Conditions, Aims and Functions of State Policy for Adult Education: The Austrian example in historical and contemporary perspective

[S. 288] Introduction

This chapter focuses on current public policy for adult education in Austria and traces lines of development from the first emergence of such a state policy. By examining a modern historical development, which runs in parallel to the experience of the Austrian Republic founded in 1918, the attempt is on the one hand to reveal the basis of contemporary adult education policy and on the other to suggest possible continuities and structural characteristics which may have served as functional determinants. Discussion proceeds in two steps. First, I offer an evaluation of adult education policy under the First and Second Republics (1918-1933/4 and 1945 onwards). Secondly, selected aspects of current policy are analysed: the question of defining competences through legal-constitutional regulation; co-operation in and policy for developing methods to resolve the more important political and structural peculiarities, both of adult education and of the state’s attitude towards it.

The first stage in the argument, which extends into the period of the two fascisms (Austro-Fascism from 1933/4 to 1938, and National Socialism from 1938 to 1945), is dealt with only briefly. This is not because it is seen as lacking significance for adult education; rather the decision reflects problems to do with the historical sources and the necessary limits imposed on a chapter such as this. lt should be noted, however, that the two fascist episodes brought about the destruction or loss of valuable traditions in adult [S. 289] education. Particularly damaging was the expulsion and destruction of intellectuals – especially Jewish intellectuals, for whom the process continued, in that their reinstatement was not welcomed by Austrian government ministers after 1945.(1)

The present landscape of adult education can be sketched as follows. Despite some apparent erosion of the dominant Austrian political system, one significant characteristic remains its ‘double pillarization’(2), the defining features of which are the powerful influence of political parties, of the (Roman Catholic) church and of ‘social partnership’, the third of these being a form of neo-corporatism. Because of this double pillarization it is not feasible to speak of adult education in general; organizations must be understood according to their affiliations with the respective camps. This peculiarity of political-social organization is also reflected in the clear separation between organizations for general and for vocational education. A final introductory remark concerns the use of terms. For the First Republic this chapter uses the designation ‘popular education’, and for the Second Republic ‘adult education’.

The beginnings of adult education policy

The origins of a state policy for popular education can be traced to the foundation of the First Austrian Republic in 1918. Since that time concepts and structures for its encouragement have existed. The first initiative was connected with the Social Democrat Otto Glöckel, who held office as under-secretary of state for education in the social-democratic-conservative coalition government of 1919-20. Glöckel is known as a school-reformer who tried to realize the ideas of the Einheitsschule (comprehensive school) and the Arbeitsschule (work school). After the collapse of the coalition, he moved to the Vienna local education administration where he continued his work for school reform, and was able to exert considerable influence on state policy. Glöckel’s plans for school and popular education were marked by efforts to reduce the power and influence of bureaucracy, by creating new departments and by engaging expert advisers. The latter tactic was especially important, and a group of close colleagues, Viktor Fadrus (pedagogy and school policy), and the scientists Hans Fischl (school policy) and Carl Furtmüller (individual psychology) – the three ‘Fs’ – took their stand on an educational reform programme based on up-to-date scientific concepts and methods.(3)

[S. 290] This approach could be described (with some reservations) as an attempt at ‘objectification’ through the inclusion of experts in the advisory and decision-making sphere. The influence of bureaucracy was restrained to some extent. Yet there was no ‘objectification’ in the sense of reducing the force of intense political and ideological conflicts. The opposite was the case. A Kulturkampf (culture struggle) between fundamentally opposed factions raged around the educational system. In the field of ‘popular education’, which had been developing and institutionalizing since the middle of the nineteenth century, three social movements took up their positions: the liberal-bourgeois intelligentsia in the cities; the working class organized as Social Democracy in the industrial areas; and the Catholic church exerting the greatest influence in the rural areas.(4) In this conflict Social Democracy exhibited a more extensive and detailed capacity for policy-making than the conservatives. In contrast to the situation today, the situation of the First Republic was marked by real and fundamental political differences, and particularly towards matters of educational policy.

The Glöckel education reforms were put through against a background of economic development und the necessary modernization of agriculture. Economic growth was seen to require the mobilization of all occupational and educational reserves. On the one hand the work-capability of each citizen, to be brought out by vocational training and higher levels of qualification, was emphasized; on the other hand, an educational case was urged for an ‘organic development of the peoples’ soul and all the abilities which are part of it, in the sense of the growth of personality’.(5) But policy in popular education was also supposed to contribute to the integration of all citizens into the new and as yet untested Republic. The journal Volksbildung observed that every revolutionary period produced heightened awareness and greater potential for education.(6) One can indeed speak of a revolutionary situation in 1918-19. The birth of the First Republic was accompanied by uprisings, strikes, and a soviet movement. The effective contribution of Social Democracy was to disable these insurrectionary movements, to ‘functionalize’ them within a representative democratic system and to incorporate them into the overall state ideology.(7) Through the paradigm of personality growth, which could be thought of as harmonizing with the social-democratic conception of the ‘new mankind’, it was thought that the seed could be planted for an ‘ideology’ of popular education; and this would [S. 291] in its turn influence public policy by marshalling the philosophy of the Neue Richtung (New Direction), which was then being imported from Germany. At this point popular education began to turn into ‘formation of the people’.

Organization of popular education by the ‘Regulativ’

The decree of 30 July 1919 (Regulativ für die Organisation des Volksbildungswesens in Deutsch-Österreich) set up an administrative structure for popular education. Overall control was located in the Deutsch-Österreichisches Volksbildungsamt (Office of Popular Education), which was part of the Unterrichtsamt (Department of Education). Its responsibilities included: organization of the popular education system as a whole; administration of state funding for this activity; support of the free (voluntary) associations in the field; initiation of new organizations; training of educators; provision of an information centre for educators; publication of a specialist review for popular education; and so on.

The organizational model was a form of representative democracy, with Bildungsräte (educational councils) from the grass roots upwards, that is at the levels of local communities, districts, and provinces. There were three Volksbildungsarbeitsgemeinschaften (working groups for popular education) with close links to the Austrian universities; a Deutsch-Österreichischer Volksbildungsrat (Federal Council for Popular Education); and an Arbeitsausschuß des Deutsch-Österreichischen Volksbildungsrates (Working Committee of the Federal Council). Throughout this structure of councils, membership included representatives of popular education agencies; teachers; office employees; representatives of professions, trade and business; representatives of trade unions and of various other councils, such as those for workers, peasants, citizens and soldiers; representatives of the participants in popular education. Each educational council was to be elected for three years, and the basic principle was that freely elected representatives and the administration should work together. A further very significant and practical piece of legislation was the decree of 16 July 1919, which stipulated that all accommodation in schools and all educational materials were to be available for the purposes of popular education.

The Glöckel period was too short to register any great success. But the reforms introduced by the under-secretary of state did stimulate some movement on the adult education scene. Although it is not clear how many [S. 292] community educational councils came into being,(8) the new instructions did have a positive impact and stimulated productive debate. The Regulativ provided a basic framework for policy, and it survived in truncated form in the education ministry and its offices for popular education.

The Neue Richtung as basis for popular-education policy

Heinz Kindermann, the ministerial Referent (adviser) for popular education during and after Glöckel’s period of office, criticized ‘extensive’ popular education on the grounds that it lacked an emotional component:

If we enquire into the success of such a popular education we have to say – whilst recognizing the great idealism with which the work was done – that the results were in many cases unsatisfactory; continuity of participation naturally suffered when there were hundreds of auditors to be taken care of. Apart from that, mutual contact between teachers and auditors became impossible. Frequently it was shown that the participants in such arrangements did not retain more than empty catchwords; the belief that these could be put to use gave rise in many cases to a disastrous hothouse-culture, and that was surely intended by no-one.(9)

Nevertheless, the alternative, the ‘New Direction’, does not seem to have succeeded as intended in Austria. At a conference of popular educators in November 1923 Kindermann offered sceptical comments,(10) and there were clearly different facets to its ‘reception’. The physicist and popular educator Anton Lampa (from 1919 to 1922 Referent for popular education at the Ministry, and from 1927 to 1934 director of the Wiener Urania educational centre), was the only Austrian member of the ‘Hohenrodter Bund’, the select group which sought to articulate the core philosophy of the Neue Richtung. But he understood the movement to be primarily a pedagogical orientation which put individual education before mass education; he critically distanced himself from German-Nationalist variants of the New Direction.(11)

The problem of popular education was a ‘mass’ problem, but always there should be regard for the individual. ‘The big number is nothing, the individual all.’ At the school level it was clear that education took on a richness of meaning only when the groups being taught were of a certain size, and this must also be the case for popular education. Given that popular education was nothing more and nothing less than awakening ‘the potential personality in every individual’, it must address itself to every individual. Consequently, Emma Lampa would argue, alongside her husband, mass [S. 293] education was only possible when enjoyment was stressed or when the collective spirit was raised by art, music and religion.(12)

According to Kindermann education must embrace the individual’s total personality. The task of popular education was not to create ‘little academics’, but in every field of knowledge to make the audience familiar with the ‘endless greatness and the many-sided character of our German culture’. It dealt with nothing less than the ‘complete complex of spirit and of sense of the entire German culture of life’. This must to be mediated to the ‘whole immiserated people’ because a healthy condition would be attained ‘only when a cultural upswing enables an economic one’.(13) Kindermann polemicized indirectly against the subject- and knowledge-orientated educational activity of the Vienna Volksheim (people’s institute). This work aimed to give the people a capacity for independent thinking; in addition to the Fachgruppen (the specialist study-groups, which gained a reputation across Europe), it made use of long-term programmes of study. Even a declared opponent of Viennese popular education could acknowledge the genuine deepening of knowledge secured by these methods.(14) Kindermann did not oppose independent thinking in itself. The task he attributed to the ideal of ‘intensive education’ – the Arbeitsgemeinschaft (study group), which contrasted with the university seminar and the Arbeitsschule in the way it involved teachers and students in a shared search for conclusions – was that it should provide participants with the ‘critical independence’ necessary for the contemplation of character and personality. This critical independence was given a function within what was in effect a totalitarian scheme of things. The educator seized the opportunity for a ‘real apprehension of the personality of the individual participant’. The student, thus captured and educated ‘through and through’, was to be guided towards the ‘personal and objective sensibility’ which must be cherished as an ‘indispensable assumption of all life-culture’.(15)

The impact of the Neue Richtung in Austria could be seen in its contribution to theoretical debate about the tasks, nature and objectives of popular education. There was apparently a pragmatic welcome for certain elements of its doctrine, such as small-group pedagogy. ‘New Direction’ thinking seems also to have touched the beliefs driving rural popular education, and especially where Heimatbewegung (‘native’ movement) ideology could tap into a latent or open animosity towards urban living.

In sum, the significance of the Neue Richtung can be found in its [S. 294] contribution to an ominous ‘Austria-ideology’ in the context of the doctrinal preparation for Austro-Fascism, and not in any great movement covering all or any important part of the system of popular education. According to Wilhelm Gärtner, ministerial Referent for popular education in Upper Austria and critical interpreter of the dominance of German popular educators, the Austrian contribution to the ‘New Direction’ lay ‘in the clarity of our way in the field of physical education, in the clarity of the first part of our way to remedying die mental isolation of the peasantry and in the beginnings of clarity about the problem of the native movement’.(16)

Rural popular education

At die centre of state policy in the First Republic was the support of popular education in smaller towns and rural areas;(17) as a result many residential institutes were founded and the education of the rural population, and especially the peasantry, occupied a foreground position. Carried forward in part through an emphasis on Heimat-thinking, this policy amounted to a specifically Austrian reception of the Neue Richtung: as Wagner wrote in 1924, the ‘native-experience is probably the necessary starting point of every popular education venture in Austria’.(18)

The urban Volkshochschulen, most of all in Vienna, with their close connection to the universities and science-based activities, already had an impressive record in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and they survived the First World War. In the provinces and especially the rural areas, the situation was quite different. After the war reconstruction appeared to be necessary, and there were three considerations governing the orientation of public policy towards rural education. One was the serious economic backwardness of agriculture; the others were political and ideological. The focus on supporting and developing rural education was the antithesis to the flourishing popular education of ‘Red Vienna’.

While the Vienna Volkshochschulen could draw on sufficient reserves to ensure survival even in the worst circumstances (such as withdrawal of municipal subvention, as happened under the mayoralty of Karl Lueger),(19) such resources were lacking in the provinces and regions. There were serious shortages of competent teachers, accommodation and equipment. Many popular institutes were simply ‘falling asleep’ during the World War, and in contrast with the Vienna centres were incapable of learning new responses.(20)

[S. 295] After the war, in the smaller towns and rural communities the school and the vicarage became centres of popular education. The responsible office in the ministry and its Referenten acted as motors for the encouragement of new institutes and associations. Only one of the nine Austrian provinces took responsibility for administering its own popular education, and so avoided state influence from Vienna.

Education for the unemployed

Special courses and other educational arrangements were put in place from the 1920s onwards. The mass unemployment of the 1930s led to such activities acquiring a new meaning. The different concepts and positions are signposts to the situation, ideology and praxis of the various stake-holders in popular education. Under the auspices of the project Jugend in Not (Youth in Need) courses for young unemployed people were financed by central government, the provinces and municipalities. Separate classes were provided according to sex and affiliation to the main ideological-political groupings.(21) The central concern was not to give the unemployed improved qualifications, but to provide a sort of occupational therapy to guard against isolation and a rejection of society The link to the ‘body of the people’, which seemed to be severed by the loss of work, was to be re-established, if only ‘mentally’. Young men and women were offered an educational programme with ‘civic and patriotic content’, in which values such as national identification and love of country were inserted in various ways. Males were exposed to definitions and theoretical reflections, but females were occupied in only very practical expressions of these values.

In the Vienna Volkshochschulen the starting point in education for the unemployed was undoubtedly work, and vocational training and improvement of qualifications were successfully pursued. The Volksbildungsverein (Popular Education Association) ran special morning courses for those out of work. In 1932/33 the most popular of these were in English for beginners, bookkeeping, orthography, French, Russian, and advanced English.(22)

So-called education was also laid on at construction sites where the unemployed were engaged, for instance road-building schemes. Keeping the workers quiet was the main objective; all arrangements were supposed to bring ‘gladness, entertainment and useful diversion’.(21) Within the scope of the Freiwilliger Arbeitsdienst (Volunteer Labour Service) training courses for [S. 296] leaders were run, the idea coming from the popular education section within the federal ministry, which also provided funding from its own budget.(24)

In 1933/34 the Austro-Fascist regime proscribed working-class organizations, and also began its purges of adult education. Educational programmes with an intellectual content were suspect in the eyes of authoritarian rulers; anything which might encourage independent thinking was incompatible with the Ständestaat based on metaphysics and the notion of assigned social rank. Apart from propaganda, the cultivation of hobby, heart and soul became the most important elements of^-adult education,(25) a development encouraged by existing emphases on an education founded on introversion. Austro-Fascism prepared the ground for its National Socialist successor. The Nazis found an adult education system which was already part of the propaganda machinery of authoritarian government. They experienced no difficulty in taking it over and adapting it to their purposes.

Adult education policy after 1945

In the winter of 1945/46 a central office was established in the ministry of education; it included a set of subordinate offices, each headed by a specialist federal Referent, for administering popular education in the provinces. Governance was according to the ‘Glöckel Regulativ’ of 1919. Only Vienna and the Vorarlberg retained devolved competence for adult education, and so escaped control by Referenten.

Policy in the twenty years after the Second World War had two determining characteristics. First was the sustained demand for increased state subvention;(26) second was the use of legislative regulation to assign meaning to ‘adult education’. Various factors contributed decisively to this evolution. There was a need to increase state financial support in order to ensure the survival of important institutions, yet there was no clear conception of the position of adult education within the framework of public policy on education.(27) Neither did the agencies of adult education have any clear position on their tasks; what happened was that they became engaged in a search for ‘new self-understanding’.(28)

Conferences of international organizations held in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s provide frequent evidence that closer attention was being given to adult education, but its status was ‘not clear enough in international forums like UNESCO or the Council of Europe, or within the educational system of [S. 297] each country’.(29) Although a number of these conferences led to the assertion that a ‘common language’ had emerged among adult educators, it must be said that dialogue was possible only ‘in a very general form, on the basis of compromise’.(30) This was a reflection of the fact that the ‘political-ideological starting points of the participants’ were very difficult to span.(31) By the 1960s clearer statements on the function of adult education became possible, as its admission into the planning complex was noted, and its full integration into the educational system foreseen.

In Austria the 1940s and 1950s saw a distinctive process of institutionalization. Regional and national associations played an increasing part and adult education began to acquire political weight. Co-operative alignments among various agencies were a noteworthy feature, but the diverging lines adopted served to frustrate any state policy for adult education. At the same time the two major vocationally-orientated bodies came on to the scene: the Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitute (Institutes for Economic Promotion) founded by the chambers of commerce in 1946, and the Berufsförderungsinstitut (Institute for Occupational Promotion) in the employee sphere in 1952. A 1957 ruling of the constitutional court established that occupational training and further education were not part of the mission of adult education.(32) Responsibility for (general) adult education lays in the public sector, while chambers and associations in the industrial/commercial sector were competent for occupational and vocational adult education. Consequently, in the framework of social partnership, and in relative independence from public corporate bodies, the provision of vocational adult education was able to develop very quickly and equip itself to a high standard.

Inclusion of adult education in educational planning

In the mid 1960s forward-looking concepts and proposals were produced in response to the OECD report on educational planning in Austria. Contributions in the adult education sector included many concrete provisions intended to lead to reform: training of full-time and part-time workers; full-time, expert personnel to work on the development of adult education; international contacts as part of the training process; improved payment for course-leaders. Fundamental research and training in co-operation with the universities was encouraged, for it was considered absolutely necessary to establish adult education as an academic subject. A specialist academy for [S. 298] political education should be set up, and the constitutional position of adult education in relation to popular education was to be clarified by legislation.(33)

In the mid 1960s adult education appeared to be acquiring a hitherto unprecedented importance in educational and political debate. Henceforth it would attract increasing attention, at least in the form of programmatic statements. In December 1969 an enquiry into the place of adult education as part of the educational reform process was reported.(34) The published proposals were: removal of the distinction between general and vocational education; co-ordination of all associations and supporters of adult education; joint planning by all supporting bodies (associations, chambers, trade unions, military, and so on) and public corporate bodies (state, provinces, communities); a Federal commission to report on the situation; dedicated accommodation to be provided for adult education and account to be taken of its needs as part of new school-building projects; training of adult educators; increased recruitment of full-time staff; schemes of adult education at pre-university level; co-operation with the national broadcasting corporation. ‘Modern adult education’ was to be conceived as lifelong learning, not just making up leeway but a ‘voluntary and sustained completion’ of the educational process begun in school. It was to take place on three levels: improvement of individual life-chances; intensification of learning through technical progress; contribution to the reform of democracy.(35) The state must also contribute through subsidization, that is to say: legislation on the subject; securing finances, personnel and equipment; forward planning of permanent elements of the system; inclusion of adult education in academic research and teaching. As a matter of urgency adult education should shake off ‘the appearance of amateurishness, dilettantism, irregularity and haphazardness’. A ‘new appraisal of adult education’ could be expected to have financial implications. In regulating its content, adult education must adapt to ‘actual need’ as well as to the ‘objective requirement’; knowledge and attitudes were important in equal measure.

Steps to the reform of adult education

Many of these proposals were based on the driving contribution of social-democratic ideas to the educational reform debate. From 1970, and the entry of the Socialist (subsequently Social Democratic) party into power, there followed a phase of implementation. The declarations of the ‘Kreisky I’ [S. 299] (1970-71) and ‘Kreisky II’ (1971-1975) cabinets indicated a central commitment to developing adult education within the framework of overall educational reform. There was a need for a common and co-ordinated system extending from pre-school to adult provision; it should be flexible and boast a clear structure, with numerous opportunities for individual choice.(36) The Kreisky II government declared in November 1971 that a draft law for promoting adult education had been put out for expert and political comment. Special attention was drawn to suggestions for political education by the parties, including an existing proposal for a special law.(37) The first legislation to give effect to adult education policy was the federal law of 1972 on the promotion of civic educational work by the political parties, which led to the foundation of political academies for the parliamentary parties.

In the 1970s trials for reforming adult education were begun through major projects such as the determination of constitutional responsibilities, legislation for distance education, paid educational leave, multi-media teaching. If these projects failed it was because the tasks of adult education were too easily sacrificed to other arrangements, compromises and political deals at the time, and also because adult education failed to exert sufficient pressure. There was no shared strategy among the different organizations, and in many instances distrust (attributable to the strong ‘pillarization’ referred to above) still prevailed. Adult education was not able to exploit political involvement or penetration to build up a lobby for asserting its own interest within or through the parties.(38)

By the 1980s a more or less systematic policy of structural development through concrete projects had begun. Support by the Ministry of Education for full-time staff to undertake planning provided a basis, which should not be underestimated, for introducing greater professionalism into the institutionalized sector of adult education. The actual developments are described and discussed in the following section.

Selected fields of public policy for adult education

Determination of responsibilities under the Austrian Constitution

Educational policy in the period immediately after the Second World War was eclipsed by the attention given to problems of economic reconstruction. In the second control agreement (1946) the Allies required a progressive, [S. 300] long-term educational programme to be drawn up. This gave impetus to the debate over schooling, and in particular over the constitutional basis of the educational system.(39)

The terms of the Austrian federal constitution of 1920 reveal a failure of agreement on how competences were to be distributed between the federal state and the provinces for the control of school and popular education. The reasons lay in unbridgeable differences between the political parties and in basic contradictions between the advocates of federalism and centralism.(40) This important area was left to be regulated at a later date according to constitutional prescription. That would be possible only through matching laws of the federal state and the provinces (compacted legislation).

In 1962 the school system was subjected to regulation, with just one safeguard: any further change in the law would require a two-thirds majority in parliament. The ‘school compromise’ was reached only because negotiations took place directly between senior representatives of the conservative Austrian People’s Party and of the Socialist Party, to the exclusion of affiliated organizations which could be expected to have a vested interest in the matter.(41) Adult education remained unregulated, and definitional problems to do with terms such as ‘popular’ and ‘adult’ could not be resolved.

After 1945 many proposals for a constitutional regulation of adult education, based on the ‘Glöckel-Regulativ’, were proposed from different sides.(42) The status of this regulation as the basis of state action was given prominence by a verdict of the constitutional court in 1958 quashing proposed legislation by Kärnten (Carinthia) which would have located competence for the adult education system in the province and the communities. From that point adult education was drawn into ‘the suction of a discussion relating to the problem of centralism and federalism’.(43) By the late 1950s the dispute over federalism had already been provoked by the provinces, with the object of securing a redistribution of competences.(44) Then the school laws of 1962 confirmed extremely important and far-reaching powers at the federal level. The state controls all educational provision from elementary school up to the universities and all the main categories of organization. It can be presumed that the provinces did not want to relinquish all educational privileges to the federal government; therefore there was an attempt to keep adult education separate. As a subject of regulation it had acquired a high symbolic content. ‘Federalistic trench [S. 301] warfare’ was conducted around it.(45) Neither the federal nor the provincial governments made any serious attempt to involve the associations for adult education, to the contrary in fact. In 1982 the associations were compelled to state that ‘for the Jurists of the Ministry of Education and Arts and for the provinces we are an area about which decisions are made and not an area with which co-operation is practised’.(46)

Adult education exhibits a range of attitudes towards constitutional regulation, ranging from anxieties about being ‘provincialized’, to the sheer indifference of the numerous organizations with a large amount of leisure-time provision and consequently no interest in the formal regulation of examinations. When its interests have been made into a tactical plaything, it is obviously not surprising that adult education should lose interest in constitutional clarification. A short skirmish on the field of federal governmental reform, whereby in December 1993 the provinces demanded full competence for adult education, was brought to an end in February 1994 after vehement protests from the associations. In a letter of 16 February to the minister for federal affairs, KEBÖ (Conference of Austrian Adult Education) declared against an exclusive provincialization and for ‘cooperation between the state, the provinces and the communities’. The minister, Jürgen Weiß, replied on 24 February that the provinces had decided to defer the question. Quite remarkable was his statement that the constitutional position of adult education would be decided in the context of an ‘eventual new regulation of competence in the school-system’.(47) The loop back to the school legislation of 1962 had been closed. Adult education in Austria has to be understood in terms of the debate about federalism, and about school policy, which remains for the most part a federal subject.

The search for co-ordination in adult education

The case for adult education bodies to co-operate among themselves and with public officials is argued from the point of view of the need to optimize provision and to achieve integration into the educational system.(48) The marked institutional segmentation of adult education, the segregation according to party-political and confessional affiliations, and the split between general and vocational education permit a great deal of duplication. The well-supported offerings of one organization are imitated by the others, with the result that overall provision becomes narrower. Like it or not, we [S. 302] observe an increasing uniformity, and impossibility of sustaining requisite variety. The towering importance of the institutions encourages a process of constant self-reproduction. Participants and potential participants have to adjust their wishes for further education to what is on offer. It may be that many are deterred from taking part because the programme does not allow them to realize their actual needs. Institutionalization and segmentation support the development of particular foci for adult education, whilst at the same time creating blank patches – whole districts, perhaps, insufficiently provided for. Genuine co-ordination proceeds from an acceptance of educational planning and the postulate of equal opportunities.

Co-ordination from below and from above

Co-ordination is not a product of recent times. During the First World War Wilhelm Gärtner, the teacher from Oberösterreich and later Referent for popular education, worked to build a ‘union of all associations which seek to work along popular-educational lines’.(49) At the begin of 1919 the Verband zur Förderung der Volksbildung in Oberösterreich (Association for promoting Popular Education in Upper Austria) was founded; twenty-eight bodies came into membership, though not the Catholic organizations which were suspicious of Gärtner’s connections with Social Democracy. This association was faced with a new situation when the ‘Glöckel-Regulativ’ brought its existence into question. There followed vehement criticism of the policy being put out from Vienna. Owing to financial difficulties the Upper Austria association subsequently disbanded.

In May 1972 KEBÖ was set up as an ‘independent forum of meeting and co-operation’ of adult educational institutions in Austria. Its objectives are: representation of common interests vis-à-vis the state, the provinces and the communities; advising the ministry of education and other public bodies; commenting on educational policy; gaining public ‘anchorage’ for the idea of adult education by maintaining a common front in working for its recognition as an equal part of the educational system; joint discussion on pedagogical questions. KEBÖ has no central office, and member-organizations take it in turn annually to provide the chair.(50)

Before 1972 Austrian adult education had no common representation, despite its advanced stage of institutional development. The differences between the various organizations were too great and loyalties to the different [S. 303] political camps too strong. In the 1960s representatives of divers organizations of general adult education began to meet in a more or less regular ‘Conference of Austrian Adult Educators’.(51) In these meetings new models of education such as television and radio were discussed, but also topics such as the introduction of educational planning, the poor provision of full-time staff, lack of training opportunities, integration of general and vocational education. In 1966 a proposal for the formation of a ‘Working Group of Austrian Adult Educators’ was made.(52)

Two important initiatives took shape at the end of the 1960s. From 1969 onwards the Ministry of Education mounted a series of seminars on ‘New Ways of Co-ordination’ which brought together representatives of all institutions of adult (including vocational) education. The Berufsförderungsinstitut arranged two seminars on ‘general and vocational education’ in 1968 and 1969 and these included representatives of the ‘social partnership’. A third seminar to be promoted by the institute to discuss the formation of a national association had to be cancelled because of numerous objections raised by the conservative and the church camp.(53) Political sensitivities had to be taken into account: the proposal was for a national body with fourteen representatives providing a balance as between the conservative and progressive interests(54) – but in a situation where conservatives were preponderant in the adult education system as a whole. The initiative did not conform to the practice of reflecting majority influence, and is best understood as an attempt to achieve a better political balance.

The adult education section of the Ministry made further moves to get discussion of ‘new ways’ and the outcome was the formation in 1972 of KEBÖ. Its original member organizations were: the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Bildungsheime Österreichs (Working Group of Residential Education Centres), the Ländliches Fortbildungsinstitut (Institute for Rural Education), the Ring Österreichischer Bildungswerke (Circle of Austrian Educational Undertakings), the Verband Österreichischer Volksbüchereien (Association of Austrian People’s Libraries), the Verband Österreichischer Volkshochschulen (Association of Austrian Folk High Schools), and the Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut and Berufsförderungsinstitut, already mentioned. Later the Institutionen katholischer Erwachsenenbildung (Institutions of Catholic Adult Education), the Verband Österreichischer Schulungs- und Bildungshäuser (Association of Austrian Training and Educational Centres) and the Volkswirtschaftliche [S. 304] Gesellschaft (Society for Political Economy) entered into membership. Up to the present day the conservative interests have been preponderant.

Although many proposals for founding a common national body came from the associations, they were not able to realize this by their own efforts. The influence of the ministry, drawing on ideas from the 1960s, had to be brought to bear. The history of the foundation of KEBÖ demonstrates the strong party-political penetration and the existence of a laager-mentality. And it must also be seen as co-ordination ‘from above’. The matter was an urgent one for the ministry because the law on support of adult education (implemented 1973), which set the legal basis for the actions of civil servants and legitimated a status quo ante, also required a means of representation of the national agencies of adult education.(55)

Owing to the underlying political pattern and the prevailing balance of forces, the activities of KEBÖ are possible only at a level of minimal consensus, and the conference is always open to the reproach of being ineffective. Nevertheless, at the end of the 1980s it was able to contribute successfully to winning an important increase in state support for adult education.

Structural development policy

Austrian structural development policy has two general elements: first, adequate provision of educational programmes, and secondly professionalization of adult education. The first element has considerable general relevance for a number of the country’s regions, but there is also a more detailed ‘content’ aspect, in that it raises important questions about what should be offered and to whom. The second element requires the development of existing institutes and organizations which for the most part have an insufficient number of full-time staff, and pursue a relatively unsophisticated pattern of activity. Structural development means to a great extent the binding of adult education to societal interests. As a result it acquires greater social significance but also finds itself in a situation of tension vis-à-vis other social developments affecting the public in general.

When Glöckel began building a common structure for the educational system he also began the creation of a common system of popular education. His Regulativ formulated the objectives of state policy in popular education. The underlying idea, namely organization on a basis of representative [S. 305] democracy, remains important even today. It is reflected in, for instance, the Further Education Law of South Tyrol and also in schemes of regional development as practised in Steiermark (Styria).(56) The Regulativ required the formation of community education councils and subsequently initiatives and institutes for popular education grew up. The orientation of state policy towards rural and peasants’ education also proved very important for the present situation of adult education, bringing into being numerous institutes and agencies.

The OECD report on educational planning in Austria advanced the discussion on educational reform and implanted new ideas in adult education. The case for the latter was now argued in the context of technical and scientific change and rising needs for qualification; lifelong learning came into the centre of educational policy. No longer could an adequate definition of purpose in adult education be derived from a ‘neo-humanistic ideal of education’. Adult education would have to be ‘shaper, stimulator and releaser of motivation’.(57)

Planning in adult education led on to reflections about a critical inventory and evaluation. When the OECD report spoke of adult education it meant the institutions of general education. But at the same time it was stated that adult education embraced more than those associations which designate themselves as ‘adult education’. It was also to include distance learning, the educational work of broadcasting, television and the press, vocational education, further education and also political education by the parties. The Austrian response was to propose that development should take place through formal planning, exploiting the key concepts of ‘area provision’ and ‘central facilities’ in order to make continuous forms of adult educational provision available to all those within the particular domain.(58)

Many ambitious – though unrealized – plans for the reform of adult education looked towards full integration into the educational system. But between federalist politics and party politics the reformers became bogged down. The beginning of the 1980s marked a new phase characterized by systematic policies on structural development. This started with ‘Development Planning’, continued with measures for providing full-time staffing, and led up to the introduction of an Adult Education Information System.

The objective of Austrian development planning is nothing less than providing the country’s population with educational facilities covering [S. 306] economic, societal and individual needs.(59) It was introduced in July 1980 by the minister of education. After a one-year phase of consultations with and between the adult education associations and with the provinces, the ‘Principles of Development Planning for a Co-operative System of Adult Education’ were presented. These gave concrete expression to the earlier proposals by embodying development planning in specific projects. The original goals were to be reached by way of limited initiatives, and not by big steps. Development planning was also to include a co-operative approximation, in the form of partnership with the associations. The goal was not adult education per se but the development of existing institutions, including their own potential for self-renovation.(60)

Within the framework of development planning projects were undertaken in different waves. They included organization development, open access, regional development, and origination of materials for training course-leaders and for participants. Special attention was paid to the onward transfer of projects to other provinces and institutions.

Development planning was the first trial of systematic and focused projects within state policy. In this sense it was also a contribution to professionalization. Yet, it was not able to bring about a reduction of competition, ‘profile mania’, or factionalism in adult education. Useful co-operation did take place at the level of advisory and co-ordinating committees, but not at the level of the projects themselves. The working climate of relations between the associations and the education ministry did improve, however, and the fear of ‘nationalization’ may have faded somewhat.

An important lesson from the projects was that such activity could not compensate for the inadequate basic facilities of the organizations themselves. It was judged necessary that ‘the associations of Austrian adult education shall be equipped with an adequate number of qualified personnel as far as possible on the national level, the province level and also on regional and local levels’.(61) The engagement of staff must be purposeful, and also properly co-ordinated with other measures for improving structures and with the educational needs of particular centres of provision.

From 1984 onwards this recruitment of personnel was realized at different levels. At the beginning there was the ‘Action on unemployed teachers in adult education’, and then there followed schemes such as ‘Pedagogical staff for provincial umbrella associations' and `Pedagogical staff for education [S. 307] Organizations’. At the beginning of 1994, according to information from the ministry of education, more than three hundred persons were included in the scope of the action-projects mentioned above, receiving financial support to work in organizations belonging to KEBÖ, and the majority were operating at a basic level as educators of adults. In 1992 the member organizations of KEBÖ had a total of approximately 3,500 staff with a primary commitment to the work, and about one third of those were engaged more or less directly in teaching; thus the contribution of the education ministry to improving professionalization was far from negligible.

In 1993 the Erwachsenenbildungs-Informations-Service (EBIS: Adult Education Information Service) was established on the initiative of the ministry. The details of programmes in selected fields are now held in a database, including the objectives of the courses offered and facilities provided by the organizations. This provides the basis for counselling and a telephone information-service. Control and supervision, in the sense of orientation to consumers’ needs, has been improved, and through this service potential participants can easily compare costs and likely benefits.(62)

Conclusion: adult education and the state

Institutions representing common interests are an important requirement for furthering state action to achieve policy goals. Historically, the first phase of institutionalization becomes evident with the appearance of voluntary bodies and institutes for popular education in the last third of the nineteenth century. During the First Republic new organizations develop as free associations, but also through the administrative intervention of the state. Public policy proves to be especially significant to the development of new organizations in rural popular education. A second phase begins after 1945 when new institutions come into being, and when vocationally-orientated organizations are included under the auspices of ‘social partnership’, and when umbrella organizations are created in the provinces and on the national level. A third phase comes with the foundation of the KEBÖ in 1972, and the attempt to institutionalize co-ordination itself. The involvement of state agencies is a very immediate one, and state interests are very obvious in the process of securing and legalizing governmental support for adult education.

The legal basis for public action was first laid in 1918/19. At that date the state departed from the role of ‘night-watchman’, and began to intervene by [S. 308] providing financial and other material support. Over the following years an extensive scheme of training popular educators in the Austrian provinces carried the process forward. The ideas of the Neue Richtung provided a theoretical and conceptual basis; however limited their practical effect, they can nevertheless be said to have had a ‘restorative’ (restoration) influence.(63) State intervention and support of rural popular education led to an extension of the system, though as part of the political opposition to ‘Red Vienna’. Popular education was part of a cultural movement for integrating the inhabitants into the newly-formed republic, for creating state-consciousness and Heimat sentiments. The first attempts at creating this awareness in the 1920s were taken over by Austro-Fascism in the 1930s, when education became more and more an instrument for work with the unemployed with the aims of occupying time, integration and pacification.

Adult education policy in the early years of the Second Republic had two characteristic features: first, a certain lack of clarity about aims and function (a phenomenon observed internationally at that time); secondly, a recurrent failure in attempts to achieve equal status with other parts of the educational system. Then, with the onset of educational planning, and also the attribution of unprecedented significance to adult education by international organizations, a new role became available which permitted greater integration into the educational system. Adult education was seen as an equal partner, taking over at the point where school ends. It acquired a function in the framework of democratization, though economic and social-policy arguments remained more or less evenly balanced.

This integration was undermined from the 1970s onwards because of the involvement of so many diverging interests and political actors – manifesting themselves as conflict between the state and the provinces over the federalist issue; a laager-mentality among the associations; the rift between general and vocational education; and finally confusions within adult education itself, a construct with many varying interests, different levels of professionalization, and different potentials for development. In this same period the expansion of upper-secondary schooling (general and vocational) and of the universities had the effect of incorporating the necessary further and higher qualification into the formal educational system.

In the context of intensifying economic recession adult education became linked to labour-market policy by shifts in the flow of financial support, and [S. 309] educational work with the unemployed gained in importance. Its new concerns included not only psychological stabilization, retraining and further education, but also the creation of new jobs. Most recently Austria has experienced demands for reductions in public expenditure and anxieties about the costs of the state educational system. Here the concept of integration of adult education gains a new importance: it appears increasingly as a favoured alternative to traditional structures, and is re-conceptualized to match the primacy accorded to economic measures and a technologically-based further education.

The relations of adult education and the state are frequently perceived in terms of governmental influence and a possible threat to independence. Very rarely does one encounter an approach to analysing this relationship which asks whether adult education influences the state or its policies.(64) Little or no attention is given to adult education in the context of theories of the state, for example conceptions of the welfare state. This neglect cannot be remedied here, but to bring this chapter to a conclusion a number of hypotheses are formulated concerning the aims and functions of state adult education policy.

–       State adult education policy is synonymous with state intervention in adult education, but ‘intervention’ is itself a complex issue.

–       The forms, characteristics and intensity of state intervention in adult education depend on the existing political system. Highly developed democratic and pluralistic systems generate intervention based on support and financial incentive. Intervention follows the principle of subsidiarity, though that does not mean assistance without conditions. Totalitarian systems can be characterized by their interest in maintaining a direct grip on adult education.

–       The nature of state adult education policy depends on the characteristics of the political system but also of the prevailing civic culture. The Austrian example shows a marked attachment to policy ‘from above’.

–       State intervention draws adult education into the realm of social policy. As adult education becomes more important, so it becomes more closely integrated in social affairs; this in turn requires it to have an impact on social policy. The freedom of adult education does not depend on disjunction from society and economy, but on precisely the opposite, [S. 310] and especially on its being able to take an active role within the framework of integration.

–       The integration of adult education has been the main objective of adult education policiy. It is neither more nor less than one of the many dimensions of public policy, by which the state seeks identity-creation, political legitimation, security of governmental control, but also the development of society’s cultural and educational well-being.

–       This multi-functional potential of adult education for state policy-making brings with it the danger of a relatively easy accommodation to political systems, and a corresponding failure to examine the content and modus operandi of those systems.

–       State adult education policy is primarily structural policy. It acts on a macro- as well as on a micro-level by contributing to the formation of the entire adult education system as well as to the inner structure of the organizations involved.

References

(1) R. Knight (ed), „Ich bin dafür, die Sache in die Länge zu ziehen“: Wortprotokolle der österreichischen Bundesregierung von 1945-1952 über die Entschädigung der Juden (Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum Verlag, 1988).

(2) G. Bisovsky, Blockierte Bildungsreform: Staatliche Erwachsenenbildungspolitik in Osterreich seit 1970 (Wien, Picus Verlag, 1991).

(3) E. Böhnel, Glöckels Konzept der Reform der Pflichtschullehrerausbildung: Eine pädagogische Vision? (Wien, Verband Wissenschaftlicher Gesellschaften, 1990).

(4) H. Drimmel, Die Beziehungen der Volksbildung zur österreichischen Kultur- und Bildungstradition, in A. Brodil (ed), Horizonte Österreichischer Erwachsenenbildung. Schriften zur Volksbildung des Bundesministeriums für Unterricht (Wien, Neue Volksbildung, 1968), 7-14.

(5) Volksbildung. Monatsschrift für die Förderung des Volksbildungswesens in Deutschösterreich 1 (1919), 1.

[S. 311] (6) Volksbildung 2 (1919), 41.

(7) H. Hautmann and R. Kropf, Die österreichische Arbeiterbewegung vom Vormärz bis 1945 2nd edn (Wien, Europaverlag, 1976).

(8) W. Göhring, Erwachsenenbildung in der Ersten Republik, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich 31 (1980), 690-697; Volksbildung 12 (1920).

(9) H. Kindermann, Ziele der Volksbildungsbewegung und Wege zu ihrer Erreichung, Volksbildung 1 (1920), 285-298 (289-290).

(10) K. Wagner_, Von der Entwicklung des Volksbildungswesens, Volksbildung. Zeitschrift für die Förderung des Volksbildungswesens in Österreich 5 (1924), 4-11 (10).

(11) Ch. Stifter, Der Elektromagnetismus in der Erwachsenenbildung: Zur Biographie des Physikers Anton Lampa (1868-1938), Mitteilungen des Vereines zur Geschichte der Volkshochschulen 4 (1993), 19-23.

(12) E. Lampa, Die Probleme der Volksbildung und ‚die neue Richtung’ im Büchereiwesen, Volksbildung 1 (1920), 201-204 (202).

(13) Kindermann (1920), 286-287.

(14) G. A. Wirt, 25 Jahre Volksheim, Volksbildung 6 (1926), 231-233.

(15) Kindermann (1920), 293.

(16) W. Gärtner, Problematik und Zukunftswege der Volksbildung, Volksbildung 5 (1923), 26-41 (41).

(17) I. Seipel, Bundeskanzler Dr. Ignaz Seipel über die Volksbildungsarbeit in Österreich, Volksbildung 5 (1924), 3.

(18) Wagner (1924).

(19) W. Filla, Volkshochschularbeit in Österreich ‒ Zweite Republik. Eine Spurensuche (Graz, Leykam, 1991).

(20) Wagner (1924).

(21) H. Mokre, Bildungsarbeit mit jugendlichen Erwerbslosen, Volksbildung 12 (1932), 229-241.

(22) F. Plutzar, Kurse und Veranstaltungen für Arbeitslose in Wiener Volksbildungseinrichtungen, Volksbildung 13 (1933), 10-15.

(23) F. P. Stiletz, Volksbildnerische Arbeit bei den ‚Barabern’ des Glocknerstraßenbaues, Volksbildung 13 (1933), 145-147.

(24) G. A. Witt, Führerschulung für den freiwilligen Arbeitsdienst im Volksbildungsheim Hubertendorf, Volksbildung 13 (1933), 165-171.

[S. 312] (25) Filla (1991).

(26) W. Göhring, Bildung in Freiheit: Die Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich nach 1945 (Wien, Europaverlag, 1983).

(27) E. Seifert and E. Wenisch, Zur Frage eines österreichischen Volksbildungsgesetzes (Salzburg, Institut für Grundlagenforschung der Erwachsenenbildung im Ring österreichischer Bildungswerke, [no date]).

(28) H. Engelbrecht, Geschichte des österreichischen Bildungswesens. Erziehung und Unterricht auf dem Boden Österreichs. Vol. 5. Von 1918 bis zur Gegenwart (Wien, Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1988).

(29) E. Wenisch, Anthropologische und ethische Aspekte der Bildungsplanung, in A. Brodil (ed), Horizonte österreichischer Erwachsenenbildung. Schriften zur Volksbildung des Bundesministeriums für Unterricht (Wien, Neue Volksbildung, 1968), 15-63 (19).

(30) H. Grau, Internationale Situation und Zusammenarbeit, address in Protokoll des Gesprächs am 25./26. März (1966) in Haus Rief/Salzburg, 3-5 (3).

(31) Wenisch (1968), 50.

(32) Engelbrecht (1988).

(33) Bildungsplanung in Österreich. Vol. 1: Erziehungsplanung und Wirtschaftswachstum 1965 bis 1975. Hg. von der Wissenschaftlichen Abteilung des Bundesministeriums für Unterricht. Bericht aufgrund des Abkommens zwischen der österreichischen Bundesregierung und der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD) vom 30. Dezember 1963 (Wien, BMU, 19G7), 440-444.

(34) H. Kriegl, Erwachsenenbildung als Teil der Bildungsreform in Österreich, Sonderheft Enquête 1969, Sonderheft der Zeitschrift Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich, 1.

(35) A. Mock, Schlußreferat des Bundesministers für Unterricht, Sonderheft Enquête 1969, Sonderheft der Zeitschrift Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich, 33-37.

(36) B. Kreisky, Erklärung der Bundesregierung vom 27.4.1970, Stenographische Protokolle des Nationalrates, XII. Gesetzgebungsperiode, 10-28.

(37) B. Kreisky, Erklärung der Bundesregierung vom 5.1 1.1971, Stenographische Protokolle des Nationalrates, XIII. Gesetzgebungsperiode, 14-35.

(38) Bisovsky (1991).

(39) Engelbrecht (1988).

(40) BMU (1967).

[S. 313] (41) S. Dermutz, Der österreichische Weg: Schulreform und Bildungspolitik in der Zweiten Republik (Wien, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1983); M. Neugebauer, Schulwesen, in E. Weinzierl and K. Skalnik (eds), Österreich. Die Zweite Republik (Graz/Wien/Köln, Styria Verlag, 1972).

(42) Seifert and Wenisch.

(43) Seifert and Wenisch, 30.

(44) P Pernthaler, Föderalistische Verfassungsreform: Ihre Voraussetzungen und Wirkungsbedingungen in Österreich, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaften 21 (1992), 365-388.

(45) Pernthaler (1992), 378.

(46) KEBÖ: Konferenz der Erwachsenenbildung Österreichs, Bericht über das Jahr 1981/82 für die Jahrestagung 1982.

(47) KEBÖ, Schreiben der Konferenz der Erwachsenenbildung Österreichs an Bundesminister Jürgen Weiß vom 16. 2. 1994; J. Weiß, Schreiben des Bundesministers für Föderalismus und Verwaltungsreform an die KEBÖ vom 24. 2. 1994.

(48) F. Pöggeler, Konkurrenz, Kooperation und Koordination in der Erwachsenenbildung, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich 23 (1972), 577-588.

(49) See Engelbrecht (1988), 247.

(50) H. Altenhuber, Die Konferenz der Erwachsenenbildung Österreichs, in K. Aufderklamm, W. Filla and E. Leichtenmüller (eds), Dienstleistung Erwachsenenbildung. Schriftenreihe des Verbandes Österreichischer Volkshochschulen. Band 8 (Wien/Baden, Verband Österreichischer Volkshochschulen, 1991).

(51) Wenisch (19G8), 62.

(52) Protokoll des Gesprächs am 25./26. März 1966 in Haus Rief Salzburg.

(53) BAKEB, Informationen. Mitteilungsblatt der Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für katholische Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich, 1/1971,

(54) Bisovsky (1991), 170.

(55) Bisovsky (1991).

(56) G. Dorner, 3 Jahre EREB – Erweiterte Regionale Erwachsenenbildung in der Steiermark oder der Versuch, Theorien in die Praxis umzusetzen, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich 45 (1994), 51-53.

(57) BMU (1967), 440.

(58) BMU (1967).

[S. 314] (59) K. Dillinger, Entwicklungsplanung für Erwachsenenbildung: Warum und wozu?, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich, Sonderheft 1986: Entwicklungsplanung, 4-8.

(60) J. Dvorak, Entwicklungsplanung und Projekt-Transfer, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich, Sonderheft 1986, Entwicklungsplanung, 8-9.

(61) J. Dvorak, Über die staatlichen Aufgaben im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung, in Aufderklamm, Filla and Leichtenmüller (eds, 1991), 13-22.

(62) E. Kanelutti and W. Lindner, Erwachsenen-Bildungs-Informations-Service: EBIS. Ein vielversprechender Start, Erwachsenenbildung in Österreich 45 (1994), 16-17.

(63) K. G. Fischer, Über die Wissenschaften in der Erwachsenenbildung, in A. Brodil (ed), Horizonte Österreichischer Erwachsenenbildung. Schriften zur Volksbildung des Bundesministeriums für Unterricht (Wien, Neue Volksbildung, 1968), 134-146.

(64) L. Bown, The state and adult education: Suggested issues for historical and comparative study, in F. Pöggeler (ed), The State and Adult Education (Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 1990), 445-458.

(Wortwahl, Grammatik, Rechtschreibung und Zeichensetzung entsprechen dem Original. Hervorhebungen in Fett- oder Kursivdruck wurden beibehalten. Offensichtliche Druckfehler wurden korrigiert. Hochgestellte Fußnotenzahlen im Original wurden in runden Klammern gesetzt. Ausdrücke in runden Klammern stehen auch im Original in runden Klammern. In eckigen Klammern steht die Zahl der jeweiligen Seite des Originaltextes.)