Germany to Palestine instead of being sent to a
concentration camp. Joseph and Rachel are Germans, and yet, quite artificially,
they refer to Germans in the third person, and to themselves as Jews. It is
precisely this error that I submit may have contributed historically to the
ostracism of the Jews in Germany even before Hitler’s rise to power, hence contributing
to setting the stage for a final, horrific solution. Film can thus be used to widen
people’s thinking on historical and political events, and thus play a deeper
role than merely to entertain.
Joseph Krauzenberg is a good
man; he is good to his employees and, moreover, is very empathetic as seen in
his facial expressions, especially his eyes, which Martin Landau uses expertly
to do a significant amount of his acting in the role of the rich industrialist
whose assets Himmler is so motivated to get. “Even Hitler cannot override my
orders,” he brags at one point regarding his guarantee of safe passage. Himmler’s
concern is rather than Eichmann might ignore that order and send the entire
Krauzenberg family, which includes extended relatives, to Auschwitz.
In spite of the appearance of
orders being valued by Nazi officials, that many were essentially thugs
accounts for the fact that a significant abuse of discretion even in violation
of orders was not uncommon. In fact, Eichmann was convicted in a court in Israel
in 1961 because he had violated an order by Himmler in sending many Jews in
Hungary on a march to a camp in Poland; Eichmann’s defense that he was just
following orders thus blew up in his face.
So, in the film, Himmler even orders
Eichmann to coffee after the dinner at the Krauzenbergs’ art-filled
mansion so to assure the couple that Eichmann would indeed be following Himmler’s
order of safe passage. Cleverly, Joseph Krauzenberg negotiated with Himmler a
clause that gold would be transferred to Himmler only once the Krauzenberg
family has set foot on Swiss soil; otherwise, it would be very naïve to think
that the Nazis would allow the Krauzenbergs to fly to Switzerland once Joseph
and Rachel have signed the contract. Even the other couple in the film, Hans
and Ingrid Vassman, the two remaining household servants of the Krauzenbergs, fear
remaining in Germany after the dinner in which Himmler is a guest. The Vassmans
are actually Jews even though Rachel believes them to be Aryans. It is
precisely the dialogue between that couple and Rachel that can reveal so much
about the salience of group-identities in Europe.
Even though Rachel tells Hans
and Ingrid that she feels that they have shown love to the elder couple, Rachel
maintains a mental wall between herself and the two Aryans until Ingrid tells
Rachel and Joseph that she and Hans are actually Jewish and want to go to
Palestine with the Krauzenberg family. At once, Rachel literally embraces
Ingrid. That both couples are German is ignored especially by the Krauzenbergs,
who incessantly refer to Germans as if they were another tribe. Rachel refers
to the Vassmans both as Aryans and as Germans, which is strange because Joseph
and Rachel are also German. In this mix, nationality, cultural identity, and even
religion are conflated as if, for example, a cultural identity excludes a
nationality. Making such vagrant category mistakes can be accounted for by
ideology, and even as a manifestation of passive aggression. Rachel even makes
light of one of her own category mistakes by referring to Hans as her “little Nazi,”
as if “German” and “Nazi” were synonymous and, moreover, both mutually exclusive
with “Jewish.” It would have been strange to find a Jewish Nazi, but I contend
that Jews born and raised in Germany were Germans.
When I was a student at Yale,
a woman I dated said once that she was a Jew who happened to be an American. She
was born and raised in Pittsburgh, so she did not just happen to be an American.
Her subordination of her nationality struck me as artificial. I would never say
I’m a Midwesterner who happens to be an American even though I identify
culturally as a Midwesterner. Were I to go around referring to Americans in the
third persons, my compatriots would rightly take offence. I’m not one of you,
I would be saying, in effect, even though I am. My passive aggression—a virtual
slap in the face—would be palpable. Similarly, Germans who happened to be Jews
in the first half of the twentieth century but referred to Germans in a way
that excluded themselves even while they remained in Germany would not
exactly be making friends and influencing people on the street. In fact, other Germans would rightly take offence. In short, the arbitrary
decision to manifest passive aggression can trigger anger and even ostracism in
people who resent the arbitrary self-exclusion from being a compatriot.
In the film, Rachel’s mentality belies her statement to Hans and Ingrid, “You’re Germans and I’m a Jew, but above all we’re all human.” Earlier, Rachel distinguished Aryans from Jews; unlike the German-Jewish mutually exclusive distinction, Aryan and Jew are indeed mutually exclusive terms because they are on the same dimension, or category, whereas German and Jew pertain to different categories and are thus not mutually exclusive. Were a Hispanic person, or a Catholic person, born, raised and still living in Chicago, Illinois to refer to Americans in the third person would sound strange to an American; we would even wonder if such a person were not of sound mind, and yet in the film, Rachel’s category mistakes are accepted by the other characters as if normal rather than as manifestations of passive aggression. The lesson is perhaps that when we act out in passive aggression, we should not be completely surprised when other people cease at the very least to be polite to us. From the standpoint of us all being human beings, the group-identities that we foist on each other as virtual walls of separation are artificial at best. Accordingly, such identities are best (and most accurately) viewed in relative terms rather than being absolutes. The change in Rachel’s feelings and behavior toward the Vassman couple once she is informed that they are Jewish rather than Aryan is so palpable that Rachel’s earlier claim, “we are all human,” rings hollow.
The German philosopher, Schopenhauer, claimed that we are all of
the One, and thus we should be compassionate to everyone rather than, as per
Cicero’s ethic, show concentric concern first for friends and family, and then,
to a lessor degree, to people further out. That Rachel felt love from the
Vassmans should be enough for her and Joseph to help the Vassmans to join the
family in Switzerland; being of the same group-identity should not matter, and
that it does rings of sheer artifice. So much hatred has spewed through history
as a result of people treating group-identity as an absolute. The genocides in
Nazi Germany and, nearly a century later, in Gaza, speak to how horrible human
beings can be because “group-identity” qua absolute can so easily lead to the
perception that people outside one’s own group is subhuman and thus can be tortured
and killed in even the most grievous ways.
