THE MORAL AND AFFECTIVE SIDE OF THE STORY
(AN EXAMPLE OF MASS MEMORY: THE TRIAL OF K. BARBIE, "THE BUTCHER OF LYON")
Denise Jodelet (1998)
Summary:
The purpose of this article is to analyze a new field of Social Psychology, that of memory, using the models available in psychology
and social sciences. In the first part, we examine some central problems that lead to differentiating diverse types of memory. In
the second part, as an example, we try to analyze a new phenomenon of memory, mass memory, and its ethical-psychological
implications.
Memory, like currency, has an obverse and a reverse, manifesting itself in forms such as remembrance/forgetting, life/death, and
the intensity of remembrance/fossilization of remains. These paradoxes are amplified in their manifestations as content and
development. The evocation, commemoration and worship of vestiges have a perfume of death, but remembrance is life in its
obstinacy.
In the study of memory, we can focus on several perspectives. The first goes from the present to the past: we ask ourselves h ow
individuals and groups remember each other, and how the present intervenes in the reconstruction of memories. A second
perspective goes from the past to the present: it focuses on how the past returns to the present and works under the mask of
oblivion or perpetuates itself as traces and reminiscences. The third perspective addresses the clashes between past and present:
we are interested in the conflicts between tradition and novelty, and in how certain current events have commemorative and
symbolic value. Thus, recent debates in France in the wake of the Barbie trial evoke the problem of memory: the conflict between
oblivion as the struggle of the present against the past and the return of the repressed to consciousness and knowledge.
PSYCHOLOGICAL MODELS OF MEMORY
The evolution of memory treatment has led to the integration of individual and social perspectives for several reasons. On th e one
hand, historians, following Freud, do not establish a distinction of nature between individual and collective psychology, but a
difference of scale, postulating an analogy between the functioning of collective representations and the histories of the su bject.
On the other hand, although the social dimension is not explicitly considered in psychology, it returns through language, which
ensures life and the unity of thought and memory.
We have always postulated the relationship between knowledge and memory in psychology. While some thinkers, such as Piaget,
reduce memory to knowledge, other approaches, influenced by cognitive psychology and language theory, consider knowledge as
a form of memorization. These approaches fall into two core models: the barn and the generator.
The barn model sees long-term memory as a storehouse of information and memories of the past, conceiving thought as a static
record of data from experience. In contrast, the generator model assigns long-term memory an active structure, which works with
present experience, underscoring the creative aspect of memory structures and their role in the assimilation of novelties.
In this way, memory receives two statuses: one of inertia and reproduction of dead contents, and the other of dynamism and
creativity of mnemic processes. However, the cognitive approach, focused on intra-individual functioning, often fails to address
the role of memory as a symbolic mediation between the subject, others, and the world.
For Anglo-Saxon psychosociologists, memory should be considered as a social activity and not just as an isolated individual process.
They propose a change of perspective that considers memory as an activity integrated into social practices, such as conversation,
which is a pillar of the social constitution of memory. This perspective maintains that memory is constituted in discussion through
rhetoric and debate, demonstrating its ideological character and allowing the continuity of social life.
We are facing a school of thought that strongly argues for the social status of memory. However, it is important not to limit social
practices to conversation only, as this does not allow for a full understanding of how memory is preserved outside of
communication or the material environment. Memory, as a constructive activity, also has a social dimension that explains its
construction based on the interests and values of the group and the affective involvement of its members.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW
To analyze memory in its full functioning, we must situate ourselves at the level of social thought and its relationship with the life
of groups. Individual memory is influenced by belonging to social groups, which provides stability through language, writi ng, and
1
Made by MatyBuda
, cultural crystallizations. These inscriptions remain alive thanks to the dynamism of mental life and the energy they find in group
life, as demonstrated by Durkheim and Halbwachs.
Durkheim emphasizes that memory is fundamental for mental life, ensuring the continuity of thought. Memory and thought are
intricately connected, and this connection manifests itself in the re-evocation of past representations. Halbwachs advances this
idea, showing the relationship between memory and social thought, and looking for the principle of mnemic dynamism in the lif e
of groups. Memory and thought share a mixed structure of images, concepts, and words, which gives a representational character
to the frameworks of individual and collective memory.
These frameworks include space, time, language, and acts of understanding. Memory is an integral part of social thought, impl ying
interpretation of the present from the past and rational activity based on present social conditions. The unity between thoug ht
and memory is ensured by frameworks that associate concrete and abstract representations.
Halbwachs also articulates the relationship between mental and social life, stating that groups embody ideas and memories,
creating specific collective memories that reflect the identity and continuity of the group. Collective memory, therefore, serves the
needs and interests of the group, legitimizing and valuing its social order and values.
This approach leads us to consider how individual memory can be socially determined and how collective memory develops and
endures, providing frameworks and tools for mnemic activity. New types of memory also emerge due to technological and social
evolution, such as historical memory and mass memory, which transcends groups and unites them, influenced by the media and
collective phenomena.
A MASS MEMORY
One of the peculiarities of our time is that man-made catastrophes become mass catastrophes because of their magnitude. These
catastrophes generate a new type of international solidarity and call for a planetary defense of humanity, changing the modes of
political and democratic functioning. An example of this phenomenon is the development of international agencies and non -
governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, which denounce political abuses, and Médecins Sans Frontières, whi ch
act in favor of populations affected by aggression or collective abandonment.
We want to show how collective memory is used, in the case of Nazi crimes, to strengthen a collective conscience and solidari ty,
creating a mass memory. To this end, we will examine the trial of Klaus Barbie, which took place in Lyon, in May and June 198 7.
BARBIE AND ITS PROCESS
Klaus Barbie, an SS lieutenant, headed Section IV of the Einsatzkommando in Lyon between 1942 and 1944, and was known as the
butcher of Lyon for his ruthlessness. Responsible for anti-Jewish repression and the fight against the "enemies of the Reich", Barbie
arrested and tortured to death Jean Moulin, head of the French resistance. Sentenced to death in absentia for war crimes in 1 953
and 1954, he was protected by the American Counterintelligence Corps, allowing him to flee to Peru and then Bolivia. In 1983, he
was handed over to French justice and imprisoned.
The Barbie case was carried out by Serge Klarsfeld and his wife Beate, who fought to prevent Nazi crimes from being protected
indefinitely. The Klarsfelds, acting as a mass crystal according to Canetti, used "symbolic violence" to attack the public co nscience
and bring to trial Nazi officials in France. They were joined by 39 prosecution lawyers, representing Barbie's victims, and expanding
their arguments to all crimes against humanity.
Prosecution witnesses included Barbie victims and their relatives, who recalled the torture they suffered. Other witnesses revived
the period of the Resistance or life in the deportation camps. On the third day of the trial, Barbie refused to appear anymore,
alleging the illegality of her detention, which took away the sensationalist side of the process.
The Barbie trial had three important aspects: establishing a new definition of crimes against humanity, commemorating past
horrors, and "rendering justice to memory." I will examine three key points: the conflict between history and memory, the
educational goals of the process and its implementation, and the ethical aspect of the defense of memory.
HISTORY AGAINST MEMORY
Let us pause for a moment on the characters who will be confronted with the empty chair of the accused. A first work on memor y
is the polemical confrontation between the arguments that will try to impose different versions of the events under examination.
From the beginning, the representatives of the distinct groups compete to build a historical memory based on their particular
2
Made by MatyBuda
(AN EXAMPLE OF MASS MEMORY: THE TRIAL OF K. BARBIE, "THE BUTCHER OF LYON")
Denise Jodelet (1998)
Summary:
The purpose of this article is to analyze a new field of Social Psychology, that of memory, using the models available in psychology
and social sciences. In the first part, we examine some central problems that lead to differentiating diverse types of memory. In
the second part, as an example, we try to analyze a new phenomenon of memory, mass memory, and its ethical-psychological
implications.
Memory, like currency, has an obverse and a reverse, manifesting itself in forms such as remembrance/forgetting, life/death, and
the intensity of remembrance/fossilization of remains. These paradoxes are amplified in their manifestations as content and
development. The evocation, commemoration and worship of vestiges have a perfume of death, but remembrance is life in its
obstinacy.
In the study of memory, we can focus on several perspectives. The first goes from the present to the past: we ask ourselves h ow
individuals and groups remember each other, and how the present intervenes in the reconstruction of memories. A second
perspective goes from the past to the present: it focuses on how the past returns to the present and works under the mask of
oblivion or perpetuates itself as traces and reminiscences. The third perspective addresses the clashes between past and present:
we are interested in the conflicts between tradition and novelty, and in how certain current events have commemorative and
symbolic value. Thus, recent debates in France in the wake of the Barbie trial evoke the problem of memory: the conflict between
oblivion as the struggle of the present against the past and the return of the repressed to consciousness and knowledge.
PSYCHOLOGICAL MODELS OF MEMORY
The evolution of memory treatment has led to the integration of individual and social perspectives for several reasons. On th e one
hand, historians, following Freud, do not establish a distinction of nature between individual and collective psychology, but a
difference of scale, postulating an analogy between the functioning of collective representations and the histories of the su bject.
On the other hand, although the social dimension is not explicitly considered in psychology, it returns through language, which
ensures life and the unity of thought and memory.
We have always postulated the relationship between knowledge and memory in psychology. While some thinkers, such as Piaget,
reduce memory to knowledge, other approaches, influenced by cognitive psychology and language theory, consider knowledge as
a form of memorization. These approaches fall into two core models: the barn and the generator.
The barn model sees long-term memory as a storehouse of information and memories of the past, conceiving thought as a static
record of data from experience. In contrast, the generator model assigns long-term memory an active structure, which works with
present experience, underscoring the creative aspect of memory structures and their role in the assimilation of novelties.
In this way, memory receives two statuses: one of inertia and reproduction of dead contents, and the other of dynamism and
creativity of mnemic processes. However, the cognitive approach, focused on intra-individual functioning, often fails to address
the role of memory as a symbolic mediation between the subject, others, and the world.
For Anglo-Saxon psychosociologists, memory should be considered as a social activity and not just as an isolated individual process.
They propose a change of perspective that considers memory as an activity integrated into social practices, such as conversation,
which is a pillar of the social constitution of memory. This perspective maintains that memory is constituted in discussion through
rhetoric and debate, demonstrating its ideological character and allowing the continuity of social life.
We are facing a school of thought that strongly argues for the social status of memory. However, it is important not to limit social
practices to conversation only, as this does not allow for a full understanding of how memory is preserved outside of
communication or the material environment. Memory, as a constructive activity, also has a social dimension that explains its
construction based on the interests and values of the group and the affective involvement of its members.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW
To analyze memory in its full functioning, we must situate ourselves at the level of social thought and its relationship with the life
of groups. Individual memory is influenced by belonging to social groups, which provides stability through language, writi ng, and
1
Made by MatyBuda
, cultural crystallizations. These inscriptions remain alive thanks to the dynamism of mental life and the energy they find in group
life, as demonstrated by Durkheim and Halbwachs.
Durkheim emphasizes that memory is fundamental for mental life, ensuring the continuity of thought. Memory and thought are
intricately connected, and this connection manifests itself in the re-evocation of past representations. Halbwachs advances this
idea, showing the relationship between memory and social thought, and looking for the principle of mnemic dynamism in the lif e
of groups. Memory and thought share a mixed structure of images, concepts, and words, which gives a representational character
to the frameworks of individual and collective memory.
These frameworks include space, time, language, and acts of understanding. Memory is an integral part of social thought, impl ying
interpretation of the present from the past and rational activity based on present social conditions. The unity between thoug ht
and memory is ensured by frameworks that associate concrete and abstract representations.
Halbwachs also articulates the relationship between mental and social life, stating that groups embody ideas and memories,
creating specific collective memories that reflect the identity and continuity of the group. Collective memory, therefore, serves the
needs and interests of the group, legitimizing and valuing its social order and values.
This approach leads us to consider how individual memory can be socially determined and how collective memory develops and
endures, providing frameworks and tools for mnemic activity. New types of memory also emerge due to technological and social
evolution, such as historical memory and mass memory, which transcends groups and unites them, influenced by the media and
collective phenomena.
A MASS MEMORY
One of the peculiarities of our time is that man-made catastrophes become mass catastrophes because of their magnitude. These
catastrophes generate a new type of international solidarity and call for a planetary defense of humanity, changing the modes of
political and democratic functioning. An example of this phenomenon is the development of international agencies and non -
governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, which denounce political abuses, and Médecins Sans Frontières, whi ch
act in favor of populations affected by aggression or collective abandonment.
We want to show how collective memory is used, in the case of Nazi crimes, to strengthen a collective conscience and solidari ty,
creating a mass memory. To this end, we will examine the trial of Klaus Barbie, which took place in Lyon, in May and June 198 7.
BARBIE AND ITS PROCESS
Klaus Barbie, an SS lieutenant, headed Section IV of the Einsatzkommando in Lyon between 1942 and 1944, and was known as the
butcher of Lyon for his ruthlessness. Responsible for anti-Jewish repression and the fight against the "enemies of the Reich", Barbie
arrested and tortured to death Jean Moulin, head of the French resistance. Sentenced to death in absentia for war crimes in 1 953
and 1954, he was protected by the American Counterintelligence Corps, allowing him to flee to Peru and then Bolivia. In 1983, he
was handed over to French justice and imprisoned.
The Barbie case was carried out by Serge Klarsfeld and his wife Beate, who fought to prevent Nazi crimes from being protected
indefinitely. The Klarsfelds, acting as a mass crystal according to Canetti, used "symbolic violence" to attack the public co nscience
and bring to trial Nazi officials in France. They were joined by 39 prosecution lawyers, representing Barbie's victims, and expanding
their arguments to all crimes against humanity.
Prosecution witnesses included Barbie victims and their relatives, who recalled the torture they suffered. Other witnesses revived
the period of the Resistance or life in the deportation camps. On the third day of the trial, Barbie refused to appear anymore,
alleging the illegality of her detention, which took away the sensationalist side of the process.
The Barbie trial had three important aspects: establishing a new definition of crimes against humanity, commemorating past
horrors, and "rendering justice to memory." I will examine three key points: the conflict between history and memory, the
educational goals of the process and its implementation, and the ethical aspect of the defense of memory.
HISTORY AGAINST MEMORY
Let us pause for a moment on the characters who will be confronted with the empty chair of the accused. A first work on memor y
is the polemical confrontation between the arguments that will try to impose different versions of the events under examination.
From the beginning, the representatives of the distinct groups compete to build a historical memory based on their particular
2
Made by MatyBuda
