|
||||
Complete introduction (PDF) | ||||
Rainer Hudemann (translation: Andrea Caspari, Princeton)Saar-Lor-Lux: Linkages in a European Core RegionContents
2. Patterns of interpretation2.1 “Cross-border memory”In contrast to usage in scholarly discussions about “lieux de mémoire” in recent years, “places of memory” are understood here in the original, literal sense of sites. The notion of “places” as conceived by Pierre Nora and which Étienne François and Hagen Schulze developed in their huge project “German places of memory”, describes all levels of collective memory: from sites, monuments and symbols, to people, gestures, novels, and significant historical events. By contrast, our foray into a core region of Europe is concerned with material, physically identifiable sites of architecture and landscape which manifested and still manifest the imprint of cross border structures and experiences. German allows one to differentiate between the notion of “Stätten” (sites, as material sites) as distinct from the notion of “Orte” (places, a more generic term), which has acquired a somewhat different meaning among historians; French, which has only one term, does not allow one to make such a fine distinction. “Sites” could be a useful term. Thus, the scope of this project is at the same time more modest, and more ambitious. More modest in the sense that certain strata of collective memory are left to one side, or simply skimmed over, whereas they constitute an essential part of “places of memory” as understood by Nora. But at the same time more ambitious, because it is a question of breaking away from the national dimension and discovering the visible material traces left by the complex experiences of a representative border region. Even the projects which, prompted by Nora’s research, followed in other countries – like Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, or in fact Germany – take as their starting point concepts of the nation state, or of national culture, with all the difficulties of definition this entails due to the eventful history of the Continent. Getting beyond these is at the heart of our undertaking and the criteria for selecting the chosen places. The fact that these places are continuously, or at least frequently, in a relationship with the national authorities which is marked by tension is certainly an integral part of this larger dimension. Memory, in the sense of this project, does not only mean that memory which is present now in the heart of the population and is sometimes consciously recollected for the purposes of commemoration. On the contrary: This presentation aims to improve our ability to discern the variety of ways in which cross border linkages – that is, the conflicts, cooperation, areas of contact and overlap – were and remain visible in the external appearances of places and landscapes. The aim is to contribute to an awareness of the cultural, economic, social and political interconnections in a European core region. Nora correctly indicated that “lieux de mémoire” emerge as “milieux de mémoire” disappear. The tension between still active memory and a new activation of potential memory is also at the heart of our enterprise. Sites of memory as such and as we understand them, are therefore to be found on three levels: • Sites where an occurrence took place which was typical of the border area, mostly in specific eras. • Sites which were consciously intended to epitomise the interactions and contrasts characteristic of their border location, mostly through their architecture. • Sites on which activities typical of the border location were practiced or which, because of their border location, especially influenced the development of these activities, without this being part of their “programme” and their purpose. Put another way: Sites here are understood not only as active, living memory but also as testimonies which can, but do not necessarily, become a catalyst for active commemoration. Forgetting is an integral part of the whole complex of memory. Forgetting can reflect the transformation of modes of memory. Deliberate forgetting, especially in an area with such a history of conflict, can also be a tool for differentiating oneself from the other, and as such can truly represent the many levels of tension between partners or groups, whatever their composition. In many places, memory and recollection can only be activated when one knows how to “decode” these places. It is rare to be able to understand the cross-border references of the outer appearances of the cities or the workers’ housing estates in the border area as readily as one can grasp this significance in the case of a war memorial; at least doing so assumes a knowledge of the relatively complex contexts of urban development or the history of housing in Europe. The examples presented here should prompt us to discover these traces and heighten our ability to perceive the many, often hidden dimensions of the external appearances in the region. It is only seemingly that war memorials disclose their meaning “spontaneously” – as is also the case with many other memorials. This has been widely researched in recent years within a national framework, as well as in a comparative German-French one by Charlotte Tacke. In cross border areas, however, additional dimensions must be taken into account. It seems obvious that war memorials make reference to cross border conflicts. Yet their meaning can be complicated, especially in a border area. The poignancy of the inscription “Aux enfants de…” on war memorials in so many places in Lorraine is revealed not on the monument itself, but only when we know that the dead fought on opposing sides and that therefore their memory cannot be jointly evoked with the collective term “Morts pour la patrie”. The wrathful “German” warrior at the main train station in Metz can be interpreted as “German” aggressor or “French” defender. If one knows this Roland statue’s history since 1908, one can go beyond this and see it as an expression of the interplay of the different, overlapping interpretations and experiences and the shifts of powers in the region. Ambivalence rests even in apparently simple and “easy to read” monuments everywhere; for their part, these are a direct expression of the multilayered nature of existence in this so often fought-over country, which has, at the same time, kept evolving in a role as mediator. Freddy Raphael, in a somewhat different context, coined the term “mémoire plurielle de l’Alsace”: He hit the mark in terms of our problematic. Memory is subject to constant change. Objects and places can hold very different meanings at different times, and also at the same time in the eyes of different groups, especially national groups. The ideological interpretations of the form of German and Lorrainese farm buildings after 1918 developed in ways that were radically opposed to each other. The Metz railway station remained a symbol of German annexation between 1871 and 1918 for most long-time inhabitants of Metz for almost a century; whereas for many “Alt Deutsche”, Germans from inside the Reich who had established themselves in these territories before the First World War, this centre of regional modernisation symbolised a historical affinity, rich in traditions, with Lorraine. In the historicisation encouraged by the French in their maintenance of monuments since about 1980, it became transformed into a symbol of the reciprocity of French-German influences. It was precisely when they were lived as antagonistic, that certain patterns of memory, including the refusal to remember, carried heavy emotional baggage. 2.2 The search for categories of sites of memoryIn collecting material for this project, the first step was to identify places that reflected cross-border situations. The nine chapters of this presentation are not organised along theoretical lines, but around functional categories linked to the former or present use or purpose of sites which can be traced today, on the ground in everyday life. By way of introduction, however, we will try to identify elements of a typology to apply to the variety of objects being studied. As this project seeks to free itself from the national context within which most studies of “lieux de mémoire” have been situated until now, we are entering new territory; many of the terms and categories of the intensive scholarly discussions of recent years have no traction here, as their questions are posed within different frames of reference. Among the categories proposed by younger researchers, the classification of places of memory (“Erinnerungsorte”) suggested by Aleida Assmann proves useful for our purposes. We will explore its feasibility and heuristic usefulness for our enquiry. As we do not, for the most part, share Assmann’s framework for enquiry, we will extrapolate and deviate somewhat from her definitions in the interests of terminologies adapted to our specific topic; our aim is not to adopt her system entirely but to structure our material with its help. • Generational places are those which could and can anchor the individual memory of a family over long periods, encompassing several generations; these are rare in our research. On the contrary, cross-border memories or fragments of memory are more likely to be related to migrations, to voluntary or forced moves, or even to expulsion or evacuation as was the case in 1871, 1919 and several times during the Second World War. If we extend Assmann’s definition of a place of family life, in the economic domain this would for example apply to the old glass-making tradition of the Raspiller family, which was obliged to move many times for economic reasons. This applies also to the diversification of the location of enterprises, in which an enterprise’s headquarters did not necessarily stay in one place over the long term, and in the context of which the memory transmitted from generation to generation was sometimes anchored in different places or in several places at the same time. The reasons for this were mostly the growth of a business or a reaching for new opportunities, for example in Stumm’s move from the Hunsrück to the Saar. The shifting of borders, such as that which occurred between Germany and France in 1871, and the de facto annexations as in 1940 could also entail a change of nation while in the same place. The industrial dynasty of Wendel was especially marked by this phenomenon. By contrast, a generational memory can be found in the same place among workers’ families to the extent that, over several generations, many of them found work in the same enterprise – this is only a “cross-border” memory where borders have been shifted; as a rule, it is tied to working life in one place. • Sacred places, which are described here under the rubric of sacred architecture, have for a long time belonged to sites in which national borders play a relatively small role. This has not always been the case, as is evident in the 1933 pilgrimage to the Holy Coat of Trier (“Heilig Rock”), orchestrated as a national gathering place on the eve of the 1935 Saar referendum. But it has often been the case if one considers less politicized pilgrimages, or observes what could be called the multipurpose development of a site such as Oranna/Berus from a medieval pilgrimage destination, to the nationalistic Hindenburg Tower of the inter-war period, and to a monument to Europe in the post-war period. • Places of commemoration (“Gedenkorte”) are, it seems initially, closest to the framework of our enquiry. While generational places embody a continuity of life and experience in one place, these are, by contrast, the expression of the rupture of a tradition, which has turned to stone as a relic or newly created memorial in this place and which does not live on of itself, according to Assmann. It has to be brought to life by language, by story-telling and by explaining past experiences. Thus, places of commemoration capture only a part, and a small part at that, of the traces of cross-border memory as understood in our enquiry. In another sense, however, a reference back to these traditions can bring to light structures which people are not conscious of in the present, and thereby make them real for the first time, or strengthen them. Assmann distinguishes between graves in which the dead remain present, and places of recollection (“Gedächtnisorte”) in which former actions are absent. Graves belong to our sites. Regarding the patterns/systematisation of cross border linkages, the distinction between graves and places of recollection is however less productive. We will therefore include graves among the places of recollection. • Places of commemoration become ruins when they are removed from their proper environment and remain as relics without context “in a world become foreign”, as Aleida Assman says. In this view, whether a place is assessed as a ruin or as a commemorative site is in the eye of the beholder. The “Neue Bremm” Gestapo camp was for decades a forgotten – or “to be forgotten” – “ruin” in the collective consciousness of the Saar, whereas it was a place of commemoration for the former prisoners, their families and friends and the representatives of the victims. Factory buildings which are in a state of collapse such as the glass works of Fenne are well on their way to becoming ruins, but perhaps they will, by dint of a little information, become part of the consciousness of tradition. • There is no lack of traumatic places in this region – and therefore of sites in which, in the view of many, memory should not be revived. Again, this can lead to different perceptions, depending on the group. Places can be centres of memory for some and not play any role at all for others. This happened in the case of the “Neue Bremm” Gestapo camp between the end of the war and the late 1970s, and it remains very difficult to find a “valid” shape for this as a place of commemoration. The victims naturally deal with such a trauma in a completely different way than the perpetrators – although we are using terms here which do not do justice to the complexity of the reality of the camps under National Socialism. There are numerous sites of National Socialist domination and terror in Lorraine and Luxemburg, from the Gestapo headquarters in the Villa Pauly in Luxemburg to the special SS camp in the Fort Queleu fortress in Metz. And yet the difficulties in dealing with the heritage of this region, which was so influenced by shifting borders, are not limited to the National Socialist period. Even now, the former Meisenthal glass works in the Pays de Bitche and the Art Nouveau of the École de Nancy reflect the trauma of the reintegration of Lorraine in 1918: it was only in 1999, in a centenary exhibition showcasing this center of French Art Nouveau, that it was possible to show that a significant part of the work of one of the most important Art Nouveau artists in Nancy, Émile Gallé, had been produced in the then “German” Meisenthal. For one hundred years, there had been silence about this. Only then could an active memory, re-fashioned by French-German cooperation, be carried into the old sites of production in the Pays de Bitche. Thus, trauma hides also itself – or becomes apparent – in places in which it is not obvious that one would expect it. The dominant memory of the National Socialist era can conceal other traumas which continue to smoulder under the surface and resurface as topical decades later, albeit in circumstances that have fundamentally changed. Assmann’s categories – somewhat expanded – allow us to systematise numerous problems associated with our selection of objects. However, some places which are characterised by these cross-border linkages and contrasts go beyond these categories. The concept of traces allows us to pin-point further categories which partly overlap with the above named categories, but which also open new perspectives. • Traces of cross-linkage encompass many objects which might at first glance seem far removed from categories of conscious recollection. These are especially evident, for example, in the wide field of urban development and architectural concepts as well as workers’ housing estates. • Traces of the crossing of borders are distinct from traces of cross-linkage in that they reflect an active desire to cross the border and are subject to a process of control. The types of classification suggested here relate to the objects of this presentation because, depending on the era, the framing of the questions, and the observer’s perspective, different categories can apply to the same objects. Here, once more, the variety and complexity of this area which we want to demonstrate becomes manifest. 2.3 Factors that play a role in cross-border linkagesThe variety of patterns of remembering and forgetting derives from the complexity of the configurations of cross-border linkages, whose foundations are summarised by theme and outlined here: 1. National patterns: It is not only national categories that dominate “collective memory” and the processes of the creation of linkages in an area so full of conflict and so marked by national boundaries as the Saar-Lor-Lux region, even though other patterns often develop in a dialectical relationship to the national dimension. This is all the more surprising, as it is precisely here that one would expect national conflicts to amplify the importance of national influences. 2. Patterns in border areas: The confrontation with national models and norms varied, depending on the phase and the region. It led to demarcations and delimitations, but equally to processes of transference, cultural layering, linkages, interconnections and appropriations. These could be conscious, or so subconscious that the originally national context of its components was initially suppressed and later forgotten. 3. The formation of nation states: In Luxemburg, the embracing of diverse influences from neighbouring countries was characteristic of the specific form of the building of this nation state in the 19th and early 20th century. Inversely, the country tried to consolidate its identity by an ostentatious differentiation from these influences. Therefore, the creation of the nation state itself points to transnational influences and the complexity of their structures. 4. Regional consciousness of traditions: Compared to Luxemburg, the completely different development of the German-French border area during the period of the formation of the nation states in the 19th century also resulted in different processes of demarcation and overlayering of cultural influences. Especially in the Alsace, and more modestly in Lorraine, the reference to patterns of regional traditions became the core of processes of transference, adaptation and appropriation, in the interests of their own development amidst the large nations. Inversely, processes of transfer could foster and develop additional elements for a regional consciousness. 5. Political power: Political domination was an important factor which should not, however, be overestimated. The transmitting and interweaving of national models within the border area was often not derived from decisions made by the rulers, but proceeded via subtler mechanisms – and this gave and gives them some of their more lasting effectiveness. 6. Discrepancies in modernisation: Some modern management and development patterns advanced more rapidly in the German Empire, with its high population pressure and pressure to industrialise, than in France and Luxemburg. In Alsace-Lorraine between 1871 and 1918 these were often adopted despite, rather than because of, the conditions of annexation, which one would have expected to provoke a defensive reaction. In Luxemburg, they strengthened the importance of transference in the nation building process. These discrepancies between areas in terms of their modernisation are among the most effective elements of transferences. 7. Communication structures: On the one hand, these are clearly a function of paths of communication in the sense of streets, trains, canals, and bridges, but there are also more complex forms. Gradually, at the end of the 19th century, circuits of communication evolved in large, medium and small cities that were composed of specialists and prominent people who increasingly discussed and made decisions on the basis of professional criteria rather than national considerations. Although it would be hard to pin them down topographically, these came to function as a sort of transmission belt for the effects of discrepancies in modernisation. This was also the context in which dissenting views in terms of national politics, anti-modernistic attitudes, or other motivations could be channeled and new, shared, identity-forming energies could be released. 8. Bourgeois society: The emergence of the bourgeoisie and its norms and aspirations was closely linked to the effectiveness of urban and technical modernisation, which could be used as a means of social control and of maintaining order in relation to the “classes dangereuses” (dangerous classes). Even though, in some respects, such socio-historical developments followed different paths and in different phases in individual countries, in everyday life throughout the region and beyond borders they contributed to a reduction in the weight of political and national directives. 9. Mediators between nations: Cross-border cooperation that had crystallised around personal and topographical points in turn became – even beyond the border area – a kind of transmission belt for the diffusion of norms, models and strategies for action, which had originally evolved and been appropriated within one national context, but then became those of the national context on the other side of the border. There were limits on such functions of the border region, however, depending on the antagonisms at the national level – which affected communication structures far more profoundly than subconscious processes of cultural layering – and depending on the tenacity of national systems. 10. Conflict and linkages: The diverse patterns of cultural layering which evolved in the last two centuries in the Saar-Lor-Lux region, show a remarkable persistence. Many of them emerged from times and situations of conflict. It is precisely these, however, which produce a wealth of deep structures which, over the long term, develop into lasting cross-border linkages of varying intensity. In different contexts, regions which have also experienced complex cultural layering can thus also take on a role as mediator between countries. The significant factors outlined here do not, as a rule, correspond to individual sites of recollection. Rather, sites often represent several factors, at the same time or at different times. A typology of influential factors such as this therefore applies to the entire stock of sites presented here. >> Third part of the introduction
Contents
|
||||
|