The Military History Museum in Dresden: Between Forum and Temple Author(S): Cristian Cercel Source: History and Memory, Vol. 30, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Military History Museum in Dresden: Between Forum and Temple Author(s): Cristian Cercel Source: History and Memory, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2018), pp. 3-39 Published by: Indiana University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/histmemo.30.1.02 Accessed: 19-06-2018 08:16 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History and Memory This content downloaded from 78.48.172.3 on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Military History Museum in Dresden Between Forum and Temple CRISTIAN CERCEL This article analyzes the Military History Museum (MHM) in Dresden against the backdrop of recent theoretical elaborations on agonistic memory, as opposed to the cosmopolitan and antagonistic modes of remembering. It argues that the MHM attempts to combine two functions of the museum: the museum as forum and the museum as temple. By examining the concept underpinning the reor- ganization of the permanent exhibition of the MHM, and by bringing examples from both the permanent and temporary exhibitions, the article shows that the discourse of the MHM presents some relevant compatibilities with the principles of agonistic memory, yet does not embrace agonism to the full. The article also suggests that the agonistic mode of remembering requires rejecting the notion of the museum as temple. Keywords: Military History Museum, Dresden; agonistic memory; agonism; critical museology; war museums With its new exhibition inaugurated in October 2011, after a lengthy and expensive renovation bearing the signature of starchitect Daniel Libeskind, the Military History Museum (MHM) in Dresden has emphasized from the start an attempt to propose a fundamentally new way of presenting military history in a museum. The programmatic documents and advertis- ing material stress its unconventionality, its pluriperspectivism, its focus on the human being and its emphasis on violence as a constant of human history. Considering the ambitious scope of the project and its location in Dresden, the paradigmatic German victim-city, an in-depth critical engage- History & Memory, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2018) 3 DOI: 10.2979/histmemo.30.1.02 3 This content downloaded from 78.48.172.3 on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Cristian Cercel ment with the renewed MHM has the potential to produce insights of significance for both memory studies and museum studies, two in effect tightly interconnected research areas. Actors involved in the reopening of the museum emphasized its official role in the education of officers and soldiers of the Bundeswehr (German Army), as well as its understanding of itself as a cultural history museum. The latter is related to the endeavor to connect the discourse of the MHM with that of the cultural history of violence.1 Even before the 2011 reinauguration, scholarship had pointed out some conceptual affinities between the MHM and several other war museums in Western Europe, particularly the anthropological turn which places the individual at the core of the museum, the aforementioned influence of cultural his- tory, and the centrality of suffering, typical of museal discourses in the so-called “post-heroic society.”2 Following the reopening of the museum, reviews on the whole welcomed the surprising and unconventional manner in which it displays military history, although some found fault with the tendency toward a sanitized presentation of the contemporary Bundeswehr.3 Susanne Vees- Gulani and Stephan Jaeger state that the MHM introduces “the question of whether the relationship between politics and force truly develops cul- turally, or reappears in similar constellations, but new forms” and that it “consciously avoids taking sides in the discussion of whether war should be circumvented at all costs or whether military force and war are neces- sary in certain situations.”4 In other contributions, Jaeger emphasizes the interconnectedness of the different historical and conceptual perspectives on violence presented in the museum, as well as its lack of didacticism, understood as a form of “presentism.”5 Jaeger also briefly comments on the use in the MHM of “a clip from a Wehrmacht film showing a cat dying painfully after being exposed to chemical weapons,” arguing that “the film cannot immerse the visitor in the perspective of the cat.”6 Throughout her extensive examination of the mediation of memory in museums, Silke Arnold-de Simine on the whole commends MHM’s approach, noting the invitation toward “critical self-reflection” and the “shock of ruptures” “echoed” in the exhibition, yet also remarking that the latter does not touch upon “the more complex political and economic reasons for wars.”7 In a recent contribution, Elke Heckner argues that the curatorial approach underpinning the new exhibition of the MHM tends 4 History & Memory, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2018) This content downloaded from 78.48.172.3 on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Military History Museum in Dresden to depoliticize military history and to shy away from critically addressing processes of othering.8 Taking into account these already existing partial examinations of the MHM, this article elaborates a critical analysis of the museum. It therefore adds to the rich body of literature studying museums, exhibitions and memorials in Germany.9 Moreover, the conceptual framework used by this article, connecting “agonistic memory” with elaborations on museums as temples and fora, allows for broader considerations on the possibilities of museum and memory discourses beyond cosmopolitanism. My approach is configured as a case study investigation, underpinned by what Thomas Thiemeyer identifies as the “two pillars” of museum exhibition analysis: the study of existing sources and field research.10 “AGONISTIC” MEMORY AND MOUFFE’S “AGONISM” The need for theoretical refinements of “memory” has become pressing, lest the field of memory studies turn into “an additive empirical exercise without much theoretical improvement.”11 Implicitly responding to this challenge, Anna Cento Bull and Hans Lauge Hansen have recently argued in favor of an agonistic mode of remembering. The two scholars drew on Chantal Mouffe’s elaborations regarding the need for an agonistic type of politics, which accepts that democratic pluralism is based upon conflict between adversaries with different interests and that reconciling all points of view is fundamentally impossible. In a similar vein, Berthold Molden has delineated the contours of a mnemonic hegemony theory, related conceptually to agonistic memory.12 Mouffe, to which both the aforementioned elaborations refer, albeit to different extents, pleads for a recognition of the relevance of collective identifications and of the related antagonisms in the configuration of the “political,” understood as “the very way society is instituted,” together with the passions and emotions such identifications entail. According to her, antagonism is a feature of human sociability. Hence, “the ineradicabil- ity of the conflictual dimension in social life” should be acknowledged in a way allowing for the energization of the “democratic confrontation.”13 Agonism is thus meant to provide legitimate political channels for dis- senting voices and for the enunciation of opposing passions and affect. History & Memory, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2018) 5 This content downloaded from 78.48.172.3 on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Cristian Cercel Without such acknowledgments and provisions, passions can lead to the exclusive strengthening of various nationalist, religious or ethnic forms of identification that would then hijack and dominate the political. Mouffe also stresses the need to recognize the hegemonic nature of social orders, and the fact that “every hegemonic order is susceptible of being challenged by counter-hegemonic practices.”14 Her conceptualization of agonistic democracy is a response to “the emergence of a new hegemonic project, that of liberal-conservative discourse,” which attempts to “legitimize inequalities and restore the hierarchical relations which the struggles of previous decades had destroyed.”15 Mouffe’s argumentation for agonism does not include significant references to memory. Nevertheless, the emergence of neoliberalism start- ing in the 1970s, the dismantling of the welfare state and the breakdown of social-democratic ideas have been processes linked with the dissolution of the antifascist “postwar consensus” in memory politics. Challenging the tenets of the postwar antifascist settlement entailed shedding light on societal division during the Second World War, on collaboration with Nazism, and on participation in the Holocaust throughout Europe, all issues to a large extent taboo until toward the end of the Cold War in both the western and eastern parts of the continent, albeit for different reasons.16 This phenomenon is also connected with the transformation of the Holocaust into a “moral and historiographic starting point” of the postwar, a “foundational past,” while its memory has become a central reference point “in the global age.”17 Moreover, the reconsideration of the antifascist “postwar consensus” has led to a growing historiographic revisionism implicitly or explicitly equating Nazism and Communism, and to a significant increase of the appeal of anti-antifascism. Thus, changes and reconfigurations related to war memories have eased “the far right’s re-emergence.”18 Against this backdrop, linking Mouffe’s theorizations to elaborations in the field of memory studies appears legitimate.