1 16. Berliner Colloquium Zur Zeitgeschichte Brussels, Beutelsbach
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
16. Berliner Colloquium zur Zeitgeschichte Brussels, Beutelsbach and Butovo: Economic, Social and Political Constraints on Memorial Museums Hosted by Mischa Gabowitsch (Einstein Forum, Potsdam), Enrico Heitzer (Stiftung Brandenburgische Gedenkstätten, Oranienburg) and Markus Pieper (Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur, Berlin) Conference language: German 26 and 27 September 2014 Questionnaire Section 1 The Framework Chair Mischa Gabowitsch * What is a memorial museum? What distinguishes it from a museum, a memorial site, or a place of remembrance? How relevant is this distinction outside Germany? * Since when have there been memorial museums? What are the oldest places of remembrance that function recognizably as memorial museums? * What conditions in society suffice for memorial museums to be founded and maintained? Which of these are essential? Can the answer be formulated in a way that includes more than one country and era? * Are memorial museums an agent of change in society or rather a manifestation of it? * Under what conditions could it make sense to close a memorial museum or turn it into something else? * What is the significance of geography for the role of memorial museums (accessibility, proximity to other important places, shifting borders etc.)? * Do small, remote, poorly equipped memorial museums have a fundamentally different function than big, central »showcase« institutions? * How do the different kinds of precarious conditions–inadequate financing, insufficient interest among the population (e.g. Eastern Germany), insufficient interest among educational institutions and political authorities (e.g. Bulgaria), resistance from political authorities and society against places of remembrance (e.g. Russia, Belarus)– affect the work of memorial museums? 1 * Can a precarious existence have positive effects on memorial museums, and if so, which? Section 2 Witnesses Chair Markus Pieper * How can memorial museums be designed and built if, at the time of their conception, eyewitnesses are no longer available? * How do memorial museums handle their function for eyewitnesses as places of returning and encountering? Which eyewitnesses do they give a special status as moral and/or interpretive authorities, and why? * When and where are »good« and credible witnesses distinguished from »bad« and unreliable ones? What perpetuates or reverses these evaluations? Why and how do old distinctions (heroes and victims, survivors and perpetrators, prisoners and guards) blur or fragment? * What effects do the deaths of the last eyewitnesses have? * What role can eyewitnesses play as directors or employees of memorial museums? What does it mean when no eyewitnesses are available–and what, if no one besides them expresses willingness to operate a memorial museum? * What are the differences in in the roles of eyewitnesses in various countries (e.g. victims/survivors in Germany, war veterans in the former USSR, firemen/engineers at Ground Zero in New York)? * What forms do the roles of eyewitnesses take with respect to post-Stalinism and the Cold War? Section 3 Norms, Education, Human Rights Chair Cornelia Siebeck * Is there a moral imperative to establish, maintain and use memorial museums even where there is hardly any demand for them in society, or where people want them to be some kind of spectacle? How would this moral imperative coexist with others? * Where do memorial museums see themselves within the poles of local identification, preservation work, history instruction and political education? * To take part in political education, do they require a mandate? If so, from whom? 2 * Does this apply solely to state (or state-financed) memorial museums or equally to private ones? * Can and should education about the Holocaust, Gulag, dictatorship and the Cold War teach respect for human rights? Is this at all possible? Is it a tenet of this kind of education? Section 4 The »Beutelsbach Consensus« and Germany as a Model Chair Enrico Heitzer * In light of criticism within Germany and growing internationalization, is it worth defending the »Beutelsbach Consensus« or does it need to be revised? Could or should it even serve as a model for other countries’ memorial cultures? * Does any pioneering role among German memorial museums have to do with these kinds of conceptual formulations, or does it result from a wealth of experience, contrasting experiences during personal visits and material advantages? * How should we regard criticism of memorial museums in other countries from German memorial museum employees and specialists in history teaching? In other words, is there a ban on such criticism that arises from Germany’s history? If so, how long should it remain in place and how does it change for successive age cohorts? * What does it mean when criticism is raised in other countries with reference to Germany, to draw attention to the inadequacies of those countries’ own memorial museums? To be constructive, must such criticism be based on detailed knowledge of German memorial museum work? * Are organizational fundamentals from the German context (e.g. autonomy even with state funding) sensible for other states? * Are concepts developed chiefly for the remembrance of Nazi crimes also relevant for memorial museums of Stalinism/Communism/Gulag, the Cold War or other subject complexes? To what extent are remembrance concepts influenced by the legacy of the Cold War? If so, how does this legacy have a restrictive effect, and what can be done, if necessary, to overcome it? * Is an international or European memorial museum culture a worthwhile goal? By what means do norms of remembrance culture spread internationally, and how do they make themselves felt beyond the great institutions and international congresses? 3 Suggested Reading Charter Provisions of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Title 36, United States Code, Sections 2301–2310 (http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20100820-current-charter.pdf) Veronika Dorman, From the Solovki to Butovo: How the Russian Orthodox Church Appropriates the Memory of the Repressions. In: Laboratorium. 2(2010),3; 431– 436 Fortschreibung der Gedenkstättenkonzeption des Bundes: Verantwortung wahrnehmen, Aufarbeitung verstärken, Gedenken vertiefen. Unterrichtung durch den Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien. BT-Drs. (16. Wahlperiode, 16/9875) Christian Geißler-Jagodzinski/Verena Haug, Gedenkstättenpädagogik – Ziele, Grenzen und Widersprüche. In: Janne Mende, Stefan Müller (Hg.): Emanzipation in der politischen Bildung. Theorien – Konzepte – Möglichkeiten. Schmalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag, 2009; 299–329 Internationale Gedenkstätten-Charta. In: Newsletter Gedenkstätten und Erinnerungsorte in Schleswig-Holstein. 2(2013),4; 8–9 Jan-Holger Kirsch, Das öffentliche Bild von Gedenkstätten. In: Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hg.): Gedenkstätten und Besucherforschung. Bonn, 2004; 43–59 Günter Morsch, Die Bedeutung der kleineren Gedenkstätten für die Erinnerungskultur in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Detlev Gause, Heino Schomaker (Hg.): Das Gedächtnis des Landes. Engagement von Bürgerinnen für eine Kultur des Erinnerns. Hamburg: ebv, 2001; 12–35 Marita Sturken, Tourists of History. Memory, Kitsch, and Consumerism from Oklahoma City to Ground Zero. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2007; 165–218 Hans-Georg Wehling, Beutelsbacher Konsens. In: Siegfried Schiele, Herbert Schneider (Hg.): Das Konsensproblem in der politischen Bildung. Stuttgart: Klett, 1977; 179–180 4 .