National Days, National Identity, and Collective Memory: Exploring the Impact of Holocaust Day in Israel

Abstract

This study uses the case of Holocaust Day in Israel to examine the premise that national days impact national identity and collective memory. Specifically, the study examines whether a very unique type of national day-Holocaust Day-impacts national identification, nationalism, and collective memory in the form of Israeli Jews' perceptions of the "lessons" of the Holocaust. This study uses panel survey design data on national identity and perceptions of the Holocaust's lessons from the same sample of Israeli Jews (N = 665) collected two months prior to Holocaust Day and again during and after Holocaust Day. During and after Holocaust Day, respondents expressed increased levels of nationalism and more perceptions of both particularistic and universalistic Holocaust lessons. Participation in Holocaust Day practices had a stronger relationship with nationalism and national identification during Holocaust Day than before but a weaker relationship with the perception of a universalistic lesson during Holocaust Day. These findings indicate that Holocaust Day impacts national identity and collective memory and highlights the multifaceted nature of the relationships between national identity, collective memory, and national days. The theoretical implication of the findings as well as the case comparability are discussed in light of the findings.

Studying Emotions in Security and Diplomacy: Where We Are Now and Challenges Ahead

“…The issue of traumatic memories reappeared in Gal Ariely's () account of how national days impact national identity and collective memory. Using quantitative data collected two months prior to and again during/after Holocaust Day commemorations, Ariely explained how this day impacts on Israeli Jews' perceptions of the “lessons” of this unique type of national day.…”

“…Emotions play an important role in the success or otherwise of security discourses and diplomatic practices. They can lead to a redirection of foreign policies (as exemplified by the contributions of Baker, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Keys & Yorke, ), investments in morally questionable practices conducted in the name of security such as torture or drone warfare (Edney‐Browne, ; Houck et al, ), and conflicts and wars (see Adisonmez, ; Ariely, ). The boundary drawn between the assumed self and the imagined other is so embedded in emotional labor and so engrained in politics and social and economic relations that even challenging these narratives becomes politically unimaginable (Bilgic et al, ).…”

“…Second, our contributors have shown that when emotions are collectively felt and expressed, they can bring about an elusive notion of security and stability in the manner in which “the self” is defined in contrast to an/“the other.” This stability is, of course, open to challenges. However, continual emotional appeals of security discourses enable political actors to reproduce this sense of stability (see Adisonmez, ; also see Ariely, ; Bilgic et al, ; Eberle & Daniel, ). At the same time, emotions offer a way of cracking this seemingly insurmountable challenge.…”

“…In other words, traumatized individuals go back and forth in time. This is useful and important for us to think about and analyze how political actors (e.g., in our contemporary political context, far‐right populist parties) generate and capitalize upon emotions about the “past”—which is now either long gone or did not ever exist—with the promise that the future of “the self” is in this past that is loved, missed, and longed for (Ariely, ; Hall & Ross, ; van Hoef & O'Connor, ). Similarly, fears and anxieties about the past can be instrumentalized for shaping the present and future of the collective self (Adisonmez, ; Eberle & Daniel, ) and what is legitimate to do in order to secure “the self” (Houck et al, ).…”

“…The contributors of this special issue have dealt with emotions in at least one of the three ways in which we conceptualized emotions namely, as (1) frames that shape interpersonal diplomatic relations (Baker, ; van Hoef & O'Connor, ; Keys & Yorke, ), (2) as key tools that are used as part of the statecraft's toolbox (Bilgic et al, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Hall & Ross, ; Houck et al, ; Ilgit & Prakash, ), and (3) as formative/productive dynamics with real effects on human beings (Adisonmez, ; Ariely, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, )—that, in turn, often construct and maintain conflicts.…”