IFNOSTORYISPOSSIBLE

TRAUMA,TESTIMONYANDBIOPOLITICSAFTERAUSCHWITZ

JennyEdkins
DepartmentofInternationalPolitics,UniversityofWalesAberystywth,SY233DA,
Wales,UK
j.edkins@aber.ac.uk

Paperpresentedatthe2001HongKongConventionofInternationalStudies
HongKong,2628July2001

If no story is possible after Auschwitz, there remains,

nonetheless,adutytospeak,tospeakendlesslyforthosewhocould
notspeak...SarahKofman

ThereisatemptationinthefaceofthehorroroftheNaziconcentrationcamps
toretreatintothecomfortofeasysolutionstothequestionofmemory. Thereare
several ways of doing this. The first is to represent what happened in a linear
narrativethehistoricalaccountoftheholocaust.MuseumsliketheUSHolocaust
MemorialMuseuminWashingtonorexhibitslikethatattheImperialWarMuseum
inLondonattempttopresentsuchanarrative:acoherentstorythatpromotesaclear
moralmessage.Theyfocusonhistoricalaccuracy,displayingauthenticartefactsto
backuptheirclaimstoirrefutability. Historicalresearchinitssearchforthetruth
about the events of the National Socialist persecutions can appear obsessed with
factualdetail,evidenceandproof,particularlyinthefaceofthosewhowoulddeny
thatanythingcalledtheholocaustevertookplace.Thereisareassuringassumption
thatahistoricalnarrativebasedonfirmevidencecanleadtoaformofclosure,afinal
solutiontooutstandingquestions.
Claude Lanzmann argues that there is an absolute obscenity in the very
projectofunderstanding,whichisrevealedifweformulatethehistoriansquestion
insimplistictermsWhyhavetheJewsbeenkilled? 1Itisnecessarytocultivatea
certain refusalofunderstanding ifwearetobeabletolookatwhathappened
1

QuotedinClaudeLanzmann,Theobscenityofunderstanding:Aneveningwith
ClaudeLanzmann,inTrauma:ExplorationsinMemory,ed.CathyCaruth(Baltimore:TheJohns
HopkinsUniversityPress,1995),200220;204.

without yielding to the temptation to produce an abstraction in its place. In the

makingofthefilmShoah,Lanzmannusedthisblindnessasthevitalconditionof
creation.Herefusedtoacceptthatthetestimonyheelicitedinthefilmcouldleadto
anunderstandingofwhytheeventsconcernedhappened.Thereishearguesagap,
anabyssbetweenthebackgroundthepreviouseventsandthekillings,suchthat
toseektounderstand,togenerateharmoniously...thedestructionofsixmillion
people,isanobscenity.2 HerefusedtheresponseIunderstand.Butheisbyno
meansrecommendingthatthisrefusalofunderstanding,thisblindness,shouldstand
inthewayofanattempttosee.Onthecontrary,inatotallydifferentwayheargues
thatblindnesshastobeunderstoodhereasthepurestmodeoflooking,ofthegaze,
theonlywaytonotturnawayfromarealitywhichisliterallyblinding.3
Museums andmemorial sites combine theirquestfortruthwithadutyof
remembrance,whichcanbeseenasasecondattempttobringaformofclosure.
Whatisrememberedisastoryofhumanityunbowedinthefaceofuntoldsuffering,a
story of redemption, heroism and rescue. These elements are present in an
exaggerated form in museum exhibits devoted to rescuers, resistance, and the
continuationoftheJewishcommunityafterpersecutionorthefoundationofthestate
ofIsrael.Inmemorialhallsweareenjoinedtobearwitnessandtoremember,butin
thesafecontextofaworldwherewhathappenedisinthepastandwhereouractions
canguaranteetheneveragain.Wehavealabelforwhathappened:wecallitthe
holocaust.Wecantalkaboutitasifweknewwhatitwas.Inthesewaysweare
shieldedfromthehorror.

Lanzmann,Theobscenityofunderstanding,206.

Lanzmann,Theobscenityofunderstanding,204.

Athirdapproach,andonewhichstillinvolvesshieldingourselvesfromthe
horror,iswhenweacknowledgetheeventasunimaginableandunsayable.Theresult
ofthisisthatweareexcusedfromfurtherenquiry.AsRobertAntelmenoted,most
consciencesaresatisfiedquicklyenough,andneedonlyafewwordsinordertoreach
adefinitiveopinionoftheunknowable....Unimaginable:awordthatdoesntdivide,
doesntrestrict.Themostconvenientword.Whenyouwalkaroundwiththisword
as your shield, this word for emptiness, your step becomes better assured, more
resolute,yourconsciencepullsitselftogether.4ThesoldierswhoenteredDachauto
liberatetheconcentrationcampwerecontentwiththeverdictfrightful.Butitwas
notonlytheywhohadproblems.Eventhesurvivors,whowantedtospeak,tobe
heardandtodescribetheirexperience,eventheysawthattherewasagapopening
upbetweenthewordsattheirdisposalandthatexperience.AsAntelmedescribesit,
eventous,whatwehadtotell wouldstarttoseem unimaginable.5 However,
significantly, he stresses that his conclusion is not to be taken as an excuse for
silence,butasacallforaresumptionoftheeffort:Itbecameclear...thatonly
throughthat selfsameimagining couldtherebeanyattempting totell something
aboutit.6
ForSarahKofmanaboutAuschwitzandafterAuschwitznostoryispossible,
ifbyastoryonemeans:totellastoryofeventswhichmakessense. 7Ontheother
handsheinsistswithAntelmethatthereremainsadutyTospeakinordertobear

RobertAntelme,TheHumanRace,trans.JeffreyHaightandAnnieMahler,
(Evanston,Illinois:TheMarlboroPress/Northwestern,1992),289290.
5

Antelme,TheHumanRace,3.

Antelme,TheHumanRace,4.

SarahKofman,SmotheredWords,trans.MadeleineDobie,(Evanston,Illinois:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,1998),14.

witness.Buthow?Howcantestimonyescapetheidylliclawofthestory? 8Again
thereisachasmbetweenthedutytospeakandtheimpossibilityofspeech:
How can one speak of that before which all possibility of
speechceases?...Tospeak:itisnecessarywithout(the)power:
without allowing language, too powerful, sovereign, to master the
mostaporeticsituation,absolutepowerlessnessandverydistress,to
encloseitintheclarityandhappinessofdaylight.Andhowcanone
notspeakofit,whenthewishofallthosewhoreturned...hasbeento
tell,totellendlessly,asifonlyaninfiniteconversationcouldmatch
theinfiniteprivation?9
This aporia between speaking and not speaking, between the compulsion to bear
witnessandtheimpossibilityofdoingso,isforGiorgioAgambentheverystructure
oftestimony.Survivorsofthecampsborewitnesstosomethingitwasimpossibleto
bearwitnessto.10Weshouldlistentothisaporia,thisgap,thischasm,thisabsence.
Forsurvivors,whathappenedinthecampswastheonlytruething.Thefactsoftheir
persecutionaresoreal,nothingistruer.Butatthesametime,whathappenedinthe
campsisunimaginable. Itisarealitythatexceedsfacts. Thisaporiaofhistorical
knowledge, between facts and verification on the one hand and truth and
comprehension on the other, is the lacuna which forms the very structure of
testimony.11

Kofman,SmotheredWords,36.

Kofman,SmotheredWords,910.

10

GiorgioAgamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz:TheWitnessandtheArchive,trans.
DanielHellerRoazen,(NewYork:ZoneBooks,1999),13.
11

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,12.

ThepaperbeginsbybrieflysettingouttheaccountgivenbyPrimoLevia
survivorofthecampslookingparticularlyattwoaspects:first,hisdescriptionsof
thefigureoftheMuselmannorMuslim(thenamegivenbyinmatestoprisonerswho
hadlostanywilltolive)andsecond,hisaccountoftheproblemsofsurvivaland
witness. IgoontoexamineAgambensanalysisofAuschwitz. Agambenswork
drawsonLevitoarguethattestimonyarisesinthegapbetweenthehumanandthe
inhumanproducedinthecamp.Italsoexaminesmorebroadlytheroleofthecamp
inthebiopoliticsofthewest,andIgoontodiscusshowthissetsoutthepoliticsat
stakeintestimony,andspecificallyitstheplaceasresistance. Finally,thepaper
offersabriefexaminationofthewayinwhichthepotentialoftestimonyisrealisedor
notinavarietyofcontemporarypractices.InconclusionIlocatetestimonyasoneof
anumberofformsofresistancethatinvolvetraversingthefantasyorassuming
barelife.12

Testimony
Intheconcentrationcampstherewasasharpdivisionbetweentwotypesof
prisoners,whichPrimoLevicallsthesavedandthedrowned. 13 Thedrownedwere
those who had been disorientated from the beginning, had not made the rapid
adjustmenttocamplifethattheexigencies oftheregimedemanded,andhadnot
foundanywayofcircumventingthehardshipsandprivations.Suchprisonerswere
12

TraversingthefantasyisusedhereinSlavojZizekssense(seeforexampleSlavoj
Zizek,TarryingwiththeNegative:Kant,HegelandtheCritiqueofIdeology,(Durham,North
Carolina:DukeUniversityPress,1993);andSlavojZizek,TheSublimeObjectofIdeology,(London:
Verso,1989))andbarelifeornakedlifeisatermusedbyAgambenwhichwillbediscussedbelow.
13

PrimoLevi,IfThisisAManandTheTruce,trans.StuartWoolf,(London:Abacus,

1979),93.

themajority.Theirlifeexpectancyinthecampwasshort.Theysoonsuccumbedto
starvationanddisease,exhaustionorselections. Theywereshunnedbytheother
prisoners,whogavethemthenameMuselmnnerMuslims.PrimoLevigivesus
thisdescription:
Their life is short, but their number is endless; they, the
Muselmnner, the drowned, form the backbone of the camp, an
anonymousmass,continuallyrenewedandalwaysidentical,ofnon
menwhomarchandlabourinsilence,thedivinesparkdeadwithin
them,alreadytooemptytoreallysuffer. Onehesitatestocallthem
living:onehesitatestocalltheirdeathdeath,inthefaceofwhichthey
havenofear,astheyaretootiredtounderstand. Theycrowdmy
memorywiththeirfacelesspresences,andifIcouldencloseallthe
evilofourtimeinoneimage,Iwouldchoosethisimagewhichis
familiartome:anemaciatedman,withheaddroppedandshoulders
curved,onwhosefaceandinwhoseeyesnotatraceofthoughtistobe
seen.14
Inordinarylifeitrarelyhappensthatamanloseshimselfandbecomestotally
destitute but in the harsh struggle of the Lager there was no one to help. The
Muselmnner werenotworthspeakingtotheirfellowprisonersknewthatina
fewweeksnothing[would]remainofthembutahandfulofashesinsomenearby
fieldandacrossedoutnumberonaregister. 15 Bycontrast,thesavedwerethose
whohadaprofessiontheywerepermittedtofollow,thosewhobecameKaposor
14

Levi,IfThisisAManandTheTruce,96.

15

Levi,IfThisisAManandTheTruce,95.

Blockcaptains,orthosewhoinsomeotherwaymanagedtofindaroleandplacein
thecampthatwouldgainthemprivileges.
Ofcoursethosewhosurvivedthecampsweredrawndisproportionatelyfrom
theranksoftheprivileged:ThesavedoftheLagerwerenotthebest...theworst
survived,theselfish,theviolent,theinsensitive,thecollaboratorsofthegreyzones,
thespies. Theworstsurvivedthatis,thefittest; thebestalldied. 16 Itisthese
survivorswhoseaccountshaveproducedthedescriptionofthecampsthatwehave.
Leviacknowledgestheextenttowhichthisisincomplete:
We,thesurvivors,arenotthetruewitnesses....Wearethose
whobytheirprevaricationsorgoodluckdidnottouchbottom.Those
whodidso,thosewhosawtheGorgon,havenotreturnedtotellabout
itorhavereturnedmute,buttheyaretheMuslims,thesubmerged,
thecompletewitnesses.17
Thesurvivorsfeltanobligationtoattempttotellofthosewhodidnotreturn,
butthiswasadiscourseonbehalfofthirdparties,thestoryofthingsseenfrom
closeby,notexperiencedpersonally.18 Thedrownedwouldnothavebeenableto
speakforthemselves,eveniftheyhadpaperandpen,becauselongbeforetheirdeath
they had already lost the ability to observe, to remember, compare and express
themselves.Thesurvivorsspokeintheirstead,byproxy.19Thisimpossibilityof
bearingwitnessiscentraltoAgambensdiscussionoftestimony.
16

PrimoLevi,TheDrownedandtheSaved,trans.RaymondRosenthal,(London:
Abacus,1989),6263.
17

Levi,TheDrownedandtheSaved,6364.

18

Levi,TheDrownedandtheSaved,64.

19

Levi,TheDrownedandtheSaved,64.

10

ThedistinctionthatLevipointstobetweenthedrownedandthesavedarises
becausethepurposeoroutcomeoftheconcentrationcampismuchmorethanmere
extermination. Agambendrawsourattentiontoitsafunctioninthebiopoliticsof
sovereignpower,producingthedistinctionsandindistinctionsthatenablethatformof
powertowork.Specifically,thecamptransformstheJewintotheMuselmann.This
is the final stage of the operation of ontological categories as devastating
biopoliticalweapons20thatintheNazistatetransmutesthecitizenintothenonAryan,
thenonAryanintotheJew,theJewintothedeportee,thedeportedJewintothe
prisonerorHfling,andtheHflingintotheMuselmann.21TheMuselmannisalimit
figure beyond which no further division is possible, the figure that makes it
impossibletodistinguishlifefromdeath,thehumanfromthenonhuman.
Theexistence ofthe Muselmann,sovividly described forusbyLeviand
signalledinthetitleofhismemoirIfthisisaman,raisesimportantquestionsabout
themeaningofhumanbeing.Isthereanysense,forexample,inwhichthereissome
essenceofhumanitythatcanbeidentifiedthatisanymorethanjustthebiological
membershipofaparticularspecies?Inthecamp,theanswerhastobeno.Human
beingbecomesnothingmorethanaquestionofbiologicalbelonging.Inthecamp,
thecallingintoquestionofourqualityasmenprovokesanalmostbiologicalclaim
ofbelongingtothehumanrace.22WhatofthosewhodidnotbecomeMuselmnner,
thosewhostrovetoretainwhattheysawasemblematicoftheirhumandignityin
thefaceoftheindignitiesofthecamp? Wheretheymorehuman,orlessso? For

20

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,146147.

21

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,8485.

22

RobertAntelme,TheHumanRace,trans.JeffreyHaightandAnnieMahler,
(Evanston,Illinois:TheMarlboroPress/Northwestern,1992),56.

11

Levi,thesurvivors,thosewhoresistedfollowingtheslopedowntothebottom, 23
weretheworst.InAuschwitz,itwasnotdecenttoremaindecent:theinhumanwere
thosewhoretainedtheirhumanity. Toremaindecentwasshameful.24 Agamben
arguesthatinthefaceofAuschwitzwehavetowithdrawthemeaningoftheterm
mantothepointatwhichtheverysenseofthequestionistransformed. 25Inother
wordsifoneestablishesalimitbeyondwhichoneceasestobehumanandifallor
mostofhumankindpassesbeyondit,thisprovesnottheinhumanityofhumanbeings
buttheinsufficiencyandabstractionofthelimit.26
Whathappensthenisthatwehavetorethinkournotionsofhumanbeing.To
dootherwise,todenythehumanityofthe Muselmnner,forexample,wouldbeto
repeat the gesture of the persecutors. We are driven to a point where the very
humanityofhumanbeingiscalledintoquestionandwherewecannolongermakea
distinctionbetweenthehumanandtheinhuman.InAntelmeswords,itbringsusto
a`clearvisionofitsindivisibleoneness.27 Thenotionofsurvivaliskeyhere. In
Auschwitz,survivalhastwomeanings.EitheritisthesurvivaloftheMuselmannas
bare life when his more human life has already been extinguished. Or it is the
survivaloftheprisonerwhohassucceededinhisstrugglenottosuccumbtothe
degradationoftheinhumanexistenceoftheMuselmann.Inthefirst,theinhuman,
vegetativelifehassurvivedtheconscious,humanlife.Inthesecond,thecaseofthe
survivor,humanlifehassurvivedthethreatoftheinhuman.Whatthetestimonyof

23

Levi,Ifthisisaman,96.

24

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,60.

25

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,58.

26

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,63.

27

Antelme,TheHumanRace,6.

12

Auschwitztellsusisthatthesetwosensesconverge.InLevisformulationtheyare
theMuslims,thesubmerged,thecompletewitnesses.28 Agambenrearticulates
this as follows: the human being is the inhuman; the one whose humanity is
completelydestroyedistheonewhoistrulyhuman.29Thisparadoxmeansthatthere
isnotaperfectidentitybetweenthehumanandtheinhuman,andthatindeedthe
humanisnevertrulydestroyed.This,significantly,iswhatleavesopenaspacefor
testimony:
Testimony takes place where the speechless one makes the
speaking one speak and where the one who speaks bears the
impossibilityofspeakinginhisownspeech,suchthatthesilentand
the speaking, the human and the inhuman enter into a zone of
indistinctioninwhichitisimpossibletoestablish...thetruewitness30
Testimonyistobereadastheimpossibledialecticbetweenthesurvivorandthe
Muselmann, the pseudowitness and the complete witness, the human and the
inhuman.31Thisisnotacomfortablepositionforeither:Fortheonewhoknows,it
isfeltasanimpossibilityofspeaking;fortheonewhospeaks,itisexperiencedasan
equallybitterimpossibilitytoknow.32

28

Levi,TheDrownedandtheSaved,64

29

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,133.

30

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,120.

31

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,120.

32

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,123.Thesymmetryhereisanexactreflectionof
Heisenbergsuncertaintyprincipleinmodernphysicswhereitisimpossibletoknowthespeedand
positionofaparticlesimultaneously:oneortheothercanbeknown,notboth.

13

Biopolitics
For Agamben the concentration camp marks a threshold in western
biopolitics. Thecampisthepointatwhichtheinhumanityofbiopoliticsbecomes
apparentandtakesonitsmosthorrificform.Butthecampisnotsomethingwhichis
finished,whichliesinthepast.Onthecontrary,itproducesandexemplifiestheform
ofpoliticalspaceunderwhichwecontinuetolive.Itisapoliticalspaceinwhichthe
classical distinction between political being and natural lifebios and zoehas
disappeared. Instead,azoneisproducedwherenodistinctionbetweennatureand
politics can be found. The life that inhabits this zone of indistinction is what
Agambencallsbareornakedlife. Itremainsincludedinpoliticsonlythroughits
veryexclusionfromit. WhereFoucaultpointedtothewayinwhichsovereignty
movedfrompoweroverdeathtopoweroverlifeasitshiftedfromthecontrolof
territory to the control of populations, Agamben argues that in contemporary
biopoliticsthefocusisontheproductionoflifeasbarelife. Sovereignpoweris
producedbyandproductiveofastateofexceptionwheretherealmofbarelife
whichisoriginallysituatedonthemarginsofthepoliticalordergraduallybeginsto
coincidewiththepoliticalrealm,andinclusionandexclusion,outsideandinside...
enterintoazoneofirreducibleindistinction.33 Thelinkbetweenbarelifeandthe
politicalrealmisthesameasthelinkbetweenthelivingbeingandlanguage:There
ispoliticsbecausemanisthelivingbeingwho,inlanguage,separatesandopposes
himselftohisownbarelifeand,atthesametime,maintainshimselfinrelationtothat
barelifeinaninclusiveexclusion.34
33

GiorgioAgamben,HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife,trans.Daniel
HellerRoazen,(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,1998),9.
34

Agamben,HomoSacer,8.

14

Biopolitics,then,hasmovedbeyondthetransformationFoucaulttracedfrom
theoldsovereignpower(tomakedieandletlive)tothenewbiopower(tomakelive
and let die). According to Agamben, contemporary biopolitics, the act of
contemporarysovereignpower,canbeencapsulatedinthephrasetomakesurvive:
Thedecisiveactivityofbiopowerinourtimeconsistsinthe
productionnotoflifeordeath,butratherofamutableandvirtually
infinitesurvival. Ineverycase,itisamatterofdividinganimallife
fromorganiclife,thehumanfromtheinhuman,thewitnessfromthe
Muselmann, conscious life from vegetative life maintained
functionally through resuscitation techniques, until a threshold is
reached: an essentially mobile threshold that, like the borders of
geopolitics,movesaccordingtotheprogressofscientificandpolitical
technologies.Biopowerssupremeambitionistoproduce,inahuman
body, the absolute separation of the living being and the speaking
being,zoeandbios,theinhumanandthehumansurvival.35
Theproductionofsurvival,inotherwords,wouldbeaccomplishedbythe
absoluteseparationofzoeandbios,theinhumanandthehuman.TheMuselmnner
wouldbetheendpointofthisambition,wereitnotfortheirintimateconnectionwith
thewitness.TheNazissoughttoproducesurvivalseparatedfromeverypossibilityof
testimony.TheMuselmnnerwereintendedtobeinvisible,empty,unseen:Bare,
unassignable,unwitnessablelife.36TheNazissawcoveringtheirtracksasessential
totheirenterprise.Survivorsremembertheirwarningtoinhabitantsofthecamp:
35

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,155156.

36

Agamben,RemnantsofAuschwitz,157.

15

Howeverthiswarmayend,wehavewonthewaragainstyou;
noneofyouwillbelefttobearwitness,butevenifsomeonewereto
survive,theworldwouldnotbelievehim. Therewillbesuspicions,
discussions,research by historians, but there will beno certainties,
becausewewilldestroytheevidencewithyou. Andevenifsome
proofshould remain andsome of yousurvive, people will saythe
eventsyoudescribearetoomonstroustobebelieved: theywillsay
thattheyareexaggerationsofAlliedpropagandaandwillbelieveus,
whowilldenyeverything,andnotyou.Wewillbetheonestodictate
thehistoryofthelagers.37
Theyalmostsucceed.Andthosewhotodayasserttheunsayabilityofthehorrorsof
AuschwitzriskrepeatingtheNazisgesture.Testimony,onthecontrary,refutesit.
Testimonydemonstratestheimpossibilityoftheseparationbetweenthehumanand
theinhuman. Itisbecause humanbeing residesinthefracturebetweentheliving
beingandthespeakingbeing,theinhumanandthehuman,andbearswitnesstotheir
inseparability, that testimony is possible. The distinction between zoe and bios
underliessovereignpowerisfundamentaltoit.Henceinitsveryform,testimony
contestssovereignpower.

37

SimonWiesenthal,TheMurderersAreAmongUs,quotedinPrimoLevi,The
DrownedandtheSaved,trans.RaymondRosenthal,(London:Abacus,1989),1.

16

AfterAuschwitz
However,althoughtheverystructureoftestimonymakesitachallengeto
sovereignpower,towhatextentcanthatpotentialberealised? Aswehaveseen,
testimonywouldappeartochallengebiopoweratitsroots,byexposingthewayit
produces violent distinctions and exclusions. But in practice how has testimony
functionedpoliticallyafterAuschwitz?
Theaccountstraumasurvivorstellareemotionallychargedanddifficultto
listento.Clearlythecontentisshocking,butthereismoretoitthanthat.Oftenthey
involve a reliving of the events described, producing an account which is not
selective,incoherentinmanyways,andnotdesignedforanyparticularaudience.
Sessions take a long time, and once begun cannot be abbreviated or condensed.
LanzmannsShoah,basedontestimoniesgivendirecttocamera,runsforninehours
whereas SchindlersList tellsthewholestoryinthestandardtwoorthreehours.
Witnessaccountshavetobetoldinaparticularway,andthesurvivorthemselvesisin
some sense not in control of the telling. Perhaps inevitably the tendency is for
testimony to become routinised or codified. Kal Tal identifies three distinct
strategies of coping with testimony: mythologisation, medicalisation and
disappearance.Thesecombinetoproducewhatshecallstheculturalcodification
andappropriationofthetrauma. 38Mythologisationworksbyreducingthetraumatic
eventtoasetofcontainedandcontrollednarratives.Thesearenolongerdisturbing
or frightening. This is the strategy we see on the whole in museums and
documentaries. The standard narrative ploys are used, and notions of rescue,
38

KalTal,WorldsofHurt:ReadingtheLiteratureofTrauma,(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),6.

17

redemption,overcomingfigurelarge.Medicalisationtakesplacewhensurvivorsare
treatedasvictimsofanillnessposttraumaticstresssyndrome.Theyaretreatedby
variousformsofpsychiatricandmedicalpractice,theaimbeingrehabilitationandthe
resumption of normal life. The testimony is seen as a product of the illness, a
symptom,anditspoliticalvaluedestroyed. Wehaveseenthismostnotablywith
VietnamveteransintheUSA,butsurvivorsofthenazicampshavealsobeentreated
inthisway.Disappearancemeansarefusaltoadmittotheexistenceofaparticular
kind of trauma and is accomplished by undermining the credibility of the
survivor.39
Once codified in one or several of these ways, the traumatic experience
becomes something that can be appropriated. Witnesses lose control over the
interpretationoftheirtestimony.Becausetestimonyishighlypolitical,andifassuch
it threatens the status quo, powerful political, economic and social forces will
pressuresurvivorseithertokeeptheirsilenceortorevisetheirstories. 40 Survivors
whoaremarginalorisolatedwillbemostatriskoftheappropriation;ifthereisa
powerful community a measure of control can be retained. The pressures for
conformity will bestrong,precisely inreflection ofthestrengthofthetestimony
itself:
Bearingwitnessisanaggressiveact.Itisbornoutofrefusalto
bowtooutsidepressuretoreviseorrepressexperience,adecisionto
embraceconflictratherthanconformity,toendurealifetimeofanger
andpainratherthantosubmittotheseductivepullofrevisionand
39

Tal,WorldsofHurt,6.

40

Tal,WorldsofHurt,7.

18

repression. Itsgoalischange. Ifsurvivorsretaincontroloverthe

interpretationoftheirtrauma,theycansometimesforceashiftinthe
socialandpoliticalstructure.41
Talarguesthatthecaseoftheconcentrationcampsdemonstratesclearlythe
appropriationandcodificationofatraumaticevent.ThelabelHolocaustsymbolises
thatappropriation.Therearemanyexamplesaswehavealreadynotedoftheretreat
intoeasysolutions.Forexample,museumsandexhibitstellanacceptedstory. 42In
theexhibitattheImperialWarMuseum,testimonyisevenusedasauralwallpaper.
Eighteensurvivorwitnessesspeakoftheirexperiencesonvideomonitorsplacedat
intervals alongtheexhibit. As theproject director describes it,theirvoices are
almost constantly within earshot throughout the display. This is an additional
layerwhichhumanisesthenarrativeprovidingasubstrand...whichenrichesthe
storyofNazioppressionbygivingbackthevoicetothosewhosuffered. 43 Their
testimony is of course carefully selected and framed. All their stories tell of
innocent pleasures and frustrations later irrevocably overturned by the Nazi
occupationandtheprogressivebreakingupofeachsurvivorsfamily.Thedangers
oftestimonyarethoroughlycontained,nodoubttoavoidanyriskthattheexhibit
wouldlose[its]publicthroughupsetofexhaustion.44

41

Tal,WorldsofHurt,7.

42

Despitethebestintentionsofthemuseumdesigners,thereisroomforrupturesto
appearinthenarrativestructure.IdiscussthisinAuthenticity,ObjecthoodandTruthinHolocaust
Narration:MemorialSitesandMemorialMuseums,unpublishedmanuscript.
43

SuzanneBardgett,TheHolocaustExhibitionattheImperialWarMuseum,Newsof
MuseumsofHistory(2000),3.
44

Bardgett,TheHolocaustExhibitionattheImperialWarMuseum,3.

19

TheYalearchiveisoneofthebestknownandlongeststandingattemptsto
gathersurvivortestimony.TheFortunoffVideoArchiveforHolocaustTestimonies
atYaleUniversitywasfoundedin1981.Thiswasthemostrecentofthreeperiods
whensurvivorsrecoveredtheirvoiceandanaudiencematerialisedforthemafter
the showing of the television series Holocaust in 1978.45 The first period was
immediatelyafterthewar,thesecondtheoccasionoftheEichmanntrialinJerusalem
in 1960. . The archive project grew out of a grassroots project that later found
supportfromYale. Theworkoftheinterviewing reliesonanondirectiveformat
designed to give the survivor chance to be spontaneous. The emphasis is on a
collection of depositions. Only later are these excerpted and put together into
compilationsforpedagogicpurposes.46Theroleoftheinterviewerscanbeintrusive
attimes;despitetheirbestintentionsthereisatendencytoacknowledgeprivationbut
stressaheroicmeaningfoundinsurvival.47Onthewholethough,thearchiveseems
tosucceedingivingsurvivorstheirvoice.48 Hereatleastthereissomeevidence
thattestimonyescapescodificationandappropriation. GeoffreyHartmanremarks
thatfacetofacewiththatworld,itisoursearchformeaningwhichisdisclosed,asif
wehadtobecomfortedforwhattheysuffered. Forus,whowerenotthere,the
classicalaxiomholdsthatNothinghumanisalien;forthem,Nothinghumanis
entirelyfamiliar.Thesenseofthehumanhasalwaystoberestored.49

45

GeoffreyHHartman,TheLongestShadow:IntheAftermathoftheHolocaust,
(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1996),143.
46

Hartman,TheLongestShadow,144.

47

LawrenceL.Langer,HolocaustTestimonies:TheRuinsofMemory,(NewHaven:
YaleUniversityPress,1991),containsexamplesofintrusionsofthissortbyinterviewers.
48

Hartman,TheLongestShadow,144.

49

Hartman,TheLongestShadow,133.

20

LawrenceLangers HolocaustTestimonies drawsonmaterialfromtheYale

archive.Inthistextthetestimoniesareverymuchmediatedoncemore,despitethe
fact that viewing the witnesses on video Langer himself felt naked before their
nakedness, defenceless in the presence of their vulnerability. 50 In preparing the
book,hedonssuchclothingashecould.Whilsthedoesnotintrudeanarrativeon
the testimonies as such, the book does impose a structure, as books must. The
accounts areframedbyastudyofformsofmemoryandcorrespondingformsof
selfhood.51 Claude Lanzmanns Shoah is another example of the use of direct
survivor testimony in a way such that it is framed by the directors specific
conceptionofthefinishedproduct.Lanzmannperfectscertaindevicestopromptthe
testimonyherequires,andaswehaveseenhehasaclearvisionofwhattheaimof
hisfilmis.
Verymuchattheotherendofthespectrum,the VoicesoftheShoah CD
collectionisanaudiodocumentaryproducedspecificallybecausetheinitiatorof
theprojectidentifiedagapinthemarket.Lookingroundthegiftshopafteravisitto
theUSHolocaustMemorialMuseumhewasdisappointedthattherewasnooral
historyoftheHolocaustavailableanddecidedacollectionoffirstpersonaccounts
wasdesperatelyneedednow,whilesurvivorscansharetheirstorieswithusintheir
ownwords.52Thiscollection,featuringa100pagehardboundbookwithcomplete

50

Langer,HolocaustTestimonies,xiii.

51

Itisinstructivetocomparetherawaccountscollectedintheimmediateaftermathof
thewarandrecentlypublishedinEugeneAroneanu,InsidetheConcentrationCamps:Eyewitness
AccountsofLifeinHitler'sDeathCamps,trans.ThomasWhissen,(Westport,CT:Praeger,1996).
Althoughtheyarecollectedintoaroughnarrativesequence,thisistheonlyeditorialintervention.
52

RichardFoos,President,RhinoRecords,quoteinDavidNotowitz,Voicesofthe
Shoah:RemembrancesoftheHolocaust,with4CDs.NarratedbyElliotGould(LosAngeles:Rhino
EntertainmentCompany,2000),3.

21

transcripts of the audio selections, historic photos, comprehensive timeline,

explanatoryessays,glossaryandmore,isofcoursecommerciallyavailable.
As well as the danger of appropriation and commercialisation of survivor
testimony,thereisthevexedissueoftheclaimtosurvivorship.Talpointstothe
wayinwhichcertainsurvivorsvoiceshavebeenselectedoverothers.53ElieWiesel,
nowaccordedthestatusofthevoiceofthesurvivorintheUSAwasnotalways
ElieWiesel.Atonetimehewasjustoneofanumberofanonymousvoices.And
howdopeoplegettobecomesurvivors?IssomeonewholeftGermanybeforethe
warbeganconsideredasurvivor? Whereisthelinedrawn? Howaboutsecond
generation survivors? The is a developing literature on second generation, and
increasinglythechildrenofsurvivorsaretakingupthetorchfromtheirparents.An
exampleoftheissuesatstakehereistheheatedpublicdebatethattookplacein
Londonon19July2000,thedayoftheBritishpublicationofNormanFinkelsteins
book TheHolocaustIndustry:ReflectionsontheExploitationofJewishSuffering,
betweenFinkelsteinandStevePaulsson,SeniorHistorianoftheHolocaustExhibition
ProjectattheImperialWarMuseum.54
Thediscussionwashighlycharged,theprotagoniststradingaccusationand
counter accusation about scholarship, accuracy and method. The question of
authoritytospeakisraised.Finkelsteinsetsouthispositionasachildofsurvivors:
his parents were Warsaw Jews who survived the concentration camps. Paulsson
pointsoutthatFinkelsteinapoliticaltheoristhasnospecificqualificationsasa

53

Tal,WorldsofHurt,13.

54

OrganisedbytheInstituteofContemporaryArtsaspartofitsfilmseasonOutofthat
Darkness,1623July2000,inconjunctionwiththeconferenceRememberingfortheFuture2000.

22

holocaust scholar. A questioner from the floor asks about the tension between
Finkelsteinsargumentforrationalityratherthanpassion,distortionorkitschonthe
onehandandhisownuseofhispersonalhistoryontheother.Finkelsteinresponds
withapassionatedefence.Hetellsofhowhismotherwasaholocaustboreshe
turnedeveryconversationwhetheraboutarosebushorwhateverintoareflectionon
herexperiencesinthesecondworldwar.Hecursedhisparentsintheirlastyears,but
now he feels himself to be the carrier of responsibility for their memory. This
outburstelicitsaresponseinanunexpectedmannerfromPaulsson.Notonlydoesit
produceamoderatingofhisowntone,buttheadmission,inhisclosingspeech,that
hetooisthechildofsurvivors.Hisparents,likeFinkelsteins,wereintheWarsaw
ghetto and survived the camps. He acknowledges that his own activity as a
holocaust scholar is more recentand more precariousthan he has so far
revealed.Hespenttwentyoddyearsincomputing,asfarawayashecouldget,andit
wasonlyafterhisownmothersdeaththathefeltableorfreetobecomeahistorian
oftheNaziperiod.Strangely,intheemotionallychargedatmosphereofthisdebate,
thecontestoverauthoritywassuddenlymuted.Thetwosecondgenerationsurvivors
incompletedisagreementovertacticswereunitedbytheirambiguousstatus.

Conclusion
Unfortunately the obstacle that survivors experience in finding words that
bridge the chasm between language and the experience of inhumanity, between
speakingandtheunspeakable,isnottheonlydifficultytheyface.Intheexampleswe
canhaveconsideredbrieflywecanseethesurvivorshardwonvoicebeingsituated

23

and used by others. Generally bearing witness is normalised, categorised, and

appropriated.Onlyoccasionallydowefindtestimonysurvivingthetelling.
The gulf between the need to speak and the impossibility of doing so is
discussedinpsychoanalyticaccountsoftraumaticexperiencesandattemptstotalk
aboutthem. Therethetraumaticexperienceisseenassomethingthattakesplace
outsidelanguage.Inthatsenseitisnotexperienceatall,inthatitcannotbemade
senseoforrecountedinlanguage.InLacanianterms,itisanencounterwiththereal.
TheLacanianrealisthatwhichisoutsidethelinguisticrealm,outsidethesymbolicor
social order. Putting this in terms ofthe separation between the human and the
inhuman,orasAgambenalsoexpressesit,thespeakingbeingandthelivingbeing,
trauma becomes facing the inhumanitythe bare lifethat lies at the heart of
humanitythesocial,symbolic,orlinguisticbeing.Traumacannotforthisreasonbe
spoken.Itisoutsidetherealmoflanguage,andtobringitbackwithinthatrealmby
speakingofit,bysettingitwithinalinearnarrativeform,istodestroyitstruth.
Thereisagaporabyssattheheartofsubjectivity,accordingtothisaccount,
becauseeveryformationofasubjectinrelationtolanguageisflawed.Itproducesan
excess orsurplus: thereal. Traumaiswhathappens whenthis abyss,normally
hiddenbythesocialrealityinwhichweliveourdailylives,issuddenlyrevealedas
it was in the camps. When Agamben speaks of a humanity without limits,
unbounded, he is calling for us to set aside the social fantasy and accept the
ungroundedness and indistinguishability of being. The ultimate protest against
sovereign powers production of its subjects as bare life is the unconditional
acceptanceofthatdesignation.Protestsasbarelifearetheeffectivecontestationof

24

sovereignpower. Insuchactions,asolidarity oftheshakenasFoucault calls it,

protesterswouldacceptorratherinhabitortakeontheirvulnerability.Certainforms
ofnonviolencemightworkinthisway,asindeed,aswehaveseen,mighttestimony.

References
Agamben,Giorgio.HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife,trans.Daniel
HellerRoazen,(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,1998).
Agamben,Giorgio.RemnantsofAuschwitz:TheWitnessandtheArchive,trans.
DanielHellerRoazen,(NewYork:ZoneBooks,1999).
Antelme,Robert.TheHumanRace,trans.JeffreyHaightandAnnieMahler,
(Evanston,Illinois:TheMarlboroPress/Northwestern,1992).
Aroneanu,Eugene.InsidetheConcentrationCamps:EyewitnessAccountsofLifein
Hitler'sDeathCamps,trans.ThomasWhissen,(Westport,CT:Praeger,
1996).
Bardgett,Suzanne.TheHolocaustExhibitionattheImperialWarMuseum,News
ofMuseumsofHistory(2000),3.
Hartman,GeoffreyH.TheLongestShadow:IntheAftermathoftheHolocaust,
(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1996).
InstituteofContemporaryArts.OutofthatDarkness,filmseason1623July2000.
Kofman,Sarah.SmotheredWords,trans.MadeleineDobie,(Evanston,Illinois:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,1998).

25

Langer,LawrenceL.HolocaustTestimonies:TheRuinsofMemory,(NewHaven:
YaleUniversityPress,1991).
Lanzmann,Claude.Theobscenityofunderstanding:AneveningwithClaude
Lanzmann,inTrauma:ExplorationsinMemory,ed.CathyCaruth
(Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1995),200220.
Levi,Primo.IfThisisAManandTheTruce,trans.StuartWoolf,(London:Abacus,
1979).
Levi,Primo.TheDrownedandtheSaved,trans.RaymondRosenthal,(London:
Abacus,1989).
Notowitz,David.VoicesoftheShoah:RemembrancesoftheHolocaust,with4CDs.
NarratedbyElliottGould(LosAngeles:RhinoEntertainmentCompany,
2000).
Tal,Kal.WorldsofHurt:ReadingtheLiteratureofTrauma,(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1996).
Zizek,Slavoj.TarryingwiththeNegative:Kant,HegelandtheCritiqueofIdeology,
(Durham,NorthCarolina:DukeUniversityPress,1993).
Zizek,Slavoj.TheSublimeObjectofIdeology,(London:Verso,1989).

26