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 movement’s 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 group’s history and memory comes at the expense of another group’s 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/nationalist/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 communism’s 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 EU’s 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 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 • 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.

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.