2004
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 2666-5050

Abstract

Abstract

The cosmopolitan memory culture or the moral remembrance paradigm, which typically addresses memories of human rights atrocities and often focuses on the binary relationship between victims and perpetrators. However, recent scholarly developments, including Michael Rothberg’s theorization of the implicated subject, have complicated this dichotomy. Drawing on ethnographic research from 15 museums focused on Soviet terror across five Russian regions, I introduce an additional layer to this framework: the perpetrator-hero continuum or the malevolent-benevolent character of perpetrators’ agency. While in traditional cosmopolitan memory culture, such a concept might seem unimaginable, in the context of an undemocratic society like Russia, the figure of the perpetrator can be reinterpreted in multiple ways, which also puts into question the dominant moral remembrance paradigm in general. This reinterpretation often involves heroization, driven not only by state pressure but also local agendas—such as appealing to pro-Stalinist audiences or fostering regional solidarity, even around former camp authorities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/HMC2026.1.010.KHLE
2026-03-01
2026-03-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/26665050/1/1/HMC2026.1.010.KHLE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/HMC2026.1.010.KHLE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adler, Nanci. 1993. Victims of Soviet Terror: The Story of the Memorial Movement. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Kjell. 2017. “‘Who Was I to Stop the Killing?’ Moral Neutralization among Rwandan Genocide Perpetrators.”Journal of Perpetrator Research1 (1): 39–63. https://doi.org/10.21039/jpr.v1i1.49.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antweiler, Katrin. 2023. Memorialising the Holocaust in Human Rights Museums. Vol. 37. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arhipova, Alexandra. 2017. “Stalin without Stalinism (in Russian).”InLiberty. http://www.inliberty.ru/blog/2616-Stalin-bez-stalinizma?fb_comment_id=1536352719770559_1536722393066925#f2b52bb99c5605c.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold-de Simine, Silke. 2013. Mediating Memory in the Museum: Trauma, Empathy, Nostalgia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Assmann, Aleida. 2014. Dlinnaya Ten’ Proshlogo: Memorialnaya Kultura i Istoricheskaya Politika. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Assmann, Aleida, and SebastianConrad. 2010. Memory in a Global Age: Discourses, Practices and Trajectories. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, Stefan, and WulfKansteiner. 2021. “Agonistic Perspectives on the Memory of War: An Introduction.” In Agonistic Memory and the Legacy of 20th Century Wars in Europe, edited by StefanBerger and WulfKansteiner. London: Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86055-4_1.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blacker, Uilleam, and JulieFedor. 2015. “Soviet and Post-Soviet Varieties of Martyrdom and Memory.”Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society1 (2): 197–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouris, Erica. 2007. Complex Political Victims. Bloomfield, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen, Karin Hyldal. 2017. The Making of the New Martyrs of Russia: Soviet Repression in Orthodox Memory. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Comer, Margaret. 2023. “Lubyanka: Dissonant Memories of Violence in the Heart of Moscow.”Memory Studies16 (3): 561–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980231162332.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Critchell, Kara, Susanne C.Knittel, EmilianoPerra, and Uğur ÜmitÜngör. 2017. “Editors’ Introduction.” In Journal of Perpetrator Research, 1 (1): 1–27. DOI: 10.21039/jpr.v1i1.51.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Daase, Christopher. 2010. “Addressing Painful Memories: Apologies as a New Practice in International Relations.” In Memory in a Global Age: Discourses, Practices and Trajectories, edited by AleidaAssmann and SebastianConrad. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. David, Lea. 2020. The Past Can’t Heal Us: The Dangers of Mandating Memory in the Name of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fedor, Julie. 2014. “Setting the Soviet Past in Stone: The Iconography of the New Martyrs of the Russian Orthodox Church.”Australian Slavonic and East European Studies28 (1–2): 121–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fedor, Julie, MarkkuKangaspuro, JussiLassila, and TatianaZhurzhenko, eds. 2017. War and Memory in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. FOM. 2014. “Mass repressions in the USSR / FOM.”FOM, October29. https://fom.ru/Proshloe/11786.
  19. Gabowitsch, Mischa. 2017. Replicating Atonement: Foreign Models in the Commemoration of Atrocities. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gensburger, Sarah, and SandrineLefranc. 2020. Beyond Memory: Can We Really Learn From the Past?Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Giesen, Bernhard. 2004. Triumph and Trauma. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Pub.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones, Polly. 2013. Myth, Memory, Trauma: Rethinking the Stalinist Past in the Soviet Union, 1953-70. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Khazanov, Anatoly M. 2013. “Whom to Mourn and Whom to Forget?(Re) Constructing Collective Memory in Contemporary Russia.” In Perpetrators, Accomplices and Victims in Twentieth-Century Politics, edited by Anatoly M.Khazanov, StanleyPayne. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Khlevnyuk, Daria. 2018. “Narrowcasting Collective Memory Online:‘Liking’Stalin in Russian Social Media.”Media, Culture & Society41 (3): 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718799401.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levy, Daniel, and NatanSznaider. 2006. The Holocaust and Memory in the Global Age. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lim, Jie-Hyun. 2010. “Victimhood Nationalism in Contested Memories: National Mourning and Global Accountability.” In Memory in a Global Age. Discourses Practices and Trajectories, edited by AleidaAssmann e SebastianConrad, pp. 138–162. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meduza. 2025. “‘Who Else Would They Glorify?’ In Occupied Mariupol, Russia Just Opened a Museum to a Key Enforcer of Stalinist Repressions.”https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/02/19/who-else-would-they-glorify.
  28. Moffett, Luke. 2021. “Victims, Victimology and Transitional Justice.” In Transitional Justice, edited by Hakeem O.Yusuf, Hugovan der Merwe, pp. 30–53. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Morag, Raya. 2013. Waltzing with Bashir. Perpetrator Trauma and Cinema. London: Tauris.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Moral, Javier, GerdBayer, and FernandoCanet. 2023. “Facing the Perpetrator’s Legacy: Post-Perpetrator Generation Documentary Films.” n The Representation of Perpetrators in Global Documentary Film, edited by FernandoCanet, pp. 97–112. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Özyürek, Esra. 2023. Subcontractors of Guilt: Holocaust Memory and Muslim Belonging in Postwar Germany. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Panico, Mario. 2023. “‘Adapt or Resist?’ Narratives of Implication and Perpetration in the Verzetsmuseum in Amsterdam.”Questioning Traumatic Heritage. Spaces of memory in Europe and South America, edited by IhabSaloul, CristinaDemaria, Anna MariaLorusso and PatriziaVioli, pp. 125–144. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Panico, Mario. 2024. “Representing the Material Infra-Ordinary of the Perpetrator.”Journal of Perpetrator Research7 (1): 71–104. DOI: 10.21039/jpr.7.1.165
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pipiya, Karina. 2018. Stalin in public opinion. Levada-center. https://www.levada.ru/2018/04/10/17896/.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Radonić, Ljiljana. 2020. “‘Our’ vs. ‘Inherited’ Museums. PiS and Fidesz as Mnemonic Warriors.”Comparative Southeast European Studies68 (1): 44–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2020-0003.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rodriguez Castro, Laura. 2023. “Complicating Difficult Heritage and the Politics of Institutionalized Memory in Post-Accord Colombia.”Museum Management and Curatorship38 (1): 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2022.2053872.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothberg, Michael. 2019. The Implicated Subject: Beyond Victims and Perpetrators. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith, Anthony D.1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sniegon, Tomas. 2018. “5 Dying in the Soviet Gulag for the Future Glory of Mother Russia? Making ‘Patriotic’ Sense of the Gulag in Present-Day Russia.” In Cultural and Political Imaginaries in Putin’s Russia, edited by NiklasBernsand e BarbaraTörnquist-Plewa, pp. 105–125. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sodaro, Amy. 2018. Exhibiting Atrocity: Memorial Museums and the Politics of Past Violence. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sodaro, Amy. 2019. “Selective Memory: Memorial Museums, Human Rights, and the Politics of Victimhood.” In Museums and Sites of Persuasion, edited by JoyceApsel and AmySodaro, pp. 19–35. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Straus, Scott. 2017. “Studying Perpetrators: A Reflection.”Journal of Perpetrator Research1 (1): 28–38. DOI: 10.21039/jpr.v1i1.52.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2000. “Abortive Rituals: Historical Apologies in the Global Era.”Interventions2 (2): 171–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vatlin, Alexander. 2016. Agents of Terror: Ordinary Men and Extraordinary Violence in Stalin’s Secret Police. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Pres.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Verdeja, Ernesto. 2018. “Response to Christian Gudehus.”Journal of Perpetrator Research2 (1): 9–12 doi: 10.5334/jpr.2.1.18.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Viola, Lynne. 2013. “The Question of the Perpetrator in Soviet History.”Slavic Review72 (1): 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. White, Anne. 1995. “The Memorial Society in the Russian Provinces.”Europe-Asia Studies47 (8): 1343–1366.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Williams, Timothy. 2018. “Agency, Responsibility, and Culpability: The Complexity of Roles and Self-Representations of Perpetrators.”Journal of Perpetrator Research2 (1): 39–64. DOI: 10.5334/jpr.2.1.16.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Yudin, Greg, DariaKhlevnyuk, DmitryRogozin, and AnnaIpatova. 2019. “Dealing with the Difficult Past: A Scenario for Russia.”http://trudnaya-pamyat.ru.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zavadski, Andrei, and VeraDubina. 2021. “Eclipsing Stalin: The GULAG History Museum in Moscow as a Manifestation of Russia’s Official Memory of Soviet Repression.”Problems of Post-Communism, 70(5): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. ВЦИОМ. Новости. n.d. “О репрессиях, репрессированных и «сильной руке».” Accessed March11, 2025. https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/o-repressiyakh-repressirovannykh-i-silnoj-ruke.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/HMC2026.1.010.KHLE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/HMC2026.1.010.KHLE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Memory museums; perpetrator; Russia; Stalin; state terror; USSR
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error