The Challenge of Contradictions: Thinking Through Spaces of Dissension

Why collective memory can never be pluriversal: A case for contradiction and abolitionist thinking in memory studies

“…In this way, we might be better equipped to think about alternative ways to speak about difficult histories that lay open the cracks in the dominant narrative order through which we can then invite in different images and stories than the ones implied in dominant discourse. These other images and stories might open up “spaces of dissension” (Foucault, 1972: 152), which can then be cherished “as spaces of multiple incompatible meanings” (Lossau et al, 2019: 7) and not discredited as too chaotic. Drawing from the above, we saw how in a constellation like current-day Germany, which is, indeed, shaped by “multiple incompatible meanings,” the logic of contradiction calls for order.…”

“…My assertion poses both challenges and opportunities for memory studies. To investigate memory alongside contradiction as well as beyond contradiction might involve looking at the past and how it is “emplotted” (White, 2016: 52) from new angles in order to understand how contradictions are epistemically and ontologically “bound” (Lossau et al, 2019: 7). At the same time, it also means allowing oneself, as a researcher, to come to unfamiliar, maybe uncomfortable places and conclusions.…”

“…5 Following Warnke et al (2021), I wish to start from the assumption that the very term or idea of a contradiction, which includes the imperative of resolving contradiction, has become a discursive “ordering figure” that often stands in a relationship of tension to the many complexities of social life. The logic of contradiction entails the already mentioned “axiomatic imperative of ‘freedom from contradiction’” and thus becomes a means of control, one that “derives normativity” (Lossau et al, 2019: 4–7). This “Law of Non-Contradiction” can, according to Febel et al (2023: 1–2), who trace it back as far as Aristotle, be “considered to be the foundation of all philosophy” and remains widely accepted.…”

“…Chaos, however, can, as Éduard Glissant (2020) argues, also be experienced and conceptualized in a positive way, understanding that chaos is productive because “all its elements are equally necessary, functioning in nonsystematic, unpredictable, and, therefore, dynamic ways” (p. 45). Julia Lossau et al (2019) argue in a similar vein that, in order to understand the very idea of a contradiction in relation to power—from which public memory is of course inseparable, our reflections also need to include discrepancies, disproportions, aporias, deviations, differences, etc. that are declared as contradictory in fields of contested knowledge.…”

“…It goes as follows: Collective memory will never be fully inclusive nor can it be the arena in which new solidarities emerge because it is epistemologically bound to the ideal of purity. Put differently, one cannot think about collective memory without upholding the premise of wholeness and its inherent demand of “freedom from contradiction” (Lossau et al, 2019: 4) that underlies dominant euro-modern 3 epistemology and the violence it has caused and continues to cause. Therefore, if we seek to pluriversify (Escobar, 2020) memory discourse in order to make it less harmful for those who were erased from the dominant narratives, we need to abolish the ideal of a collective memory altogether.…”