That the city and its future are rendered problematic therefore invites an analysis with reference to the anthropologies of time and of knowledge. The key term ‘temporal reasoning’ combines these two aspects most effectively. In Jane Guyer’s definition, it refers to the different ways of ‘implicating oneself in the ongoing life of the social and material world’ (Guyer 2007: 409). In its original sense, it comprised ‘the reach of thought and imagination, of planning and hoping, of tracing out mutual influences, of engaging in struggles for specific goals’ (ibid.) – all regarding relations to the near future, particularly in modern times (see Bear 2014; compare Pels 2015). I explore with it knowledge practices also aimed at other temporal dimensions, in particular the past and the present, thus expanding its meaning to all epistemic investments in issues of time and particular temporal periods. Additionally, an analysis of human knowledge practices, temporal politics and the local production of meaning for the future also entails affective and ethical issues and questions about the efficacy of future knowledge more generally. The problematization of the city’s existence in time creates the city of Hoyerswerda as an object of knowledge and stimulates the personal and public production, exchange and dissemination of knowledge about it. Virtually all citizens are drawn into these discursive or representational practices. They are genuinely concerned about their hometown’s future and a potential loss of their quality of life in it. Since Guyer specifically attends the potential privatization of the near future, I focus on the public explication, dissemination and negotiation of the (near) future.
In the following chapters, I refrain from extensively describing disappearance, absence, change and hopelessness or the ongoing process of spatial and material deterioration, decay and deconstruction of lifeworlds and former socialist and postsocialist living spaces. Studying the epistemic or conceptual repercussions of the process of shrinkage, I instead focus on specific local clashes in – and through – which particular knowledge about the city and its future is made explicit. In an urban context, public arenas of knowledge explication are multiple, but in my case remain linked by the widely acknowledged problematization of Hoyerswerda’s future.
Problematizing urban life and the city’s future also entails a problematization of local citizenship and these citizens’ contemporary role and agency. What does it mean to be a citizen in and of a shrinking city? Uwe,5 the CEO of Hoyerswerda’s sociocultural centre, posed the ingenious question: ‘Once a city decreases in size, do its citizens subsequently increase in relevance?’6 He drew attention to the fact that those staying in Hoyerswerda are much needed for essential social responsibilities and functions. With every person leaving, the city’s quality of life was seen to further deteriorate – so the worth of each citizen should be at the centre of all political decisions in these troubled times. Such considerations were not new in Hoyerswerda. During the time of Neustadt’s erection, a time of constant growth, the famous East German author Brigitte Reimann publicly intervened on behalf of the young population and approached the problem of the quality of urban life by asking a simple question: ‘Is it possible to kiss in Hoyerswerda?’ In critique of the increasingly more economically restricted and functionally inclined official plans under state-socialism, she insisted that the city’s architects should include the new Hoyerswerdians’ social, cultural and emotional needs in their planning. She demanded more social meeting places, a central alley with shops and cafes, a theatre, a cinema, bars and a literature café. A socialist model city, she underlined, should consider the human beings in all their complexity. So should a shrinking postindustrial city, I hasten to add, because it is not only that socialist life, or modern industrial life, is being unmade, but a new form of life is emerging, and we – as my informants – should aim at finding words to capture this emergence.
In 2008, such questions were asked again in relation to the repercussions of the process of shrinkage. As Dorit Baumeister, a local architect, put it: ‘In this process of shrinkage, which we have come to accept as such, it is our aim to intervene positively, to remain capable of exercising agency. We want to create an optimistic atmosphere, which in turn produces a different, a new quality and culture of life.’7 Her club’s response was and is sociocultural: more ‘togetherness’ (Miteinander) of those who remain in Hoyerswerda. However, it is precisely these sociocultural arenas that faced the lack of public funds most severely. Since state money is allocated to local communities in relation to their population numbers, Hoyerswerda procured increasingly lower levels of funds, but still had to maintain the same urban infrastructure at increasing costs. The conservative Lord Mayor Stefan Skora was acutely aware of the fact that if he followed regional and state financial demands, he would have to close down most cultural institutions, all of which are sponsored – in legal terms – voluntarily by the city. He refused to do so in order not to ‘expel’ even more of his inhabitants. As he underlined, Hoyerswerda was, is and will be ‘a loveable and liveable city’. The quality of life the city was seen to provide is not only in this way an essential political, technical and personal tool to handle shrinkage; its invocation might also be a crucial, if nascent attempt to recolonize the city’s presumably lost near future.
For the same reason, Skora introduced another group intervening in the public definition of the city’s qualities: marketing and advertisement experts. In search of unique selling points, they approached Hoyerswerda’s quality of life as a major tool in the increasingly fierce competition between small- and medium-sized cities. For their survival, these cities compete not only for investors and state funding, but also for the similarly scarce resource of citizens. Imagine there is a city and nobody wants to live in it. In particular, the competition for increasingly scarce skilled personnel defines cities, towns and communities as quality providers for the lives of those much-desired citizens who promise tax income and the potential attraction of more people. However, the marketing experts’ job was also to convince those living in Hoyerswerda of their own city’s advantages, thereby creating a sense of togetherness like the architect’s sociocultural club had in mind.
For a social anthropologist to intervene in such discourses on a city’s quality of life, already captured as a neoliberal unique selling point, entails several problems. For one thing, the emphasis on the social and cultural dimensions of human life often similarly reflects the anthropologist’s hopes and concerns. As Sara Ahmed (2008) warned, there is a danger in our interventions in such discourses, onto which we impose our own conceptualizations of social harmony, for example, by wanting to put the ‘social glue’ back into moments of crisis and divergence. I accept her critique. However, the problematization of the core social relations that make up personal, public, urban, professional and everyday life in Hoyerswerda (i.e. the local urge for more togetherness and social cohesion) is in itself an ethnographic fact. As an outcome of various knowledge practices that centre around the city’s fate and future, it should not be easily debunked out of concerns about our own ethical and political convictions. In order to explain what is theoretically at stake when local forms of reasoning about the city’s worth in the present and the future are approached via their temporal characteristics, I present a few thoughts on the anthropologies of time and knowledge in relation to one another.
Knowledge and Time/Knowledge in Time
There is no need to be in awe of time, which is no more mysterious than any other facet of our experience of the world.
—A. Gell, The Anthropology of Time
In the eyes of many Germans, Hoyerswerda is just another East German city with ‘no future’. A former avant-garde settlement where the socialist future was daily facilitated, Hoyerswerda faces social decline more strongly than other postsocialist cities, a continuously decreasing and ageing population, and unrestrained physical deconstruction. It has lost its economic foundation and with