FIGS Friday Forum 30th November 2012 Gaëlle Fisher Historical Memory as a Source of Shame and Guilt I want to look at historical memory as a source of emotion, in particular shame and guilt. For this I am using media dealing with from what has come to be known as the most prominent case of such a guilt discourse: the Holocaust. My examples relate to the case of Poland but I see them as part of a larger, global debate on the memory of the Holocaust. I focus on two relatively recent publications: Jan Tomasz Gross’ Neighbours first published in Polish in 2000 and Aharon Appelfeld’s Elternland (literally: Parentland) first published in Hebrew in 2005. Elternland is a novel in which historical memory is central to the fictional circumstances because the action takes place in the nowadays. With Neighbours on the other hand, a historical study written by a historian, historical memory, is significant with regard to its reception. Memory matters insofar as Neighbours sets out to describe ‘what really happened’. These two sources, therefore, belong to two different genres and offer two different perspectives on historical memory. Moreover, quite obviously fiction and non-­‐fiction emplot, convey and produce emotions differently. However both of these deal with the issue of guilt and I would argue raise similar questions with regard to the relationship between historical memory and emotions. From a Cultural Memory Studies perspective therefore, it makes sense to consider them together and not keep reception strictly distinct from the content.1 I thus begin by considering the discourse on historical guilt in and surrounding both of these works, then go on to explain why I believe the emotion in question is actually shame and conclude on some remarks concerning emotions in the media of cultural memory in general. Historical Guilt Gross’s Neighbours with the subtitle the destruction of the Jewish community in Jedwabne, Poland addresses historical guilt in the most direct manner. Neighbours is a concise and vivid account of the pogrom that took place in the village of Jedwabne in Eastern Poland during the Second World War. It depicts how on the 10th July 1941, following the withdrawal of the Soviets and the occupation of the region by the Germans, the entire Jewish population of the village, some 1600 people were locked in a barn and burnt alive. For a long time, the Germans were thought to have instigated and initiated this episode of extreme violence. However based on his research into the court cases of the late 1940s and early 50s and the evaluation of the testimony of the single survivor as well as that of others witnesses, Gross argues that just a handful of Germans had been present and that the Jews were in essence brutally murdered by ethnic Poles, their Christian neighbours. Though this is of course important as it summarises the contents of the book, what was particularly noteworthy about Gross’ work was its impact, by which I specifically mean its reception in Poland and elsewhere. The publication unleashed a flood of criticism and a wave of soul-­‐searching. The criticism concerned not only Gross’ historical method – the directness of the language, the unacknowledged limitations of the source and the lack of contextualisation – but also the book’s supposedly defamatory character. Until then, Poles had largely regarded 1
See Prof Astrid Erll, Memory in Culture (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); Astrid Erll (ed.), Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, 1st ed. (Walter de Gruyter, 2008). 1 FIGS Friday Forum 30th November 2012 Gaëlle Fisher themselves as either victims or heroes: their country had been the first to be invaded by Hitler, Soviets and Nazis had depleted the clergy, the intelligentsia, the middle classes, and Polish partisans and the Polish government in exile had displayed an exemplary feat of resistance. This book however suggested Poles had been perpetrators. As has been noted, therefore, the Polish response to the book was extremely emotional. Discussions of guilt, which had long been avoided under the communist regime, that subsumed the case of the Jews to a larger community of victims of fascism, suddenly came to the fore. The issue of ‘collective guilt’ linked to the memory of the Holocaust made its appearance in Poland spurring apologies at the highest level as well as protest and denial.2 In some sense, Applefeld’s novel Elternland illustrates this process in reverse. The novel’s main protagonist is Jakob Fein, a middle-­‐aged, second-­‐generation Israeli, born after the war, the son of two Holocaust survivors. The story is that of Jakob’s decision to travel, a few years after his parents’ death, to the country and the village of their origins, Schidowze. This Parentland is a fictional Poland after 1989. Most of the people Jakob knows and meets along the way are sceptical about his plans. It is well known that all of the Jewish inhabitants of the village died in the Holocaust and that nothing remains. Yet Jakob sets off nonetheless and reaches his destination. There, he is confronted not with a vacuum but with an extremely rich memorial landscape which includes the language, the food, the people and even some physical traces such as the house of his grandparents or the stone from his grandfather’s grave. Jakob’s parents had rarely spoken about their life before the Holocaust and he, as a young man, had paid scant attention. But these were none the less familiar elements to him. His journey thus fills an emotional void with rich images enhanced by sensual experiences as he gets to know and lives intimately for the time of his stay with the Polish woman Magda who had worked for his grandparents when she was little and who embodies his family’s memory. However, and although Jakob undertakes his journey without resentment, the theme of guilt underlies all of his experiences and interactions in Poland. His encounters provide insight into contemporary perceptions of the Jews in Poland and how their memory is being handled. The fact that the tombstones from the Jewish cemetery in the village have for instance been used to tile the area around the town hall is indicative of the prevailing mentality. The locals develop suspicion with regard to Jakob’s intentions: as the last remaining representative of the Jewish community of the village, they assume he has come to seek compensation, restitution or revenge. The question of guilt is then further complicated by recurrent allusions to the power, wealth and even warmongering of the state of Israel and his eventual rejection and anti-­‐Semitic abuse by local farmers. Moral Guilt, Shame and Responsibility 2
For insights into the academic discussion triggered by Gross’ publication see Bogdan Musial, “Thesen zum Pogrom in Jedwabne, Kritische Anmerkungen zu der Darstellung “Nachbarn” von Jan Tomasz Gross”, in Jahrbuecher fuer Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, Band 50. H. 3. (2002), 381-­‐411. Concerning the public discussion see Robert S. Wistrich, “A Mass Murder: Neighbors…” in Commentary, Oct. 2001; 112, 3. 2 FIGS Friday Forum 30th November 2012 Gaëlle Fisher The debate surrounding the publication of Gross’ Neighbours concentrated on the issue of guilt. In a number of responses3, Polish historians tried to counter Gross’ claims by showing, for instance, how brutalisation at the hands of the Soviets and the Germans caused insecurity, a power vacuum and a generalised escalation of violence. This was supposed exculpate the Polish murderers. However from the perspective of memory discourse, I would argue the emotional reactions had more to with contemporary shame than past guilt. Guilt relates to what one has done. But fifty years after the events, it is hardly a matter of finding the culprits. Writing about the German case in 1946, the German philosopher Karl Jaspers identified this kind of guilt without culpability as ‘moral guilt’.4 However as historian Dan Diner argues, moral guilt cannot be rationally grounded because it is guilt without responsibility. Diner writes that moral guilt, I quote, “seems to correspond in its effects to the historical and cultural-­‐anthropological category of remembrance.”5 End quote. It has to do with transmission and tradition – a past one is associated with. In this sense, it has more to do with shame, which is about who one is or who one is perceived to be. By definition, shame requires an audience: it is linked to the loss or the fear of losing face or status. It has indeed been argued that the vehement reaction to Gross’s book related to the uncovering of a shameful past which was perceived to have negative consequences for Poland, and may undermine its international position.6 Similarly, the villagers’ reaction towards Jakob can be best explained by the shame that they experienced in his presence, which reminded them of their forefathers’ guilt. This is at least what the following exchange between the maid Magda and Jakob suggests: “Fifty years have passed already but the fire is still alight” said Magda later and immediately added, “it is true, the people plundered and shared the properties among themselves, and there were even some who were happy about the death of the Jews, but deep down they know that God does not forgive looting and killing easily.” -­‐ “Do the people feel guilty?” asked Jakob with astonishment. -­‐ “No”, Magda answered straightway. -­‐ “What then is cursed here, whatever that means?” -­‐ “Everything. And the people know why as well.”7 Neither does Jakob expect the contemporary villagers to feel guilt (he is astonished) nor do they actually feel guilty according to Magda. Yet the fact that they still think of themselves and their country as cursed reflects their sense of responsibility for what happened. Responsibility is also 3
Antony Polonsky and Joanna B. Michlic, eds., The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland, New Ed (Princeton University Press, 2003). 4
Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, 2nd Revised edition (Fordham University Press, 2000). 5
Dan Diner and Joel Golb, “On Guilt Discourse and Other Narratives: Epistemological Observations regarding the Holocaust”, History and Memory, Vol. 9, No. 1/2, Passing into History: Nazism and the Holocaust beyond Memory — In Honor of Saul Friedlander on His Sixty-­‐Fifth Birthday (Fall 1997), 301-­‐320, here 303. 6
Joanna Michlic, “Coming to terms with the Dark Past: The Polish debate about the Jedwabne Massacre”, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2002. 7
Aharon Appelfeld, Elternland (Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 2008), 197. 3 FIGS Friday Forum 30th November 2012 Gaëlle Fisher what Gross tries to induce in his readers when sharing, as Janine Holc writes, “his own sense of moral outrage, his shock in the event and his emotional investment in its implications”.8 In an interview, Gross explained his intention when writing Neighbours as follows: “I see this kind of wide public discourse about ourselves as a potentially cathartic experience. [...] I didn’t want to publish Neighbours in the US first to avoid generating anti-­‐Polish feeling there. I was keen for the message of the book to get to the Poles before it went anywhere else. Because this is first and foremost a Polish issue, a matter of personal conscience.”9 Gross’ aim was that responsibility would trigger not shame but an active embracing of a common community.10 Yet I would argue that, if this responsibility is taken on reluctantly, it is experienced as shame and becomes defensive. This is what accounts for the protest and denial in response to Gross’ work. In Applefeld’s novel, defensive shame is illustrated by the episode concerning the tombstones. Jakob suggests they should be removed and returned to their owners in Israel but the mayor refuses to donate them; he hypocritically claims the tombstones are valued cultural heritage, and demands an unrealistic price. When Jakob explains he cannot afford them, the mayor deflects the blame onto Jakob by retorting: “There are people, money is their God. They cannot be changed. Even God cannot change them.” Withdrawal, anger and the externalisation of blame are typical shame reactions.11 Emotions and the Media of Cultural Memory By politicising and emotionalising discourse on the Holocaust, Gross’s work transformed the landscape of memory with regard to the Nazi genocide in Poland and beyond. Arguably, this has less to do with his findings than with the emotional responses provoked by their dissemination. This is something, which in Cultural Memory Studies is called the “literary afterlife” of a media12. It refers to a work’s impact as a vehicle of memory: not just as a vessel capturing memory discourse but a technology that produces it. Gross’s work has been described as an “undisciplined and un-­‐disciplinary scholarly product.”13 Indeed, considering the role of framing, style and selection for his argument, Neighbours may be considered less of a work of history than one of literature. Ultimately, the focus on memory and emotions blurs the line of distinction between history and literature. For this reason, and despite their differences in genre and perspective, Applefeld’s Elternland and Gross’s Neighbours can be considered part of the same phenomenon -­‐ the same network of memory. In the realm of memory, Elternland is in conversation, if not so much with Gross’s work itself, then with its reverberations. It is one of the emotional responses – a view from Israel. In fact, I 8
Janine Holc, “Working through Jan Gross’s Neigbors”, in Slavic Review, Vol. 61. No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), 453-­‐
459, 453. 9
Jan T Gross, “Remembrance”, in Index on Censorship 3., 2001, 85. 10
Janine Holc, 457. See also Norman M. Naimark, “The Nazis and “The East”: Jedwabne’s Circle of Hell”, in Slavic Review, Vol.61. No. £ (Autumn 2002), 476-­‐482. 11
See Fabrice Teroni, “Guilt, Shame and Morality” in Journal of Moral Philosophy, Nr. 8, 2011, 223-­‐245. 12
Erll, Astrid, “Traumatic pasts, literary afterlives, and transcultural memory: new directions of literary and media memory studies”, Journal of Aesthetics and Culture, Vol. 3, 2001. 13
Janine Holc, “Working through Jan Gross’s Neigbors”, 458. See also Carolyn J. Dean, “Minimalism and Victim Testimony”, in History and Theory, Theme issue 49, December 2010, 85-­‐99. 4 FIGS Friday Forum 30th November 2012 Gaëlle Fisher would argue that Elternland is a constructive response to Neighbours as afforded by its fictional nature. Indeed, it offers a corrective to some of Neighbours’ more problematic aspects. It does not, as Gross does, use guilt as a causal explanation or treat historical responsibility as an undifferentiated concept. It portrays the variety of human responses not just to the crimes of the Holocaust but also to the memory of the events. But in the end, Elternland and Neighbours share a premise: historical guilt may be a shameful burden but the lack of assumption of responsibility amounts to a new crime – a regeneration of the original guilt, which deserves to be denounced. From a cultural memory studies perspective, both works can be seen as contributing to the debate on guilt and shame in historical memory, even if history’s claim to factual accuracy means it will always be much more divisive. 5