Page 69 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(2) (2023)

Historically, forced migrations such as the Monuments and memorials first and fore-
German “flight and expulsion” belong both most aim at patrimonialising the violence, most-
to the history of migration (population move- ly through an aesthetic form that thematises it
4
ments) and to the history of mass violence. in an indirect way (Koselleck 2002, 31–32), hon-
They are also characterised by their proximity ouring the victims and maintaining both in na-
to genocide from which, however, they are cate- tional memory. Their mourning function takes
gorically to be differentiated (Mann 2005, 7–8; precedence over the transmission of knowl-
Ther 2011; 8–9, Schwartz 2013, 2–3; Bazin Per- edge. For museums the weighting is the other
ron 2018, 17–18). These three thematic complex- way round. These institutions usually find it dif-
es which all (have) produced negativity, albeit to ficult to deal with negativity, which is contrary
a different extent, are thematised in different in- to their heritage function, generally understood
stitutions whose histories, aims and exhibition
practices differ from one another: monuments to be to generating positive identification. His- 69
tory and ethnographic museums usually cover a
and memorials, contemporary history museums,
ti local and regional history or ethnographic mu- longer period of time (exceeding the sole violent
episode) and have a strong identity component.
seums, documentation, or memorial sites, etc.
All follow the same functions which are conven- They primarily target knowledge and education
ta tionally patrimonialisation and identity build- mediated through museal staging schemes and
(historical as well as political), violence being
ing (Poulot 2009, 4) but also political and his-
5
narration. Documentation centres and memo-
torical education, democratic self-assurance,
acknowledging crimes, fighting against oblivion, rial sites combine aspects of both; they have a sa- a visible sign with a “quiet gesture”?
di ouring the victims (Wagner 2022, 12). However, of patrimonialising sites/places where (mostly
repression, and trivialisation and, finally, hon-
lient memorial aspect, usually linked to the task
they weight them differently and have different
Nazi) crimes have been committed, and at the
ways of handling the relations between negativi-
same time, they aim at documenting the latter
here ferent answers to the questions formulated by of traces. Here, violence is the most unmediated.
ty, remembrance, and knowledge, proposing dif-
(diffusing knowledge) through the preservation
Sophie Wahnich: “what traces does (this) nega-
The positioning of the Documentation
tivity leave that could find a place in a museum?”
Centre in this field appears to be, if not ambig-
“How can they [those traces] be treated?” and
uous, then at least complex. Not only does it
“What do they imply in terms of the process of
have to position itself in relation to the numer-
recognition?” (Wahnich 2017, 119).
studiauniversitatis ways originate from autocratic regimes and their dictato-
the whole of Germany, that already exist in the
rial leaders, but must be understood as a phenomenon of
very crowded field linked to “flight and expul-
modernity and are not alien even to democracies, that the ous museum-type institutions, scattered over
flight and expulsion of the Germans cannot be explained sion”: the hundreds of small Heimatstuben (Lo-
without Nazi rule and violence, but that there were also
other reasons that went further back in time. He under- cal history rooms), Heimatmuseen (local history
lines the importance of the economic redistribution and museums) (Eisler 2015), and medium-size muse-
also the interaction and entanglement of different depor-
tations. ums dedicated to the lost homelands, villages,
4 Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread cities and regions, the oldest of which date back
physical violence against non-combatants, that is outside
of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary 5 The term Documentation Centre is specific to the German
personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced context. It is often used for memorial sites (mostly former
removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, Nazi-concentration camps, but not only) where the histo-
forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and exces- ry of National-Socialism is documented in an authentic
sive imprisonment – for many strings connect these to out- place, to which elements of information and documenta-
right murder and these should not be severed analytically” tion are added in order to make the site decipherable for fu-
(Gerlach 2010, 1; also Semelin (2000, 143–145)). ture generations.