Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Startseite

In recent decades, the relationship between truth-producers and guarantors of good democratic practice has weakened. Political stakeholders' epistemic dependence on scientific knowledge is frequently circumvented by questioning expert knowledge or preventing scientists from participating in traditional forums. These dynamics have renewed attention to the principles safeguarding independent knowledge production, chief among them the concept of academic freedom. This concept has long been debated in political and academic circles, including in Germany and many other liberal democracies in Europe (Wilholt 2012; Altbach 2001). Although Wissenschaftsfreiheit is enshrined in the Basic Law, it has slowly become subject to numerous adjustments depending on the actors, places, or disciplines involved, making it a divisive political issue. To what extent do conceptual debates surrounding Wissenschaftsfreiheit highlight a radicalisation in the use of scientific knowledge?

Drawing on the conceptual history, and more specifically the history of political concepts (Palonen 2014), I approach Wissenschaftsfreiheit as an 'essentially contested concept' (Gallie 1956). Based on an analysis of 182 parliamentary debates containing the term ‘Wissenschaftsfreiheit’ in plenary sessions of the Bundestag (1969–2025), this contribution explores the socio-discursive imaginaries that underpin the evaluation and interpretation of Wissenschaftsfreiheit by German parliamentarians. The aim is to reveal how the issue is subject to political polarisation within the Bundestag, with MPs from all parties fighting for interpretative sovereignty. However, the constant definitional variations in parliamentarians' use of the term have not only been driven by argumentative needs. They also shed light on the growing monopolisation of debates surrounding the concept by radical conservatives.