Hierophany In Architecture: The temporality of trauma in collective memory
Bradley Sowter AR538 Cultural Context (2016) University of Kent Supervisor: Charles Drozynski Page | 1
Word Count: 3759
Contents
Page | 2
3
1.0 - Introduction
6
2.0 - Temporality of trauma
8
3.0 - Challenges of representing the sacred
13
4.0 - Conclusion
14
5.0 - Appendix
16
6.0 - Sources & Bibliography
Fig 1 - Dat Rosa Miel Apibus - Anselm Kiefer
Introduction
"We erect monuments so that we shall always remember and build memorials so that we shall never forget. Monuments commemorate the memorable and embody the myths of beginnings, memorials ritualized remembrance and mark the reality of ends"- Arthur Danto
The Holocaust is beyond doubt one of the most scared events of the 20th century. Shoah for the Jewish community is part of a sacred history. Emil Fackenheim, a German Jewish Philosopher argues that it was a moment of revelation and that Holocaust remembrance is a sacred duty.1 Hierophany, the manifestation of the divine or the sacred,2 can be viewed as bilderverbot - the taboo on representation, which opens up the debate on how to memorialise such event. Currently there have been three main ways of representing hierophany in Shoah memorials; Figuration, Abstraction and an amalgamation of the two; Disfiguration, epitomised in 'The White Cube' installation by German artist Anselm Kiefer. The two former ways, figuration; the use of photographs and physical objects, and abstraction; such as the use of absence - have been used in Holocaustal memorials/museums around the world as way of representing the Hierophany. Subjective reasoning to how the sacred should be represented has been very controversial. Jennifer Hansen-Gluklich ,assistant professor of German at University of Mary Washington discusses in her book "Holocaust Memory Reframed" the debate and challenges that arise from using these strategies of representation; "Ethical and aesthetic questions haunt both strategies. Those who have been critical of abstraction typically object to the elevation of formal and aesthetic concerns above the duties of remembrance and communication. They criticize aesthetic priorities that discourage direct emotional or empathetic involvement with the horrific subject matter. Critics of figuration on the other hand, object to the overexposure of certain images and symbols that concerns particular kinds of suffering, the trivialization and exploitation of the holocaust, and the creation of harrowing depiction that alienate viewers." 3 One could argue why there are different ways of representing the same event. It is true that each memorial has a different moral and political agenda. James E Young states that "every memorial not just holocaust memorial ‌ are created at an intersection of aesthetic templar, political needs, economic realities of the moment.4" Holocaust memory is plural, that each holocaust site memorialises a unique holocaust and that holocaust remembrance is culture and nation-specific.5 The Holocaust Museum in Washington focuses on the liberation of the camps by the American soldiers whilst Israel's own Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, concentrates on the Jewish resilience and heroism during the Shoah. Additionally memorials try to encapsulate local collective memory for a coherent narrative for the visitor. Walter Benjamin a German Jewish Philosopher (whose work 1
Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.14 Oxford Reference, definition of Hierophany, Last modified 3 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.150 4 Young, University of California, 2000 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxyYXtf_vw) 5 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.5 2
Page | 3
would ultimately sculpt Daniel Libeskind's ideology of the Jewish Museum, Berlin) gives an analogy on collective memory and how narrative informs the local as opposed to the foreigner. In Die Wiederkehr des Flaneurs he writes: "The superficial reason, the exotic, picturesque only affects foreigners. to come as a local to the image of a city, requires other, deeper motives. Motives of the one who travels into the past instead of the distance."6 Gavriel Rosenfeld believed that the meaning that we find in buildings ... is determined subjectively by the differing expectations we bring to them. These expectations are largely informed by our social class, education, and aesthetic taste, but they are also shaped by the historical eras in which we live.7 Many people wish to experience the reality behind the media images, or are prompted to find out more by a personal association with places or events. The phenomenon raises ethical issues over the status and nature of objects, the extent of their interpretation, the appropriate political and managerial response and the nature of the experience as perceived by the visitor, their residents and local residents.8 Young believed that some people claim such a charge in places of “history�, but usually this aura is apparent only to those who already know something of the site’s past, or who suspect a site is somehow historical.9
Fig 2 - Auschwitz Birkenau at sunset
With all this in mind, it is understandable why all memorials/museum of the Shoah are different, that location, historically perspective and visitor's expectations all play a role in this Hierophany of Holocaustal architecture. In addition, this is the reason why different strategies are used such as figuration and abstraction, as mentioned earlier and the rise of critical debate. A recent study showed that visitors from non-Jewish backgrounds believed Yad-Vashem's exhibit emphasises the Jewish community in the holocaust whilst excludes other ethnic groups that were involved.* Both memorials in Washington and Jerusalem have a very clear narrative that the holocaust is 6
Benjamin, 1984, Ch 82 (from selected writings II 1927 - 1934) Rosenfeld,2011, P.45 8 Foley , Lennon, 2000 9 Young, P.119 *Survey carried out for this report, see appendix 7
Page | 4
memorialised on their cultural collective memory. However, what if the cultural memory of a nation is not one of resistance, heroism or liberation but a collective memory of the perpetrator. Germany is one of the few countries in the world that memorialises an event that is detrimental to themselves. In a talk at the University of California Young explained that; "Countries don't rebuild themselves over their crimes, countries build themselves around the remember martyrdoms. Germany have been asked to not only create a national memorial based on the holocaust but be made a national identity based on the Holocaust10"
Fig 3 - Hall of Names at Yad Vashem
Germany's memorialisation of the Holocaust differs from that of Yad Vashem and USHMM as they are unable to demonstrate a clear narrative. Unlike the other monuments, Germany cannot constrain their memorials within the national subsystems of collective memory, political agenda and historical perspective. There is a confliction between dealing with the collective memory of past of National Socialism whilst at the same time memorialising that of their victims and the Jewish community. These two issues give rise to immense difficulties when it comes to the manifestation of Hierophany and more importantly not to be bilderverbot. The premise of this essay is to look into the struggle of representing the Holocaust from a German perspective. There has indeed been studies on how Germany memorialises the Holocaust in terms of strategies of figuration and abstraction but not the underlying scar that lingers within the German national psyche and like the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, why was it so difficult to find a suitable design? At present, there is not a lot of scholarship directly on this idea*. This paper will act as a framework to begin to question this difficulty of Hierophany in German memorials by focusing on two main areas. Firstly, the paper discusses the temporality of trauma of Germany, post war era and how this gave rise to latency of holocaust remembrance. Secondly the paper focuses on the difficulties of choosing a design for the 'Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe' and a case study on the Jewish Museum in Berlin by Daniel Libeskind which will look at how Hierophany has been attempted to be realised in architectural form. Research for this proposal is in form of primary sources and secondary sources. Primary investigations involved 64 participants globally who had an interest in the Holocaust, to critically analyse memorials. Secondary sources involved literature and recorded lectures. One must understand that similar to memorials - views of individuals are subjective and are influenced by their location, religion, political stance and era. 10
Young, University of California , 2000, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxyYXtf_vw
Page | 5
Fig 4 - 1945 Potsdam Agreement
Temporality of trauma Following the Potsdam Agreement in 1945 and division of Germany, the nation slowly drifted apart. The destruction of Germany during the war was on a scale without historical precedents with 600,000 German civilians falling victim to the air raids.11 Whilst Germany set about reconstructing the cities of the nation, the introverted country prohibited any to look backwards. 12 The latency in remembrance of the Holocaust was global. Dominick LaCapra notes this global latency in his book, 'History and Memory after Auschwitz'; "The traumatic event is repressed or denied and registers only belatedly after the passage of period of latency. This effect of belatedness has of course been a manifest aspect of the Holocaust as it impinged not only Germany but also on other nations and groups including Israel.13" LaCapra goes on to state that trauma has its greatest and most clearly unjustifiable effect on the victim,but in different ways it also affects everyone who comes in contact with it: perpetrator, collaborators, bystander, resisters, those born later.14 This repressing of the memory of Shoah intensified with the division of East and West Germany each coming to terms with their own collective guilt, Schuldfrage. Jean Améry an Austrian essayist resented Germanys overcoming of the past, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, viewing the nation as "Ignoring it, forgiving themselves, and moving on, looking only to the future15." Whilst Fred Alford argues that Améry views are subject to personal experience and thus destroy his ability to narratively account for his experience,16 it was evident that the nation was divided not only physically but also mentally. Despite denial and ever-present resistance, West Germany started to develop a dialogue regarding collective memory of the Holocaust whilst East Germany, GDR, further suppressed them.17
11
Seabald, 2003, P.3-4 Seabald, 2003, P.7 13 LaCapra, P.9 14 LaCapra, P.8 15 Alford, 2012, P.232 16 Yet, this is by far the single most common and influential claim about the experience of trauma: that it destroys the trauma victim’s ability to narratively account for his or her experience. In this modal account, the trauma victim cannot offer a coherent explanation of the experience that has rendered him or her traumatized. ‘‘Coherent’’ is generally defined as producing a story with a beginning, middle, and end, one in which the narrator does not imagine that he or she is experiencing the trauma at the moment he or she is recounting it. 17 Fox, 1999, P.7 12
Page | 6
East Germany's latency was built upon the need to reinstate the power of the nation. East German commemorations were designed to emphasize the state 'the good Germany' at the time whilst West Germany were debating whether to extend the statute of limitation of Nazi crimes.18
Fig 5 - Claude Lanzmann's film: Shoah
Publications and broadcasts such as Claude Lanzmann's Shoah were banned in GDR as well as American television series Holocaust. One reason for not airing Shoah according to Thomas Fox, professor of German at The University of Alabama, was that the film demonstrated the continuation of anti-Semitism in East Germany's Socialist Neighbour Poland.19 This is not to say East Germany were practising anti-Semitism, however their temporality of trauma suppressed the fact that the Holocaust was a racial act. Jeffrey Herf point outs that East Germany refused to acknowledge the magnitude of the Jewish catastrophe20. Similar to that of Israel and America, GDR was pushing their political agenda upon the Holocaustal memorial in order to reinstate themselves. This was epitomised at Buchenwald concentration camp where according to brochures, did not include any text saying that it was an anti-Semitic act. Fox believed that the Germans could not have ignored the Holocaust as Amery suggest but ... "it could be interpreted according to state interest. By explaining the Holocaust as the work of certain historically declining classes , by perceiving the second world war as the triumph of the historically more advanced soviet union over fascist Germany, the East Germans could contain and “state� the Jewish catastrophe within a comfortingly progress-oriented teleology."21
18
Fox, 1999, P.14 Fox, 1999, P.15 20 Herf , 1997 , P.384 21 Fox, 1999, P.146 19
Page | 7
Challenges of representing the sacred With the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of the country, the capital became a locus of conflicting views from the former west and the GDR. Damgar Richter believed that it "opened up to a sudden cultural storm from all sides."... It was at this founding epoch that Berlin was searching for a new identity to match its new political status and emerging role as a world city.22 The removal of the wall not only demonstrated the political void between the two sides but also a physical voided scar, a "seventeen-acre wasteland" reaching from Brandburg Gate to Potsdamer Platz and Leipziger Platz.23
Fig 6- The fall of the Berlin Wall In 1988 two years prior to the reunification of Berlin, West Germany was already debating how to memorialise the Shoah. Two projects were being proposed; a Jewish Museum and a Jewish Memorial. What began as West Berlin's projects turned into an opportunity to a make a powerful statement about newly reunified Germany and their attitude toward the past.24 However, the confliction between the former two sides of Germany gave way to tortured debate on Hierophany. Adorno's 'Prisms' raises debate on whether it was morally right to memorialise the Holocaust at all in Germany; "Cultural criticism finds itself faced with the final stage of the dialectic of culture and barbarism. To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric. And this corrodes even the knowledge of why it has become impossible to write poetry today"25 Almost a decade after the reunification and debate, the German Bundestag voted to build a national “Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe� on a prime, five-acre piece of real estate between the Brandenburger Tor and Potsdamer Platz.26 Over 500 design entries were put forward for the memorial all with their own aesthetic taste, trying to provide an answer as to how Germany should 22
Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.31 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.31 24 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.37 25 Adorno, 1981 , P.34 26 Young, 2002, P 76 23
Page | 8
remember the Holocaust as a nation. The winning design by Jacob-Marks similar to that of today's memorial consisted of 23-foot thick concrete 'gravestones', engraved with names of 4.5 million Jews.27 Soon after the announcement, it was rejected following critical review from the Jewish community including Ignatz Bubis who believed the memorial was insensitive and 'too German'. Whilst the Jury agreed that the memorial was "not a playground for artists and their self-absorbed fantasies,28" It was only James E Young that acknowledged the problem of choosing the best design for a memorial. The latency in remembrance, the temporality of trauma on both the former GDR and West Germany and collective guilt as a whole could not be memorialised in a 'Final Solution.' Instead of trying to provide answers; the memorial should be honest and question its very notion of its being. "What are the national reasons for remembrance? Are they redemptory, part of a mourning process, pedagogical, self-aggrandising, or inspiration against contemporary xenophobia? To what national and social ends will this memorial be built? Just how compensatory a gesture will it be? How antiredemptory can it be? Will it be a place for Jews to mourn lost Jews, a place for Germans to mourn lost Jews, or a place for Jews to remember what Germans once did to them?"29 - James E Young
Fig 7- The Memorial To The Murdered Jew of Europe
27
Young , 2002, P.67 Young , 2002, P.67 29 Young , 2002, P.73 28
Page | 9
The debate raised by James E Young was first brought to light with the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe however, this questioning of Germany's own national identity was to be further investigated and become the focus in Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum, Berlin. Libeskind understood that the museum should be more than a mere functional response. He believed that; "Such a task in all its ethical depth requires the incorporation of the void of Berlin back into itself, in order to disclose how the past continus to affect the present and to reveal how the hopeful horizon can be opened through the aporias of time.�30 - Libeskind The museum's agenda was to emphasise the reunification of Germany but not in the traditional way of triumphant and martyrdom. Its aim was to unify the country in its remembrance of the Jewish people and of vergangenheitsbewältigung. By directly focusing on the Jewish remembrance, Libeskind detach the cultural-political divide between the former GDR and West Germany. The museum becomes cultureless in the absence. The self-questioning of Germany's Identity differentiates their memorials to that of Yad Vashem and USHMM. Yad Vashem gestures towards a redemptive end whilst the Jewish museum is fractured. The Jewish Museum, Berlin testifies to a permanent displacement in both time and place.31
Fig 8- Jewish Museum, Berlin.
From above you can see the physical manifestation of the scared Berlin in the route of which the building takes, some even liken this to the Schutzstaffel symbol. Bernhard Schneider a German architects, views the way in which the buildings angles continually change and double back upon themselves alludes visually to the vicissitudes of nevertheless continuous German history up to the present day and beyond32 Inside the museum, it becomes even more apparent of the cultural need of questioning posed by James E young; with the use of voids. This was Libeskind's response to redemption and reflection. The architecture acknowledges that Germany's current generation are not the perpetrators of the 30
Schneider, 1999, P. 17 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.25 32 Schneider, 1999, P. 57 31
Page | 10
Holocaust and that Hierophany cannot be explored in a figurative way such as Yad Vashem. Elie Wiesel, a Jewish Holocaust survivor believed that museums could not attempt to resurrect the past as; "Those who went through it, will not reveal it - not really, not entirely. Between his memory and its reflection there is wall - and it cannot be pierced". 33 Libeskind understood that cultural identity should not only be questioned as a nation but also as an individual. Described as a "house of both melancholic introspection and joyful encounter,"34 the museum's abstraction allows visitors to respond to the architecture and participate in memory in idiosyncratic ways.35 "Whatever the reaction to this museum, the expectations and anticipations of the visitors will be connected to their own view of this history. Like a cloud passing in the sky that some see as a face, others as a fish or a monster, this building gives permanence to the figure of hope dressed in the guise of every visitor's response.36" Daniel Libeskind. This is epitomised in the Holocaust Tower, a 24m tall silo in all darkness but for a small aperture at the top letting in sunlight. Libeskind refers to the tower as the 'voided void', which also relates to his understanding of Germany's fractured memory. " This bespeaks the nothingness of the nothing ‌ [it] refers to that which can never be exhibited in this museum, no matter how many objects are brought to it and stories told in it.�37 - Daniel Libeskind. The abstracted spaces such as the Holocaust tower articulates questions and conflicts rather than solutions in architectural form38. Anthony Vidler states that the Tower; "Holds the visitors in spatial-psychological suspense [which is] the closest religious experience [in] architecture."39 The Jewish museum, similar to Jacob-Marks design for the Jewish memorial faced opposition from critics, with the introduction of personal artefacts into the museum. Some expressed ethical concerns whether it was justified to encourage viewers to remember victims through their mortal remains40 - glorifying the individual solely on how they met their ends. Young viewed this as 33
Wiesel , 1977, P.405 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.36 35 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.51 36 Libeskind, 2000, P. 28 37 Libeskind, 2000, P. 27 38 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.51 39 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.56 40 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.147 34
Page | 11
Fig 9- Holocaust Tower
a "perversely ironic twist... forcing us to recall the victims as the Germans have remembered them to us: in the collected debris of a destroyed civilisation".41 In a report carried out for this paper, I asked German and Non-German participants who had an interest in studying the Holocaust to critically review the Jewish Museum in Berlin. All participants that had visited the museum agreed that the architecture evokes an emotional response (most highly reflected in the Jewish community) and all believe that it uses abstraction as a way of defining the Holocaust and by doing this does not overexpose imagery that will lead to trivialisation. German participants believed that memorials should be a place where visitors can experience the history of the Holocaust on their own terms and abstraction is the best way of achieving this. However, nonGerman participants believed that the museum was too abstract; people have similar views on the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Some believed that it should be 'Thought provoking and contemporary but not so abstract as to affect comprehension.' Whilst Libeskind attempts to create an architecture that invites individuals to create their own collective memory, it is at the same time rooted in German cultural identity hence the conflict in views from German and non-German visitors.
41
Young, 1993, P.132
Page | 12
Conclusion James E Young believed that the best memorial, would not be a singular physical monument but the ongoing, never-to-be-resolved debate on how best, memory is to be preserved.42 The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe and the Jewish Museum in Berlin both attempt to create a collective Holocaustal memory of their nation. Germany's latency in remembrance and being the perpetrators of the Holocaust added to the difficulty in creating Hierophany in architecture. Young believed the perfect is the enemy of the good43 when creating memorials and if this is true, will there ever be hierophany in architecture? I believe that memorials act as a locus for hierophany but cannot embody itself within the walls of architecture. This is because memorials are influenced through their national collective memory and is tainted due to political needs, even with the best intentions such as Libeskind's Jewish museum. "Memory is never shaped in a vacuum the motives of memory are never pure44". - Young The ongoing discussion that arises from the design of these memorials pre and post construction is the nearest thing to hierophany in architecture. Cultural criticism and active memory is of greater importance than physical monuments as it neither sanctifies the holocaust nor simply historicizes it.45 Whilst on the Jury board for the Berlin Memorial, Young consoled the design teams when the initial design by Mark-Jacobs was rejected. “You may have failed to produce a monument ... but if you count the sheer number of design-hours that 528 teams of artists and architects have already devoted to the memorial, it’s clear that your process has already generated more individual memory-work than a finished monument will inspire in its first ten years.�46 It is clear that cultural and individual memory change with new generations. Libeskind's attempt to re-unify Germany within the Jewish Museum does not resonate with the youth of today who do not remember the fall of the Berlin wall. The discussion on how best to remember the Shoah becomes ever more the forefront of discussion and embodies the very notion of Holocaustal remembrance.
42
Young, 1993, P.80 Young , 2002, P.71 44 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.10 45 Hansen-Glucklich, 2014, P.218 46 Young, 2002, P 70 43
Page | 13
Appendix A survey was conducted with participants who have an active interest in the study of the Holocaust. 64 participants took the survey, the majority from Europe and USA. Out these people 31% had a personal connection with the holocaust, of these, 14 were Jewish. All 5 participants of German origin had no personal connection to the Holocaust. Participants believed that historical knowledge of the Holocaust was more important that Remembering the Jewish Heritage or the Psychology of the holocaust. Jewish and German subgroups also believed this. 50% of all participants visited concentration camps. All German participants visited the camps contrasting with only 1/3 of the Jewish participants. This is to say location has a great influence of the visits. The general view was that the camps do not overexpose images or artefacts that trivialize the holocaust and all agreed that the camps evoke an emotional response to the visitor, with people who had personal connections to the holocaust having the highest emotional response. However the Germans have a divided view on whether images are trivialised. one can only speculate on why this is. German participants had visited many more concentration camps than the general census so it is likely that the visits to multiple camps may have trivialised the experience. Most people believed that the camps tours especially at Auschwitz,although informative, were rushed and is becoming more of a tourist attraction that gains unwarranted interest. "In terms of Plaszow, I also think there should be better signage around the site. There are sites in the four corners of the former camp stating the history of the site, but you still see dog walkers, joggers, children running around etc. which I find uncomfortable." 61% of participants have visited a Holocaust Museum(s), this increase in number compared to the visits at the concentration camp is similar to that of the German participants in that the location of the museum and ease of access makes it easier to visit. Overall, the survey showed that factual information was the most important in museums which coincides with the beliefs on how the Holocaust should be remembered. Tourist attraction unsurprising was ranked as least important. The Jewish participants were very much on the side of their heritage, believing that memorials to the victims was of most importance and believed that Holocaust memorials should be like Yad Vashem, 'Jewish' , and honour the memory of those who died. Interestingly the German participants ranked 'memorials should be a place where visitors can experience the history of the Holocaust on their own terms' as their highest which contrasts that of the general consensus. 33% of the German participants, likewise with similar percentage the Jewish participants and people with personal connections have visited the Jewish Museum in Berlin. All agree that the museum evokes an emotional response (most highly reflected in the Jewish community) and all believe that it uses abstraction as a way of defining the holocaust and by doing that does not overexpose imagery that will lead to trivialisation. However some participants believed that the museum is too abstract, Page | 14
people have remark similar views on the Memorial To The Murdered Jews Of Europe. Some believe that it should be 'Thought provoking and contemporary but not so abstract as to affect comprehension' The most controversial question opened up the floor to a much more varied debate. When asked to describe Germany's efforts to remember the Holocaust there was a mixed view. German participants believe that Germany are very good at remembering the holocaust and dealing with the issues of their past whilst the Jewish community believe that there is more to be done. In general it was a mix bag. From being recognised what has happened and informing future generations of the German scarred history to 'not coming forward and admitted their wrongs'
Page | 15
Sources Front Cover - https://www.flickr.com/photos/belzebub_at/8767445222/sizes/k/
Figure 1 - https://imageobjecttext.com/tag/white-cube/ Figure 2 - http://panorama.auschwitz.org/tour1,3636,en.html Figure 3 - http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/museum/ Figure 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183R67561,_Potsdamer_Konferenz,_Konferenztisch.jpg Figure 5 - http://images.popmatters.com/misc_art/d/dvd-shoah-500.jpg Figure 6 - http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4d94b54a4bef7/images/berlin14-1.jpg Figure 7 - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CoVrxK2PHs8/TS0oWRfUaPI/AAAAAAAAEI0/AgIgRI12v8/s1600/4+memorial.jpg Figure 8 - http://www.inexhibit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/jewish-museum-berlin-libeskind01.jpg Figure 9 - http://blog.esmt.org/mba/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/937791235700003.jpg
Bibliography Adorno, Theodor W., Samuel Weber, and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Prisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1981. Print. Alford, C. Fred. "Jean AmĂŠry: Resentment as Ethic and Ontology." Topoi31.2 (2012): 229-40. Web. Anheier, Helmut K., and Yudhishthir Raj. Isar. Heritage, Memory & Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2011. Print. Feinstein, Margarete Myers. Holocaust Survivors in Postwar Germany: 1945-1957. New York: Cambridge U, 2010. Print. Fox, Thomas C. Stated Memory: East Germany and the Holocaust. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 1999. Print. Geller, Jay Howard. Jews in Post-Holocaust Germany, 1945-1953. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print. Hansen-Glucklich, Jennifer. Holocaust Memory Reframed: Museums and the Challenges of Representation. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Herf, Jeffrey. Divided Memory: The Nazi past in the Two Germanys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Print. Page | 16
Hessel, ranz, riedrich eidenst cker, and Walter Benjamin. Ein Flaneur in Berlin. Berlin: Das Arsenal, 1984. Print. Itkin, Alan. “Against the Natural Consciousness of Time: Trauma and Ethics in Jean Améry’s Beyond Guilt and Atonement.” The Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory 89.2 (2014): 249-68. Web.
Kundnani, Hans. Utopia or Auschwitz?: Germany’s 1968 Generation and the Holocaust. New York: Columbia UP, 2009. Print. LaCapra, Dominick. History and Memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998. Print. Lennon, J. John., and Malcolm Foley. Dark Tourism. London: Continuum, 2000. Print. ibeskind, aniel, and H l ne inet. Jewish Museum Berlin. S.l.: G B Arts International, 1999. Print. Pehle, Walter H. November 1938: From ‘Reichskristallnacht’ to Genocide. New York: Berg, 1991. Print. Rosenfeld, Gavriel David. Building after Auschwitz: Jewish Architecture and the Memory of the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale UP, 2011. Print. Schneider, Bernhard, and Daniel Libeskind. Daniel Libeskind: Jewish Museum Berlin: Between the Lines. Munich: Prestel, 1999. Print. Sebald, W. G. On the Natural History of Destruction. New York: Random House, 2003. Print. Wiesel, Elie. Dimensions of the Holocaust: Lectures at Northwestern University. Evanston, IL: U, 1977. Print. Young, James Edward. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven: Yale UP, 1993. Print. Young, James Edward. “Germany’s Holocaust Memorial Problem—and Mine.” The Public Historian 24.4 (2002): 65-80. Web. Young, James E. "James Young: Germany's Holocaust Memorial."YouTube. University of California Television, 31 Jan. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. Zelizer, Barbie. Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory through the Camera’s Eye. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1998. Print.
Page | 17