In 2020 a brilliant novel was published called The Standardization of Demoralization Procedures, by Jennifer Hofmann. Kirkus called it “a remarkable first novel that reads like the work of a seasoned pro.”
Despite great reviews, Standardization did not hit the bestseller lists. At the time of publication, the country was focused on the George Floyd riots and the fallout from COVID. Still, for those of us who read the book, it left a lasting impression. The novel can be mentioned in the same breath as Darkness at Noon and Nineteen Eighty-four. Its main character is Bernd Zeiger, a member of the Stasi, the Cold War–era East German secret police. Zeiger, we learn, earned an early career boost in the 1960s by writing “The Standardization of Demoralization Procedures,” a manual on how to crush people straying from the Communist party line. “The self is a vessel that when turned upside down will empty itself of meaning,” Zeiger thinks. “It will grasp, cling to itself, turn in on itself, witness itself, go insane in that way.” Zeiger and his manual presage the cultural cancellation that the Left has continued to impose on Americans well after the Cold War.
Standardization is set in 1989, when there are hints that the Berlin Wall may be coming down, and Bernd is sixty and in bad health. He is assigned to minor surveillance duties and interrogations. He is infatuated with Lara, a young waitress at his favorite café who has recently vanished. At the same time, he is haunted by the memory of a physicist named Johannes Held, who was tortured by Stasi operatives years earlier after returning from a fellowship in Arizona. The novel’s conclusion is profound and shocking. Kirkus wrote that Hofmann “conjures up dark comedy in an understated, quirky satire of the Stasi’s bureaucracy and cruelty and the paranoia that permeated East Germany.”
I recently interviewed the novel’s author, Jennifer Hofmann, who lives in Berlin.
Mark Judge: First of all, tell me a little about yourself and your background. How did you become a writer?
Jennifer Hofmann: My background is a little complicated. I was born in the United States to an Austrian father and Colombian mother and grew up between Germany and the United States. I’m bilingual German–English. My family has been uprooted for three generations, maybe even longer, so culturally, I’m whatever you want me to be. I have a degree in psychology, which I was planning on using, but my career took me sideways, and here I am, writing. It’s the one profession with sufficient overlap in my insane Venn diagram of interests.
MJ: Standardization tells the story of Bernd Zeiger, a member of the Stasi, the dreaded East German secret police. Zeiger says in the book, “The self is a vessel that when turned upside down will empty itself of meaning. It will grasp, cling to itself, turn in on itself, witness itself, go insane in that way.”
I have long found that the Stasi is a better analogue to some of the extremes of the Left in the twenty-first century than are the Nazis, who get used all the time. The Nazis hated modern art and artists, whereas the Stasi used them to their advantage. Your book is a foreshadowing of the canceling and struggle sessions the Left has inflicted on Americans since the Cold War. Do you agree? What do you think?
JH: My book is not meant to be a foreshadowing of any particular ideology’s tendencies. Rather, it serves as a petri dish to examine how an individual’s psychology functions in—and justifies—such repressive environments. The quote you picked out is fitting to describe the paranoia, insecurity, and fear that are both [the] result and cause of these systems; the elements that turn us all into cocreators and victims of a failing society.
The Stasi was the largest and most efficient intelligence agency in modern history. It’s difficult to compare that all-encompassing apparatus with anything we are witnessing in our society today. That said, naturally, there are currents—left, right, and center—that are reminiscent of common techniques to homogenize the masses. Again, whoever controls the truth controls the system. Nothing new there.
One ironic difference—and there are many—between life in the GDR and today is that the East German population understood the party line. Everybody knew what they could do and say, to whom and to what extent. Today, regardless of the political camp, these rules are less clear. They’re cloaked in feel-good rhetoric about freedom, righteousness, and democracy, while there’s no consensus on whether they even exist. That’s new. It’s a complex time of transition, and the internet’s incredible reach seems to have created a whole new deformity of totalitarian potential.
And quickly, I don’t believe the Nazis hated modern art or artists. They hated modern art and artists they did not agree with. As did the SED [the ruling party of the GDR], as did Stalin, as did any regime with totalitarian leanings. Controlling art, much like controlling the media, is just one tool in the vast toolbox used to perpetuate a system. Fact is, any ideology—be it left or right, religious or secular—will eventually develop totalitarian instincts to remain in power. To believe that these are instruments only some “evil” opposition employs is a surefire way to catch the affliction.
MJ: I was fascinated that so much emphasis in the novel is put on the idea that Bernd is almost transformed when he is simply touched on the shoulder by Lara, a waitress he is in love with. In a paranoid and repressive society, such a small act of tenderness has a huge echo. Of course, like so many in the book, she is not exactly what she seems. In totalitarian societies there is always a suspicion of human intimacy and even human sexuality. In your book Bernd considers the “Standardization” as his offspring, his “legacy” in the stead of children. Can you comment on that—on a totalitarian society co-opting the future, leaving people starved for genuine connection and intimacy, which can be complex and difficult but also amazing and beyond the reach of the state?
JH: Yes, poor Zeiger. He confuses conformity with intimacy, just like most of us do in repressive environments—whether it’s a relationship, a community, or a state. True connection and intimacy, however, only grow through healthy differentiation, which, of course, is what the totalitarian mindset is most allergic to. So yes, Zeiger identified himself with his contribution to a cause for which he was nothing but a tool. As you mention, however, there are a few things that are beyond a state’s reach, chief of which are our intimate thoughts and feelings, including whom we love. That, amongst other things, is Lara.
As to sex, I can’t think of a system that succeeded in controlling that act in its totality. Not even the church could fully put a lid on it. Most people I’ve spoken to who grew up in repressive environments—from the GDR to Ceaușescu’s Romania—told me that it was a bit of a sexual free-for-all. Maybe even more so than in more liberal countries at the time. Perhaps sex truly is the last vestige of freedom. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. (Or an alleyway, you know?)
MJ: You live in Berlin. Germany has been in the news for its jailing of citizens who insult people or take part in “hate speech” online. What is your take on that?
JH: Yes, Germany, due to its history, has some of the strictest hate-speech laws in the world. It’s a bit more complex than it looks, as there are legal subtleties between hate-speech, defamation, insult, and antidiscrimination laws. Either way, some celebrate these laws as a form of societal enlightenment; others fear them as the first [t]witches of a repressive, totalitarian state. Some champion these laws when they are applied to their ideological opponents but call them repressive once they’re on the receiving end. As with any law, whoever is in charge can bend it until it breaks. A good litmus test of hypocrisy seems to be whether we’d like those we disagree with to enjoy the same freedom to utilize these laws and to the same extent as we do.
I’m less concerned with the speech pendulum swinging to some extreme in recent years, and more worried about the lack of tolerance for fruitful discourse, course correction, and disagreement. Discourse seems to be a society’s inoculation against extremism. Given Germany’s current political landscape, it looks like all these concepts are being put to the test.
MJ: The Standardization of Demoralization Procedures was described by Kirkus as “a remarkable first novel that reads like the work of a seasoned pro.” Other reviews were equally strong. I hope you have another book in you. Are you working on something?
JH: There’s definitely another one coming; new petri dish, different specimens. Suffice it to say, all of the above will not be lost in it.
