Emergent from the Holocaust and the Atomic Bombings

Critical Comparative Approaches to Testimonial Literature Emergent from the Holocaust and the Atomic Bombings Gwyneth Dodger This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of a PhD English Literature Department University of Sheffield 2007 Acknowleftements Although only my nameappears on the title pageof this thesis,this projectwould not havebeen possible without the supportand encouragementof many otherpeople. The provision of a grant from the AHRC allowed me to devote much-neededtime to my researchin the early stagesof my work, for which I am grateful. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisors, Dr Sue Vice and Dr Alex Houen. Their guidance and academic rigour has informed my own approach to this sometimes difficult area of testimonial literature. Without their valuable advice and enthusiasm for the subject, it is likely that my own motivation would have flagged much earlier. A special thanks is due to Sue who in the final weeks before submission endured endlessstressed emails and requeststo "cast a quick eye" over final revisions! My thanksare also due to Lucia Faltin and Dr Melanie Wright, as well the rest of my colleagues at the Centre for the Study of Jewish Christian Relations, Cambridge, for whosecontinuing support and friendshipI remaingrateful. A special thanks is due to my wonderful friends who have kept me sanethroughout this period and have often retrieved me from under large piles of books to bring me outside, blinking in the light. Extra special love and thanks to Ruth Ireland, Ann Flenley, Kate Dorney and Helen Blakeman. Finally, it remains only to thank my family - Matthew, my mother Avril, my father Lyndon, and my sister Caitlin. Without their constant love and support I could never have completed this thesis (although I could possibly have completed it a good deal earlier without their distractions - Miss Ireland please take note of this too). Critical Comparative Approaches tO Testimonial Literature Emergent from the Holocaust and the Atomic Bombinas Gwyneth Bodger Abstract The thesis offers a critical comparative reading of testimonial literature emergent from the Holocaust and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Through identifying aspectsof thematic and stylistic commonality between these literatures, this thesis aims towards establishing a series of narrative traits that characterisethe testimonial genre. This comparative stanceinforms the structure of the thesis, in that each chapter deals with examples of testimonies emergent from the Holocaust and the atomic bombings. Chapter one engageswith the history of autobiography criticism and genre theory, and through close readings of both testimonial and autobiographical works by Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel, posits areasof potential difference between the two forms of life-writing. The traditional understanding of the autobiographical contract, as defined by Philippe Lejeune, is challenged through a comparative analysis of the way in which the self is constructed in Holocaust and A-bomb testimonies. Chapter two focuses on the narrative challenges posed by the encounter with trauma. Informed by structuralist theories of language and critical readings of testimonial writing, this chapter examines the way in which the experience of trauma intensifies the arbitrary nature of the relationship between language and experience,to the extent that language appearsto fail. Drawing on Blanchot's theory of the communicative possibilities of silence, the thematic and stylistic representationof silence, in its many forms, is considered in the context of Holocaust and A-bomb testimonies. Chapterthree explores the representationof the femaleexperience in testimonial texts. Beginningwith Cixous' and Irigaray's theoriesof dcriturefiminine and fimininitj as an interpretativelens with which to approachwomen's narratives, this chapterconsiders the way in which women'stestimonies are influenced by both a poeticsof genderand a poeticsof trauma. Contents Introduction Chapter 1: Autobiography, Testimony and the Construction of the Self 1.1 Introduction: Defining Autobiography, Defining Testimony 14 1.2 Fragmented Selves: A Comparison of the Testimonial and 22 Autobiographical Writings of Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel 1.3 Anonymous Selves: Representingthe Hibakusha Experience 51 Chapter 2: Absence and Presence: The Role of Silence in Testimonial Writing 2.1 Introduction: Silence and the Limits of Representation 80 2.2 Absence as Presencein the Holocaust Narrative 84 2.3 Presenceas Absence: Writing the JapaneseExperience 114 Chapter 3: Women's Testimony 3.1 Introduction: "Masculine Genealogy" and Women's Life Writing 154 3.2 "Different Horrors, Same Hell: " Women's Experiences in History 162 3.3 Writing the Female Experience of the Holocaust 171 3.4 Writing the Female Experience of the A-bomb 202 Conclusion 221 Bibliography 229 Introduction Thereare two eventsthat havemarked our centuryfor all times: the Shoahand the atomicbomb. Thesetwo momentsin humanhistory, embodiedby Auschwitz and Hiroshima,will be the iconsof our century. (Blumenthal) Auschwitzand Hiroshimaare often presentedas twin nadirsin the history of humansuffering. They representunprecedented, if not actuallyunique, chapters in history andthus occupya privilegedposition in the revelationof man's inhumanityto man.Elie Wieselestablishes a causalrelationship between the two events,arguing that, "Hiroshima was a consequenceof Auschwitz.The world that allowedthe murder of the Jewishpeople would eventuallynot careabout the annihilationof a city far away" (Futureof Remembering3129). Wiesel, of course,is a well-known advocateof the view that the Holocaustis unique,and he is carefulto assertthat his link between Auschwitz and Hiroshimais not a comparisonmade on historical grounds,but rather an acknowledgementthat nuclearassault was the inevitableoutcome of the amorality that madethe Holocaustpossible. The relationshipbetween Auschwitz and Hiroshima as presentedby Wiesel and Blumenthalostensibly offers an initial justification for the comparativefocus adoptedin this thesis. However, fashioning the relationship between Auschwitz and Hiroshima in such a way that presentsthem as linked icons of amorality is not unproblematic. John Whittier Treat, the first English language literary critic to offer a sustainedanalysis of atomic bomb literature, argues that too often the relationship between these two discrete events is invoked casually and without acknowledgement of the historical and cultural specificities that divide them. He argues: It hasbeen common in writing on the Holocaustto add,perhaps for dramaticeffect, 'Hiroshima' to the litany of sitesillustrating modem man's savagetreatment of himself. the first atomicbombing, which like the deathcamps should be understoodas a modelfor contemporary knowledge,is insteadtreated as an optional exampleof someother idea typically more colloquial and thus lessunsettling (e. g. 'man's inhumanity to man'). (Writing GroundZero 9) Treat's concernhere is that Hiroshimacomes to occupya supportingrole in discussionsof the Holocaustand suffering;it ftmctionsonly to emphasiseissues made apparentby the Holocaust.Somewhat contradicting his assertionthat the Auschwitz and Hiroshimajointly sharea position as "icons of our century," Blumenthalargues that it is the Holocaustalone that representsa "paradigmof suffering." Otherevents may be discussedin the contextof the Holocaust - Blumenthalsuggests the Armenian genocide,slavery and the killing fields of Cambodiaamongst others as examples- but they aremost emphatically"not the Shoah"(Blumenthal). Mfflst not arguingfor the 'uniqueness'of Hiroshima,Treat objectsto the useof Hiroshimaas a comparative examplerather than it being acknowledgedas a paradigmaticevent in the sameway as the Holocaust. A further objectionTreat has to Wiesel's and Blumenthal'sunderstanding of the relationshipbetween the Holocaustand the atomic bombingsis their useof the words 'Auschwitz' and 'Hiroshima.' He suggeststhat theseterms have transcended their historicalrealities as an exterminationcamp and a bombedcity, and areregarded as "no longermerely places but ideas,tropes of a new fact within the human condition: a conditioncompromised by our ability, in a matterof respectivehours and seconds,to eliminatewhole ghettosand cities of people"(Writing GroundZero 9). The connectionbetween the two eventsis thus establishedpurely on a philosophical, contemplativelevel, which potentiallyjeopardises our appreciationof the Holocaust and the atomicbombings as real eventsin history. Justas the term 'Auschwitz' masks the multitude of different experiencesof Holocaustvictims, so the term 'Hiroshima' tendsto obscurethe fact that two cities, Hiroshimaand Nagasaki, were targetedfor nuclearattack. Although the bombingof both cities markedthe entranceinto an age of nuclearwarfare, the attackson Hiroshimaand Nagasaki cannot be consideredto be the same.The uraniumbomb known as "Little Boy" was droppedon Hiroshimaat 8.15arnon August 6. Hiroshimawas completelydevastated, by both the initial impact of the bomb and also by the intensefire that subsequentlyraged through the city. Ironically, an all-clear siren had beensounded in the city fifteen minutesbefore the attack,and so the majority of peoplein Hiroshimawere occupiedwith their daily activities in the homeand at work when the bomb was dropped.Whilst casualty figureshave never been satisfactorily confirmed, it is estimatedthat 59% of the 2 population were killed in the attack. In Nagasaki, the situation

Load more