Holocaust representation

It is difficult to understand how one can represent the extremism in Holocaust while in theory, it is not possible to do so without in a way validating or appreciating in way the culture that led to it.  If genocide becomes part of cultural property in literature, it is easier for someone to confirm with a culture that led to murder. While it may is not true that holocaust is unspeakable, the notion by scholars that survivor testimony may be too imaginative can be said to be trivializing the murders and failing to condemn the culture that raised these atrocities.  It is not impossible that some representation of the Holocaust may cross the line of moral prohibition, so that it demeans the extent of the suffering that the victims underwent (Richardson, 2005).  Therefore, there can raise a moral problem of representation and in literature, it is impossible to adequately convey the real and lived experience of the Holocaust victims. The literature representation will, in most cases, be in danger of representing the experience as per the situation in which it occurred.  The literature representation of the physical pain and other suffering that victims endured in the camps may go beyond what is appropriate if there is a possibility that any form of pleasure can be derived from this narration.

 Even if the role of literature is necessary for the sake of memory of what happened, ethics and morality may forbid the depiction of the sufferings in way that it is viewed as sources of entertainment. Such kind of representation slides off into the futility of even commemorating such an incident.  If the Holocaust experience is rendered as literature work, where it is expressed in written form so as to impart some meaning to these suffering may not augur well with everyone. This amounts to trivializing the whole occurrence and the atrocities meted on the victims. The Holocaust has something like the ultimate knot with defined boundaries where one cannot go further. It is unique in that it has fire circle built around it, which cannot be transgressed by anyone since conveying a specific type of horror is difficult (Lanzmann, 1994). Representing the Holocaust in a manner that involves fiction can evoke bad sensation of pleasure and this can be termed as trivializing the whole experience. This kind of representation may become intolerable and offensive to any survivor and cultural sensibility related to the Holocaust itself.

 However, the decision to tell the experience should be left to the survivors at their own discretion, since also have a sense of what is to be told and what is inappropriate (Phillips & Morley, 2003). It involves weighing the survivor’s testimony against the logic of remaining silence to avoid a representation that may be seen as honoring the suffering. The representation of holocaust is, however, necessary to prevent a case of a repressed memory where humans may forget the consequences of extremism, and embark on a path that nurtures the culture that brought about the murder and genocide. To avoid honoring a culture that bred extremism, the survivors should be allowed to give their own account after time has elapsed and so that they are not affected by the recall of the trauma (Kearney, 1999). The psychological and historical value of the Holocaust should justify literature representation of the experience but on basis of facts and not fiction.

References

Lanzmann, C. (1994). Schindler’s List is an impossible story. University College Utrecht.

 

Kearney, R. (1999). Narrative and the Ethics of Remembrance. Questioning Ethics, 18-32.

 

Phillips, J., & Morley, J. (2003). Imagination and its pathologies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.  57

Richardson, A. (2005). The ethical limitations of holocaust literary representation, eSharp, 5. Borders and Boundaries.