History and Memory in the Study of East European Politics

1
History and Memory in the Study of East European
Politics

• Course Introduction

2
Why study East European politics through the lens
of history and memory?

• In general terms, because of the
  interconnectedness of history, memory and
  politics.
• In specific terms, because of the important role
  played by history and memory in contemporary East
  European politics.

3
In general, the interconnections of history,
memory and politics have been analyzed in

• The study of nationalism and national identity
  how constructed and imagined (as in the
  imagined communities of Benedict Anderson) both
  from the top-down in the elite driven, formalized
  histories of the nation-state and in the
  bottom-up narratives emerging from collective
  memories.
• The study of social movements as history and
  memory represent a tool kit (Ann Swidler) of
  images, themes and tropes used to frame/represent
  the movements objectives thereby enhancing the
  legitimacy and mobilizational strength of the
  movement.

4
History, Memory and Democratic Theory

• Less obvious than the study of nationalism, but
  no less important, is the role of history and
  memory in the construction of the democratic
  polis. If democracy rests on the polis, the
  citizenry, then how is the we of the polis
  constructed if not on the basis of shared history
  and memory? Even individual memory can play a
  significant role in the cultural construction of
  political individualism, an essential
  underpinning for liberal democracy. As Robert
  Darnton points out, Rousseau is significant to
  the evolution of democratic theory and practice
  not just for his formal work but also for his
  memoir which helped to valorize the individual
  lives of ordinary people thereby helping to
  reinforce the concept of rights-bearing
  individuals.

5
Less positively, but important to note is the
violent and forced construction of the democratic
polis

• In contrast, for the most part, to democratic
  theory, democratic practice has often entailed
  the use of force, exclusion, extermination and
  suppression to create the ideal homogenous
  community of citizens. For a powerful reading of
  European history in this vein see Josep Fontana
  I Lazaro, The Distorted Past A Reinterpretation
  of Europe , 1995. In this context, the elevation
  of one groups history and memory comes at the
  expense of another groups history and memory
  they are effectively written out of history.

6
How specifically do history and memory relate to
the study of East European politics?

• By constituting what makes Eastern Europe
  different from Western Europe namely, Eastern
  Europe is decisively shaped by the burden of
  history socioeconomic backwardness (Chirot,
  Janos, Stokes) brief interwar period of
  independent statehood and democratic governance
  WWII and its aftermath communist rule. Taken
  together, these factors constitute the multiple,
  mutually reinforcing legacies that have
  complicated the return to Europe as seen, for
  example, in the implementation problems of the
  new EU memberstates.

7
But, to what extent is this burden of history
self-inflicted?

• Another distinctive quality noted by West
  Europeans is the seeming obsession East Europeans
  have with their history a history of
  victimization and an endless litany of
  injustices. This obsession is especially
  evident when contrasted against the American and
  post-WWII W. European propensity to forget
  history in the pursuit of a transcendent
  objective (progress, integration, wealth, etc.).
  For more on this, see Judt, The Past is Another
  Country.

8
Perhaps self-inflicted but understandable

• Especially when seen in the context of empires
  and legacies of empire. For subject populations
  that have had their histories written for them by
  colonial masters, that have had to rely on
  collective memory, hidden transcripts and rumor
  for more authentic truths, the reclaiming of
  history and memory becomes a much more important
  quest even an existential quest to keep the
  nation alive under hostile conditions. (On the
  importance of imperial legacies for Eastern
  Europe, see Krishan Kumar.)

9
Milan Kundera

• The struggle of man against power, is the
  struggle of memory against forgetting.

10
More problematically, East Europeans are also
perceived as being unable to transcend ethnic
nationalisms

• In which land is linked to memory and history
  creating sacred landscapes (e.g., Kosovo for
  Serbs) that are worth fighting for
• In which particular ethnic groups are constructed
  as others not worthy of membership in the
  polity
• In which long histories of imperial divide and
  rule strategies have set ethnic groups against
  each other.
• for a brilliant account of the
  interconnectedness of land, memory and history
  connections that do not irrevocably culminate in
  conflict, see Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory.
• for a compelling but less than sympathetic
  account of East European propensities toward
  ethnic nationalism, see Tony Judt, Eastern
  Approaches.

11
More concretely, how do history and memory
interact with contemporary East European Politics?

• Political style and discourse is decisively
  shaped by struggles over the past, specifically
  over communism and who supported it who
  collaborated who was victimized by communist
  rulers.
• Electoral cleavages are determined not by classic
  left-right perceptions of the role of state
  intervention in the market but by cultural
  divides informed by history anti-communist/nation
  alist/conservative actors versus
  communist/liberal/cosmopolitan actors.

12
Furthermore

• Post-communist state and nation building did not
  take place in a vacuum, history provided concrete
  reference points drawn largely from the interwar
  period of independent statehood. Thus, new
  constitutions, state emblems, flags, ceremonies,
  holidays were all historically informed.
• Ritual cleansing (as in the taking down of
  communist era statues and signs) and the symbolic
  reclaiming of history (as in the reburial of
  communisms most prominent victims such as Imre
  Nagy) all speak to the inter-connectedness of
  state-building and history, specifically the
  reclaiming of an authentic history from an
  imposed one.

13
Most importantly, perhaps, from the perspective
of the European Union..

• Is the growing awareness that national identity
  (informed by history and collective memory)
  represents a crucial factor determining either
  the success or failure of the EUs efforts to use
  political conditionality (i.e. rewards and
  sanctions designed to induce maximum compliance
  with EU mandated reforms) to effect the desired
  outcome of Europeanization.

14
These examples point to the importance of
historical context in the study of East European
politics, but why be concerned with memory?

• Why focus on memoirs, narratives and
  anthropological studies and not just on works of
  history?
• First, because conventional histories, much like
  political science, focus on impersonal
  institutions, processes or paradigms which do not
  allow for an understanding of how individual
  lives are affected. In order, therefore, to
  re-capture the dignity of the individual,
  especially important in the context of Eastern
  Europe where both communism and the transition to
  capitalism have come at the expense of individual
  lives, we must turn to other disciplines like
  anthropology and other resources such as memoirs.

15
Additionally, history and memory represent
distinct ways of representing the past

• History

• Memory

• Authoritative, selective interpretation of the
  past
• Structured as a formal, linear (chronological)
  narrative
• Often teleological in the sense of history as
  progress toward ever better outcomes
• Fixed orthodoxy until formally challenged by new
  schools.

• Can be collective or individual
• Can co-exist with history either in tension (as
  when excluded subaltern groups construct
  collective memories both to maintain a sense of
  community and to resist imposed histories) or as
  re-enforcing narratives that legitimate official
  histories
• Can also represent alternative renditions of the
  past as in the case of nomadic cultures that
  transmit the past through oral literature
• Are not fixed but mutable

16
Thus, history and memory are distinct
constructions of the past

• That sometimes overlap and reinforce each other
  as in the case of national identity formation
• That sometimes are at odds with one another as in
  the case of imperial histories that conflict with
  the individual and collective memories of those
  subject to imperial rule

17
Examples of conflicting histories and memories in
contemporary East European politics include

• The effort to construct the history of the last
  20 years as a triumphal account of the success of
  liberal capitalism conflicts with the individual
  and collective memories of those dispossessed by
  the post-1989 transformations.
• The effort to appropriate the history of
  resistance to communism rule as the exclusive
  property of particular political elites conflicts
  with the individual and collective memories of
  those who actually participated in that
  resistance.

18
While history and memory are clearly relevant to
the study of East European politics, there are
some issues to be aware of

• While focusing on history and memory can
  particularize and individualize the study of
  contemporary politics, rooting politics in a
  specific place and context, these insights might
  come at the risk of achieving not an empathic
  understanding of that context but a sense of
  fascinated distance. Local color and context
  can often be perceived by outsiders as bizarre
  and irrational behavior not worthy of inclusion
  in the universe of modern/postmodern
  civilization. We must take care, therefore, to
  use history and memory to achieve an
  understanding of what makes East European
  politics distinctive in a value-neutral sense,
  not what makes this region different in an
  invidious sense of qualitative difference.