GEOFFR EY
HART MAN
47
What are the chances, th en, of encouraging an inter-generati o nal con–
versa ti o n , thro ugh art o r essays,
to
fo res tall sil ence and so lipsism? Th o ugh
"conversa ti o n," in thi s co ntex t, is a mi snome r,
I
have yet to find a better
word . To introdu ce fac ts about th e Shoa h into casual talk-or even into the
less casual space o f th e classroom- produces an embarrassed sil ence.
Sil ence o f thi s kind ca n be propadeuti c, however, a step towa rd mature
conversa ti o n, towa rd th at vc ry
fl,liillrl(~kcit
by w hi ch Kant defin ed the
enli ghtened person o r humanity's co llective exodu s fi-om a sel f- in curred
UIlIIII·illrl(~kcil .
The conversa ti o n
I
conside r essenti al to intell ectual witn ess in cludes
such qu es ti o ns a'i: Was suffering l1l ea nt to end in a book o r a movie? Must
every good story presuppose a fasc inati o n with crime and di sas te r, with the
hea rt o f darkn ess) Ca n we look at th e ca lamity o f the Ho locaust w itho ut
takin g some comfo rt fi-om represe ntati o n , di scursive o r arti sti c) H as th e
culture in w hi ch it happened changed? Does emph asis o n the Sh oah raise
th e suspi cio n that th e Jewi sh cOl11l11unity is mo no po li zin g sufferin g, o r is
there a way o f brin gin g thi s di sas ter into th e framewo rk of comparative
ge nocide) Are th ere
111
o ral lessons to be drawn fi-om th e Holocaust, mo re
compelling th an a vague appea l to humanitarian o r d emoc ratic va lu es)
As time passes and th e terro r th at threa tened to bl ank th e sc reen is less–
ened by th e very sto ri es and pi ctures that acc umul ate as parti al d efenses
aga inst th at bl ankn ess, we are o bli ged to think o f th e pro bl el11 s th at sur–
round the transmi ss io n o f th e H o locaust as a li vin g memo ry. Wh at if such
a legacy-as it is now ca ll ed- has a d espairing o r traumati zing effect and
th e " N ever Forge t" becomes an imposs ibility? Finall y, is there a limit to
the bi tte r logic o f accusa ti o n o r does th at always d epend o n th e tri age o f
parti cul ar ideo logies)
When th e topi c is the Ho locaust, mo reove r, the cauti o ns th at we igh on
intel lectual essays are sometimes di stin ct from th ose that burden arti sti c o r
fi cti o nal proj ects.
In
art, sc ruples about representability o ften ta ke over: ca n
or sho uld th e Shoa h be depi cted in g raphi c and rea li sti c ways? l3ut in intel–
lectual witness th e constraint comes 111 0 re fi-om an equiva lent to th e third
th an the second commandl11 ent: " Thou shalt no t refer to th e Ho locaust in
vaIn."
We are always under th e injun cti o n no t to multipl y words needl essly.
In
th e matte r o f th e Sh oa h, howevcr, "sil ence" takes o n a parti cul ar value,
and speakin g and w ritin g are mo re at ri sk th an in fi cti o nal modes, w hi ch
often experiment w ith shock, or create, thro ugh the mag ic of art, w hat
Boil eau ca ll ed "agreeabl e mo nste rs." Sil ence as a va lue does no t mean
keepin g q ui et but evokes an internal monito r o r thresho ld demo n . Th e
way we w rite abo ut the Sh oah has a bea rin g o n the viabili ty of culture
afte r th e Sho;lh .
