Guilt About the Past [Paperback]

states Bernhard Schlink, internationally known primarily for his novel The Reader, in the second of his six thought-provoking essays on "Guilt about the past". A highly respected jurist and law professor (emeritus) in Germany, he presents a number of philosophical arguments intended to advance the important debate on guilt about the past and its profound influence on all who follow, whether individuals, communities institutions or states and, whether directly associated with the perpetrators or the victims. Conscious of the criticism he received for his novel, his last essay, "Stories about the Past", touches on literature and other media. In the broader context he acknowledges that "his fiction and much of German literature has guilt about the past as a strong leitmotiv."

Throughout his essays, Schlink introduces a number of fundamental concepts that have characterized the debate about past guilt, especially since the end of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. Central for the first post-war generation and those since, are the concepts of 'collective guilt', 'mastering the past' (which is the author's translation for the German term "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" that has no equivalent term or phrase in English or in French), and 'reconciliation'. He explains these concepts in their context, aiming at a broad-based understanding of their application. For understandable reasons, his illustrations are taken from his own personal experience and professional background.

Starting out by setting the historical and legal frameworks, Schlink, in concise and accessible language, goes back to ancient Germanic law as well as other tribal legal systems. Then, the commonly applied understanding of "collective guilt" incorporated the two clans to which the individual perpetrator and the victim(s) belonged. The penalty or revenge for any injustice committed applied to the whole clan. It was the victim's clan that made the claim for atonement money. "This collective responsibility, liability, and atonement operated through all levels of society and affected adults as well as children". Children could be drowned with their guilty parents.

Over time, the concept of collective guilt and responsibility has faded and, by the time of the Enlightenment, had been replaced by the understanding of "subjective and individual guilt". Despite the individualization of crime and punishment Schlink posits that family or community remain closely associated with the perpetrator(s), unless they disassociate themselves from them and repudiate the criminal action. The author expands on the meaning of "solidarity of belonging" that affects the behaviour of the children and even the people in the same country of those guilty of the crimes. The concept of collective guilt is defined within this context and Germany after the Third Reich stands as a clear example for it. This analysis, he admits, has not necessarily been accepted readily by Germans of his generation. Nonetheless, especially Germans whenever outside their home country have been confronted with the notion of Germans' collective guilt for Nazi atrocities that their parents or grandparents may, or may not, have committed during that time. His arguments on the varied ways by which Germans have been implicated over several generations in the crimes of their parents are profound and convincing. They do not allow to take the easy route that many had preferred and embarked on following the defeat of the regime in 1945. We are, as Schlink contends "the generation [for whom] the past is still very present..."

His central essay, "Forgiveness and Reconciliation", is for me the most critical as it addresses the future relationships between descendants of perpetrators and those of victims over the next generation(s). It deserves to be read slowly and absorbed deeply. He discusses such issues as the transference of guilt to another generation, the "political ritual" that often accompanies forgiveness of actions committed by a previous generation, the need and potential for reconciliation, whether in the private or public spheres. "The perpetrator's children cannot ask for forgiveness [...] neither can the victim's children grant it. They are not each other's victim or perpetrators." However, he contends, they can reconcile. "Reconciliation means that further attempts to coexist should no longer fail on account of guilt and recrimination."

In the essay "Prudence and Corruption", Schlink introduces a concept of "corruption through good intention". Here, he reflects in the most personal way on his own well intentioned, yet "corrupted", behaviour in a 1992 law association conflict situation and draws comparisons to those faced by law faculties in 1933. In both cases did the silence of the group threaten the professional survival of one colleague. While the outcomes were dramatically different, of course, at the time of the events future consequences were not even anticipated and the action appeared to be of minor importance. In the 1992 example, Schlink and others, like their colleagues in 1933, did not speak up for the defence. However, a final secret ballot reversed the feared negative vote by the group. Nonetheless, "the moral thorn in [his] side has never gone away".

Especially of importance to me personally, as a close contemporary of the author, is Schlink's analysis of the notion underlying the term "mastering the past" (Vergangenheitsbewältigung). Having grown up with this concept hanging over all of us, the more positive connotation of the English phrase was new and highly relevant to me. His contention implies an active process that has to be worked through, yet that, with effort, will end in a satisfactory conclusion, where the past has in fact been "mastered". Such a process will "bring the past into such a state of order that its remembrance no longer BURDENS [my emphasis] the present." While we as the descendants of the perpetrators have to come to terms with their guilt and our relationships to them, the descendants of the victims will have to go through a different, yet comparable, generational process. In this context, Schlink very persuasively argues the difference between remembering as opposed to forgetting or repressing. While he, understandably, relates his arguments to the Holocaust and the Third Reich, his positions are far reaching and should be much more widely applicable.

Based on a lecture series held at Oxford University in 2008, Schlink's six essays provide insights and arguments for an deeper assessment of own positions and behaviours when we ask ourselves how we and societies as a whole can learn from the events and mistakes of the past not to repeat them. He provides challenging ideas on how the past can be reflected in our thinking for better coexistence between individuals, communities and nations and, last not least, how this thinking can influence our literature and other fictional media. [Friederike Knabe]

Having read the Reader and seen the film, I picked this up as it promised a look at the fact behind the themes is his fiction. I wasn't disappointed. It's a slim book, but it's concise and powerfully written. I got a real sense of the author's driving force behind his fiction writing and it was fascinating to hear his thoughts on the themes of guilt in non-fiction format. A real eye-opener and thought-provoker.

I was very interested to read this very frank account of the thoughts of Bernard Schlink. I'm very interesting in learning about the conditions of the civilians who lived through these dreadful times. I was a child myself at the time of the war, was aware that it was happening, but living in Australia, we were not exposed to very much danger, plus I think a lot was kept from us. People need to know. This book gives sound advice on the principle of forgiveness too, something a lot of people seem to know nothing about.