德国记忆政治中的多元主义、治理与新右派

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES
J. Wüstenberg
{"title":"德国记忆政治中的多元主义、治理与新右派","authors":"J. Wüstenberg","doi":"10.3167/gps.2019.370307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The memory landscape in Germany has been lauded for its pluralism: for reckoning with the past not only critically but in its many complex facets. Nevertheless, particularly victims of repression in East Germany lament that their plight is not adequately represented and some have recently affiliated themselves with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and other groups on the far-right spectrum. This article seeks to explain the seeming contradiction between existing pluralism in German public memory and dissatisfaction with it by tracing how memory activists have shaped memory policy and institutions. Based on extensive interview and archival research, I argue that the infiltration of civil society into the institutions that govern memory in large part explains the strength of critical memory in unified Germany and the country’s ability to accommodate a variety of pasts. However, there is also a distinct lack of pluralism when it comes to the rules of “how memory is done,” to the exclusion of more emotional and politicized approaches that are sometimes favored by some victims’ groups. Using the case of the recent debate about the Hohenschönhausen Memorial, I contend that this explains some of the attraction felt by these groups towards the right.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/gps.2019.370307","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pluralism, Governance, and the New Right in German Memory Politics\",\"authors\":\"J. Wüstenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/gps.2019.370307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The memory landscape in Germany has been lauded for its pluralism: for reckoning with the past not only critically but in its many complex facets. Nevertheless, particularly victims of repression in East Germany lament that their plight is not adequately represented and some have recently affiliated themselves with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and other groups on the far-right spectrum. This article seeks to explain the seeming contradiction between existing pluralism in German public memory and dissatisfaction with it by tracing how memory activists have shaped memory policy and institutions. Based on extensive interview and archival research, I argue that the infiltration of civil society into the institutions that govern memory in large part explains the strength of critical memory in unified Germany and the country’s ability to accommodate a variety of pasts. However, there is also a distinct lack of pluralism when it comes to the rules of “how memory is done,” to the exclusion of more emotional and politicized approaches that are sometimes favored by some victims’ groups. Using the case of the recent debate about the Hohenschönhausen Memorial, I contend that this explains some of the attraction felt by these groups towards the right.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/gps.2019.370307\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2019.370307\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2019.370307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

德国的记忆景观因其多元化而受到称赞:不仅从批判性的角度,而且从许多复杂的方面来看待过去。然而,特别是东德镇压的受害者哀叹,他们的困境没有得到充分的代表,一些人最近加入了德国新选择党(AfD)和其他极右翼团体。本文试图通过追踪记忆活动家如何塑造记忆政策和制度来解释德国公共记忆中存在的多元主义与对它的不满之间的看似矛盾。基于广泛的访谈和档案研究,我认为公民社会对管理记忆的机构的渗透在很大程度上解释了统一后的德国批判性记忆的力量,以及这个国家容纳各种过去的能力。然而,当涉及到“如何记忆”的规则时,也明显缺乏多元化,排除了一些受害者团体有时喜欢的更情绪化和政治化的方法。以最近关于Hohenschönhausen纪念馆的辩论为例,我认为这解释了这些团体对右翼的一些吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pluralism, Governance, and the New Right in German Memory Politics
The memory landscape in Germany has been lauded for its pluralism: for reckoning with the past not only critically but in its many complex facets. Nevertheless, particularly victims of repression in East Germany lament that their plight is not adequately represented and some have recently affiliated themselves with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and other groups on the far-right spectrum. This article seeks to explain the seeming contradiction between existing pluralism in German public memory and dissatisfaction with it by tracing how memory activists have shaped memory policy and institutions. Based on extensive interview and archival research, I argue that the infiltration of civil society into the institutions that govern memory in large part explains the strength of critical memory in unified Germany and the country’s ability to accommodate a variety of pasts. However, there is also a distinct lack of pluralism when it comes to the rules of “how memory is done,” to the exclusion of more emotional and politicized approaches that are sometimes favored by some victims’ groups. Using the case of the recent debate about the Hohenschönhausen Memorial, I contend that this explains some of the attraction felt by these groups towards the right.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信