Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and His Critics

A striking aspect of the so-called "Goldhagen debate" hasbeen the bifurcated reception Hitler's Willing Executioners hasreceived: the enthusiastic welcome of journalists and the public was as warm as the impatientdismissal of most historians was cool. This article seeks to transcend the current impasse byanalyzing the underlying issues of Holocaust research at stake here. It argues that a "deepstructure" necessarily characterizes the historiography of the Holocaust, comprising atension between its positioning in "univeralism" and"particularism" narratives. While the former conceptualizes the Holocaust as anabstract human tragedy and explains its occurrence in terms of processes common to modernsocieties, the latter casts its analysis in ethnic and national categories: the Holocaust as anexclusively German and Jewish affair. These narratives possess important implications for thebalance of structure and human agency in the explanation of the Holocaust: where theuniversalism narrative emphasizes the role of impersonal structures in mediating human action,the particularism narrative highlights the agency of human actors. Although historical accountsusually combine these narratives, recent research on the Holocaust tends in the universalistdirection, and this bears on the sensitive issue of responsibility for the Holocaust byproblematizing the common-sense notion of the perpetrators' intention and responsibility.Goldhagen is responding to this trend, but by retreating to the particularism narrative andemploying an inadequate definition of intention, he fails to move the debate forward. It is time torethink the concept of intention in relation to events like the Holocaust.     

The Injustice of Some Attacks: A Response to Stephen Strehle

Abstract

Despite Stephen Strehle's criticisms, the ‘just war’ tradition can be a useful and appropriate way of thinking through the ethical problems of war. If it remains grounded in the memory of human suffering, including the suffering of the enemy, then it is a flexible framework, open to new developments, which can guide ethical reflection. In fact, the just war tradition is a good example of the appropriate relation of religion to politics. Religious traditions must neither dictate political options directly, nor be separated from them entirely, but must engage the political sphere ‘indirectly’, via reasoned argumentation. Four elements of this indirect relation are described.     

The International Lenin School: A Response to Cohen and Morgan

This paper challenges the methods and conclusions of an articleon British students at the International Lenin School by GidonCohen and Kevin Morgan published in a recent issue of TwentiethCentury British History. It questions their model of relationsbetween the Comintern and its national affiliates, and theirassertion of the prominence and total nature of the Lenin Schoolas a control mechanism of the former over the latter. Afterdemonstrating the inadequacy of their data and methodology,it indicates significant deficiencies and omissions in theirhandling of qualitative evidence relevant to the influence ofthe school on its students. It concludes by showing that theauthors underestimate the scale and duration of the impact ofthe school's graduates upon the apparatus of the Communist Partyof Great Britain.