The memory of the Holocaust as a point of state ontological (in)security A comparative discursive analysis of the United Kingdom and Poland Joshua Bennett Year: 2020 Credits: 45 Supervisor: Roland Kostic Word Count: 29984 Hugo Valentin Centre Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………...….…….............2 Acknowledgement………………………………...……….….............3 Introduction………………………………………...……...….............4 Research Problem and Hypothesis……………………………............5 Disposition………….…………………………….…………………..6 Research Overview………………………………………...................7 Ontological Security………………………………………………..8 Collective Memory………………………………………………...14 Europeanisation of Holocaust Memory……………………………17 Research Design…………………………………….…………….....22 Theoretical Model………………………………………………….23 Methodology……………………………………………………….29 Analysis……………………………………………………………...38 Historical Context……………………......………………………...38 Analysis of Sources.…….……...…………….................................48 Comparisons………………………………...……………………..62 Conclusion……………………………………..………..…………...66 References ……………………………………..……………............68 Appendix ……………………………………………………………72 1 Abstract This thesis utilises the context of European Holocaust memory to test differences within the existing literature of the theory of ‘ontological security’. The differences centre on questions of identity preservation in the face of threats to a states ‘sense of self’. The paper builds a connection between theories within the field of collective memory and ontological security (a sub-field known as ‘mnemonic security’) and applies these to two case studies within the European context: the UK and Poland. These cases were chosen based on disparity of experience of the Holocaust within the European context in order to determine if these disparities may explain any potential variation in mnemonic security strategies. This is achieved with use of discourse analysis of state leader and representatives speeches (and other relevant discourse) given at Holocaust remembrance events in order to classify strategies in reference to the theoretical differences within the ontological security framework. It finds that differences in forms of memory exist, but their theoretical explanations within the framework are similar despite their disparities of experience. The thesis attempts to fill a gap of empirical evidence in regards to these arguments and in regards to discourse analysis of leader’s speeches and statements at said Holocaust remembrance events. 2 Acknowledgments This paper could not have been written, or even begun to be written, without the help of several people. First, my supervisor Roland Kostic, whose stress management skills were as equal and necessary to his advice, guidance and constructive criticism. Secondly, to my parents for supporting by decision to move to Sweden in the first place and having this opportunity, alongside countless phone calls allowing me to vent about all the usual stuff. And thirdly, but in no possible terms least, my girlfriend Nica, who I am certain will be glad to not have to hear the words ‘ontological security’ and ‘memory’ ever again and who helped me each step along the way. 3 Introduction This study seeks to provide an understanding of how states use memory to help maintain a sense of ‘ontological security’. This shall be achieved by applying the theory of ‘ontological security’, a subfield of International Relations (IR), together with a process known as the ‘Europeanisation of Holocaust memory’. The most basic premise within the ontological security literature is that states care just as much about their ontological security, their ‘sense of self’, as they do about their physical security; and, that this ‘sense of self’ is subjectively created via relations with other states (Steele 2008). However, within the literature there exists a departure between key authors regarding how ontological security is maintained in the face of threats. On the one hand it is argued that actors act defensively to protect a specific identity to preserve continuity between the past, present and future self (Steele 2008; Mitzen 2006). On the other, it is claimed that instead actors are willing to be reflexive with their identity as long a positive sense of self is maintained (Browning and Joenniemi 2017). The latter suggests the former conflates the concepts of ‘identity’ and ‘self’ leading to theoretical limitations. To test these two side of the same theoretical coin, this study seeks to address the lack of empirical application of these arguments upon the case study of Holocaust memory within two disparate cases: the United Kingdom (UK) and Poland. The reasoning behind coupling this theory with this case follows the footsteps of other theorists (Mälksoo 2009; 2015; 2019 & Subotic 2011; 2019) who have highlighted the connection between national memory practices and OS. Maria Mälksoo puts it succinctly in stating that “remembering in a particular manner is instrumental in order to sustain a coherent and consistent biographical narrative of a state” (Mälksoo 2015: p.224). A broad analysis of the development of Holocaust memory within each state, within the European context, shall be conducted with recourse to OS in order to explain how states use various memory practices to create, maintain and defend a positive sense of self in the face of various transnational pressures. By using discourse analysis to trace patterns and developments in speeches given by state leaders and representatives at Holocaust remembrance events, this paper seeks to understand the different strategies used by those states whose experience of, and relationship to, the Holocaust are vastly different.. This is done to the end of both developing the existing theory of OS by applying it to real word cases and, in doing so, adding empirically to the field of the Europeanisation of Holocaust memory. Research Problem and Hypothesis 4 This study is primarily concerned with developing and clarifying the current theoretical arguments within the ontological security literature, particularly its relationship with national memory and ‘mnemonic security’. The core problem which currently exists in the existing literature concerns how states deal with threats which cause feelings of insecurity; do they defend a singular identity (defensive) or do they abandon one identity for another in order to defend their sense of self (reflexive)? As the debate briefly introduced in the introduction shows, this problem exists fundamentally at the theoretical level however yet of course what effects the theory so also directs our understanding of empirical phenomena. As will be argued in the following section, collective and national memories play a central role in informing and creating the identities and self-narratives which underpin the ontological security literature. With this in mind, how different states negotiate with the same memory in the face of identity threats allows for explanatory variables to be located. For this problem to be properly elucidated, a theoretical model must be forwarded which is able to classify a particular mnemonic strategy as either defensive or reflexive for it to be then tested empirically against two case studies. The reason for choosing two disparate cases, within the context of the European memory project, is to test the model against possible explanatory variables. In this case, the UK represents not simply a Western European state, but a European state with little physical experience of the Holocaust (in that it occurred outside of the UK). Poland, on the other hand, had a great deal of physical experience of the Holocaust; the majority of death camps were in what is now modern day Poland, and a large percentage of Jews killed were Polish citizens. How does such a difference in physical experience effect the mnemonic choices each state makes in the face of threats? Another layer of intrigue which makes this case study a relevant testing ground is the transnational element of Holocaust memory as this contributes to the perceived need for states to ‘secure’ particular identities and, by extension, memories when contesting memories interact with one another. The hypothesis forwarded here is that, the strategy chosen will be effected by case type. Due to the UK not having been a physical site of the Holocaust it may have the ‘space’ necessary to detach the memory of the Holocaust from its own identity and self-narrative, and thus potentially be reflexive with its memory strategy. In the case of Poland, the direct physical connection means that its relationship to the European memory is much more explicit and complicated, reducing room for reflexivity. This relationship between the transnational aspect of the ‘Europeanised’ memory and the national memories of each Poland and the UK should serve as the main explanatory variable. That is to say, the Europeanisation of Holocaust memory necessarily abstracts and generalises so as to appeal to a broad range of states with 5 differing historical experiences and relationships to the event. This study argues that because Poland has a concrete physical relationship to the Holocaust this abstract European memory will cause conflict, especially given the memories prominent role as a foundational myth of Europe. An analysis of the development of Holocaust memory in each undertaken over a 18 year time period (2001-2019) in line with Europeanisation process, will allow for claims to be made in line with a theoretical model which can classify mnemonic strategies as either defensive