‘Nothing more cosmopolitan than the camps?’ Holocaust Remembrance and (de-)Europeanization

0Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Is there an obligation to remember the Holocaust? What is European about it, and does it make us more European to honour this obligation? In his essay on the ‘Ethics of Memory’, the philosopher Avishai Margalit describes memory as the essence of ‘thick relations’, linking individuals and groups to their immediate social vicinity: families, friends, tribes. Memory is a central social category, he argues, but only in special cases is it a moral one. Where ‘gross crimes against humanity’ are concerned, this ‘morality’ — as distinct from the ‘ethics’ — of memory entails an obligation to ‘preserve memory’: to speak a language, to build institutions, and to practise rituals of memorialization. The distinction begs the question of who exactly is bound by this obligation to remember, as Margalit himself emphasizes: ‘humanity is no community of memory. (…) So who should carry the “moral memory” on behalf of humanity as a whole?’3

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Grunwald, H. (2010). ‘Nothing more cosmopolitan than the camps?’ Holocaust Remembrance and (de-)Europeanization. In Palgrave Macmillan Transnational History Series (pp. 253–270). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293120_13

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free