Publicerad: 2012-01-17
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
This essay focuses on two emerging Russian institutions – Perm-36 Gulag Museum; Perm; and the Gulag History Museum; Moscow – to consider challenging questions about how; and why; the murder of around 15 million people through the Gulag system might be remembered in Russia. This topic represents a new and courageous intervention into the Russian landscape of public memory. During my professional contact at both institutions; conversation often turns to what I can share about comparable sites of this kind – particularly European Holocaust memorials that lie on authentic sites of genocide. Although the Gulag predated – and faroutlasted – the Holocaust; these European sites are the primary Russian reference point for this kind of national commemoration.
This paper is structured around three important issues that make a contemporary Russian politics of recognition problematic; vis-à-vis Holocaust memorials. First; it was socialist government-sanctioned designers and sculptors who; eager to expose these sites as evidence of Fascist atrocity; created the early (and sometimes defining) features of Holocaust memorials. The issue of how – or whether – to avoid this ideologically-driven formal design vocabulary is pressing. Second; beyond Germany; most European nations have managed to frame the Holocaust as a foreign perpetration of atrocity. These Russian memorial museums be unprecedented public attempts at historical self-incrimination. In discussion; an often-raised question is whether Russians are “ready for this topic.” This prompts another question: whether disturbing national histories are histories presented too soon; or whether they defy some impenetrable sense of national selfhood? Third; national memorials that document disturbing pasts can be geared towards both political reconciliation and social reawakening. While the political excavation of Perm-36 and the Gulag Museum at this point appear geared towards the former; might there be unexpected social passion around the result; where evidence and stories retrieved from the forced labor camps flow into other public dissatisfactions in the contemporary era. Addressing these three questions; my paper will describe my professional fieldwork at Perm-36 in comparison to my work at European Holocaust memorials; and; using my findings from my Memorial Museums research; I suggest ways forward for this Russian case.
Anstett E. (2011) ’Memory of political repression in post-Soviet Russia: the example of the Gulag; Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence’; Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence published on 13 September 2011; accessed January 5; 2012 URL : http://www.massviolence.org/Memory-of-political-repression-in-post-Soviet-Russiathe.
Appelbaum A. (2002) Gulag: A History New York: Doubleday.
–––– (2003) ’Takes from the Gulag’ Icon; Fall: 26.
Ellman M. (2002) ’Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments’ Europe-Asia Studies; 54; 7: 1151–1172.
Gorlizki; Y. & Vital’evich; O. (2006) Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ivanova G.; Flath; C.; Raleigh D. (2000) Labor Camp Socialism: The Gulag in the Soviet Totalitarian System. London: M.E. Sharpe.
Khazanov; A. M. (2008) ’Whom to Mourn and Whom to Forget? (Re)constructing Collective Memory in Contemporary Russia’; Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions; 9; 2: 302.
Lennon J. J. & Foley M (2000) Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster; London: Continuum.
Lowenthal; D. (1999) The Past is a Foreign Country; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosefielde S. (2009) Red Holocaust. London: Routledge.
Sharpley; R. & Stone; P. R. (eds) (2009) The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism; Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Williams P. (2007) Memorial Museums: the Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities; Oxford: Berg
