The Holocaust Memorial Museum

Sacred Secular Space

Avril Alba

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137451378
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia del mundo

The Holocaust Memorial Museum reveals and traces the transformation of ancient Jewish symbols, rituals, archetypes and narratives deployed in these sites. Demonstrating how cloaking the 'secular' history of the Holocaust in sacred garb, memorial museums generate redemptive yet conflicting visions of the meaning and utility of Holocaust memory.

1

The Holocaust Memorial Museum: A Built Theodicy

In days to come, your children will surely ask:

What is the meaning of these stones to you?

(Joshua 4:6)¹

Holocaust memorial museums are increasingly familiar fixtures in the public landscape.² As active contributors to the development of communal and national memories, their political role, discernible in the careful weaving of civic values and national narratives into both architecture and display, has been broadly acknowledged.³ As the larger (and more influential) of these institutions are often state-funded, their very existence serves to frame Holocaust history within distinct national contexts. Subsequently, critiques of these institutions have largely focussed on how Holocaust memorial museums are ‘shaped’ by the dominant political narratives of the communities, states and nations in which they are developed.⁴ However, due to the prevailing understanding of these institutions as ‘historical’ and ‘secular’ in nature, their ‘metahistorical’ and ‘sacred’ underpinnings are yet to be fully explored and articulated.

While the terms metahistorical and sacred have many varied and rich definitions, in this study I utilize them to refer to the connection to, or transformation of, traditional Jewish responses to destruction evident in these spaces.⁵ Indeed, unlike literary and liturgical responses to the Holocaust, Holocaust memorial museums have not been systematically examined in relation to traditional Jewish responses.⁶ Nor have the instances where they depart from these paradigms been considered. The reasons for the current lack of research are threefold: First, these institutions are seldom solely Jewish – in fact, more often than not they are funded and run by state authorities. Second, Jewish commemorative strategies are traditionally rendered through text and ritual.⁷ The memorial museum, as a primarily visually-based institution, challenges and extends these approaches. And, in seeking to engage the broader public, any form of ‘ritual’ enacted in these spaces is necessarily given meaning beyond the boundaries of the Jewish community. Third, the contemporary history museum is commonly understood as the most secular of institutions – an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and a product of the democratization of reason in the scientific age.⁸

Challenging these assumptions, I contend that a sacralization of Holocaust memory is created within these ostensibly secular spaces. For while the exhibition spaces of Holocaust museums are predominantly historical, the memorial practices of these institutions more often than not find their starting points in the sacred symbols, rituals, archetypes and narratives of the Jewish tradition.⁹ The result is a space that is at once historical and metahistorical, secular and sacred. In exposing the metahistorical underpinnings of these institutions, the goal is not to suggest a normative religious practice or demonstrate the presence of a systematic theology. Given that these representational forms are often situated at the intersection of the Jewish and broader communities, such conclusions are neither possible nor useful. The aim, therefore, is not to offer theological reasons for the Holocaust but to isolate and examine the sacred meanings being ascribed to the Holocaust after the event.

In so doing, a propensity toward displaying the Holocaust as a largely ‘redemptive’ tale in these spaces is revealed. Indeed, I posit that once exposed, these metahistorical narratives and archetypes arguably create a ‘built theodicy’ – a defence of God in light of evil – transforming the Holocaust into a redemptive vision. Despite their ostensibly secular façades, the concerns of theodicy continue to animate these seemingly secular institutions, albeit in a sublimated and non-theistic form. The explicitly theistic element is repressed, but the urge for metahistorical explanation remains. As such, this study sits in opposition to and challenges the oft-heard demand that Holocaust representation forms work toward a decidedly anti-redemptive aesthetic.¹⁰ What the following case studies demonstrate is that contrary to commonly held understandings a redemptive narrative is not necessarily synonymous with a naïve one, nor does it always involve a misguided or superficial quest for ‘closure’. Indeed, what is established through a thoroughgoing critique of the redemptive visions of these institutions is that they are anything but simplistic; rather, they comprise profound expressions of the very human desire to ascribe meaning and purpose to otherwise unfathomable suffering.

Further, in the memorial museum, the sacred meanings ascribed to Jewish suffering are forged in tandem with, and directed toward, the non-Jewish world. Subsequently, in exploring exactly what kind of sacred memory is being created in these spaces, we are also inquiring about its utility in the public realm. Dan Stone argues that assessing the historiography of the Holocaust is important because, ‘to imbed the Holocaust in a given theory of history is immediately to provide it with a moral purpose that the mere record of events does not suggest’.¹¹ Similarly, I maintain that uncovering and exploring the sacralization of Holocaust memory within the memorial museum provides a more comprehensive understanding of how this memory is harnessed in the name of contemporary causes and concerns. For while the history of the Holocaust continues to be examined in great detail, the memory of the Holocaust will not be dictated by historical scholarship. Rather, Holocaust memory is ultimately subject to the representational paradigms through which it is conveyed. In this vein, an examination of the sacred dimensions of Holocaust museums and memorials uncovers pathways to new understandings of Holocaust memory both within and beyond the Jewish world.

The three museums under consideration, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), the new Historical Museum of Yad Vashem (NHM) and the Sydney Jewish Museum (SJM), provide the comparative framework for exploration.¹² Each institution is first considered historically, its origins outlined and significant points of development delineated. Not intended as ‘institutional histories’ as such, the description of each institution’s growth is not exhaustive, but rather serves to highlight the contribution of key individuals and establish the national and/or communal context within which each institution was developed. This historical consideration, in conjunction with a close reading of both architecture and exhibition display, serves to uncover the underlying Jewish metahistorical symbols, rituals, archetypes and narratives embodied in the space. Once explicit, these sacred concerns are examined against a backdrop of classical Jewish theodicies and instances of continuity and change are outlined.¹³ In so doing, the largely redemptive content of these spaces is revealed. This redemptive message is then considered within its public context and its implications for the current construction and dissemination of Holocaust memory both within and beyond the respective institutions laid bare.

Given the complex institution that the contemporary memorial museum comprises, a diverse array of sources was utilized. In addition to conventional archival documentation, museum displays and architecture were also considered as ‘documents’. In other words, exhibitions and architecture are understood both as products of historical research and historical ‘texts’ in their own right – texts that provide embodied examples of the construction of Holocaust memory. I supplemented the archival record by conducting interviews with key individuals in the development of the respective institutions. These interviews were particularly important for the study of the new Historical Museum at Yad Vashem as most of the documents pertaining to the development of this institution are not yet available for research purposes. Finally, where at all possible, visitor responses were considered. The materials used to gauge such reactions were severely limited given the brief and partial impressions contained in visitor books and the unreliability of ‘anecdotal’ accounts. However, such accounts have been included where they are useful and their reliability is readily apparent. The use of such a diverse range of sources was a practical necessity, but also reflects the very nature of the institutions under consideration. Memorial museums are developed by a broad range of individuals whose competing ideas, interests and expertise ultimately converge to create a seemingly seamless and integrated space. Only through the examination of an equally wide range of sources, therefore, can one hope to unpick the seams and reveal the pattern, the deep structure upon which these institutions continue to evolve.

Beyond Belief? Rethinking Holocaust Representation

How do we ‘know’ the Holocaust?¹⁴ What are the various literary, philosophical and artistic forms through which we have received this history and how have these forms contributed to the way that the genocide of European Jewry is understood and imagined? The many and varied attempts to answer these questions have come to define the area of scholarship commonly referred to as Holocaust representation. Indeed, so numerous are such studies that it is now possible to speak of an historiography of Holocaust representation.¹⁵ The evolution of this field bears witness to a desire to comprehend how these representational forms reflect our constantly evolving understanding of a traumatic past; and how they continue to shape commonly held assumptions about the significance of that past in and for the present. For while studies in Holocaust representation are largely interdisciplinary, spanning diverse fields such as history, literary and cultural studies, philosophy and sociology, they share the common purpose to trace and understand what the Holocaust has come to mean. In other words, they seek to reveal how these events continue to intersect with and place demands upon the present.

Given these preoccupations, critical studies in Holocaust representation share many of the concerns found in the burgeoning field of memory studies. Beginning with Maurice Halbwach’s La Mémoire Collective,¹⁶ scholarly interest in and literature pertaining to ‘memory’ has increased exponentially in the last three decades. While a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this study, an evaluation of seminal works has enabled the construction of a working definition of the term.¹⁷ This definition, while acknowledging that memory is commonly perceived as a private matter based in personal experience, is concerned with the public expression of memory as conveyed through diverse representational frameworks. Thus individual memories, as well as biological or medical understandings of the nature and function of memory, are not addressed and individual memory is only considered regarding its interaction with and impact upon collective memory.¹⁸ ‘Holocaust memory’ is understood, therefore, to comprise a complex and diverse array of representational mediums that extend well beyond the bounds of traditional Jewish commemorative forms, from blockbuster Hollywood epics such as Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, to various literary and artistic responses and, most recently, national and international days of Holocaust and Genocide Remembrance.¹⁹

Unsurprisingly, scholarly debates in the area of Holocaust memory and representation have in many ways mirrored debates within the larger field of Holocaust history. The historical study of the Holocaust was mired in conflict concerning the Holocaust’s ‘uniqueness’, ‘incommensurability’ and ‘incomprehensibility’ through the 1980s and into early years of this century.²⁰ Similarly, debates in the field of Holocaust memory and representation have hinged upon whether the Holocaust can, indeed, be understood and conveyed through conventional representational forms. Finding their ostensible beginnings in Theodor Adorno’s oft-quoted (and misquoted) statement, ‘to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric’,²¹ the lines of the debate were drawn between two opposing camps. Literary scholar Alan Mintz describes these positions as falling mainly into two broad categories, which he labels ‘exceptionalist’ and ‘constructivist’.²² In a similar vein, cultural theorist Michael Rothberg defines these postures as ‘anti-realist’ and ‘realist’.²³ The former admits no comparisons, insisting that the Holocaust can only be represented ‘in its own terms’, yet often failing to demonstrate how such representational forms are, in actuality, sui generis. Based in more popular understandings of the Holocaust as an ‘unapproachable object beyond discourse and knowledge’,²⁴ exceptionalist/anti-realists reject a connection between representational forms pre- and post-Holocaust on both practical and ethical grounds.²⁵ By contrast, constructivist/realist commentators have been largely concerned with the various ‘systems of meaning’ through which Holocaust memory is mediated – identifying and exploring the content and influence of the representational frameworks through which this memory is relayed. In other words, they aim to uncover how the various forms of Holocaust representation both create and reflect Holocaust memory.

Whether these representational forms are entirely ‘secular’ is a question not often pondered on either side of the debate. Within the preponderance of scholarship concerned with Holocaust representation, the connection of these forms to traditional Jewish tropes receives short shrift. With the exception of seminal surveys of Holocaust literature and liturgy by literary scholars David Roskies and Alan Mintz there exist no systematic studies concerning what I label the ‘metahistorical’ or ‘sacred’ elements of Holocaust representation – that is, their connection to, or transformation of, traditional Jewish responses to destruction.²⁶ Leaving aside these masterly accounts, other attempts in the scholarly literature to connect forms of Holocaust memory and representation to traditional Jewish tropes have been unsatisfying. For example, Zoe Waxman’s otherwise admirable work into the significance of Holocaust testimony as both ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ texts, fails to define with precision the meaning of ‘sacred’ in this instance.²⁷ In her article, she examines in some detail the following statement from Abraham Lewin, a staff member of the clandestine group Oneg Shabbat of the Warsaw Ghetto.²⁸ Lewin wrote this description of his and other group members’ harried attempts to chro...