Biedermeier 2.0

Another two weeks have passed, and it's time for my blog. I actually have so much to say and report, but I am a bit tired of all the mess out there. And if I look around me, I have to say: I feel a little like I am living in the Biedermeier period. Ever heard of it?

The Biedermeier era refers roughly to the period between the Wiener Kongress (Congress of Vienna - yes, exactly, the one that was “danced” on! A little historian's joke.😊) (1814/15) and the Revolutions of 1848. While the term Biedermeier is often associated with furniture, interior design, and middle-class culture, the political backdrop of this time is crucial for understanding the mood of the era—characterized by repression, censorship, and a general withdrawal from public life.

After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) (the one with the hat and his hand on his aching stomach; the same guy, who placed the imperial crown on his own head in 1804), European powers gathered at the Congress of Vienna to redraw the map of Europe and restore the old political order. Their main goal was to re-establish absolute monarchies and suppress the liberal and nationalist ideas that had spread during the French Revolution (1789) and the Napoleonic Wars. Basically, all civil rights were to be revoked; everything that people had fought and died for was to be lost. Time was to be turned back.

Vienna

Leading this effort was Klemens von Metternich of Austria - today, it is primarily known in Germany as a sparkling wine brand: Fürst von Metternich - who played a dominant role in shaping post-Napoleonic Europe. This period is often referred to as the Restauration, as it sought to "restore" Europe to how it had been before 1789.

As part of this new order, the Deutsche Bund (German Confederation) was created in 1815. It was a loose alliance of 39 (more or less, there are various numbers circulating) independent German-speaking states, including powerful kingdoms like Prussia and Austria, as well as smaller duchies and city-states.

However, this confederation was not a unified nation-state like modern Germany. Instead, it was a conservative alliance designed to preserve the authority of monarchs and prevent democratic or nationalist uprisings. Austria held the leading position and used its influence to maintain control over internal affairs in the German states.

As liberal and nationalist ideas continued to spread—especially among students and intellectuals—the authorities reacted with strict censorship and surveillance.

A turning point came in 1819, after a student activist assassinated a conservative writer – August von Kotzebue, was the name that should not be forgotten! In response, the Karlsbader Beschlüsse (Karlsbad Decrees) were introduced. These were a set of laws that:

• imposed strict censorship of the press,

• placed universities under tight control,

• allowed for the suppression of political opposition.

These measures made it nearly impossible for liberal, democratic, or nationalist voices to be heard in public. Many professors, journalists, and writers lost their positions or were silenced. Freedom of speech and political participation were severely restricted.

Much of the middle class retreated into the private sphere. This attitude is one of the defining features of the Biedermeier era: people focused on family life, domestic comfort, art, and personal morality instead of public affairs or social change. And that's exactly what I'm observing at the moment.

Back then this apolitical stance was not just a lifestyle choice—it was often a survival strategy in a climate where political activism could lead to imprisonment or worse and a societal environment which was extremely exhausting. As a result, Biedermeier culture came to symbolize order, modesty, and emotional restraint, reflecting a society under constant pressure. Many people turned inward, focusing on personal and family life, and avoiding political engagement.

And it seems something like this can be seen today:  Even on weekends, many bars and restaurants in cities often remain empty. Many people prefer to spend their time at home—myself included. Global crises have contributed and continue to contribute to social life taking place more in private. The inflation caused by the war in Ukraine, rising rents, and economic downturn are not exactly helping to brighten the general mood. How are people supposed to afford the expensive admission fees and the cost of food and drinks?

In addition, there are digital alternatives, not only for seeing each other, but also for entertainment. Life is shifting not only to the private sphere, as in the Biedermeier period, but also to the digital sphere.

Laura Stoiber, a psychologist from Vienna, writes about the resurgence of what she calls conservatism:

“Crises cause stress. [...] Studies show that in uncertain times, people seek stability and security more strongly—often in their private lives. [...] Retreating into one's private life serves as a coping mechanism, as it is called in psychology. It is therefore a coping strategy (https://www.news.at/gesundheit/generation-biedermeier).”

I agree with her observation, but I wouldn't call it conservatism, just adaptability.

In this respect, it is beneficial to take a step back every now and then, simply because we are all a little tired and the bad news seems to be never-ending. But perhaps we also need to change our perspective on the world in order to see less negativity. And that is why I am ending today with some news about two good people.

Two new articles of mine are online – one about Marie Curie, the Polish scientist, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes in two different disciplines and also the first woman ever to receive a Nobel Prize. And the other article is about Thomas Edison – the self-taught man who changed our world so much: electricity, film and sound technology, light bulbs – all unthinkable without Edison.

Both of them had to adapt – Marie studied at a so-called flying university, privately, because as a woman she had no other choice at the time. And Thomas' parents couldn't afford school for him – according to the majority opinion – so he also had to study privately. I wouldn't describe either of them as conservative, quite the contrary! – but rather as adaptable. After all, this is one of the greatest strengths we have as human beings.

And when I look at the Biedermeier period, which seems like the calm before the storm, and Marie and Thomas's great successes... we should focus much more on this strength, no? Who knows what we are gathering our strength for with our adaptability in Biedermeier 2.0?