The word ‘Heimat’ has been attested in its present form since the 15th century. Its precursors are Old High German ‘heimuoti’ or ‘heimōti’ and Middle High German ‘heimout(e)’. The Indo-European root ‘kei’ , meaning ‘to lie’ or ‘a place where one settles’, is considered to be the etymologically reconstructible source.

The term ‘Heimat’ is currently becoming increasingly prevalent, encompassing almost all areas of life. Previously used primarily in legal contexts, then increasingly in political and national discourses, the term ‘Heimat’ is now being adopted by the entertainment media, tourism and advertising, as well as in areas such as food, home furnishings and leisure. Increasingly, ‘Heimat’ is becoming a stimulus, a promise and a means of explanation in the realms of lifestyle, consumption, social policy and society at large. This is remarkable given decades of restraint, indeed at times complete abstinence, in response to its instrumentalisation during the so-called‘Third Reich’and the subsequent socio-political frameworks established by socialist policies. And so, even amidst the seemingly light-hearted use of the concept of ‘Heimat’ today, harsher interpretations are beginning to emerge. Its use as an overused lifestyle attitude is countered, on the one hand, by ways of speaking about ‘home’ that seek recognition and, on the other, by those that seek exclusion – and even by physically exclusionary positions held by far-right circles.

The word ‘Heimat’, in its classical German sense, has no direct equivalent in other languages. For this reason, the German term is used in American English, for example, as an adequate designation (German ‘Heimat’). The English terms ‘homeland’ or ‘native land’, the French ‘lieu d’origine’ or ‘pays natal’ , the Czech ‘domov’ , the Polish ‘mała ojczyzna’, the Russian ‘rodina’, the Romanian ‘ţara natală’ and the Hungarian ‘szülöföld’ are very similar in meaning, though they do not cover the entire spectrum of the term’s significance.

In popular discourse, ‘home’ – beyond the wide range of meanings it holds today – is essentially understood as a concept primarily associated with place, one that ensures a sense of identity, familiarity and distinctiveness. On closer inspection, one’s personal sense of home develops dynamically from subjective experiences shaped by direct social relationships and emotions associated with a particular place. In contrast, the socially mediated concept of ‘home’ (as conveyed through politics, advertising, tourism, etc.) is a predominantly regionally defined construct, characterised primarily by aesthetic and experiential aspects, and with a programme that varies greatly depending on historical context or specific objectives. An actor-centred and action-oriented approach, developed within the intellectual milieu and discourse of late modernity, in turn understands ‘home’ as a dynamic product of active shaping (‘making a home’).

Until the second half of the 19th century, ‘Heimat’ was a legal term with a geographical connotation, i.e., it was linked to personal ownership of a house and farmstead and denoted, amongst other things, a right of residence or to remain, particularly in cases of age-related need and social hardship. In the wake of the French Revolution, industrialisation and the associated major social upheavals, a fundamental shift in meaning took place, giving rise in the 19th and early 20th centuries to a territorial understanding of ‘Heimat’ that was shaped by regional and community-building factors. This was accompanied by a pattern of thought that was now characterised more by the three factors of idealisation, emotionalisation and aestheticisation. Thus, in the bourgeois understanding of the time, the concept of ‘homeland’ became an idealised counter-image to a society transformed by industrialisation, with its economic, social and political tensions. This emotionalisation manifests itself in a strong emotional response – which, incidentally, continues to have an impact to this day – that revels in images of harmony and intimacy and sees itself as a system of values. Aestheticisation, meanwhile, describes the artistic and creative expression of ‘Heimat’, as is evident, for example, in the wide range of ‘Heimat’ literature as well as throughout the countryin efforts to preserve townscapes and landscapes with a retrospective focus, and to uphold customs and folk culture, where one seeks striking representations of intact harmony rooted in tradition.

The ‘bourgeois’ understanding of ‘Heimat’, initially developed in contrast to notions of ‘fatherland’ and ‘nation’ , became entangled in nationalist and National Socialist contexts between the 1910s and the 1930s. It was only from the 1960s onwards, in contrast to this socio-political context, that a largely denationalised and depoliticised – and today increasingly de-regionalised – conception was able to establish itself, which has since framed ‘homeland’ as a rural, nature-oriented, psychologically fulfilling sphere.

Alongside these patterns of attitude developed in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have accompanied the concept to the present day, a perspective has emerged – initially in intellectual circles from the 1960s onwards and now in discourses on late modernity – which understands ‘Heimat’ as a dynamic product of active shaping (‘Beheimatung’) and is tailored to concrete personal life experiences and circumstances, with their identity-forming emotions and social bonds.

The political and social changes of the 20th century, as well as those of the present day, have had and continue to have a significant impact in Eastern, Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (as well as elsewhere) on identity management and, consequently, on the processes of establishing a sense of belonging amongst the affected population groups. The ways in which displaced persons and (late) repatriates from these regions, as well as members of the nations currently residing there, orient themselves and cope with their circumstances reveal the wide range of settlement processes, ranging from assigned ‘homelands’ or forced reactions on the one hand, and processes sought out of one’s own initiative on the other. In each case, ‘home’ functions as an offer of identification. Yet at the same time, the search for ‘home’—particularly in the face of diverse social dynamics, including those that are subjectively painful—constitutes a strategy of self-assertion.

The strategies employed by German-speaking settlers who arrived in Eastern Europe over the course of many centuries to turn a foreign land into their ‘home’ were varied and depended on the respective social and political circumstances. The decisive factors here were, above all, the degree of economic independence as well as religious, linguistic and cultural self-determination. These factors, in interaction with the self-perception of individuals and groups, determined the respective extent of acculturation and integration on the one hand, and segregation and isolation on the other. They also influenced the preservation and cultivation of ‘homeland’ cultural elements.

In the 20th century, the Nazi occupation and population policies led to population displacements unprecedented in Europe’s history. Resettlement, deportation, flight and expulsion during and as a result of the Second World War led to the forced loss of one’s homeland, described by those affected as ‘‘dispossession of one’s homeland’ and uprooting from a sense of belonging—in some cases established over generations—to a familiar living environment and a social network that was often multinational or multi-ethnic.

Particularly for refugees and displaced persons in West Germany, a retrospective, idealised conception of ‘home’ became a powerful canvas onto which to project their longing for the restoration of a fulfilling life context characterised by recognition and a sense of belonging, especially as the host society made only hesitant and rudimentary efforts – primarily of an administrative and economic-material nature – to facilitate their integration. Against this backdrop, within the context of displaced persons, an extensive body of literature on ‘home’ and hundreds of ‘Heimatstuben’ (homeland rooms) emerged, driven by private initiatives as well as through association or sponsorship projects. In this spirit, a diverse range of traditions associated with regional associations (including traditional dress, song and music, and the dialects of the regions of origin) was also upheld. In contrast, trips back to the homeland, through personal confrontation with the current conditions in the places of origin, often led to a (gradual) acceptance of the status quo and to binational friendships involving regular visits that continue to this day.

Since the 1990s, there has also been – with or without a family history of displacement – the phenomenon of remigration, or migration back to the ancestral homelands in the former territories of Eastern Europe.

This process of finding a home in landscapes historically shaped by the events of flight, displacement and state-organised resettlement – is currently being undertaken primarily by members of the nations now situated there, for instance by engaging with the (also) German past and the shared cultural heritage of these regions through private and community initiatives. Rather than external ethnic, national or purely geographical and topographical references, the focus is on subjectively perceived opportunities to fulfil psychological and social needs in the chosen locations, with a sense of belonging developing individually based on the respective circumstances.

In the context of the immigration of (late) repatriates, too, ‘homeland’ became a key argument, as this was interpreted as a return to the ‘original homeland’.

• Hermann Bausinger: Towards a new, active understanding of ‘home’. The history of the concept as a history of problems. In: Der Bürger im Staat 33 (1983), No. 4, pp. 211–218.
• Beate Binder: ‘Homeland’ as a Concept for Analysing the Present? Feelings of Belonging and Social Imaginaries in the Debate on Immigration. In: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 104 (2008), pp. 1–17.
• Ina-Maria Greverus: In Search of ‘Heimat’. Munich 1979.
• Olaf Kühne, Annette Spellerberg: ‘Heimat’ in Times of Increased Demands for Flexibility. Empirical Studies in the Saarland. Wiesbaden 2010.
• Manfred Seifert: ‘Home and Late Modernity. On the Quest for Security in the Face of Mobility, Migration and Globalisation’. In: Rheinisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 39 (2011/2012), pp. 199–221.
• Dorothee Wierling (ed.): Finding a Home: Life Stories of Germans from Russia. Hamburg 2004.

Manfred Seifert: Heimat. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2016. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p42287 (accessed 18 January 2021).