Unknowing, indifferent, or committed: Relations between age and assessments of the German population’s involvement and inaction during the time of National Socialism. Michael Papendick Jonas H. Rees Andreas Zick. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, January 24 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12457
Abstract: We examine German participants’ assessment of the time of National Socialism. Especially for younger generations, shifts in the culture of remembrance may change their assessments of historical events. We argue that factors such as increased formal education about the topic and decreased personal contact with contemporary witnesses can weaken attributional biases (e.g., ingroup favouritism) in the assessment of the role of the German population during the time of National Socialism. We use data from a German representative sample (N = 1,000) and focus on the links between participants’ age and the estimated involvement of the German population under National Socialism as perpetrators, victims, helpers, and “bystanders,” as well as the agreement with explanations why the general population did not act against National Socialist crimes. Younger participants estimated the proportions of perpetrators and bystanders within the German population as higher and were less likely to agree that Germans did not know about the systematic killings. Older participants were more likely to agree with situational explanations for the population’s inaction (i.e., that Germans did not know or did not have an opportunity to act against the crimes). We find a positive relation between a more critical perspective on the involvement of the population in the past and participants’ feelings of responsibility in the present.
Discussion
The main objective of the present study was to examine whether and to what extent contemporary Germans’ views on the German population during National Socialism are related to their age. We found that younger Germans reported differing points of contact with the time of National Socialism, as they reported having learned more about the topic in school and having met fewer individuals who have lived through the time of National Socialism themselves. We assumed these kinds of changes in the culture of remembrance would result in differing assessments of the role of the German population during National Socialism. In fact, younger Germans reported a more critical perspective on the role of society in Nazi Germany. They assumed a stronger involvement of the German population as perpetrators, and as bystanders who were aware of the regime’s crimes but did not intervene. When asked to explain the population’s inaction, younger Germans were more likely to reject the situational explanations that Germans during National Socialism “did not know,” did not realize the seriousness of the situation, or did not have any opportunity to act against the Nazis’ crimes. Those participants showing a more critical assessment of the past also reported an increased feeling of responsibility in the present.
Access to the Topic of National Socialism
Results show that the general extent of confrontation with the topic of National Socialism appears to be independent from Germans’ age. Younger Germans did not confront themselves with the topic less intensively than older Germans. Regarding specific ways of confrontation with the past, however, older Germans reported deriving less knowledge from institutional education and more from personal contact with contemporary witnesses. Younger participants, on the other hand, reported more facts‐based confrontation with the topic in school, and less personal points of contact. These results are further supported by additional data from the present project on the German culture of remembrance (Rees, Papendick, & Zick, 2019; Rees, Zick, et al., 2019). For example, younger Germans reported fewer conversations about the topic of National Socialism in their families as well as less knowledge about the role of their own ancestors during the time of National Socialism. These results substantiate the discussions about current shifts in the German culture of remembrance in which “established” ways of confrontation with the time of National Socialism slowly vanish while others evolve and become more influential for the assessment of the past. These changes, again, could be interpreted as a detachment from history and a loss of knowledge. Studies such as the one by Welzer et al. (2014), however, illustrate Germans’ frequently biased perspectives of their ancestors’ involvement in the Nazis’ crimes, the selective communication of stories of heroism and victimhood, and the selective suppression of stories of guilt and responsibility within German families. A further detachment from these biased family representations or individual narratives may increase the impact of more fact‐oriented confrontations with the topic (see also Rees et al., in press).
The German Population’s Involvement and Inaction During National Socialism
To test our prediction that these changes in access to the topic of National Socialism are not only negative but potentially enable a more critical perspective of the role of the German population, we tested for links between participants’ age and their assessments of the time of National Socialism. We hypothesized that younger participants would be more likely to choose accusing explanations for the population’s inaction and emphasize the German population’s awareness of and involvement in the perpetration of crimes, while older participants would more likely exonerate the general population and attribute their inaction to a lack of knowledge. Our results support these predictions, showing that younger participants more often denied the situational explanation that Germans “did not know”—not only when specifically asked whether the lack of knowledge was an appropriate explanation but also when asked to estimate the proportion of Germans who were aware of the regime’s systematic murdering. Older participants, in turn, were more likely to attribute Germans’ inaction to the situational and more exonerating explanations of a lack of knowledge or a lack of opportunities to act. These results are in line with those reported by Imhoff et al. (2017) and Doosje and Branscombe (2003), but extend them in demonstrating that ingroup favouring attributional biases regarding the explanation for the Holocaust may also hold for the specific group of the bystanders to the Nazi crimes, and that differences in attributional patterns are not only found between national groups but also between different generations within German society.
However, we also found deviations from our assumptions and the results reported in previous studies. First, and in contrast to the results reported by Imhoff et al. (2017) and Doosje and Branscombe (2003), we found that within our overall sample, the dispositional explanation that the German population during National Socialism did not intervene because they shared the views of the Nazi regime was affirmed more often than the situational explanation of a population that was inactive due to a lack of knowledge. While counterintuitive at first, we argue that this deviation can be explained by the situational attribution we presented (“They did not know about the murders”). Compared to the more complex situational explanation of “the bad economic conditions and the high unemployment rate” presented by Imhoff et al. (2017, p. 914) the situational explanation of a lack of awareness of the crimes among the German population stands in clear contrast to historical knowledge. Therefore, it is comprehensible that participants in our study were less likely to affirm the situational explanation. This result supports our hypothesis that an explicit denial of the German population’s knowledge of the Nazi regime’s atrocities can be interpreted as an active exoneration of the German population. Additionally, the study by Imhoff and colleagues focused on attributions of the causes of the Holocaust while the present study examined explanations for the lack of resistance within the bystanding German population, and therefore addresses a different aspect of explaining National Socialism. The second result in contrast to our expectations is the lack of age differences in the estimation of helpers among the German population. As we expected younger Germans to report a generally more critical and accusing assessment of the past, we assumed that this critical assessment would be expressed in a lower estimation of helpers among the German population as well. A potential explanation for this result may be a differing definition of the particular group of helpers, depending on participants’ age. If younger Germans have a different concept of “helping potential victims” in mind, they may come to a different conclusion about the proportion of helpers among the German population. More specifically, potential definitions for acts of helping during National Socialism may range from small acts of support in everyday life (e.g., giving food) to more serious interventions (e.g., explicitly saving someone’s life or taking severe personal risks to support someone). Another explanation would be that younger Germans are generally more aware of the population’s involvement in particular roles, as perpetrators or bystanders, but know less about acts of help and support for the victim groups of National Socialism. Future research should further elaborate on how younger Germans themselves define the groups of perpetrators, victims, helpers, and bystanders, and whether these definitions differ from those of older Germans.
In sum, our results corroborate the assumption of generational differences within German society not only with regard to access to the topic of National Socialism, reinforcing discussions about shifts in the German culture of remembrance (Cornelißen, 2015; Knigge, 2010; Körber Foundation, 2017), but also with regard to assessments of the societal circumstances of National Socialism and the Holocaust. These results, especially younger participants’ higher estimations of knowledge among the German population during the Nazi era, may be regarded as the result of more facts‐based confrontations with the topic of National Socialism. Our exploratory analyses show that those participants who reported a more critical perspective on the German population during National Socialism also reported more courageous attitudes with regard to German society today. One obvious interpretation of these results would be to conclude that these participants share a more (self‐) critical perspective on societal issues, attributing responsibility not only to external factors or actors, but hold the society, including themselves, accountable. Following this interpretation, this attribution of responsibilities may at least partially derive from the confrontation with the topic of National Socialism in general or with the bystanding behaviour of the population during National Socialism in particular. Yet, deducing some kind of historical learning or historical consciousness from the present data would be a clear exaggeration and overinterpretation.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although the present study contributes to a better understanding of contemporary Germans’ perspectives on the time of National Socialism and generational differences in these perspectives, a number of methodological restrictions confine potential inferences and should be considered in future research. One of our assumptions is a potentially positive consequence of changes within the German culture of remembrance, resulting in a less biased perspective on the German population in the time of National Socialism. While the theoretical deduction from social identity theory, explaining this effect with the concept of ingroup favouritism, is reasonable and the results support our hypothesis, the extent of participants’ identification with the German population during National Socialism was not explicitly measured. The same applies to the assessment of participants’ estimations of Germans’ involvement in the National Socialists’ crimes and the interpretation of specific estimations (e.g., higher estimations of the percentages of perpetrators and bystanders) representing a more accusing perspective on the role of the German population. The different explanations for the population’s inaction we examined and the correlations between these explanations and participants’ estimations of the population’s involvement reinforce our interpretation that specific estimations of the German population’s involvement represent more critical assessments of the past. The assessment and evaluation of the political, economic, and societal circumstances of National Socialism, however, is a complex question that can hardly be assessed with few quantitative items. Future research might wish to assess participants’ understanding of the conditions of National Socialism and the Holocaust in a more differentiated manner and also include questions on whether participants perceive direct or indirect relations between the past and the present. While the present study included estimations of the German population’s involvement to assess participants’ impression of civil society during the time of National Socialism, more explicit questions are needed to draw a full image of how Germans today perceive and explain the time of National Socialism. This assessment should further take into account the developments during and prior to the time span from 1933 to 1945. Participants’ answers to questions regarding “the time of National Socialism” will most likely be influenced by the specific point in time that is invoked. Answers to questions referring to the early years of National Socialism will differ from those referring to the years of the Holocaust. Qualitative studies on the topic would enable assessments of individuals’ explicit understanding of National Socialism and of how far they regard their personal confrontation with the time of National Socialism as relevant for their attitudes toward present‐day issues. Finally, the potential causal relationships we discuss in the present paper (e.g., the assumption that a confrontation with historical sources representing the German population’s bystanding behaviour promotes more critical perspectives on the role of the German population in general) need to be tested experimentally to understand how far and under which conditions contemporary Germans may draw inferences from a confrontation with National Socialism. These studies should also take into account additional factors that may influence contemporary Germans’ assessment of the past, such as their national identification with Germany.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment