Dr. Galia Glasner Heled, a social psychologist, teaches at the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. Her main research interests are memory and identity, with a focus on Israeli society, and on Holocaust memory. In this article, she addresses the sensitive topic of whether we relate to the Shoah as a uniquely Jewish experience or through the eyes of universal values.
The particularistic-universal debate and the Holocaust
Israeli sociologist Uri Ram (2007) maps the landscape of Israeli historiography, as roughly a “three-way controversy: nationalist, post-nationalist, and neo-nationalist” (p. 203). Ram addresses two mutually antagonistic alternatives: the universalistic post-Zionist ethos and the particularistic neo-Zionist ethos and their perceptions of Holocaust memory. According to Ram, the universalistic, post-Zionist ethos asserts that “the memory of the Holocaust has been nationalized in Israel and used for political purposes, while universal lessons have been ignored” (p. 211) while according to the neo-Zionist ethos, the inherent weakness of Israeli nationalism derives from its alienation from Jewish sources and culture” (Ram, 2007, p.214). Yaacov Yadgar (2002) also addresses the problem of the universal-particularistic dichotomy in Holocaust memory. He differentiates between the particularistic “Jewish narrative” and the universalistic “peace narrative”. The former is essentially, “a story of Jewish isolation in a hostile world. The image of ‘the world’ (that is, the non-Jewish nations of the world), its attitude towards ‘us’ (the Jews) and ‘our’ place in it all stand at the core of the interpretation of reality according to this narrative” (p.62). The Holocaust is the ultimate expression of the world’s hatred toward the Jews (p.65). “Therefore, ‘we’ should accept this harsh reality as fact, unite, gain internal strength, and be ready to protect our nation’s well being. As Jews, the narrative tells us, we are eternally bound to fight for our very existence” (p. 62). On the other hand, the universalistic ‘peace narrative’, with its humanistic values, views Jewish existence as a fact and “expresses a wish to transcend the narrow (according to its agenda) world-view imposed by the particularistic national perspective. The concern for the quality of national life (and not ‘mere’ survival) means presenting universalistic values as the individual and nation’s top priority: ‘we’ should be humane, open up to the world, transcend the limiting realm of our ethnic-national identity, and adopt a universal world-view” (p.63).
The universal-particular dispute is therefore an intrinsic part of the battle being fought in Israel over the memory of the Holocaust. And while the particularistic ethos prevails, it has attracted considerable criticism and been strongly censured over the past three decades. In turn, however, this criticism has also attracted its own censure.
The universalistic post-Zionist ethos
We now turn to examine the claims of the universalistic post-Zionist ethos, which draws on the arguments of three different thinkers. One of the more outspoken critics of particular Holocaust memory is philosopher Adi Ophir. He sees the universalization of the Holocaust as essential to Jewish consciousness and a necessary condition for Jewish moral existence (Ophir, 1987, p. 65). Why? Ophir identifies a strong tendency towards Holocaust mythification in Israeli Jewish society.
“Why is our Holocaust myth so dangerous?” he asks, “because it blurs the humanness of the Holocaust; because it erases degrees and continuums and puts in their place an infinite distance between one type of atrocity and all other types of human atrocities; because it encourages the memory as an excuse for one more nation-unifying ritual and not as a tool for historical understanding; because it makes it difficult to understand the Holocaust as a product of a human, material and ideological system; because it directs us almost exclusively to the past, to the immortalization of that which is beyond change, instead of pointing primarily to the future, to the prevention of a holocaust-like the one which was, or another, more horrible-which is more possible today than ever before but is still in the realm of that which is crooked and can still be made straight. Is it possible to break away from the myth in a responsible way, without wicked cynicism and without pleasure for its own sake at the bursting of a myth? It seems to me to be possible”. (p. 63).
With this same view, literary critique Yitzhak Laor relates to Jonathan Littell’s The Kindly Ones and the antagonism it evoked in Israel: “Could ‘crime and punishment’ be written from the perspective of the victim?” he asks, referring to the Israeli discourse’s exclusive preference to the victim’s viewpoint.
The most salient characteristic of Israeli Holocaust culture is the transformation of the victims from ‘them’ […], to ‘all of us’, and the automatic passage from ‘all of us’ to ‘me’. For this reason, the Holocaust is not studied as an object of knowledge but rather ‘experienced’ as an ‘experience of the self’ in idiotic voyages (to the death camps in Poland – G.G.H). The consequences of this culture are worse than may seem, and they are linked not only to indifference to the horrors that surround us, but also to the very heart of ‘Israeliness’. Israeliness used to be – for better or worse – ‘what I (don’t) do’. It has come, slowly, to be ‘what was done to me’ ” (Laor, 2008).
There is concern that Holocaust education is largely dominated by the particularistic narrative. Jackie Feldman (2001), who studied Israeli youth voyages to Poland, maintains they can best be understood not as study trips but as “a civil religion pilgrimage. The main aim of this pilgrimage is to establish the foundation or roots of the state of Israel in the Shoah. Israeli youth internalize this message by performing a ritual re-enactment of survival and aliyah, immigration to Israel” (p. 35).
“The voyage offers a constructive narrative in which the Shoah is presented primarily as the epitome of Jewish powerlessness and vulnerability. Israel serves as an answer, an antithesis” (p. 53) […] “The Perception of the incommensurability, the openness of the Shoah event, an atmosphere more conducive to the posing of moral and existential questions, is often lost. I question whether universal lessons – calling for individual moral reflection and assumption of personal responsibility for the welfare of others – can be effectively transmitted an environment [sic] that allows so little time and space for the individual” (p.55).
Inherent contradiction?
The universalistic post-Zionist account of Holocaust memory raises some burdensome concerns. The image of a detached mythic Holocaust memory unable to see the relevance of the Holocaust legacy to present political contexts, is disturbing. So is the claim that current educational efforts incline to closure and restrict moral and existential questioning.
But is this in fact the case? Is contemporary Israeli Holocaust memory exclusively national in character? And are particularistic and universalistic memories of the Holocaust incompatible? Do they necessarily clash?
Moshe Zuckermann’s answer is that they do. He argues that remembering the helplessness of the Holocaust’s victims and deriving a Zionist “conclusion” from it, as an ideological “lesson” of the state of Israel, betrays the victim and is at variance with the victims’ essence. Only the universal categorical imperative for preventing a recurrence of Auschwitz can purport to remember this unimaginable rupture in civilization. “Has the particularistic ‘lesson’ that Israel begged to draw from the horror not betrayed the universalistic meaning of its scope and essence?” (Zuckermann, 2001, p. 80). Hence, according to Zuckermann, there is an inherent contradiction between the universal and the particular memory of the Holocaust. The particular or national version precludes the universal and proper version of Holocaust memory.
But can we accept the argument that the universal and the particular memories of the Holocaust are mutually exclusive? This article proposes that they are not and the following section seeks to suggest an alternative view.
“Zuckermann” writes Elhanan Yakira (2007), “is unwilling to accept that there is a uniquely Jewish point of view (particularistic, it will be recalled) which Jews are more destined to adopt, than able to choose freely, regarding the Holocaust. They cannot ignore it, but in a violent way, which often, as in Zuckermann’s case, is channeled by Jews against other Jews (p.111).
Daniel Gutwein (2009) cites Gershom Sholem in response to Zuckermann’s argument. “Gershom Shalom (sic) claimed that the national and humanistic aspects of Holocaust memory are not necessarily contradictory but may complement one another. […] In light of Shalom’s (sic) analysis, Zuckerman’s argument that Holocaust memory can be either amoral or universal looks like a presentation of false alternatives”. (p.45). Gutwein elaborates: “Zuckermann’s universalization of [Holocaust’s] lessons, perceives that nationalized Holocaust memory can only be oppressive. Accordingly, [he denies] it any positive role in constructing a non-oppressive humanistic Israeli collective identity based on universal ethics”. (p. 44).
I agree with these claims: universal and national-particularistic memories do not necessarily contradict one another. Nevertheless, Yakira and Gutwein both continue beyond this valuable point to provide a political indictment of universalistic post-Zionist thinkers for having a hidden agenda.
Particularistic Zionist criticism of the universal post-Zionist ethos
(This section relates to those thinkers identified with a Zionist, rather than a neo-Zionist ethos. “It must be stressed,” writes Uri Ram, based on Benny Morris’s claim, “that, unlike the first two (Zionist and post-Zionist – G.G.H), the neo-Zionist narrative has not yet matured into an academic approach and in general finds expression in ideological essays and pamphlets” (Ram, 2007, p. 208).).
Using a similar argument to the universalists, but in reverse, Elhanan Yakira (2007) responds to post-Zionist claims that the Holocaust is being subject to political abuse by arguing that this left-wing intellectual school is itself guilty of instrumentalizing the Holocaust in a way that is more morally questionable than the one it criticizes (p. 113). If Zionism is perversely and arrogantly blamed for clinging to victimhood to justify its victimization of the Palestinians, Yakira blames post-Zionists for aggressively delegitimizing Zionism and the very existence of the Jewish state. According to Yakira, the ostensible cultivation of a Holocaust neurosis in Israel is inevitable and not as harmful as it is made out to be. Claims that Holocaust memory is largely responsible for shaping an Israeli culture of belligerence and occupation (113-4) remain unproven, while the anti-Zionist instrumentalization of the Holocaust is extremely influential, world-wide, and immoral. In addition, it marks the silencing of particularistic memory and the destruction of Israeli Jewish collective identity.
Yakira critically analyzes Adi Ophir’s texts as a case in point, comparing them with those produced by Holocaust denying left-wing publishing house, the Old Mole. Both portray the Holocaust and its representations as the main argument used by Zionism to justify the founding of a Jewish state, and both present the appropriation of victimhood as the source of Israel’s criminal nature, as the psycho-socio-political reason for its own exceptional talent to do evil, cause suffering, and be ignorant of the suffering of its own victims (Yakira, p.78).
Gutwein (2009) for his part charges universalistic post-Zionist thinkers of instrumentalizing the Holocaust to promote a new social order in Israel – that of privatization.
The advance of the privatization revolution in Israel was hindered, inter alia, by an ideological obstacle – Zionism, with its inherent values of national solidarity and social justice that favor a state-regulated society and economy that preempted the welfare state. In this respect Zionism casts a specter of moral and political illegitimacy on the expansion of privatization. Therefore, the Post-Zionist depiction of Zionism as intrinsically oppressive is meant to invalidate the moral foundation of the Israeli welfare state and turns its privatization into an emancipatory act. The privatization of collective memory of the Holocaust and other events in Zionist and Israeli history should, accordingly be perceived as the ideological legitimization of the politics of privatization, and especially of the welfare state as an expression of national and social solidarity” (p.58).
Political deadlock
In Israel, the universal-particular dispute over Holocaust memory continues fiercely, with both sides expressing substantial concerns with far-reaching political implications. In my opinion, this dispute, perhaps more than any other single Holocaust topic, can help us to work through and shape Jewish ethics and morality,and it is therefore extremely important that it not be silenced. The catch, however, is that the dispute seems unable to move beyond this conflictual phase and transcend the political deadlock.
Gutwein and Yakira indeed oppose the notion that the universal and the particular are contradictory, thus taking an initial and important step towards establishing a collective memory with elements of both agendas. But, just like Ophir, Feldman, and Laor, they are more concerned about proving the other side wrong than positively charging collective Holocaust memory with content. While the former are preoccupied with negating particularistic memory of the Holocaust, and seem to believe that it should step aside in order to let universalistic memory surface, so the latter are busy discrediting and delegitimizing universalistic Post-Zionist thinkers, rather than addressing their core claim of the relative neglect of universal elements in local Holocaust memory.
The following text illustrates this point. In it are excerpts from a letter posted on the vibrant online discussion group for guides leading youth delegations to Poland, which is run by the Youth and Society Administration of the Israeli Ministry of Education. In my opinion, this letter, posted April 16, 2007, by one of the delegation guides, shows how the academic debate on Holocaust memory, as presented by the media, can have a repressive effect. The letter cynically responds to a series of articles published in Haaretz daily newspaper just before Holocaust Memorial Day of 2007.
There has been a recent attack regarding youth delegations visiting Poland and a challenge to their very existence […] The argument is that visiting Poland causes extreme nationalism in children. That the aim, God forbid, is to teach children to love their country. […] Visits to Poland have been criticized. […]. Avirama Golan pontificates that […] it is ‘better to stay at home, close up the cash box on visits to Poland and start learning history from scratch. […].Further support for spurious ‘moral’ arguments are found in another article […] “Why did we visit Poland” by twelfth grade students, Dana Rubin and Daniel De-Shalit […]. “We mustn’t be dragged too much into moving, nationalistic places… our sense of belonging, strength, and power are vital to our lives here (in Israel – G.G.H.), but similarly, they can be dangerous. […] This conclusion is especially important for this trip, since the real reason we went on the trip was to show us the evil that people commit when they get carried away with power”. Guides take note: too much feeling on the trips is not a good thing and guides should encourage maximum emotional restraint. Don’t mention Israel and confiscate flags […], don’t mention Zionism what ever you do. […]. Therefore stress the universalistic principle and the uniqueness of the individual person. Every nation has the right to form a national identity, but we, as Jews and Israelis, must repress this dangerous emotion which could bring out the evil in us and transform us into a nation in the image of the Nazis and their deeds (Anonymous, 2007).
This letter powerfully demonstrates the discursive impasse.
This youth guide reads the universalistic ethos’s assertion as anegation of Jewish-Israeli national identity. In this case, the assertion fails to promote change or stimulate serious reflection on its critical arguments (the need to study the connection between evil and power and to try to gain an historical understanding of the perpetrators, not just the victims). The guide repeats universalistic arguments in detail, but rather than argue against them or refute them, he focuses on the demand to give up national memory, which he argues is ridiculous and unrealistic. There is no indication in the letter that the author opposes universalistic practices per se. Like in other cases, the dichotomic impasse leads to wrangling, leaving the universalistic challenge unstated.
Positive efforts toward memory building
According to the two ethoses, the universal post-Zionist and the particularistic-Zionist ethos, how should Holocaust memory be constructed and what should it contain? My answer is that we lack constructive ideas for academic writing on the subject. Moreover, we lack so much as a vision of a formula for a national Holocaust memory with both particularistic and universal elements. I believe it is vital for Israelis to add universal elements to their memory of the Holocaust, but this can only be achieved by integrating these elements into particularistic memory, not by fighting and delegitimizing it. While various educationalists have taken this important initiative and risen to this challenge (two salient examples are the Center for Humanistic Education (CHE) at the Ghetto Fighters Museum and the Grossman International Center for Holocaust Studies at Massuah, The Institute for the Study of the Holocaust, Kibbutz Tel Itzhak), a corpus of theoretical and educational writing and investigation of the subject still remains to be written.
This is, of course, a challenge – though not an easy one – as our conceptualization of Holocaust memory has already become embedded in the template of the universal-particular dichotomy, a globally recognized political chasm and a basic universal political category. Nevertheless, I believe that existing patterns of Holocaust memory in Israel can be “revised” and “updated” without heavy (or perhaps any) reliance on the universal-particular dichotomy as an axis for inducing change. We can establish norms for moral deliberation of the Holocaust legacy which are agreeable to both sides. Identifying those elements within the current strands of contemporary Holocaust memory criticism that are acceptable with not only the ‘universalists’ but also the ‘particularists’, is one way to achieve this. Therefore, I have taken the criticism leveled by the proponents of universalistic post-Zionism quoted above as the basis for some limited experimental theorizing. Having examined parts of Laor, Feldman and Ophir’s critical claims, I wish to propose three tentative principles, or norms, for a memory building process that could be applied to the moral dilemmas which are found within the universal and particular contexts.
- Moral activism. Yitzhak Laor (2008) complains that “Israeliness used to be – for better or worse – ‘what I (don’t) do’. It has come, slowly, to be ‘what was done to me'”. The call for moral activism is not exclusive to the universalist view! Passive memory can be decadent or even immoral. Israelis should relate to their Memory of the Holocaust as a demanding practice requiring concern and commitment and a willingness on their own part and on the part of their society to be involved. This applies to universal concerns such as the human rights of Palestinians or the immigration of Darfur refugees to Israel, and it naturally applies to particular-Jewish concerns, such as the welfare of Holocaust survivors or the place of the heroic-traumatic aliyah chapter of the Ethiopian community in Israeli collective memory.
- Reflection. Jackie Feldman (2009) wrote, “The openness of the Shoah event, an atmosphere more conducive to the posing of moral and existential questions, is often lost. I question whether universal lessons – calling for individual moral reflection and assumption of personal responsibility for the welfare of others – can be effectively transmitted”(p.55). In between Feldman’s lines I read a call for reflection, which is surely helpful in relating to moral dilemmas whether universal or particular. Reflection encourages a flexible, ongoing process of investigation as opposed to settling for fixed answers. It promotes inquiry, curiosity, and sensitivity in trying to decipher the Holocaust and bear its memory both as an historical event and as an experiential-emotional burden. We may aspire to develop an awareness of our position towards the event and work through its emotional hazards (La Capra, 1998). Reflective memory helps to promote self-criticism and an awareness of morally troubling realities (typically identified with universalism), but also it allows a rewarding, positive, and constructive collective memory to surface (usually identified with particularism). Rewarding reflective memory work at the pole of particularism means learning from the heroism and displays of humanity of Jewish Holocaust victims in the impossible daily war of survival; feeling inspired by the courage and heroism of Righteous Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews; identifying successful aspects of the reception of survivors by Israel, and taking pride in survivors’ achievements. Rewarding reflective memory work at the universal pole involves taking pride in Israel’s humanitarian policy, such as Menachem Begin’s decision to absorb Vietnamese refugees, Israel’s humanitarian missions, knowledge/technology sharing projects with developing countries, and so forth.
- Comparability. Ophir (1987) condemns mythic memory “because it erases degrees and continuums and puts in their place an infinite distance between one type of atrocity and all other types of human atrocities”(p. 63). Ophir sees the comparison of the Holocaust to current political contexts as its main moral legacy. This conflicts with attempts to prove Holocaust uniqueness (for a salient example see Katz, 1994). But the call to study the Holocaust and its meaning comparatively has a much wider scope and is not bound to universalism. Comparability, on the one hand, means applying the lessons of the Holocaust to the moral challenges of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on the other hand, applying comparability when incorporating memories of ghetto fighters versus those of death camp inmates aspart of the collective memory; when examining the morality of Jewish function holders such as Kapos and Judenrat as compared to Nazi functionaries; when comparing the memory of the Holocaust of religious Israeli Jews to that of secular Israeli Jews. Therefore, a wide reading of comparability suggests the need to maintain a norm of tolerance and pluralism towards conclusions and lines of thought in Holocaust memory, where the conclusions and lines of thought can be historical but also mythical, universal but also national, morally practical but also sentimental.
A morally responsive memory of the Holocaust is thus not exclusively universal, and a healthy collective memory that is sufficiently strong to contain self-criticism and moral commitment to action for other victims ought to engage with a range of topical challenges dispersed along three continuums in order to achieve a merging of the universal and the particular:
A. Self and other (universal and particular, national and international). Addressing and also reacting to themes within the limits of the nation as well as beyond it.
B. Past and future. Responsive memory should establish a stable affinity, sensitivity, and care for the past as the basis for collective identity on the one hand, and link the past to the present and future with relevance and moral commitment on the other.
C. Rewarding and troubling memory. Memory should be rewarding, comforting, and consoling, but at the same time, incomplete, disturbing, demanding, and evocative.
Martha Mino’s idea (cited in Woodward, 2002, p. 244) that we need metaphors that blur existing boundaries and lines in order to foster common commitments and values, is reflected in our attempt to deconstruct the universal-particular dichotomy and then reconstruct its elements along new lines (metaphors).
Of course, the particular-universal dichotomy will not disappear following its de- and re-construction, nor should it. But by nurturing such responsive memory, a society can cross lines, merge universal and particular elements into Israeli Holocaust memory, and extricate itself from its non-productive deadlock. The call for responsive memory considers moral sensitivity, caring, and commitment to action as essential elements in the Holocaust legacy that should be sought within and beyond the borders of the self and the collective. Responsive memory makes demands, but it also rewards and combines critical thinking with positive, identity-building efforts.
References
Anonymous (2007). http://noar.education.gov.il/htbin/bbsnunit/noar/bbs.cgi?forum=polin_madrichim&task=show_msg&msg=5585
Bar-On, D. (2008). The Others Within Us: Constructing Jewish-Israeli Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, J. (2001). “In the Footsteps of the Israeli Holocaust Survivor: Israeli Youth Pilgrimage to Poland, Shoah Memory, and National Identity”. In P. Daly, K. Filser, A. Goldschlager and N. Kramer (Eds). Building History: The Shoah in Art, Memory, and Myth, New York: Peter Lang. Pp. 35-63.
Gutwein, D. (2009). “The Privatization of the Holocaust: Memory, Historiography, and Politics”. Israel Studies Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 36-64.
Katz, S.T. (1994). The Holocaust in Historical Context, Volume 1. The Holocaust and Mass Death before the Modern Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
LaCapra, D. (1998). History and Memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Laor, Y. (2008) “Who will reconstruct the crime?” Haaretz 27.10.2008
Ophir, A. (1987). “On Sanctifying the Holocaust: An Anti-Theological Treatise” Tikkun, vol. 2. no.1. pp. 61-65.
Ram, U. (2007). “The Future of the Past in Israel: a Sociology of Knowledge Approach”. In Benny Morris (Ed.). Making Israel. Pp. 202-230.
Yadgar, Y. (2002). “From the Particularistic to the Universalistic: National Narratives in Israel’s Mainstream Press, 1967-1997”. Nations and Nationalism 8 (1), pp. 55-72.
Woodward, K. (2002). “Calculating Compassion”. Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 77, Pp. 223-245.
Yakira, E. (2007). Three Essays on Denial, Repression and Delegitimation of Israel [In Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishers.
Zuckermann, M. (2001). On the Fabrication of Israelism. Myth and Ideology in a Society at Conflict [In Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: RESLING Publishing.