Governing the memories of communism in Central and Eastern Europe: policy instruments and social practices

ABSTRACT

This introduction scrutinizes the numerous studies that deal with the memory of communism in Central and Eastern Europe and it identifies two major fault lines. The first concerns the level of analysis. A large body of work favours top-down approaches and focuses on the institutions and policies that govern the communist past. Conversely, another set of studies opts for bottom-up approaches that address the social representations and practices related to that past. The second fault line concerns the conception of the presence of the communist past, regarded either as a permanent legacy from the past (primordialist perspective) or as an instrument mobilized for political aims (instrumentalist perspective). In order to bridge these divides, the authors advocate approaching memories through the public policy instruments that are designed and implemented to deal with the past. Adhering to the notion that policy instruments are not purely technical and neutral devices but in fact carry interpretations of the ‘problem’ to be solved, this approach offers insights into what constrains social practices linked to the communist past, and how individuals put up with these constraints.

KEYWORDS:

• Memory
• communism
• policy instruments
• social practices
• top-down and bottom-up approaches
• primordialist and instrumentalist perspectives

Memories of communism remain vivid in Central and Eastern Europe. They appear under many guises and in a great variety of contexts, from the most intimate to the most official settings – be it through the conservation of a portrait of Tito in one’s living room in present-day Bosnia or through the opening of a permanent exhibition on ‘Everyday life in the GDR’ at the Museum in the Berlin Kulturbrauerei in November 2013 under the auspices of the Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Foundation. In order to understand the ways in which European societies evoke and reinterpret the communist past, the articles gathered in this special issue investigate social mnemonic practices and the public policies that have been designed to channel them through various instruments: museums, offices for cultural heritage preservation, history textbooks, judicial procedures, institutes for national memory and the like.¹ The authors thus endeavour to avoid the double pitfall that awaits many studies of the memories of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. On the one hand, they generally focus either on the institutional level, or on the level of individual representations and practices. On the other hand, they either conceive of memory as an unchanged residue from the past or as a purely strategic resource refashioned to meet present interests. Approaching memories of communism through the policy instruments used to deal with them helps avoid these two sets of oppositions, between macro and micro levels on the one hand, and between primordialist and instrumentalist conceptions of memory on the other. Instead, the articles gathered in this issue bring to the fore the many different spaces and logics of the activation of the memory of communism in Central and Eastern Europe.

The study of memory of communism in a double bind

Two major fault lines run across the numerous works dealing with the memory of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. The first one concerns the level of analysis. A large body of work favours top-down approaches and focuses on the institutions and policies that take charge of the communist past. Conversely, another set of studies opts for bottom-up approaches that address the social representations and practices related to that past. The second major fault line concerns the very interpretation of the presence of the communist past. While some works adopt a primordialist perspective and consider the salience of memory to derive from the permanence of structures, representations and practices inherited from the former regimes and from the unchanged individuals’ attachment to them, others develop an instrumentalist perspective that highlights actors’ strategies in mobilizing the past to meet current interests and objectives. As the following table summarizes, the two fault lines intersect.

Table

Conception of memory	Level of analysis
	Top-down	From below
Primordialist	1	3
Instrumentalist	2	4

Top-down approaches have studied how the institutional political sphere was taking charge of the remnants of communism. The memory of communism was first analysed as a past that needed to be dealt with so as to facilitate the democratization of political systems (1). A number of authors thus examined the policies of decommunization and lustration with the goal of determining whether they were successful, hampered or aborted (e.g. Courtois, 2002, 2011; Krasnodebski, Garsztecki, & Rüdiger, 2012; Mayer, 2001; Radzyner, 2007; Rousso, 1999; Troebst & Baumgartl, 2010; Welsh, 1996). Later, the study of the intervention of public authorities into the presence of the communist past was extended to other domains: history-writing, public commemorations and monument-building, patrimonialization, rewriting of school textbooks, etc. (e.g. Onken, 2003, 2007; Stan, 2009, 2013). Once it became clear that the public policies dealing with the communist past were not exhausting the public manifestations of the memories of communism, some researchers reintroduced actors and their logics back in (2). They endeavoured to explain the motivations and modalities of the mobilization of the communist past into present, mainly political party competitions (e.g. Fehr, 2008; Ivan, 2008; Matonyte, 2013; Mink, 2013; Portnov, 2014; Shukan, 2010).

Proponents of approaches ‘from below’ scrutinize ordinary individuals’ representations and practices linked with the communist past. At first, these analyses mainly aimed at measuring social attitudes towards the communist past so as to evaluate the degree of consensus around the transition and the consolidation of the democratization process (3). In those works, memory represented a (more or less) persisting remnant of the previous regimes (e.g. Ekman & Linde, 2005; Troebst, 2005). However, research ‘from below’ has also increasingly shed light on the ways individuals reconstruct their memories of communism (4). Those works investigate individual actors’ bricolage when elaborating their mnemonic practices and representations; they observe how individuals endow their memories with new meanings and give them new functions (Boym, 2001; Klumbyte, 2010; Kubik & Linch, 2013; MacDonald, 2013; Ó Beacháin, Sheridan, & Stan, 2012; Rabikowska, 2013; Saunders & Pinfold, 2012; Todorova, 2010; Todorova & Gille, 2010; Zakharova, 2011).

Bridging the old divides

These two majors fault lines are not specific to the study of memories of communism in Central and Eastern Europe; however, they are particularly salient in this context. One can offer a few hypotheses as to why this is the case.

The prevalence of top-down analyses in the first studies in this area mainly stemmed from the context of their publication and the nature of the links that their authors entertained with their object. Indeed, soon after the regimes changed, domestic actors and external observers insistently raised the question of how to come to terms with the communist past. Indeed, they considered the latter as an obstacle to a successful transition to democracy. Soon enough, their practical reflection about the most appropriate strategy and devices to do so found resonance within more academic works – even though, of course, not all top-down studies aimed at offering policy recommendations. The gradual development of bottom-up approaches to the memory of communism in Central and Eastern Europe owes much to the perplexities generated by the support that some (former) communists were still receiving in the region and, more generally, by the existence of varying forms of nostalgia for communism. Such inquiries ‘from below’ also echoed the developing social history of communism (e.g. Apor, Apor, & Rees, 2008; Blaive, 2006; Bren & Neuburger, 2012; Capelle-Pogăcean & Ragaru, 2010; Giustino, Plum, & Vari, 2013; Kott, 2014; Lagrave, 2011; Willis, 2013).

As for the initial primacy of primordialist conceptions of memory, it derived mostly from the visions of the communist individuals and societies that prevailed during the Cold War and its aftermath. Communist societies were presented as an atomized and static mass (Schöpflin, 1991) and individuals were deemed to be caught up in the collective body and deprived of any agency, epitomized by Homo Sovieticus (Laird, 1995; Sztompka, 1993). The remnants of communism after the regime change therefore appeared as mere atavisms in social structures and passive individuals. Such a conception was not conducive to the study of active and deliberate endeavours to mobilize the communist past. These investigations did gain momentum, though, once certain political actors in Central and Eastern Europe positively claimed the memory of communism and, more often than not, when their political opponents tracked such claims. The growing concern for the presence of the communist past in banal social practices and representations also prompted some authors to advocate to focus on individuals and on micro-scale processes.

Therefore, the two major fault lines that run across the analysis of the memory of communism owe much to the specific questions that seemed urgent at the time of their publication. However, reproducing such divides in present-day analyses would have nothing but counter-productive effects.

First, there is no justification, neither methodological nor heuristic, to oppose top-down and bottom-up approaches. The same object may be scrutinized in different ways, and scientific knowledge can only gain from the combination of both approaches. More often than not, choosing one level of analysis over the other merely stems from the author’s disciplinary background and routine: law, political history and political science tend to focus on macro processes while anthropology, social and cultural history and cultural studies tend to privilege the exploration of micro phenomena. The preference for one scale of analysis frequently implies an assumption that one level has primacy over the other. Even though it is generally more implicit than explicit, such an epistemology is contestable. Indeed, neglecting to study micro-scale phenomena amounts to considering that processes in the institutional political sphere over-determine all social dynamics; conversely, drawing society-wide deductions from the observation of micro-processes hinges on the rather bold assumption that there is an absolute homology between social universes (Revel, 1996). Therefore, without negating the existence of specific methodologies, it is necessary to imagine ways of articulating multi-scale research designs.

The opposition between primordialist and instrumentalist conceptions of memory also needs to be rethought. It is indeed possible to consider memory ‘in its twofold dimension of a trace of the past – possibly blind to itself – and of an evocation or an elective reference to the past’ (Lavabre, 2012, p. 266). In other words, memories are neither simply preserved over the years, nor purely constructed in a strategic fashion; they are neither a burden from the past, nor a choice of the present (Lavabre, 1991). By approaching memory as the re-construction of the past (Halbwachs, 1925, 1950), one can hope to bridge the primordialist/instrumentalist divide. True, the primordialist perspective has helped signal the presence, under different guises, of representations and practices inherited from communist times. But in those works, memories appear to be travelling through time in a mechanic way – it is nearly impossible to understand what makes them salient at a certain time, nor how they may evolve. As for the instrumentalist perspective, it has shown that the salience of memory has much to do with present-day interests and struggles. However, by positing individuals as rational actors who simply choose the weapons at their disposal, this model says little about the social conditions in which a shared past experience might constitute an available ‘resource’ (Calvert, 2002) for political uses of the past. Opposing these two theoretical perspectives therefore creates a double bind. Instead of choosing one of them, the authors in this issue prefer scrutinizing how some representations of the past are imposed on individuals, and how the latter may appropriate, reject or reinterpret them. In other words, they delineate the art of governing mnemonic practices – and its limitations.

Analysing the memory of communism through policy instruments

The articles gathered in this issue bring the actors to the fore in the study of memory. As they reckon that ‘everyday life is not sealed off from the wider world’ (Brubaker, Feischmidt, Fox, & Grancea, 2006, p. 16). Together, they unravel the multiple interactions between institutional and political processes and everyday mnemonic behaviours. This issue thus explores what constrains practices and representations linked to the communist past, and how individuals put up with these constraints. To what modes of action, to which techniques of government do political decision-makers resort in order to channel the social conducts linked to the communist past? What resources and constraints do policy instruments offer to the social actors? To answer these questions, this issue approaches the memories of communism through the policy instruments that are designed and implemented to deal with the past. Drawing on the idea that public policy instruments are not purely technical and neutral devices and considering that they carry interpretations of the ‘problem’ to be solved, this approach brings valuable insights into the political, militant, scientific and/or judicial actors’ conflicts in selecting the appropriate policy instruments, as well as into the instruments’ effects on individual and collective social practices.

In the past couple of decades, research on public policy has shown how fruitful it was to extend the scope from the study of public policy objectives and substance to the study of its very modes of action: laws, decrees, taxes, statistics, cartography, financial reporting, zoning, etc. The policy instrument approach owes much to the pioneering work of Linder and Peters (1989, 1990). They developed a subjectivist understanding of policy instruments by focusing on the ‘perceptions of the proper “tool to do the job”’ (Linder & Peters, 1989, p. 35). Instead of proposing a normative evaluation of the instruments or a simple description of their characteristics, they were interested in ‘the meaning ascribed to these instruments by decision-makers who use them and experts who design them’ and in ‘processes by which some come to be favoured above others’ (Linder & Peters, 1989, p. 35). To do so, they took into account cognitive, as well as organizational and systemic, context-sensitive factors. In the following decades, policy instrument studies have developed considerably. As most of them were leaning towards functionalist comparisons between instruments’ efficiency, political sociologists Pierre Lascoumes and Patrick Le Galès recalled that

instruments really are institutions [in the sociological sense of the word], as they partly determine the way in which the actors are going to behave; they create uncertainties about the effects of the balance of power; they will eventually privilege certain actors and interests and exclude others; they constrain the actors while offering them possibilities; they drive forward a certain representation of problems. (2007, p. 9)

To study memories of communism, the policy instrument approach thus seems apt to bridge the double divide described above. First, this approach averts the alternative between top-down and bottom-up analyses since it requires navigating between different scales. Indeed, at the macro level, it invites an exploration of the conflicts and negotiations around the choice and implementation of the instrument deemed appropriate to deal with the communist past: a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or an Institute for National Memory? Criminal trials or amnesty for former regime officials? Patrimonialization of everyday life under communism, or pedagogical projects emphasizing the repressive aspects of the regime? At the micro level, this approach calls for an investigation into the multifarious reception of public policies by ordinary individuals – be it appropriation, contest, reinterpretation of their objectives and results. Lastly, at the mezzo level, this approach implies taking into account the social effects that policy instruments might have on intermediary organizations such as professional or activist groups – the creation of an Institute for National Memory may create new professional and political venues for certain historians; a European court verdict might offer new resources to national memory entrepreneurs; etc.

Second, the policy instrument approach also leaps over the fault line between primordialist and instrumentalist conceptions of memory. It shows that memory is neither a mere burden of the past nor a purely strategic choice in the present. Indeed, this approach recognizes that every policy instrument carries a certain representation of the ‘problem’ it addresses – the communist past, in this case – and might therefore foster reinterpretations of the latter. In other words, focusing on policy instruments recalls that the communist past is not identically transmitted over the years but that it can be refashioned in the present, be it by a court, a school textbook, a museum exhibition or a history research project. Moreover, this approach also considers policy instruments as social institutions to which certain norms and expectations are attached. Therefore, there are legal, scientific, pedagogical, in a word, social limitations to the reinterpretation of the past that policy instruments may propose. A criminal trial may establish certain facts about the communist past, but differently from a publicly funded history research project. Varying injunctions to scientific truth and to didactic efficiency also affect, in different ways, the visions of the past that an Institute for National Memory, a museum and a primary school textbook can purport. The policy instrument approach thus makes it clear that memories of communism are not a mere residue, nor a pure construction – they are, instead, a re-construction of the past under present circumstances and amid specific social constraints.

The articles gathered in this issue address the memories of communism from a wide variety of disciplines (political science, history, sociology and cultural studies), methodologies (archive work, surveys, interviews and ethnography) and national contexts (Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the former Yugoslavia and the Baltic states). However, instead of singling out the papers according to their discipline, methodology or national context, this issue is organized according to the types of policy instruments designed to deal with mnemonic practices and representations. It thus highlights the multiple forms of government of the memory of communism.

A first set of articles focuses on pedagogical and patrimonial instruments and sheds light on the representations of the communist past they convey. They investigate the content of history textbooks in the former Yugoslavia (Dubravka Stojanović) and Hungary (Andrea Petö), the elaboration of pedagogical projects related to the communist past, as well as the ways in which pupils react to, appropriate or display irony towards the pedagogical representations of communism (Deanna Wooley, about the Czech Republic). They also scrutinize patrimonial instruments dealing with the communist past, wondering how history is (re)written in museums by curators and/or political actors (Andrea Petö).

A second set of articles takes issue with judicial instruments used to deal with the communist past, such as lawsuits against political or military actors linked with the communist regimes in the Baltic states (Eva-Clarita Pettai) and in Germany and Bulgaria (Raluca Grosescu). In doing so, they question the narrative function of justice, its links with political processes and the transnational circulation of enterprises of criminalization of the communist regimes.

A third set of articles centres on a specific policy instrument meant to deal with the communist past in an integrated way, from classifying archive, writing and disseminating history, to filing lawsuits – namely the foundations and institutes of national memory created in Germany and Poland. These papers investigate how the historians’ activities within these institutions are both shaped by their own social properties (Valentin Behr) and by the functions assigned to these instruments, even though this is not without tension (Anselma Gallinat).

Overall, this thematic issue highlights how different types of policy instruments convey specific interpretations of the past and affect, in different ways, individuals’ social practices and representations of communism. Based on the comprehensive exploration of the presence of the communist past in Central and Eastern Europe, it thus builds the case for a study of the government of memories that fully articulates institutional frameworks, political processes and individual agency.

Notes

1. Earlier versions of these articles were presented at the conference ‘The Memory of Communism in Europe: Actors, Norms, Institutions’ (Paris, Sorbonne University, 15–16 May 2014). The conference was organized by P. Bonnard, C. Jouhanneau, G. Mink and L. Neumayer within the COST Action IS1203 ‘In search of transcultural memory in Europe’ (http://transculturalmemoryineurope.net/), in collaboration with the Institut Universitaire de France and the Polish Historical and Literary Society. The coordinators wish to thank COST Action IS1203’s members for their intellectual and material support and Benn E. Williams for his invaluable help in editing this issue.