Part III: POLITICS AND MEMORY Part IV: THE MEMORY LANDSCAPE OF EUROPE Three Goals for Today šDiscuss the final paper šDiscuss theory around the Politics of Memory šDiscuss the memory landscape in Europe RESEARCH PAPER šTopic on Thursday šFind a topic that applies some of the theoretical readings from the class to a particular case, preferably in Central and Eastern Europe šCreate a question , and then provide an argument that responds to that question. š Research Paper: Question Needs to be specific šQuestion: šWhat have been the prevailing narratives in Poland surrounding that country’s relations with Ukraine? How have the narratives changed since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022? šWhat are the current debates in Slovakia regarding Josef Piso and what is the significance of this debate? šHow has Putin’s rhetoric about Stalin’s rule changed over time? What is the signicance of this change? šWhat are different Czech narratives around the expulsion of Germans? š Choose a particular case, time, etc. šThis can be an example: a particular speech; it can be a particular museum; it can be a film, it can be a novel šIt can offer a broader view, but be clear how you are doing it: Who is important to the discussion, why did you choose them šIt can be more empirical: selection of articles from one or two newspapers, laws, etc. š Possible Methods: šMethods: šInterpretive Methods: How do you identify the narrative and its significance? šIn reading an account: Who are the actors? Who is the we? What are the limits to the we? Who is the other? What characteristics are given to the ”we” and the “others”? What is the relation between the we and the others? Who did what to whom? What is the reason given for why they did it? What value is given to the actions? šInterpreting significance: consider the speaker, consider the audience, consider the context: what is happening, what events are happening at the time, what actions has the speaker done, etc. šMore empirical: Content analysis---Look at selections of newspaper aticles, speeches, etc over time. Example: šPutin on the Munich Agreement (in response to Polish arguments that Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement helped start WWII): š“in case of the Munich betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals. š Outline šAbstract- 200 words šContains question šWhy it is important šHow you are going to approach the question šWhat is you conclusion šIntroduction: Quick background, question, importance, argument šBackground: Explain a little about the event and the case šDiscussion of which concepts from the literature you are using for analysis šThe analysis šConclusion š š š REVIEW š šNational Identity plays important role in how states define interests and strategies šNational Identity linked with memory and narratives šCollective memory associated with memory community šStates and nations construct a narrative, a selective and often inaccurate account of history to help illustrate the origins, character and boundaries of the “memory community” šThese narratives and the associated definitions of identity become embedded in the state institutions š š THE POLITICAL WORK OF MEMORY šHELPS TO FORM, REINFORCE POLITICAL COMMUNITY š šEXPLAINS AND LEGITIMATES POLITICAL STRUCTURES AND ACTIONS š šFREQUENTLY REMOVES, EXPLAINS OR JUSTIFIES NEGATIVE EVENTS š šFRAMEWORK TO INTERPRET CURRENT EVENTS, POLICIES š šDISCOURAGES DISSENT š šCREATES SCAPEGOATS Constructing the “Master Narrative” šMethods of Organizing and Elaborating Collective Memory š• Emplot events in an affectively charged and mobilizing narrative; š Collective victories, collective trauma š• Create sites and monuments that present palpable relics; šCreate school curricula that introduce children to the narrative š• Create visual and verbal signs as aids of memory; š• Create and repeat commemoration rites that periodically reactivate the memory and enhance collective participation. š POLITICS OF MEMORY šDifferent narratives exist in any society šThose who can get other people to believe in a particular narrative have an advantage šTherefore, memory is contested šMalinova: “Politics of memory comprises public activity of various social institutions and actors aimed at the promotion of specific interpretations of a collective past and establishment of an appropriate sociocultural infrastructure of remembrance, school curricula, and, sometimes, special legislation. š AN EXAMPLE: WORLD WAR I šWars not only fought on the battlefield šIn Germany many different interpretations of the reasons for the war and Germany’s loss šThe war was a result of centralized, unchecked power by governments backed rich industrialists and financiers fighting for increased access to markets. šThe war was an attempt to protect the nation from attack. Germany lost because of betrayal of Marxists and Jews who “stabbed the country” in the back. š š How does politics of memory work? šThe role of the memory agents who help construct the narrative šThe resources and access they have to disseminate the narrative šThe credibility of the memory agents šThe way this resonates among the people šHow does it fit with existing narratives šHow does it help explain their circumstances šHow does it appeal to emotions š š š The Framework of Bernhard and Kubik Official Memory “entwined with power.” Actor-Centered Approach An “instrumentalist “ approach Constrained by Culture: “the weight of the past” Or, in other words, institutionalized notions An Actor-Centered Approach šMnemonic Warriors šMnemonic Pluralists šMnemonic Abnegators šMnemonic Prospectives Mnemonic Regimes šThe Definition of a “Memory Regime” šThe concept of "memory regime" in this study refers to a set of cultural and institutional practices that are designed to publicly commemorate and/or remembera single event, a relatively clearly delineated and interrelated set of events, ora distinguishable past process. We are particularly interested in official memory regimes, that is, memory regimes whose formulation and propagation involve the intensive participation of state institutions and/or political society (the authoritie sand major political actors such as parties, who are organized to hold and contest state power)…. The whole set of official regimes existing in a given country in a givenperiod can be called the official field of (collective or historical) memory. š šTYPES OF MEMORY REGIMES šFRACTURED š UNIFIED š PILLARIZED š Examples: POLISH MEMORY REGIMES ON MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT? POLISH MEMORY REGIMES ON POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HOLOCAUST? UKRAINIAN MEMORY REGIME ON HOLODOMOR? CZECH MEMORY REGIME ON EXPULSION OF GERMANS? SLOVAKIAN MEMORY REGIME ON JOSEF TISO? Questions? šDoes instrumentalism work as an assumption? šWhat role does culture, history play? šHow do memory regimes change? Berthold Molden: š“hegemony is the ability of a dominant group or class to impose their interpretations of reality—or the interpretations that support their interests—as the only thinkable way to view the world. The dominated groups come to accept the interests of the dominant ones asthe natural state of the world. Hegemony thus establishes one particular narrative as a quasi-natural universality and delegitimizes alternative forms of reasoning. It is the successful creation of this powerful common sense of reality that includes most people in a social group while sapping those who think—or remember—outside the box. š Memory as a Layering of Contingent Sediments š š What does it mean? š “These sedimentations constitute the discursive strata where the contingent origins of memory and historical narration are hidden.” š The political is “constituted through the rediscovery of these sediments in the “moment of antagonism where the undecidable nature of the alternatives and their resolution through power relations becomes fully visible” (p. 34–35). š EXAMPLE? Memory Culture š“any sign, word, or memory can be multivocal and can be put to use differently by different speakers, according to their experience, context,and needs”. š“A memory culture is defined by the frames of historical reference common to certain communities of experience and/or tradition who share a critical mass of content, patterns of interpretation, and rituals of collective memory.” š š š šRuling groups achieve this only by blocking out the fact that historical events might always have turned out different or by claiming that any different outcome would be a worse-case scenario. They stabilize power by the successful establishment of a supposedly teleological and linear historical narration. This constitutes a characteristic of collective remembrance:“Collective memory can be described as a layered field of sedimentations which’s contingent origin in the dispute of competing definitions of the past has been forgotten, after a certain version of the past had imposed itself and become hegemonic” (Marchart, 2005: 25). š The material dimension of memory š“dialectic of experience and discourse,” š šThere is always a connection between historical experience, the structural context of power relations, and the history politics of a time. It corresponds to the relationship between history as the event or process that is experienced, memory cultures as the given structure, and the concrete agency of those who want to maintain or change this cultural framework as well as those who just live in it passively. š šThe diversity of experience leads to diversity of memory š Memory Culture as a Field of Agency š šMemory as a narrative social construction involves studying the narrator and the institutions that grant or deny power to the voice of the narrator and authorize him or her to speak, since as Pierre Bourdieu notes, the effectiveness of performative speech is proportional to the authority of the speaker. (Jelin,2003: 23) šThe politics of history and official discourses of memory produced by the elite’s ideological apparatus can be—but do not always have to be—cutoff from real experience. Counter-memory on the other hand—while possibly also constructed asan idealist myth—is more likely to have to rely on a material basis of experience, given its lack of strong media support and other amplifying and reifying tools. šCivil Society provides an arena to act š The Three Narratives šThe Western Narrative: The Good War šNazism as key evil šHolocaust as prime signifier as evil šLesson. “Never Again”. Human Rights šSoviet/Russian Narrative šFascism as key evilSoviet forces carry brunt šHolocaust part of Fascism evil šPost-Communist šTwo occupations šHolocaust external š š š Building a “Common European” Identity šThe project for deepening integration šThe Single European Market and Maastricht in 1992 šRedefining Europe’s democratic mission after the end of the Cold War šTwo World Wars and the Holocaust as a Negative Foundational Narrative šQuote from the “House of European History” website šThe generation of people who experienced the tragedies of the 20th century and went on to build the European Communities is disappearing. https://historia-europa.ep.eu/sites/default/files/assets/qa_en_2017.pdf š š š https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/ Europe/The-House-of-European-History-178791 National narratives Remained pre-eminent STILL… How does the Holocaust become the “founding myth of the EU”? šTHE STOCKHOLM DECLARATION: 2000 šWhat do we mean by “founding myth”? šWhy does European Union need a founding myth? šHow does the end of the Cold War affect European search for founding myth? šWhy does Holocaust become an “entry ticket” into the EU? šYugoslavia? šDecontextualization? Deterritorialization? š The Eastern Europe after the Cold War šNeed to redefine national identity šReject Communism and Soviet Domination šSeen as aberration šThe desire to ”Return to Europe”: NATO, EU šSome resentment against EU demands on political, cultural issues šFear of losing sovereignty again š Tensions between narratives West and Central Europe šThere are problems with the Western narrative šFor many, WWI memory not about pointless slaughter, but about liberation šWorld War II was not seen as a “good war” against Nazism, but dual occupation šAuthoritarian leaders of interwar regimes embraced by nationalists š Challenges To Post-Communist Narratives (Subotić) šEastern European quest for national identity source of insecurity šFinding a usable past: Masaryk, Tiso, Ustase šPreferred narratives: victory over evil, resister of evil, victim of evil šHolocaust Challenges šMurders occur on Eastern European territory šThe diminution of national victimhood šThe question of collaboration, economic benefits šResentments šWestern European countries not forthcoming about own complicity šWestern European accepted division of Europe after war š š What are the implications? šBy seeing communism as an aberration, go to earlier history šUsually not much better šEmpowers the right wing šHungary and Orban šThe Croatian History š Maria Malksoo šEmphasis on Holocaust—Search for unattainable universality šEastern European perspective as subaltern, “reclaiming history” šDisruption of European Memory project šConstruction of new transnational vision of communism šMemory Institutes šCelebrating “Heterocentrism”