******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: September 6, 2019 at 11:22:43 AM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Nationalism]: Gökarıksel on Koposov, 'Memory Laws, > Memory Wars: The Politics of the Past in Europe and Russia' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > Nikolay Koposov. Memory Laws, Memory Wars: The Politics of the Past > in Europe and Russia. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2017. > 338 pp. $29.99 (paper), ISBN 978-1-108-41016-8. > > Reviewed by Saygun Gökarıksel (Boğaziçi University) > Published on H-Nationalism (September, 2019) > Commissioned by Cristian Cercel > > Nikolay Koposov's book explores the "changing forms of historical > consciousness and political legitimation" (p. 6) in contemporary > Europe and Russia through a comparative historical analysis of > "memory laws." These laws typically concern past tragedies like > genocides or "crimes against humanity," and involve their > memorialization and protection by criminalizing certain statements > about them, especially denials. This terrain of law and memory, as > Koposov's book cogently shows, is full of tensions. Some of them > result from the conflicts between different legal rights in liberal > democracies (freedom of speech vs. the right to human dignity and > public order), some from different understandings of history and > politics, and some from the agonistic discussions regarding the > efficacy of those laws, whether they can really protect human dignity > or prevent fascism. Koposov specifically focuses on the following > question: how is it that the memory laws, which were initially > formulated to promote or "maintain peace," have recently transformed > into a manipulative instrument of memory wars across Europe, > particularly in post-Soviet Eastern Europe (p. 9)? This is a crucial > question for anyone concerned with the politics of history and memory > in the early twenty-first century. And Koposov offers useful insights > into the historical conditions that make memory malleable and > instrumentable, especially by authoritarian nationalist politics, at > our current conjuncture. > > The book is organized in six chapters, structured around the usual > division of Europe into Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The first > half of the book gives an historical overview of memory laws in those > regions while the second half concentrates on two national case > studies, Ukraine and Russia. One of the most innovative parts of this > book is the historical problematization of the concept of memory law. > The first chapter sets the main theoretical and historical context > for this problematization. It suggests that the following > interrelated developments in the 1970s and 1980s influenced the > emergence and dissemination of memory laws: "the end of the era of > class struggle, the formation of the new culture of victimhood," the > rise of human rights; "the democratic revolution in historiography, > the decay of 'master narratives,' and the rise of memory; and the > fall of communism, the end of the postwar social-liberal consensus, > and the emergence of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and > ethno-populism" (p. 25). All these developments, suggests Koposov, > mark the end of universalistic, "history-based," "future-oriented > ideologies" and their displacement by an increasing preoccupation > with particularistic identities and event-centered memories (pp. > 57-59). For Koposov, this trend of fragmentation of memory makes > memory laws susceptible to their nationalist appropriation into > exclusionary identity politics. While this account of global > historical shifts is overall illuminating, it also has important > shortcomings, as I briefly discuss below, especially with regard to > its dubious claim about the end of class struggle and the contrast it > implies between class (struggle) and questions of memory and > subjectivity. > > In the next chapter, Koposov offers a rich overview of the > development of memory laws in Western Europe, from antifascist > legislations of the late 1940s and early 1950s and antiracist > legislations of the 1960s to the Holocaust denial laws initiated in > West Germany (1985) and the Gayssot Act (1990) in France, commonly > accepted as the first memory laws. Holocaust memory and its > protection against far-right groups and neoconservative anticommunist > historical revisionism_, _suggests Koposov, have been at the center > of memory laws and the European Union's general approach to memory. > One of the most stimulating discussions of the chapter concerns the > implications of Holocaust-centered memory for the legal and moral > assessment of other genocides and mass violence (and their memories) > such as the Armenian Genocide and colonial violence. This issue of > the plurality of genocides and "multimemorism" is far from being > settled, Koposov underscores. Apart from national and European > courts, many historians, especially in France and Germany, have been > heatedly engaged in the public discussions on memory laws, opposing > the blatant political instrumentalization of history, as for instance > in the Mekachera law that aims to highlight the "positive effects" of > French colonialism (p. 121). > > The following chapters focus on the legal strategies and > moral-political frameworks employed by memory laws in postsocialist > Eastern Europe. While tracing the sources of those laws to > socialist-era antifascist and antiracist legislations, Koposov also > underscores the key influence of the European Union's memory > policies, especially the criminalization of the Holocaust > negationism. De-communization laws of the 1990s and 2000s have had a > key impact on the formulation of memory laws in the region, embodying > the common strategy of equating communism with fascism as a criminal > totalitarian rule. These laws typically shift the responsibility for > communism to some alien forces, treating the communist period as a > foreign, "Russian occupation" (p. 131). This exoneration of > responsibility fuels the nationalist instrumentalization of memory > and finds supporters across the entire political spectrum, including > liberal and conservative nationalists. > > The chapters on Ukraine and Russia highlight even more boldly the way > memory laws have become a field of struggle structured around the > nation-state and larger geopolitical relations in Eastern Europe. The > discussion of the Russian case shows vividly the instrumentalization > of memory laws as part of neo-imperial, authoritarian, and > nationalist strategies, especially under Putin. Ukraine has been a > central focus of Russia's memory wars (together with Poland, Latvia, > Lithuania, and Estonia). The Russian expansionism toward Ukraine (its > recent annexation of Crimea) decisively shapes the memory politics in > the country, especially the debates around fascism, Europeanization, > and Ukrainian nationhood. But Russia's policy toward Ukraine is also > an integral part of the internal political struggles in Russia. > Fueling nationalist sentiments through the war in Ukraine helps Putin > repress his opponents. In the same vein, antifascism in Russia, > Koposov shows, has largely become a nation-state ideology and a > keyword used by Putin to demonize his enemies inside and outside of > the country. World War II, what Stalin called the "Great Patriotic > War," is revived to articulate this antifascism and invent the > national origins of post-Soviet Russia. Putin's memory laws aim to > establish the "cult of war" and protect the memory of the Stalin > regime against the memory of its victims. It nationalizes the USSR as > an imperial Russian power while purifying Soviet history of its > communist component. Only the failures of the USSR and Soviet state > violence are attributed to communism, which is treated as a foreign > thing. > > Yet, this nationalist instrumentalization of memory laws, Koposov > rightly suggests, should not be understood as some kind of Eastern > European anomaly or perversion. Rather, it reveals already existing > tensions within the memory laws, which Koposov discerns in the broad > historical shifts mentioned above--the decline of master narratives, > the end of the era of class struggle, the "crisis of global history" > (p. 49), and the rise of memory and particularistic identity politics > based on victimhood. This discussion is certainly useful and gives a > suggestive context for further research. But it also needs to be > complemented and even challenged on certain points. Indeed, the book > overall falls into the usual division between culture and political > economy. The reader learns little about the material conditions of > memory laws and wars, their social worlds, and the antagonisms > underlying them, beyond party-political struggles. Whose memories and > which memories are nationalized or institutionalized by the law, and > which ones are not? I suspect that the book's relative obliviousness > about these issues partly results from its hurried assumption about > the so-called end of the era of class struggle (do class relations of > power cease to exist in memory laws and wars?), which then disables a > richer understanding of the social-material dynamics fueling > nationalist memory wars.[1] Instead, further research on memory laws > might benefit from employing a more expansive and relational notion > of class that takes class as a social-historical formation that is in > the making and intimately related to questions of memory, > subjectivity, and the law (e.g., Raymond Williams, E. P. Thompson) > and to gendered, racialized, and other social forms of inequality and > oppression.[2] > > Moreover, future research might delve further into the uneven > historical relations of power and domination between and within > Western and Eastern Europe. These centuries-long relations decisively > prepare the symbolic and material ground for the instrumentalization > of memory to bolster national sovereignty, for instance, in Eastern > Europe vis-à-vis the European Union. Finally, Koposov's focus on > Europe might be complemented with research on memory laws and > politics in other parts of the world, especially in the global South. > By engaging more directly with long-standing colonial and capitalist > structures of power, their legacies and contemporary articulations, > this research might bring a fresh perspective on the memory laws and > wars surging across the world today. > > Notes > > [1]. The advent of neoliberalism and the "political failure of the > Left" and organized labor in the 1970s does not mean the "end of the > age of class struggle," as Nikolay Koposov claims (pp. 55). For > instance, in David Harvey's _A Brief History of Neoliberalism > _(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), to which Koposov refers (p. > 53), considers neoliberalism precisely as a ruling-class project to > reproduce its class domination through a set of political economic > policies and ideological strategies including the "deregulation" and > financialization of economy, flexibilization of labor, cuts in public > service, and the promotion of the free market as the model for > subjectivity. > > [2]. Raymond Williams, _Marxism and Literature _(Oxford: Oxford > University Press, 1978); E. P. Thompson, _The Making of the English > Working Class _(New York: Vintage, 1968). See also Don Kalb, > _Expanding Class: Power and Everyday Politics in Industrial > Communities, The Netherlands 1850-1950 _(Durham, NC: Duke University > Press, 1998); and Gerald Sider and Gavin Smith, eds., _Between > History and Histories: The Making of Silences and Commemorations > _(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997) for suggestive > explorations of the intersection of class, memory, and history. See > Tithi Bhattacharya, ed., _Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping > Class, Recentering Oppression _(London: Pluto, 2017) for a fruitful > analysis of class with the gendered and sexualized forms of > oppression. > > Citation: Saygun Gökarıksel. Review of Koposov, Nikolay, _Memory > Laws, Memory Wars: The Politics of the Past in Europe and Russia_. > H-Nationalism, H-Net Reviews. September, 2019. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54461 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
