Were There ‘Bystanders’ in Topol'čany? On Concept Formation and the ‘Ladder of Abstraction’

Abstract

This article adds to an on-going conceptual discussion on the usefulness of the ‘bystander’ term when applied to the Holocaust and its aftermath. This catch-all concept, mostly associated with Raul Hilberg, has been the subject of fierce criticism, leading some to apply it only with adjectives (‘innocent’, ‘active’ or ‘passive’) and others to dismiss the concept altogether. Taking the Jewish–Gentile relations in Topoľčany as a case study, it becomes clear that the concept has many shortcomings when applied to the microcosm of a particular event. On the basis of Giovanni Sartori's writings on concept formation and the ‘ladder of abstraction’, we argue against dismissing the concept altogether in exchange for limiting its degree of applicability. As shown, the ‘bystander’ concept can be useful when approached with discipline and while being aware of the level of its generalisation.

Biographies of Belonging in the Holocaust

“…Scholars have also increasingly criticized the tripartite division of victims, perpetrators, and bystanders, problematizing national identities that are often implied by these categories. 44 We also see growing calls for "an integrative and integrated history" of the Holocaust, which raises questions about how to reconcile the local (or personal and intimate) experience with the national framework. 45 For a number of years, "integrated" and "holistic" have become buzzwords for approaches in historical research, that seek to bridge the divide beween the papertrails of perpetrators, the voices of victims, and the choices of bystanders, while engaging in locally situated analyses that remain mindful of the macro-context.…”