Disciplining Post-Communist Remembrance: from Politics of Memory to the Emergence of a Mnemonic Field
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Disciplining Post-Communist Remembrance: from Politics of Memory to the Emergence of a Mnemonic Field Zoltán Dujisin Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2018 © 2018 Zoltán Dujisin All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Disciplining Post-Communist Remembrance: from Politics of Memory to the Emergence of a Mnemonic Field Zoltán Dujisin I examine the origins of the anti-totalitarian collective memory pervading Central and Eastern Europe by tracking the genesis and development of the region’s ubiquitous and state-sponsored memory institutes. I deploy field analysis, prosopography and in-depth interviews to reveal how these hybrid institutes generate a potent anti-communist symbolic repertoire by overseeing alliances and exchanges across political, historiographic and Eurocratic fields. Memory institutes ensure this hegemony fundamentally via two mechanisms: The scientific validation of their activities by way of scholarly co-optation, and its regional legitimation through incursions into European arenas. I conclude that memory institutes are ultimately a key element of post- communist political competition, responsible for creating a durable symbolic advantage for the right’s conservative identity politics. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: TWO MODELS OF REGIONAL REMEMBRANCE ......................................... 48 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEANIZING POST-COMMUNIST MEMORY POLITICS ..................... 74 CHAPTER 3: FROM REGIME DIVIDE TO MEMORY CLEAVAGE ................................... 110 CHAPTER 4: HISTORIOGRAPHIC STRUGGLES UNDER ANTI-COMMUNIST NATIONAL RENEWAL ........................................................................................................... 154 CHAPTER 5: MEMORY ENTREPRENEURS, ARCHITECTS OF FIELD EMERGENCE .. 194 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 240 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 255 APPENDIX: Memory Institutes and Political Context for their Emergence ............................. 277 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Practices of Memory Institutes ...................................................................................... 97 Figure 2: Memory Regimes Compared....................................................................................... 109 Figure 3: Post-Communist Political Fields and Cleavages ......................................................... 141 Figure 4: Textbook aid developed by Romania's memory institute ........................................... 148 Figure 5: Ideal-typical Historiographic Field of Post-Communism ........................................... 184 Figure 6: Post-Communist Memory Regime .............................................................................. 224 Figure 7: Children plotting their escape across the Iron Curtain ................................................ 237 Figure 8: Emergence of the Mnemonic Field ............................................................................. 239 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When over four years ago I transferred from a Political Science department to Columbia Sociology, I was unaware of the depth of the abyss between the two disciplines. Transitioning was therefore unexpectedly arduous, but undoubtedly the right choice. Three years ago, speaking to my supervisor, I remember conveying to him that, for a text, lecture or debate to spark my sociological imagination, I still needed a bridge to the political world, to the realm of power in its crudest expression. This is no longer the case, and the first thing to acknowledge is my regret that this realization did not come sooner. I take this as a sign that I have not yet reached full scholarly maturity, but I find this realization comforting, a refreshing reminder that I retain some of the flexibility and eagerness to learn of my youthful university years in Lisbon. I begin by thanking those who renewed and redirected my intellectual curiosity well into my 30s. First of all, I thank my Columbia supervisor Gil Eyal. For everything he did directly - as a responsive, effective and insightful supervisor and an excellent Professor - but also indirectly. Anyone who reads this dissertation and knows his thinking will immediately recognize the immense debt I owe to his intellectual output. The last couple of years I had the chance to re-read much of his work and I keep surprising myself with the insights and connections it inspires. Never having truly developed a love (or hate) relationship with New York, Gil Eyal was also a big part of my decision to apply to Columbia. His work on post-communist elites resonated deeper than anything else I had read on the region during my time at CEU. I also wish to thank my Sorbonne co-supervisor, Antoine Vauchez, who immediately showed an excellent grasp of my topic and whose feedback was persistently helpful and accurate. Antoine iii also gave me the privilege of experiencing French academia during my semester in Paris, where thanks to him I could engage with a community of Bourdieuan scholars that significantly shaped my thinking. I am most grateful to Andras Bozoki, my first supervisor and now my external. By endorsing my application to CEU, Andras gave me the chance to become a scholar and I would not be here without his unconditional support and closeness over the years. The other members of my committee have also played an important role in this thesis. I am deeply grateful to Shamus Khan for behaving like a supervisor from day one, and I am glad he eventually joined the committee. His feedback was always honest and poignant, our conversations immensely productive, and whenever I asked for help I found a kind and responsive scholar. I also wish to thank David Stark for the most challenging but ultimately rewarding teaching experience, whereby I expanded my sociological curiosity to areas previously unimaginable to me. Moreover, his straight-forward feedback regarding the framing of my topic served as an important wake-up call. This thesis could not have been written without the support, inspiration and encouragement of many other Professors and scholars that I encountered during the years. In this regard, I wish to express my recognition to Anil Duman, Bela Greskovits, Don Kalb, Dorothee Bohle, Josh Whitford, Karen Barkey, Lea Sgier, Michael Miller, Michal Kopeček, Peter Apor, Sheri Berman, Xymena Kurowska, and Zsolt Enyedi, all of whom contributed in one way or another to finalizing this journey. I am indebted to the Harriman Institute for the reiterated financial support to my research and scholarly development, and for the countless thought-provoking conferences, events and discussions on Central and Eastern Europe. I also wish to acknowledge Alliance for awarding me its Doctoral Mobility Grant, which allowed for a wonderful and productive stay in Paris. During iv this time, the enlightening conversations with scholars such as Didier Georgakakis, Jay Rowell, Jean-Louis Fabiani, Giselle Sapiro, Nadège Ragaru and Sylvain Laurens, helped me settle the theoretical framework that guides this dissertation. In this particularly delicate moment for its existence, I want to express my sincerest gratitude to Central European University for the formation and support it gave me. The gathering of empirical data for this study was made possible by the kindness, openness and availability of my informants and friends all over the region. I am therefore indebted to Anca Mihalache, Andreja Valič Zver, Andrei Muraru, Bert Rosenthal, Bogdan Iacob, Carlos Closa Montero, Claudia Ciobanu, Darius Staliūnas, Dominik Pick, Dovid Katz, Ferenc Laczó, Florin Abraham, Florin Poenaru, Francis Robichaud, Hans Altendorf, Irena Šumi, Irina Costache, Ivars Ījabs, Justinas Dementavičius, Kaja Širok, Karsten Brüggemann, Katalin Varga, Krzysztof Persak, Lenka Kukurova, Leon Kieres, Luka Lisjak, Łukasz Michalski, Maciej Górny, Marek Tamm, Mária Schmidt, Matěj Spurný, Matevž Tomšič, Michal Pullmann, Neela Winkelmann, Pavel Žáček, Paweł Machcewicz, Piotr Trzaskowski, Piotr Wciślik, Rachel Kostanian, Raluca Grosescu, Ronaldas Račinskas, Ruta Pazdere, Teresė Burauskaitė, Theodor Mittrup, Toomas Hiio, Valters Nollendorfs, Ulrich Mählert and Uku Lember. I am beholden to my dear friends and colleagues who proof-read and provided feedback, often on short notice, in this difficult last stretch of dissertation writing. A heartfelt thank you to Elena Stavrevska, Elizabeth Schober, Ian Cook, Joanna Kostka, Kyle Stanton, Olga Loblova, Oriane Calligaro and Paul Weith. While I can't mention them all, I also wish to thank all my friends from Lisbon, Budapest, Prague and New York who in some way or another helped me through the years of doctoral studies. Even my oldest friends who, by constantly reminding me I’m "still a student" with creative and