Henry
Rousso’s book entitled ‘The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since
1944” considers a rather different way of understanding the historical
developments that happened in the country in the aftermath of World War II.
Setting his focus in the Vichy period, Rousso tries to reconstruct his
framework that the existence of repressed memories have influenced the way
French people think about the realities that are happening to the events moving
forward. To better place emphasis on his arguments, he divides the book into
three different sections, where he believes that this repressed memories have
been manifested. These include the period
immediately after the conflict, the period where Charles de Gaulle held power
and the student demonstrations that occurred in the 1960s.
Looking
closely at the period immediately after the war, Rousso points out that the
repression happened in this stage. He specifically cites the condition where
people had limited time to react to what was happening. Alongside this was the
attributed impact in the rebuilding process associated with the end of World
War II. From the vantage point of Rousso, the leadership during the period
repressed the actual impact to French society because it somewhat created a
false impression of liberation. Citing Rousso, he mentioned that:
“The purge thus made everybody unhappy,
because it had proved impossible to strike a satisfactory compromise between
traditional justice, which as what most moderates (as well as those with most
to lose politically) were calling for, and the need to rout out fascism. The
dilemma was not merely moral: the law versus legitimate revenge, short-term memory
versus persistent bitterness” (22).
Equally, the issue related
to how the French people responded to the war immediately after its aftermath.
Initially, there was clamor to memorializing what happened but this was
somewhat constrained due to the necessary process of rebuilding. The end result
created division on the perspective towards liberation, where each one featured
a specific ideology of what really happened during the time frame. Citing
Rousso, he mentions that:
“The Liberation thus represents an
intermediate stage between the Occupation and the memory of the event. It
contains in embryonic form the chief characteristics of the Vichy syndrome,
which took the guise of ambivalences and rivalries” (26).
The
next argument then revolves around the times after liberation. This is the
period when Charles de Gaulle was in power and how he tried to convey a sense
of justice to what has transpired to people who have experienced the atrocities
and destruction brought forth by war. Using different examples of propaganda,
there was the recognition of how the French society, especially those who were
born after the war to examine the realities that happened during the period.
The
period of the 1960s, also created the necessary stir in understanding the memories
during the occupation. This clearly came during the time when leftist movements
were becoming evident within French society. Equally, the introduction of new
literature (e.g. films and documentaries opened the direction for recognizing
the role of the local people during the conflict. In a way, this is referred to
by Rousso as ‘areas of amnesia’ where it helped the development of groups and
establish better recognition of the histories that are happening around.
The
last sections of the book, Rousso then highlights the different vectors of
memory shape perceptions related to War and Occupation. To achieve this, the
book considered the statistical figures detailing how the French were familiar
about the subject. The results he provided illustrate the lack of understanding
or ignorance in the nature of changes that have happened in the past and the
corresponding consciousness for such.
Considering
the relevance and value of the book, as far as the thesis is concerned, Rousso
was able to explore the different dimensions of this theory. The thing that is
commendable about the book is its ability to separate its arguments into
different sections. These are points where Rousso believes that the issue
related to repressed experiences and memories come into place. Having this
vantage point increases the potential of readers to bring forward connections
to the case/situations he has pointed out. Equally, the ability to utilize
historical events that have happened in the past also create justifications for
Rousso’s arguments. Bearing in mind some significant events that shaped French
history after World War II, the central themes offer ways to piece the
information together and provide analyses that is derived from how memories
might have contributed to either the creation of perspective or opinion about
the issue.
Assessing
the functional purpose of the book, the insights provide new perspectives about
understanding the history of France from the Vichy until today. The framework
utilizes a new direction to consider the repercussions of the incident and how
it influenced the manner that French society reinterprets the specific
condition over contemporary issues. In support of Rousso’s arguments, there
clearly are psychological and behavioral manifestations that can illustrate his
point. Using historical facts, he is able to examine clearly French society as
it progressed in the aftermath of World War II. His depiction of how influences
in the realm of politics and society does hold ground particularly if one seeks
to understand the motivations that influenced the people to act in the specific
period. These can be attributed to the repressions and the collective
representations that in turn shape attitudes and behavior amongst critical
issues involving the nation.
On
the other hand, operating solely on the realm of psychology and behavior also
undermines the level of analysis concerning the history of France since Post
World War II. Even if Rousso might have a good perspective and historical basis
for his claims, the concept of objectivity and the ability to operate on the
context of the situation loses because the book contends pointing the
traumatizing experience of Vichy as the only facet that prompted such response.
In addition, the level of analysis applied by Rousso can also be subject to
criticism. Like those who operate from the viewpoint of resistance movement or
communism, there are numerous ways to look into the role of history. Given the
subjectivity of attributing factors related to each situation after Vichy, it
might present limitations especially in helping understand historical
information that contradicts Rousso’s chosen framework.
In
conclusion, Rousso’s book remains to be a good approach to understand French
history since the Vichy period. It’s ability to look into psychological and
behavioral approaches encourages readers to take consider the connection of
things and identify the manner how memories of the situations in the past
continue to shape and influence the way people perceive societal and political
issues in France. In addition, operating on this lens encourages readers to step
back in considering the nature of history and how the level of consciousness
can be attributed the manner that memories and past can go together and
establish a level of commitment towards achieving an opinion over a specific
issue.
Work Cited
Rousso, Henry. The Vichy syndrome: history and memory in France since 1944. 1994 trans.
Arthur Goldhammer. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment