背景:在二十一世纪,来自中欧和东欧的文献以描绘纳粹共谋的纪实小说的繁荣为标志,苏联恐怖,或20世纪大规模暴力和极权主义的其他实例。因为理解过去是现在的要求,繁荣引发了一个问题:为什么现在对过去的复杂性感兴趣?我的假设是,这些文本解决了参与过去的大规模暴力行为与当前参与新自由主义不法行为的形式之间的融合。虽然这些问题有很大的不同,它们是相关的:结构上,两者都提出了形成细致入微的参与概念的挑战。历史上,它们是相关的,因为过去参与的理由已经建立了术语,叙事,和启发式的恐怖,镇压,随后讨论了大规模暴力,从而形成了谈判当前有问题的参与的框架。方法:批判性语篇分析用于审查共谋的法律概念,并将其与四个文学文本中的段落的密切阅读相结合,以概述对语言互惠的关注如何增强我们对有问题的参与的理解。结果:历史共谋的文学刻画是矛盾的;它们可以帮助找到理解文化记忆中当前问题的模型,但它们也可以用来建立现在和过去之间的距离,以安抚一切都不太好的感觉,即使在纳粹和苏联的恐怖灭亡之后.本文概述了两种距离方式:a)“西方”中的纪念观点与“东方”中描绘的暴力之间的时空距离,和b)道德距离使观众优于同谋角色。结论:通过按分析或安慰距离,这两种疏远策略都与证明合理的话语的传播共谋,借口,或者否认大规模暴力和极权主义恐怖。
Background: In the twenty-first century, literatures from Central and Eastern Europe are marked by a boom of documentary fiction portraying
complicity Nazi perpetration, Soviet terror, or other instances of 20th century mass violence and totalitarianism. Since understanding the past serves requirements of the present, the boom prompts the question: Why the interest in past complicities now? My hypothesis is that the texts address convergences between involvements in past acts of mass violence and current forms of participation in wrongdoings in neoliberalism. While these issues differ profoundly, they are related: structurally, both present the challenge of forming a nuanced notion of participation. Historically, they are related since justifications of past involvements have established the terminology, narratives, and heuristics in which terror, repression, and mass violence are subsequently discussed, thus forming the frame for negotiating current problematic involvements. Method: Critical discourse analysis is used to scrutinize the legal concept of
complicity and combined it with close readings of passages from four literary texts to outline how attention to reciprocity in language can enhance our understanding of problematic involvement. Results: Literary portrayals of historical
complicity are ambivalent; they can help to find models for comprehending issues of the present in cultural memory, but they can also serve to establish distance between present and past to appease the sense that all is not quite well, even after the demise of Nazi and Soviet terror. The article outlines two modes of distancing: a) spacio-temporal distancing of the commemorating point of view in \'the West\' from the portrayed violence in \'the East\', and b) moral distancing that casts the audience as superior to complicit characters. Conclusion: By pressing for analytic or consoling distance, both strategies of distancing amount to a
complicity with the transmission of discourses that justify, excuse, or deny mass violence and totalitarian terror.