The Politics of Intimacy: Close Relations and Genocidal Violence Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY” by David Deutsch Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 22-4-2015 Beer-Sheva The Politics of Intimacy: Close Relations and Genocidal Violence Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY” by David Deutsch Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Approved by the advisor Approved by the Dean of the Kreitman School of Advanced Graduate Studies 22-4-2016 Beer-Sheva This work was carried out under the supervision of Professor Niza Yanay In the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences Research-Student's Affidavit when Submitting the Doctoral Thesis for Judgment I David Deutsch, whose signature appears below, hereby declare that (Please mark the appropriate statements): _V__ I have written this Thesis by myself, except for the help and guidance offered by my Thesis Advisors. _V__ The scientific materials included in this Thesis are products of my own research, culled from the period during which I was a research student. __V_ This Thesis incorporates research materials produced in cooperation with others, excluding the technical help commonly received during experimental work. Therefore, I am attaching another affidavit stating the contributions made by myself and the other participants in this research, which has been approved by them and submitted with their approval. Date: 22-4-15 Student's name: David Deutsch Signature: Table of Content Abstract 1-5 Introduction 6-27 Chapter One: Goebbels' Intimate Anti-Semitism 28-61 Chapter Two: Nazi Euthanasia and Empathic Rationalization of Violence 62-128 Chapter Three: The Transformation of Nazi Anti- Gay Discourse toward Close Hate 129-180 Short Summary 181-184 Bibliography 185-199 Hebrew Abstract 200-202 פ : ' מחקר לשם מילוי חלקי של הדרישות לקבלת תואר "דוקטור לפילוסופיה" מאת דוד דויטש הוגש לסינאט אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב ג אייר התשע"ו 22-4-2015 באר שבע פ : ' מחקר לשם מילוי חלקי של הדרישות לקבלת תואר "דוקטור לפילוסופיה" מאת דוד דויטש הוגש לסינאט אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב אישור המנחה אישור דיקן בית הספר ללימודי מחקר מתקדמים ע"ש קרייטמן ____________________ ג באייר התשע"ו 22-4-2016 באר שבע העבודה נעשתה בהדרכת פרופסור ניצה ינאי במחלקה לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה בפקולטה למדעי החברה הצהרת תלמיד המחקר עם הגשת עבודת הדוקטור לשיפוט אני החתום מטה מצהיר/ה בזאת: )אנא סמן(: __V_ חיברתי את חיבורי בעצמי, להוציא עזרת ההדרכה שקיבלתי מאת מנחה/ים. _ V__ החומר המדעי הנכלל בעבודה זו הינו פרי מחקרי מתקופת היותי תלמיד/ת מחקר . _V__ בעבודה נכלל חומר מחקרי שהוא פרי שיתוף עם אחרים, למעט עזרה טכנית הנהוגה בעבודה ניסיונית. לפי כך מצורפת בזאת הצהרה על תרומתי ותרומת שותפי למחקר, שאושרה על ידם ומוגשת בהסכמתם. תאריך: 22-4-15 שם התלמיד/ה: דוד דויטש חתימה: 1-5 6-27 פ : 28-61 פ : פ 62-126 פ : 128-180 181-184 פ 185-199 200-202 Abstract During the period that I worked at Yadvashem as a guide, I noticed one particular question that was frequently asked, “how was it possible that German Jewish relations attained a genocidal level despite previous tendencies of proximity?” The traditional answer, commonly offered, focused on the development of “Otherization” and an exclusion process that is evident from the ongoing anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda at that time. The tendency to focus on exclusion as an explanation and conceptualization of the mass murders is not only common among Yadvashem guides, but is rather a widely accepted concept embedded within the academic outlook and historiography of genocide research. The starting point for the current research aspires to challenge the paradigm that argues that exclusion tendencies played an exclusive role in genocidal discourse. Instead, the research examines the explicit role perpetrator-victim proximity played in establishing a Nazi genocidal rationale. Most of the current literature, however, shows how marking, separating and excluding the targeted group countered the earlier position of proximity and basically toppled the affiliation completely. Further, it was demonstrated how German Jewish inter group influence was altered towards an anti-Semitic eliminating discourse.1 I argue that the traditional German Jewish proximity is part of the discourse of exclusion and contributed a large part to the genocidal development. In this research, the relative role that discourse of proximity played in various aspects of Nazi violence against minorities (not only anti-Semitism) is traced. For example, during the murders of the mentally ill in Germany, patients were killed by their professional care givers and, in many cases, they were the very doctors and nurses that were familiar with these patient-victims. Here too, the common outlook explains the violent transformation that medical staffs underwent as part of their dehumanization of mentally ill patients; thus, closeness was downplayed by Otherization. However, I intend to examine the phenomenon wherein prior proximity served to justify and even fuel medical violence. I will also present the ideological mechanism that expropriates the concept of empathy in order to reinterpret violence as an act of medical mercy. 1 Daniel J.Goldhagen, titlom’ ‎willing‎oxocutionom ‎:‎‎,tolocau t‎omninam ‎nomran ‎ann‎tro ‎‎ New York: A. Knopf, 1996. 1 In the past two decades, academic literature has turned its focus towards an examination of genocide from novel points of view and perspectives. As a result, there is a significant amount of researches that delve into the inclusion exclusion dynamics of genocidal outbursts. However, some researchers, for example La Capara, tend to avoid an in depth case study analysis of how the mechanism of hate and proximity coincide.2 Other researchers, who deal with actual case studies, offer a suggestive but general theory rather than a specific conceptualization of the different intimate-violent processes that took place.3 My research spotlights two main, divergent yet connected, categories of proximity: intimacy and empathy. By implementing these categories into the genocidal rhetoric, I intend to re-read the way in which Nazi discourse was cultivated. The research is based upon three case studies that demonstrate three distinct forms of close hate: anti-Semitism, euthanasia killing and the persecution of homosexual individuals. In all the cases presented, a situation of proximity was used and aimed at a discourse of genocidal violence. As I will demonstrate later on, categories of proximity, such as intimacy and empathy, can preserve the potential to justify and conceptualize explicit and implicit violence. Researches dealing with domestic violence pinpoint such a link between closeness and the element of fear, which eventually generates into a relationship of hate.4 Other researches, addressing the relations between the torturer and the victim, show how empathy can be manipulated in order to promote violent conduct.5 Similarly, I have examined how and to what extent categories of proximity not only did not function as an obstacle, but rather served as a linguistic tool that contributed to the Nazi propaganda for justifying their genocidal policies. In the first case, I analyzed a form of anti-Semitism meticulously described in the speeches and diaries of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda. Although his genocidal discourse is ambivalent, it nevertheless presents linguistic formulations that clearly display German- Jewish 2 Dominick La Capara, Writing History Writing Trauma, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. 3 Jacques Semelin, Purify and Destroy: the Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, New York: Colombia University Press, 2007 4 Ofra Maysless, "Adult Attachment Patterns and Courtship Violence", Family Relations, 1991, V. 40, pp. (21-28) 5 Lou Agosta, Empathy in the Context of Philosophy, UK: Palgave Macmillan, 2010 2 closeness, i.e. perpetrator-victim proximity. Goebbels claims to know the Jews from within and compares the similarity between Jewish and German characteristics and destinies. In his writings, he exhibits a vast knowledge of the Yiddish language, Jewish culture and Jewish rituals and emphasizes that the entire Jewish community is a fundamental threat to the German population due to the fact that they are close enemies from within. After rereading his diaries and juxtaposing them to his speeches, I deem the term intimate violence as more fitting to an understanding of Goebbels genocidal discourse against the Jews. Many scholars that have studied intimate relations connect intimacy with privileged knowledge; an inner understanding and codependency - features that are clearly visible in Goebbels hate speeches. Intimate violence is characterized by the inclusion exclusion dynamics which, in turn, may contribute to imaging the victim as a dangerous threat.6 In this chapter, I offer three different models to explain Goebbels’ discourse of intimate violence. The second case study is based on the concept of empathic violence during the period of the euthanasia killings. In this area, the majority of research centers on the distorted image of the mentally ill who are seen by Nazi propaganda as hideous, demonic and parasitic creatures that are a burden to society.7 However, the testimonies of medical staffs offer a different outlook. In their defense, both doctors and nurses argued that they acted purely out of a sense of medical empathy. Scholars