Reading and Remembering the Algerian War: The Functions and Effects of Literary Texts in Readers’ Interactions with Cultural Memory Marjolein Wennekers, 3351718 Research MA Comparative Literary Studies, Utrecht University Thesis written under the supervision of Dr. S.C. Knittel (first reader) and Dr. B.M. Kaiser (second reader) August 2014 Wennekers 2 Acknowledgements Although the inclusion of an acknowledgements section might be more common practice with regard to dissertations, I feel that this thesis is not complete without thanking a number of people who, in different ways, have contributed greatly to its realization. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Susanne Knittel for guiding me through the thesis writing process, which marks the end of a two year academic adventure that has allowed me to further develop my knowledge, research skills, and reflection. Thank you, Susanne, for all your valuable feedback and advice, for your patience and understanding when finishing a chapter sometimes took a bit longer than I hoped, and for your support and uplifting words at the times when I was overwhelmed by the size and intensity of this project. I would also like to thank the second reader, Dr. Birgit Kaiser, both for the fact that she was always willing to think along about various aspects of this thesis and for the tutorial that I took with her a year ago, which has greatly inspired my thoughts about the relations between Self and Other in (and beyond) the Franco-Algerian context. In this respect, my thanks also goes out to others at Utrecht University who have helped shape the knowledge and perspective that is at the basis of this study: Dr. Emmanuelle Radar for making me acquainted with the history and memory of the Algerian war, Prof. Dr. Ann Rigney for provoking my interest and enthusiasm for the field of memory studies, and Dr. Els Andringa for allowing and encouraging me to experiment with the combination of memory studies and empirical reader research. This thesis could not have been written without the many readers who, in the past few years, have decided to write a comment about Yasmina Khadra’s Ce que le jour doit à la nuit or Laurent Mauvignier’s Des Hommes. Although many of them will probably never know that a student from The Netherlands has taken it upon herself to analyze their words, their contribution to this study deserves to be acknowledged. I also want to thank my dear friends (especially Anna Eick, Ayoung Jo, Julia Keers, and Gwen Kerkhof Mogot) for offering support, and, at times, some much-needed distraction. Gwen merits to be mentioned twice, as our conversations about our very similar research interests more than once gave me useful insights and inspiration. Many thanks as well to my parents, who regularly checked up on me to hear if I was stressing a bit less already, and without whom, in general, I never would have been where I am now. Pap, bedankt dat je vaak met humor een luisterend oor bood. Mam, ik weet dat je het soms jammer vond dat je in praktische zin niet meer voor me kon doen, maar jouw steun op afstand betekent ontzettend veel voor mij. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my partner Tom, who has been a great support throughout this period. Ik weet niet eens waar ik moet beginnen, dus ik houd het maar kort: bedankt dat je er voor me was. Wennekers 3 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................................. 8 Literature and the Reader in Memory Studies ......................................................................................... 8 Empathy, Awareness, Responsibility? – The Transformative Potential of Literature ............................ 11 A Plurality of Identities and Functions .................................................................................................... 16 From Reader Response to Readers’ Responses ...................................................................................... 17 2. The Algerian War: A Variety of Historical, Mnemonic, and Literary Perspectives ................................. 24 A Contested and Negotiated Past ........................................................................................................... 24 Memory in France: From Amnesia to Guerres de Mémoires .................................................................. 26 Memory in Algeria: The (Glorious) Past as a Social and Political Resource ............................................ 32 Literature, Memory, and the Algerian War ............................................................................................ 35 3. Between Representation and Responsibility: The Algerian War and the Position of the Reader in Des Hommes and Ce que le jour doit à la nuit ................................................................................................... 42 Understanding Silence in Des Hommes .................................................................................................. 43 (Impossible) Love and Reconciliation in Ce que le jour doit à la nuit ..................................................... 50 4. Reading and Responding to the Algerian War ........................................................................................ 58 Des Hommes ........................................................................................................................................... 59 Professional Reader Responses .......................................................................................................... 59 Non-Professional Reader Responses .................................................................................................. 64 Ce que le jour doit à la nuit ..................................................................................................................... 70 Professional Reader Responses .......................................................................................................... 70 Non-Professional Reader Responses .................................................................................................. 74 Conclusion – Reading and Resonance ........................................................................................................ 87 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 95 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 95 Reader Comments Cited ....................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 108 Wennekers 4 Introduction La guerre d’Algérie reste une question de mémoire particulièrement sensible entre les deux pays. Près de cinquante ans après l’indépendance de l’Algérie, les controverses sont nombreuses et les passions vives entre les différents groupes mémoriaux. Est-ce un “passé qui ne passe pas” ? (…) Que peut la littérature, dans ce cadre? (…) La diversité et la complexité des histoires personnelles, dont la littérature est volontiers l’expression, favorisent-elles une meilleure compréhension de l’Autre ? Où en est-on aujourd’hui dans les relations entre l’Algérie et la France sur le plan littéraire ? (France Culture, “Ecrire la guerre d'Algérie, entre littérature et Histoire”) The Algerian war (1954-1962) : a war that, in France, has been described as “les événements” or “la guerre sans nom”, and that – in Algeria – is also commonly referred to as “révolution”, “guerre d’indépendance”, or “guerre de libération nationale”. These different denominations are but a first indication of the variety of perspectives from which this period, that made an end to France’s colonial presence in Algeria, can be considered. Even today, more than 50 years after the conflict’s official end, the history and memory of the war continue to be contested and negotiated. The legacy of the war seems to have a continuing influence on the way in which different social groups in both countries interact with and relate to each other, and, in recent years, the conflicting efforts of these groups that all seek to integrate their own interpretations of the past into collective memory have come to be seen as ‘guerres de mémoires’. In this respect, then, the Algerian war seems indeed – as France Culture suggests in the passage quoted above – to be a “passé qui ne passe pas”. This passage, which evokes many interesting questions, stems from the description of a radio broadcast centering on the potential functions and effects of literature with regard to the history and memory of the Algerian war – the subject that will also be central to this thesis. Over the years, the Algerian war has been the subject of – or functioned as a background for – a great number of literary works, “reflecting every angle of opinion” (Prost, 118), and written on both sides of the Mediterranean. Many of these texts have been studied extensively from a wide range of angles, and perhaps especially with a focus on topics related to collective (or cultural) memory – considering the ways in which they represent the past, or in which literature differs from other media of remembrance1. However, until now, little critical attention appears to have been paid to the ways in which (non- professional) readers respond to texts about this war, and to the impact that these texts – and literature in general – might have on the way in which these readers perceive the past and the present. What are the functions and effects of literary texts in expressing, shaping, and negotiating the collective memory of the Algerian war? 1 In this respect, novels like Assia Djebar’s L’Amour, la fantasia (1985), Didier Daeninckx’s Meurtres pour mémoire (1984) and Leïla Sebbar’s somewhat more recent La Seine était rouge (1999) seem to have obtained a quasi- canonical status. The last two have, for instance, been discussed in Michael Rothberg’s influential book Multidirectional Memory (2009). Wennekers 5 This study proposes to address this question by combining the frameworks of memory studies, postcolonial theory, and reader response analysis (chapter 1). Although, within memory studies, the functions of literature with regard to the storage and circulation of memory have been widely discussed, many studies – much like the publications focusing on novels about the Algerian war – put more emphasis on the medium than on questions of reception. Still, some theoretical approaches seem to be more attentive to the impact that specific literary texts could have on actual readers. In this respect, some have underlined the potential roles of literature in the transmission of memory to younger generations within the sphere of the family or community (see, for example, Marianne Hirsch’s (2012) discussions on postmemory), whereas others precisely stress that a literary experience can enable readers to feel connected to the memories of others they do not feel “naturally” related to (as in Alison Landsberg’s (2004) notion of prosthetic memory). Literature’s place in relation to these narrower or wider realms of reception is indeed interesting, as stories often center on a limited number of characters that are connected to a limited number of communities, whereas the texts – and especially those that acquire a bestseller status – circulate beyond the lines of communities, in society at large. Which aspects contribute to the broader appeal of these texts? And is a prior interest in and understanding for the particular perspective brought forward in the novel still required, or are texts able to challenge pre-existing understandings and images of the past, and its place in the present and future? These questions appear to be of particular relevance in the context of the guerres de mémoires, which not only continue to influence social relations in France, but also affect political relations between France and Algeria. Because the mnemonic context will likely have an important influence on the way in which novels about the war are received in both countries, this context will be sketched out in chapter 2. The assumption that reading literature could lead to an increased empathy and understanding for others has (at least partly) been confirmed by research carried out in the field of empirical literary studies (see, for example, Hakemulder 2001). However, this kind of reader research often requires the manipulation of texts and the use of very specific (psychological) measurements, and, although informative about possible cognitive and emotional responses to specific textual elements, does not seem to be the most suitable method to capture the complexity of readers’ responses to literature that deals with experiences of a (traumatic) collective past. Arguably, then, while scholars in the fields of memory studies and postcolonial theory would do well to take actual reading practices in consideration, those who study real readers could sometimes benefit from the nuanced discussions and historically specific contextualizations in these more text-oriented fields. This thesis will attempt to merge these methods and perspectives by analyzing professional and non-professional (online) reader responses – written in both France and Algeria – to two particular novels: Laurent Mauvignier’s Des Hommes (2009) and Yasmina Khadra’s Ce que le jour doit à la nuit (2008). In this respect, this study hopes to acquire some general insights on the interaction between literary texts and readers and on the potential Wennekers 6 functions and effects of fiction in shaping readers’ interactions with collective memory, while remaining aware and paying due attention to the specificity of the historical context and the literary texts. The novels by Mauvignier and Khadra are both written in French, which, in Algeria, is a second language that cannot be read by everyone – a fact that sets a limit to the circulation of the texts. Nevertheless, it was a deliberate choice to select works written in French; on the one hand for the practical reason that I would not be able to read novels or reader comments in Arabic, but also to avoid the possibility that differences in responses could be ascribed to issues of translation, and because of the ways in which, in Algeria, the French language appears to have come to be connected to notions of revolt and memory (as will be discussed in more detail in chapter 2). The specific novels have been chosen on the basis of their ‘popularity’ among readers – which is in part revealed by the number of (online) responses they have elicited – but also on the basis of the particular perspectives from which they represent the Algerian war and the ways in which these texts position themselves in relation to the reader. From this point of view, it is important to note that both novels are fairly recent and, therefore, share the mnemonic context in which they are received by contemporary readers. This allows them to point the reader simultaneously to issues connected to the past, the present, and the past’s place in the present. As will be discussed in chapter 3, both texts seem to ascribe a certain responsibility to the reader, but in different ways: whereas Des Hommes underlines the importance of understanding the difficulties of coming to a sense of closure with regard to the past, Ce que le jour doit à la nuit seems to encourage closure by means of a reconciliation with people from – and beyond – other communities. The ways in which readers are positioned by the texts create a certain mnemonic potential that, as Ricoeur (1984) and others have argued, remains to be actualized in the reception of the works. In order to get a sense of this actualization, the fourth chapter will add a study of professional reviews and ‘lay’ reader responses (drawn from a variety of newspapers, magazines, discussion forums, and (literary) websites) to the critical analysis of the novels themselves. In this way, this thesis will present three different modes of reading (and writing), which all allow different aspects to come to the fore. In order to get a sense of the impact of literature on the way in which the collective memory of the Algerian war is shaped and negotiated, however, the lay readers are perhaps most interesting – not only because they outnumber the other kind of readers, but also because their responses appear to be more suited to report one’s affective and personal relations to the texts and the past. The aspects that will have come up in the discussion of the theoretical framework, the historical and (contemporary) mnemonic context, and the analysis of the novels will be combined to observe whether readers indeed feel called upon by the text in a certain way, how they respond to such a call, and which factors (for example with regard to the form and content of the text, or to their own background) appear to be most influential in this respect. Besides this focus on what the text seems to ask of the readers, equal attention will be paid to the aspects that are brought forward by the readers themselves, as I believe that not only responses, but precisely the ways in which readers interact with a literary text, determine its impact on memory culture. In this last part of the analysis – but also throughout the entire Wennekers 7 thesis – questions of the following kind will play a guiding role: (how) do readers situate themselves in relation to the text and to the events of the war? Who are they, what is their prior knowledge? Do they refer to a need to learn about the past, and to their (personal, community or nation’s) responsibilities in the present and future? Do they focus primarily on the content of the works, or also on its form? What kind of value do they attribute to the text (is it, for example, a source of information, understanding, or nostalgia)? Do they feel the need to pronounce a judgment about the represented events, or about the behavior of the protagonists? Has the text affected them, and how? Does it change the way in which they think about themselves and about others? Or, as the passage by France Culture so simply but strikingly puts it: “Que peut la littérature, dans ce cadre?” Wennekers 8 1. Theoretical Framework An adequate analysis of the (individual and collective) impact of literature about the Algerian war should be embedded in the scholarly discussions on which it draws and that it seeks to expand, stemming from a combined framework of memory studies, postcolonial theory and reader oriented approaches. In this chapter, the central focus will be on the place of literature and the reader within the work of scholars who have pondered over the relations between the past and the present; the Self and the Other. How have the functions of literature been conceived, within these frameworks? What has been said about the interactions between texts and their readers? The Algerian war concerns the past struggles between two countries, but – as will be discussed more profoundly in the next chapter – its legacy still seems to influence relations within and between different social and ethnic groups today. Therefore, special attention will be paid to discussions about the transformative potential of literary texts, without overlooking the variety of other functions and effects that have been ascribed to them. Literature and the Reader in Memory Studies Literature already had its place in the work of some of the “founding fathers” of memory studies, such as Maurice Halbwachs and Pierre Nora. By means of his well-known anecdote describing a “walk with Dickens”, Halbwachs (1980, 23) argues that the (literary) texts we have read, much like our social interactions, influence the way in which we perceive and experience things, and, therefore, that our individual memories are always already collective. However, as Astrid Erll (2011) points out, Halbwachs does not make the importance of literature and other media explicit, but – from his viewpoint as a sociologist – rather treats them as mere vehicles “facilitating the unimpeded access to a more comprehensive social dimension of memory” (130) Nora, in his lieux de mémoire project (1984-1992), pays more attention to the place of media – in the broadest sense – in collective memory. In contrast to Halbwachs, he claims that a natural, social collective memory does no longer exist in today’s society. Therefore, various ‘sites’ that have been ascribed a symbolic meaning and fulfill a function in society – ranging from buildings and monuments to historical persons and memorial days, and including literary texts – become a sort of artificial placeholder for memory (see Erll, 23-24). Despite the presence of literature in the work of these founding scholars, Erll asserts that its position within memory studies has become more prominent in recent years, and particularly in the last decade, as literature is an important object of study in the subfield that – following Aleida Assmann’s term (Erll, 36) – has come to be known as cultural memory studies. With regard to this position, Erll mentions that an overview of possible topics and methods was first presented in the series Literature as Cultural Memory (2000) and that it has led up to “the abundance of individual contributions to the relation of literature and memory” that faces us today (Erll, 67). In a special issue of the European Journal of English Studies devoted to literature and the production of cultural memory, Erll and Rigney (2006) distinguish three potential roles that literature could play in this Wennekers 9 respect: it could serve as a medium of remembrance (a spur for studies focusing on the various ways in which literature recollects the past in the form of narratives, for example by emphasizing unofficial or marginal memories), as an object of remembrance (inciting a special attention to intertextual relations and processes of canonization), or it could be a medium for observing the production of cultural memory (in which literature is viewed as a ‘mimesis of memory’ and could provide knowledge about how memory works for individuals and groups). Although Erll and Rigney point out that literature’s role as a medium of remembrance “raises the question as to how the writing (genre conventions, points of view, metaphors and so on) shapes our views of the past”(112) and even though the descriptions of the other roles also imply an interest in questions of reception, no explicit attention is being given to the place of the reader in the construction of cultural memory. The notion of reception is more clearly visible in Erll’s more recent book Memory in Culture, which was already referred to above. Here, the functions of literature (and of media in general) are regrouped as those of storage, circulation, and ‘cues’. Erll underlines that, in any study of these functions, the reader should have a central position: Literature as a medium of cultural memory is (…) first and foremost a phenomenon of reception. When we study literary works and ask what functions they fulfill in memory culture, we must start from the premise of their appropriation through readers, from the aspect of refiguration. (160) The term ‘refiguration’ refers to Temps et Récit (1983-1985), Paul Ricœur’s philosophical treatise on time and narrative, which Erll discusses as an aid to illustrate the complex interactions between literature and cultural memory (152). Ricoeur distinguishes three levels of representation, which he refers to as mimesis (in Erll’s slightly reformulated definition, “the prefiguration of a literary text by 1 memory culture”, 152), mimesis (“the literary configuration of new memory narratives”, 152), and 2 mimesis (“their refiguration in the frameworks of different mnemonic communities”, 153). The 3 elements that will be central in the textual analysis of Laurent Mauvignier’s Des Hommes (2009) and Yasmina Khadra’s Ce que le jour doit à la nuit (2008) are those that Erll connects to mimesis : 2 emplotment, voice, perspective, metaphors and other literary forms that are used to create – rather than merely represent – reality and cultural memory in literature (154). Although, from this point of view, the literary text is primarily linked to the historical events that it portrays and reshapes – and has predominantly been studied as such by literary scholars – Ricoeur emphasizes the place of mimesis as a 2 mediator, defining it as “the concrete process by which the textual configuration mediates between the prefiguration of the practical field and its refiguration through the reception of the work” (Ricoeur 1984, 53). From this point of view, one could argue that mimesis is also revealing about the kind of audience 2 the author had in mind, and that the choices made in the configuration of the text can shape its reception. Wennekers 10 Erll emphasizes that, in order for a literary work to affect cultural memory, its refiguration needs to be collective; it must be read “in a broad swathe across society” and be received as a medium of memory (155). If these conditions are met, literary representations of characters and historical events can have an impact on readers and can re-enter, via mimesis , the world of action, shaping, for 3 example, perception, knowledge, and everyday communication, leading to political action – or prefiguring further representation (and this is how the circle of mnemonic mimesis continues to revolve). (155, emphasis in the original) Despite Erll’s attentiveness to the central position of reception and of (communities of) readers, her distinction between the “mnemonic potential” of literary works and of their actual functions and effects seems to favor a somewhat limited narratological approach: It is (…) never one formal characteristic alone which is responsible for the emergence of a certain mode; instead we have to look at whole clusters of narrative features, whose interplay may contribute to a certain memory effect. It is, of course, impossible to predict how stories will be interpreted by actual readers; but certain kinds of narrative representations seem to bear an affinity to different modes of remembering, and thus one may risk some hypotheses on the potential memorial power, or effects, of literary forms. (158, emphasis in the original) Nevertheless, on one of the last pages of her book, Erll points out that actual reading practices are in dire need of rigorous study (171). A similar point is made by Wulf Kansteiner (2002), who argues that collective memory studies should combine its more common interpretive tools – ranging from “traditional historiography to post structural approaches” (179) – with the methods used in the study of media reception. He claims that scholars – and in particular historians – should leave behind the “simplistic, tacit assumption (…) that facts of representation coincide with facts of reception” (195), as readers and other media consumers can use the “same media texts for very different ends” (193), will often ignore certain media representations, or even read them “against the grain of their intended and intrinsic messages”(192). Irwin-Zarecka (1994), quoted by Kansteiner, underlines that “Individuals are perfectly capable of ignoring even the best told stories, of injecting their own, subversive meanings into even the most rhetorically accomplished ‘texts’ – and of attending to only those ways of making sense of the past that fit their own” (Irwin-Zarecka in Kansteiner, 192). Kansteiner, then, not only stresses the need for reception research to complement studies discussing a (media) text’s mnemonic potential, but also expresses the hypothesis that this potential is limited in several ways. The suggestion that media consumers will only attend to media representations that fit in with their own attitudes towards the past has also been made by Erll – in reference to Aleida Assmann’s notion of ‘collective texts’: “collective texts have to ‘fit’, have to be able to resonate with a memory culture’s horizons of meaning, its (narrative) schemata, and its existing images of the past” (Erll, 165).