Elfriede Jelinek´s destruction of the Austrian victim-myth

According to historical knowledge, the Austrian victim myth presents an influential national conception of history, which describes Austria as the first victim of national-socialist terror and annexation. Within this paper, the author has demonstrated that criticism of the victim myth is one of the main themes in the literary oeuvre of Nobel Prize winner Elfriede Jelinek, where, in addition to its explicit thematisation, the topic is often found at a pictorial intralinguistic level. In this context, the author also showed that in the copious and advanced secondary literature, the term victim myth is often confounded with phenomena of past repression or is (very imprecisely) subsumed under the universal concept of criticism of fascism, which indicates a lack of historical sensitivity. The aim of this paper, therefore, was to develop a new, interdisciplinary method to adequately interpret Elfriede Jelineks highly artificial and semantically heterogenic texts on the one hand while integrating profound historical knowledge on the other hand. In accordance with current secondary literature, the poetical destruction the actual opposite of the generally expected benefit of literature is defined as Jelineks favourite writing method. Beyond that, the author demonstrates that the consequent usage and modification of this method continues typical Austrian literary traditions of the 19th and 20th century (e. g. Volkstheater, Karl Kraus, Ödön von Horvth, Wiener Gruppe). The historically untenable self-characterization as a victim, which is reflected by various cultural and linguistic situations, is to be unmasked through Jelineks writing methods an argument that is exemplified by three of her works: Burgtheater, Die Kinder der Toten and Das Lebewohl. The innovative character of this paper consists in its integration of contemporary historical theories of fascism, national-socialism and the Austrian victim myth into the exemplary literary analysis. The empirical part of the paper in particular is remarkable for its systematic order, its details and its clear use of language. In accordance with the concept of New Historicism, this paper speaks up for a more intense cooperation between the science of history and the science of philology: Just as literary texts have a historical dimension, history has a textual dimension. Finally, in a short epilogue, the author calls for a fundamental change of political thinking in todays society. We can achieve this, she argues, not only but also through linguistic sensitisation in both public and scientific discourses and in this way contribute to making sure that Jelineks demand for a Never again! becomes reality.