By Nataliya Nikolova
Summary: This article examines how trauma and memory nourish peace education. The case study focuses on Bulgaria, based around my experiences of launching a research project through the World War 2 Peace program within the Bosch Alumni Network’s Peace Cluster. It also includes media, such as audio excerpts from an interview with a civic society activist, whose grandfather was killed in the aftermath of the World War II, as well discussions with a young artist, who describes her experience of working with historical events in her artwork.
“Reconciliation is not about being cozy; it is not about pretending that things were other than they were. Reconciliation based on falsehood, on not facing up to reality, is not reconciliation at all.”
– Desmond Tutu
Revisiting Memory As a Duty
Once during a project meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, a woman came up to me, knowing that I come from Bulgaria. She asked me how we managed to ensure reconciliation after years of communism and crimes in the so-called ‘labor camps’ (1). At that specific time, my immediate thought was to cite perspectives from Mahatma Gandhi and George Santayana, both of whom are well-known for their work on showing the tight connection between peace and history. Then, contrary to this, my mind went to how almost thirty years after the fall of communism, Bulgarian society is still divided into conflict groups based on the politics of memory.
As Ana Luleva (a Bulgarian socio-cultural anthropologist) notes, “The memory of the recent past is not a field of consensus. Society is divided into mnemonic groups and the competition among them to endorse their own historical version is irreconcilable” (2). Among the actors and institutions that have enabled the narrative of this recent past to come to light is the Committee for Disclosing the Documents and Announcing Affiliation of Bulgarian Citizens to the State Security, which I will discuss further in this article.
Bulgaria transitioned to democracy rather peacefully in 1989, embracing the momentum of its people. The long process of ‘de-communization,’ which involved European integration through dismantling the legacies of the communist state establishments, culture, and psychology in the post-communist states, created waves of fatigue and disenchantment. Throughout this time, some investigative journalists, like Hristo Hristov, began to unveil the curtain around three decades of silence on the crimes of forced labor camps that operated within the period of communism.
Since there is a tremendous gap in Bulgarian historical memory about the communist labor camps in the country based on authentic visual evidence, the archival documents and personal memories of the survivors present a powerful image and cognition of the repressions. Similar to many other societies that have gone through traumatic events, there are two conflicting approaches in Bulgaria that emerge in dealing with this past. The first method includes “reconciliation through forgetting” while the second is the idea of “memory as a duty.” This latter approach ensures that memory of the past is not brushed aside, but is rather methodologically examined and accepted. It was recognised by the democrats in Bulgaria after 1989. Hence, the memory politics of the recent past on remembrance lies between these two poles, representing different social groups and legitimizing their perspectives on collective memory.
A general framework of research on dealing with trauma, oral history, and memory emerged when there was already a law in Bulgaria that designated the “Criminal Nature of the Communist Regime.” The law was voted upon by the 38th National Assembly in 2000 and amended in 2016 with a new law that bans the public display of communist symbols. Article 2(2) reads, “The communist regime is responsible for: 1. depriving citizens of any possibility to express political will by forcing them to hide their opinion of the situation in the country and forcing them to express in public their approval for facts and circumstances, which they knew were not true and which even constituted crime; this was achieved by persecutions and threats to persecute individuals, their families and close persons.’’ Furthermore, Article 3(1) declares, “The circumstances specified in Art. 1 and Art. 2 give ground to declare the criminal nature of the communist regime in Bulgaria from 9 September 1944 to 10 November 1989” (3).
Navigating Memory and Trauma
Various academic disciplines have created enlightening historical trauma models, explaining trans-generational transmission and revealing historical trauma in social context. Approaches may vary across the fields of history, anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and political science, but memory studies scholars have generated powerful interdisciplinary methodologies over the past forty years that I continue to build upon in my research.
Excavating the slices of memory in terms of generational traumatic stories requires solid knowledge and understanding of the physiological and psychological impact of trauma—and its narration through history. Alongside this, memory research involves being aware enough to listen deeply and create an atmosphere based on trust, which includes integrating multiple voices into the historical narrative reconstruction and its linkages. Using oral history interview methods in this context enables peace practitioners to build bridges based on our belief systems and to forge peace by unveiling stories that have long been repressed. Moreover, documenting these unheard voices creates powerful counter-narratives for survivors of violence, whose experiences were once suppressed by the communist state. Thus, it is important to open the debate on post-memory, nostalgia, collective memory, and the social problems that Bulgarian society still experiences daily.
My research interests within the Bosch Alumni Network’s World War 2 Peace research collaborative were based on an empirical research process grounded in memory studies. My approach included mixed methods of research – archival research on memorials erection of the victims of communism, which were further explored through oral stories. A sense of duty to memory and justice brought me to the story of the family of Mrs. Dushana Zdravkova, who served as an activist for human rights and justice through the Member of the European Parliament (2007-2009), Chairwoman of Varna District Court (2004-2007), Varna Regional Court (1992-1998).
During Dushana Zdravkova’s term in office at the European Parliament, I served as her political assistant. At that time, I bore witness to a family story full of vicarious traumatization, which was narrated by her father, Panayot Panayotov. He spoke about his efforts to build a monument to the victims of communism and the memory of his father. The monument was conceptualized in collaboration with members of his community, in the vicinity of the town of Omurtag, Bulgaria.
I firmly decided to record the story of Dushana Zdravkova’s family, narrated before her father passed away. In the interview, I asked: “How is the story of the erected monument of remembrance of your grandfather being narrated in your family?” Listen in to her reply below.
Memorizing and recalling traumatic narrated stories by family members can quite often open dialogue on the role of trauma and psychology. Experienced and trained psychologists are especially cautious of the potential risks of traumatization during the process of telling the story, which I kept in mind while shaping the questions I asked, and ways I created a safe and supportive space. Interviewing family members or victims who are recalling traumatic stories is a process and a dialogue based on trust.
Before my interview with Dushana Zdravkova, we exchanged emails and spoke informally, so I partly knew her family’s story and was already making historical linkages. I thought through possible recording methods and was very honest with her that I want to conduct an oral history interview for posterity, so that her family’s stories could be shared with a broader audience. Although difficult moments arose, I will always remember the moment in the interview when the tone of her voice completely changed and she stopped speaking, which required me to provide an extra level of care.
In the post-communist period, construction of collective memory started to be slowly rearranged and new “sites of remembrance’’ began to appear. The notion of “sites of memory” was proposed by Pierre Nora in 1974 through an article entitled, “Mémoire collective” (4). Nora never defines the term, but it seems that he used it primarily to refer to institutionalized forms of collective memories of the past.
Victims of communism and their descendants have been erecting monuments as forms of visual memory, which they have enacted through consolidated committees in Bulgaria. They are remembering the “recent past tortures” through rituals, commemorations, and visual testimonies. These efforts have been only partially accepted due to many reasons, which can be traced to the dichotomy of state and power.
Additionally, these monuments generate conflicts on both a political and ideological level due to the restorative justice mechanisms they represent, including the complicated legacies and lack of lustration policy in Bulgaria after 1989 (5). The irony is that the Constitution of Bulgaria does not prevent people who were disclosed as being affiliated with Bulgarian People’s Army intelligence or state security during Communism from becoming elected into public office today, while lustration laws were enacted in other post communist countries to enhance reforms in public administration and policy.
However, more optimism can be found in the fact that commemoration ceremonies are taking place officially around these newly erected memorials every year. February 1 marks the Day of Remembrance and Respect to Victims of the Communist Regime in Bulgaria and August 23 is the European Day of Remembrance to honor the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Additionally, we see that new monuments and memorials erected in Bulgaria are subject to consolidated societal committees, which consist of family members or descendants of victims of communism. The monuments very often hold symbolic aesthetic features in their composition, usually symbolizing Christian symbols, as in Varna, or including a plaque with inscription on it. Nowadays, remembrance and commemoration are uniting more and more people as a moral duty. In Bulgaria, this is a result of unveiling historical documentation and personal stories from communism, narrated through the generations. It is also notably being presented more truthfully in textbooks in the secondary school system.
For peacebuilders navigating these complexities of memory and justice in their own societies, it may be helpful to recall the words of George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’’ This should encourage us all to explore more interdisciplinary approaches in our work and to seek new ways to nourish peace in our local environments, which includes reckoning with the past.
About the Author
Nataliya Nikolova is currently affiliated with the Human Resources Development Centre in Sofia, Bulgaria. Prior to this occupation, she was a researcher at the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels and a political assistant at the European Parliament. Nataliya graduated from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, with an MA in Southeast Political Studies. Her postgraduate studies were in Greek Language and Culture. At the moment, she is completing her PhD studies.
Nataliya has experience in teaching civic education in formal and non-formal contexts. She is particularly interested in educational practices on commemoration and collective memory in the cultural area. Nataliya’s research interests are focused on art and pedagogy, immigration policies, and public policies towards youth in a worldwide context. Her latest publication is on the role of monuments in shaping our collective memory. Throughout the years, she has been involved in youth work education, where she uses various methods and practices from cultural studies. Nataliya is a member of the National Council for Youth Work at the Ministry of Youth and Sport in Bulgaria.
References
Image Source: Dushana Zdravkova, https://www.europarl.europa.eu
1. Approximately 100 euphemistically-termed “Correction through Labor Facilities” were created and closed in different periods between 1944 and 1989, and were especially widely spread across Bulgaria until 1959. These “facilities” were established in January 1945—just four months after a violent coup d’état—by a decree issued “in the name of His Royal Majesty” and signed by the Regents. In fact, the camp system was created through active consultations with highly qualified Soviet “experts” and had entirely different functions than indicated in the decree. They served to purge dissidents that were deemed harmful for socialism. The camp’s role was two-fold: to destroy the disobedient and to intimidate the obedient.
2. Ana Luleva, “Heroes and Monuments: Local Projections of the National Memory,’’ https://www.ceeol.com/search/viewpdf?id=613081.
3. Law on Declaring the Criminal Nature of the Communist Regime in Bulgaria, http://www.decommunization.org/English/Articles/BZ1.htm.
4. Pierre Nora, “Mémoire collective,” in Faire de l’histoire, eds. Jacques Le Goff and Pierre Nora (Paris: Gallimard, 1974): 401.
5. Dirk Förger and Cristiana Christova, “Lustration: Dealing with the Aftermath of Communism in Bulgaria’,’ https://www.kas.de/en/web/medien-europa/single-title/-/content/lustration-dealing-with-the-aftermath-of-communism-in-bulgaria.