The phrase “memory law” is new to me, and it was chilling to read it here. This is chilling-to grasp so deeply the implications of legislating what must be forgotten. I wonder if you would be willing to write a longer piece on this concept of memory laws. It’s crucial that we help people understand this.
good morning. the voter suppression laws are so bad - i don't think many really understand where those laws will take us. i never thought i would need to add things like voter laws, memory laws, etc. to my list of places to consider for retirement. i did not know how widespread this was.
Memory law is also a new term to me. But when I read that the Senate had passed the Juneteenth act unanimously - I knew something was up. The Republicans don't pass anything Biden wants. But I'm learning all the "rules" of tyranny as we move into, very apparently, our very own version. I bought "On Tyranny" as soon as I learned of it from my library - 2017/18? Am extremely frustrated and angry at the complete passivity of the Democrats in Congress. I want to shake them, wake them up to our new reality. I'm frightened
The phrase "memory law", as many have pointed out, is a new but critically important identifying term that perfectly encapsulates the motives of Republican legislation around education/history. The pretenses being used by Republicans as they push such laws, "security", "patriotism", and "indoctrination", ironically describe the goals and outcomes of said legislation, in that they create a false, indoctrinated version of American history (and as Dr. Snyder pointed out in his NYT's essay, "The War on History Is a War on Democracy", are frighteningly similar to Putin and other historical authoritarian regimes). While national myths are used in all country-building exercises, the intentionally false, selective, white-washed version of American history being promoted by Republicans only works to build a rickety foundation of national unity that will ultimately collapse under it's own falsehoods.
“Censoring the past to deny that racism is systemic makes it more so.” Thank you Professor Snyder. I guess it’s only “political correctness” if it threatens the power structure.
Good to hear from you. Appreciate you taking time to explain to me your existential situation, so to speak. Sounds like you are quite serious about your commitment to the political problems in the country, but I am especially impressed by what you said about engaging in conversations with people and investigating for yourself, trying to become informed about what is happening, and also subjecting things to the test of your own experience and discernment. For one of the really dangerous things about ideologies, especially of the authoritarian and totalitarian type that Professor Snyder has written a great deal about, is that they persuade people not to trust their own sensory experience and also their own judgement. I have written a bit myself on the issue of becoming informed as a citizen and the importance of social responsibility and that democracies cannot survive without a certain level of sophisticated public opinion. If you are interested, I would be happy to email it to you,
It occurs to me that what is going on at the moment between different sides of the ideological spectrum is a struggle over values. People will go to extraordinary lengths when the value they seek to defend is held to be the only one that is right, true and worthwhile. Convinced they have the highest value firmly in hand, they will be scornful of all other values, which are considered to be nothing - that is, completely worthless. This is more than just a matter of a difference of opinion. Rather, the disagreement is so total that any discussion is regarded as pointless. After all, if someone is unable to recognize plainly obvious truths, they must be either very stupid or very wicked. In which case, why waste words on them?
Discourse occurs in a ‘common-place’ that gathers self and others, thereby allowing for the negotiation of differences. Such communication presupposes, in the words of Massimo Cacciari, “a network of distinct individualities, united precisely by what appears to distinguish them the most, given to dialogue and listening, unable to know themselves without reflecting on what is other from them”. But when one or other party regards their view of things as not something that can be negotiated, what would be the point of discussion? Maurice Blanchot warns that as soon as “the presence of the other . . . ceases to give rise to speech, the earth ceases to be vast enough to contain at the same time autrui [the other] and myself, and it is necessary that one of the two reject the other - absolutely”.
Absolutely rejecting the other means refusing to recognize their existence. And yet, to behave as if the other does not exist - is this not, in effect, a negation of their very being? Here, then, is the fundamental antimony: the way of a spoken word which is peace and recognition, or the way of violence that totally negates the other; one will either speak to the adversary or kill them. A rational political order holds that the other has a right to be heard. It allows for the free expression of different views. This freedom means that at times things may get quite heated. But even if one side may represent their adversary as diabolical, at no point will they deprived of the right to exist. Whereas should politics turn into a stubborn and single-minded struggle to impose values, it’s precisely this degradation of the opponent to the status of a total non-entity which becomes possible. This situation leads to civil war, which is by far the most dangerous thing on the horizon at the moment, I think far more so than memory legislation or voter suppression.
It also occurs to me that we need to be a bit careful with language. I agree with Timothy Snyder about Tyranny and Fascism, that sometimes one really does just need to call a spade a spade. When his book on Tyranny came out, some scholars quibbled over his use of the term Fascism in relation to present day USA. Snyder replied that we shouldn’t get overly hung up about terminology. I would agree. But I am sometimes concerned when terms like tyranny become thrown about a bit too loosely, and also that the language that is used to speak of those whose political opinions or position one doesn’t agree with can ramp up emotional responses to such an extent that people stop thinking carefully about things, or with attention to nuance. Also, powerful language leads to righteous indignation, which is also not terribly helpful, since it encourages paranoia and extremism. Here I always think of something that Raymond Aron said once, that “one must be careful not to judge ones political adversaries as if ones own cause were identified with absolute truth”
many thanks for your detailed reply. I wouldn’t deny any of the points that you raise. However, I guess that I just wanted to widen the terms of the discussion a bit. I don’t live in the US, so I don’t see what’s happening on the ground, so to speak. For that reason, I don’t think about the issues as a political activist might. The political battles that you, as a US citizen, will need to fight are many and very specific, I don’t deny that. And the more people there are who are prepared to say no to injustices, the better it will be. But I think it’s also important to work out how one can speak to the people one doesn’t agree with, rather than just repeating to oneself, and to other like minded individuals, “oh how horrible”, etc. One way to do that is to see the issues in a somewhat broader perspective. That is all I was trying to offer, by remarking on the antimony of ethics and politics, etc.
Actually, come to think of it Timothy, I wonder if what you are talking about - I mean 'memory legislation', etc- is the problem of legality without justice? The latter was precisely the condition of law in the Nazi state and also in the Soviet Union. The American legal scholar, Robert Cover, wrote an interesting article many years ago called 'Nomos and Narrative', in which he discusses this dialectical relation between law and society.
I feel that the issues you raise are somewhat more complex than you have portrayed. In particular, I find it a little disconcerting how you jump very suddenly from the situation of authoritarian populists in Europe to the US context. I think there are great differences between the notion of tyranny in the classical political philosophical sense, and the problem of authoritarian demogogues in the context of a mass society (like the US). The European situation is more of this classical type, whereas in the US, the problem is complicated by the immense power and dynamism of societal and economic processes, and the relative weakness of institutional structures. Perhaps Jacob Talmon's rubric of "totalitarian democracy" of the Rousseauist type might be apt for the contemporary US situation.
The other thing that bothered me concerns your discussion of racism. That the latter might be a matter of personal preference is a sort of half truth; the other side of it is that when racism is seen as a "structural" feature of a society or culture, rather than related to the individual and their intentions, behaviour, etc, there's a danger of falling into the trap of sociologism, or what Karl Popper called 'The myth of the framework'. With this notion, people can be said to be 'racist' regardless of their actual views or opinions. This in itself can be a dangerous tendency, as we have seen from the way that the notion of "white privilege" a battle-standard for struggles between ideologies.
I wonder if the point here is that there is a distinction to be made between law and ethics, or the social and personal dimensions of justice. Both are necessary, but neither can replace the other; they are complementary but not exclusive. Neither is it a matter of "balance", however. Rather, one might say that politics exists to serve ethics (which does not mean it is subservient to ethics); whereas the role of ethics is to restrain the political. The two, however, remain independent. This distinction between ethics and politics is perhaps the oldest problem of civilization, and it is something which monotheist spirituality - in particular, the Jewish tradition - has attempted to address.
In the US, the conundrum of the relation between ethics and politics, freedom and society, is particularly evident the phenomenon of "motorized legislation", where law making is hijacked by social interests and loses the sense of being a register of the democratic will.
In summary, I would say that the problem in the US is that age-old dilemma of American culture, the combination of social oppression with political freedom which Hannah Arendt felt was peculiar to culture. The issue I think is how individuals can resist the extraordinary pressure of the social in US culture, a phenomenon which is beautifully documented in Kafka's novel, Amerika,
The phrase “memory law” is new to me, and it was chilling to read it here. This is chilling-to grasp so deeply the implications of legislating what must be forgotten. I wonder if you would be willing to write a longer piece on this concept of memory laws. It’s crucial that we help people understand this.
good morning. the voter suppression laws are so bad - i don't think many really understand where those laws will take us. i never thought i would need to add things like voter laws, memory laws, etc. to my list of places to consider for retirement. i did not know how widespread this was.
Memory law is also a new term to me. But when I read that the Senate had passed the Juneteenth act unanimously - I knew something was up. The Republicans don't pass anything Biden wants. But I'm learning all the "rules" of tyranny as we move into, very apparently, our very own version. I bought "On Tyranny" as soon as I learned of it from my library - 2017/18? Am extremely frustrated and angry at the complete passivity of the Democrats in Congress. I want to shake them, wake them up to our new reality. I'm frightened
The phrase "memory law", as many have pointed out, is a new but critically important identifying term that perfectly encapsulates the motives of Republican legislation around education/history. The pretenses being used by Republicans as they push such laws, "security", "patriotism", and "indoctrination", ironically describe the goals and outcomes of said legislation, in that they create a false, indoctrinated version of American history (and as Dr. Snyder pointed out in his NYT's essay, "The War on History Is a War on Democracy", are frighteningly similar to Putin and other historical authoritarian regimes). While national myths are used in all country-building exercises, the intentionally false, selective, white-washed version of American history being promoted by Republicans only works to build a rickety foundation of national unity that will ultimately collapse under it's own falsehoods.
“Censoring the past to deny that racism is systemic makes it more so.” Thank you Professor Snyder. I guess it’s only “political correctness” if it threatens the power structure.
Hi Fern,
Good to hear from you. Appreciate you taking time to explain to me your existential situation, so to speak. Sounds like you are quite serious about your commitment to the political problems in the country, but I am especially impressed by what you said about engaging in conversations with people and investigating for yourself, trying to become informed about what is happening, and also subjecting things to the test of your own experience and discernment. For one of the really dangerous things about ideologies, especially of the authoritarian and totalitarian type that Professor Snyder has written a great deal about, is that they persuade people not to trust their own sensory experience and also their own judgement. I have written a bit myself on the issue of becoming informed as a citizen and the importance of social responsibility and that democracies cannot survive without a certain level of sophisticated public opinion. If you are interested, I would be happy to email it to you,
Regards
Yarkov Halik
Melbourne Australia
It occurs to me that what is going on at the moment between different sides of the ideological spectrum is a struggle over values. People will go to extraordinary lengths when the value they seek to defend is held to be the only one that is right, true and worthwhile. Convinced they have the highest value firmly in hand, they will be scornful of all other values, which are considered to be nothing - that is, completely worthless. This is more than just a matter of a difference of opinion. Rather, the disagreement is so total that any discussion is regarded as pointless. After all, if someone is unable to recognize plainly obvious truths, they must be either very stupid or very wicked. In which case, why waste words on them?
Discourse occurs in a ‘common-place’ that gathers self and others, thereby allowing for the negotiation of differences. Such communication presupposes, in the words of Massimo Cacciari, “a network of distinct individualities, united precisely by what appears to distinguish them the most, given to dialogue and listening, unable to know themselves without reflecting on what is other from them”. But when one or other party regards their view of things as not something that can be negotiated, what would be the point of discussion? Maurice Blanchot warns that as soon as “the presence of the other . . . ceases to give rise to speech, the earth ceases to be vast enough to contain at the same time autrui [the other] and myself, and it is necessary that one of the two reject the other - absolutely”.
Absolutely rejecting the other means refusing to recognize their existence. And yet, to behave as if the other does not exist - is this not, in effect, a negation of their very being? Here, then, is the fundamental antimony: the way of a spoken word which is peace and recognition, or the way of violence that totally negates the other; one will either speak to the adversary or kill them. A rational political order holds that the other has a right to be heard. It allows for the free expression of different views. This freedom means that at times things may get quite heated. But even if one side may represent their adversary as diabolical, at no point will they deprived of the right to exist. Whereas should politics turn into a stubborn and single-minded struggle to impose values, it’s precisely this degradation of the opponent to the status of a total non-entity which becomes possible. This situation leads to civil war, which is by far the most dangerous thing on the horizon at the moment, I think far more so than memory legislation or voter suppression.
Hello again Fern,
It also occurs to me that we need to be a bit careful with language. I agree with Timothy Snyder about Tyranny and Fascism, that sometimes one really does just need to call a spade a spade. When his book on Tyranny came out, some scholars quibbled over his use of the term Fascism in relation to present day USA. Snyder replied that we shouldn’t get overly hung up about terminology. I would agree. But I am sometimes concerned when terms like tyranny become thrown about a bit too loosely, and also that the language that is used to speak of those whose political opinions or position one doesn’t agree with can ramp up emotional responses to such an extent that people stop thinking carefully about things, or with attention to nuance. Also, powerful language leads to righteous indignation, which is also not terribly helpful, since it encourages paranoia and extremism. Here I always think of something that Raymond Aron said once, that “one must be careful not to judge ones political adversaries as if ones own cause were identified with absolute truth”
All the best,
Yarkov Halik
Hello Fern,
many thanks for your detailed reply. I wouldn’t deny any of the points that you raise. However, I guess that I just wanted to widen the terms of the discussion a bit. I don’t live in the US, so I don’t see what’s happening on the ground, so to speak. For that reason, I don’t think about the issues as a political activist might. The political battles that you, as a US citizen, will need to fight are many and very specific, I don’t deny that. And the more people there are who are prepared to say no to injustices, the better it will be. But I think it’s also important to work out how one can speak to the people one doesn’t agree with, rather than just repeating to oneself, and to other like minded individuals, “oh how horrible”, etc. One way to do that is to see the issues in a somewhat broader perspective. That is all I was trying to offer, by remarking on the antimony of ethics and politics, etc.
Best wishes
Yarkov
Actually, come to think of it Timothy, I wonder if what you are talking about - I mean 'memory legislation', etc- is the problem of legality without justice? The latter was precisely the condition of law in the Nazi state and also in the Soviet Union. The American legal scholar, Robert Cover, wrote an interesting article many years ago called 'Nomos and Narrative', in which he discusses this dialectical relation between law and society.
Hi Professor Snyder,
I feel that the issues you raise are somewhat more complex than you have portrayed. In particular, I find it a little disconcerting how you jump very suddenly from the situation of authoritarian populists in Europe to the US context. I think there are great differences between the notion of tyranny in the classical political philosophical sense, and the problem of authoritarian demogogues in the context of a mass society (like the US). The European situation is more of this classical type, whereas in the US, the problem is complicated by the immense power and dynamism of societal and economic processes, and the relative weakness of institutional structures. Perhaps Jacob Talmon's rubric of "totalitarian democracy" of the Rousseauist type might be apt for the contemporary US situation.
The other thing that bothered me concerns your discussion of racism. That the latter might be a matter of personal preference is a sort of half truth; the other side of it is that when racism is seen as a "structural" feature of a society or culture, rather than related to the individual and their intentions, behaviour, etc, there's a danger of falling into the trap of sociologism, or what Karl Popper called 'The myth of the framework'. With this notion, people can be said to be 'racist' regardless of their actual views or opinions. This in itself can be a dangerous tendency, as we have seen from the way that the notion of "white privilege" a battle-standard for struggles between ideologies.
I wonder if the point here is that there is a distinction to be made between law and ethics, or the social and personal dimensions of justice. Both are necessary, but neither can replace the other; they are complementary but not exclusive. Neither is it a matter of "balance", however. Rather, one might say that politics exists to serve ethics (which does not mean it is subservient to ethics); whereas the role of ethics is to restrain the political. The two, however, remain independent. This distinction between ethics and politics is perhaps the oldest problem of civilization, and it is something which monotheist spirituality - in particular, the Jewish tradition - has attempted to address.
In the US, the conundrum of the relation between ethics and politics, freedom and society, is particularly evident the phenomenon of "motorized legislation", where law making is hijacked by social interests and loses the sense of being a register of the democratic will.
In summary, I would say that the problem in the US is that age-old dilemma of American culture, the combination of social oppression with political freedom which Hannah Arendt felt was peculiar to culture. The issue I think is how individuals can resist the extraordinary pressure of the social in US culture, a phenomenon which is beautifully documented in Kafka's novel, Amerika,
thank you again for your contribution,
regards
yarkov halik
Melbourne, Australia