I read this for the first time last weekend and returned today to re-read this and gleaned a stronger understanding. I find that reading your articles ~3 times is optimal for my comprehension and application. I'd again like to mention how much I appreciate the quotations and anecdotes in your pieces. They add an additional layer of depth and clarity.
Thank you for this piece. I want to add a few things that might be of interest and apologize if they have been already tackled in your former installments, I've only been a subscriber recently and haven't caught up to the backlog yet.
It's in itself an excellent piece and I do not consider these things omissions but rather further recommended explorations if people enjoyed reading your work.
1) As the classical notion of the bystander is concerned, arguably the first seminal work on the Shoah devotes an entire volume to it - Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews remains a classic to this day and an amazing read.
2) As philosophical explorations of the topic are concerned, it's worth noting that the idea of "bystanders" informed one of the social key concepts of Critical Theory within the Frankfurt School: The notion of "zwischenmenschliche Kälte" - intrahuman coldness.
For those that speak German, Adorno has an impressive short part about it in this old German documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8ghPxKMH0 (I think the speech is in fact originally taken from a radio lecture, but I might be wrong about this.)
3) An anecdote that has left an enormous mark on me is Günther Anders' reflection "Nach Holocaust" (After Holocaust). The term Holocaust gained much of its notoriety through the television series of the same name. (which is arguably unfortunate, as there is a little of a dubious tint to it considering that Holocaust refers originally to a specific type of Jewish practice) Anders watched it with some kids that had been entrusted to him. In the series, a sadistic concentration camp warden called Dorf torments the Jewish family by the name of Weiss. After watching the series he interviews the children on their impression. One kid in particular is extremely traumatized, it seems scared and cries. So Anders turns to it and asks: "What is it, then?"
The kid, after catching itself after a while, finally sobs: "I am so scared that this could happen to me."
Anders asks: "You're scared that you could end up like the Weiss-family?"
The kid does not confirm this suspicion. Instead, it bursts out: "NO. I am so scared that I could be like Dorf."
I feel like this is an absolutely central consideration when it comes to any kind of Shoah-education. We could be them. That anecdote lives absolutely rent free in my head.
Hi Ged - thanks for your lengthy and informative comment for other readers. I'll definitely explore the YouTube clip you sent along, too.
This article, although somewhat brief, was a hard one to fully flesh out in a Substack piece, as it's jam-packed with some of the references you mentioned above. And Dean does discuss the TV show "Nach Holocaust," if memory serves me, in one of her earlier essays. And I'm familiar with how the term gained popularity around the time of that television show.
Incidentally, that's a great example you provided at the end of your post that articulates, at least some of the issues surrounding the bystander indifference debate within the historiography of the Holocaust.
Regarding the bystander concept, I have a new book that I purchased titled Bystander Society: Conformity and Complicity in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. I wonder if the author, Mary Fulbrook, will reference "zwischenmenschliche Kälte" at all, since it's a pretty important concept. I have yet to review the index or her bibliography in the notes, but since she is an English scholar, I'd be surprised if there is any mention of the Frankfurt School. :)
I appreciate your comments immensely. Thanks again.
For clarity: The TV Show is called "Holocaust", "Nach Holocaust" means "After Holocaust" and is what Anders titled his Essay. (Presumably in a double meaning of "After Holocaust as in after Shoah" and as in "After watching the Series")
Yeah I felt I fucked that one up a bit with the way I had phrased it :D (I actually never watched the series myself, which feels like an oversight). Thanks for the Fulbrook hint anyway. It has made it onto my imaginary list too which might at some point soon consume me entirely, I fear, but there is too much important and good stuff to read and I am happy anytime I come across it.
Justin - thanks for your remarks. When it comes to the term "antisemitism," you are arguing against decades of its use in the scholarship on the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. Furthermore, if you look up the definition of "antisemitism," you will find that it reads as follows: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." I'm in conversation with the scholarship that was written on the Holocaust, and that's the term that is used.
I'm also fully aware of the current situation in Gaza, which is a separate topic and beyond the scope of this piece.
As for the "banality of evil" remark, you're comments do not, in any way, contradict what the above piece is about and how a multitude of other scholars, including Dean, have implemented it. (I'm also fully aware of the 2025 Heritage Foundation's plan -- bringing it up is a red herring when this piece is focused on "bystander indifference" as it relates to a specific historical moment: the Holocaust. Any mention, let's say in the conclusion of the essay about the Heritage Foundation, would deviate from the thrust of the piece.)
I am not being offensive when simply letting you know that I’m referring to the historiography that I’m writing about, Justin. I’m not sure why you have a bone to pick with me on this matter.
And anyone who has even studied an INKLING of history is fully aware of the adage of “history is written by the winners,” which, by the way, has shifted over the last several decades to say the least. (I myself was working on a PhD in history and was focused on marginalized groups during the Nazi period, so I take this point seriously.)
I am a STAUNCH supporter of the Palestinians, and I have written extensively about books here about the disgusting situation occurring there. Half of the proceeds from paid subscribers of this Substack go to a Gazan family.
I read this for the first time last weekend and returned today to re-read this and gleaned a stronger understanding. I find that reading your articles ~3 times is optimal for my comprehension and application. I'd again like to mention how much I appreciate the quotations and anecdotes in your pieces. They add an additional layer of depth and clarity.
I hope that my writing is clear to you, Catherine!
Oh yes, but not rudimentary in the least!
Thank you for this piece. I want to add a few things that might be of interest and apologize if they have been already tackled in your former installments, I've only been a subscriber recently and haven't caught up to the backlog yet.
It's in itself an excellent piece and I do not consider these things omissions but rather further recommended explorations if people enjoyed reading your work.
1) As the classical notion of the bystander is concerned, arguably the first seminal work on the Shoah devotes an entire volume to it - Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews remains a classic to this day and an amazing read.
2) As philosophical explorations of the topic are concerned, it's worth noting that the idea of "bystanders" informed one of the social key concepts of Critical Theory within the Frankfurt School: The notion of "zwischenmenschliche Kälte" - intrahuman coldness.
For those that speak German, Adorno has an impressive short part about it in this old German documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8ghPxKMH0 (I think the speech is in fact originally taken from a radio lecture, but I might be wrong about this.)
3) An anecdote that has left an enormous mark on me is Günther Anders' reflection "Nach Holocaust" (After Holocaust). The term Holocaust gained much of its notoriety through the television series of the same name. (which is arguably unfortunate, as there is a little of a dubious tint to it considering that Holocaust refers originally to a specific type of Jewish practice) Anders watched it with some kids that had been entrusted to him. In the series, a sadistic concentration camp warden called Dorf torments the Jewish family by the name of Weiss. After watching the series he interviews the children on their impression. One kid in particular is extremely traumatized, it seems scared and cries. So Anders turns to it and asks: "What is it, then?"
The kid, after catching itself after a while, finally sobs: "I am so scared that this could happen to me."
Anders asks: "You're scared that you could end up like the Weiss-family?"
The kid does not confirm this suspicion. Instead, it bursts out: "NO. I am so scared that I could be like Dorf."
I feel like this is an absolutely central consideration when it comes to any kind of Shoah-education. We could be them. That anecdote lives absolutely rent free in my head.
Anyway, much thanks again. :)
Hi Ged - thanks for your lengthy and informative comment for other readers. I'll definitely explore the YouTube clip you sent along, too.
This article, although somewhat brief, was a hard one to fully flesh out in a Substack piece, as it's jam-packed with some of the references you mentioned above. And Dean does discuss the TV show "Nach Holocaust," if memory serves me, in one of her earlier essays. And I'm familiar with how the term gained popularity around the time of that television show.
Incidentally, that's a great example you provided at the end of your post that articulates, at least some of the issues surrounding the bystander indifference debate within the historiography of the Holocaust.
Regarding the bystander concept, I have a new book that I purchased titled Bystander Society: Conformity and Complicity in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. I wonder if the author, Mary Fulbrook, will reference "zwischenmenschliche Kälte" at all, since it's a pretty important concept. I have yet to review the index or her bibliography in the notes, but since she is an English scholar, I'd be surprised if there is any mention of the Frankfurt School. :)
I appreciate your comments immensely. Thanks again.
For clarity: The TV Show is called "Holocaust", "Nach Holocaust" means "After Holocaust" and is what Anders titled his Essay. (Presumably in a double meaning of "After Holocaust as in after Shoah" and as in "After watching the Series")
Yes, I know it is “After Holocaust” in English. I forgot the show was called “Holocaust.”
Yeah I felt I fucked that one up a bit with the way I had phrased it :D (I actually never watched the series myself, which feels like an oversight). Thanks for the Fulbrook hint anyway. It has made it onto my imaginary list too which might at some point soon consume me entirely, I fear, but there is too much important and good stuff to read and I am happy anytime I come across it.
Well, there's only one book in the queue ahead of Fulbrook, and then she's next, so you should anticipate a review of it here soon.
Justin - thanks for your remarks. When it comes to the term "antisemitism," you are arguing against decades of its use in the scholarship on the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. Furthermore, if you look up the definition of "antisemitism," you will find that it reads as follows: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." I'm in conversation with the scholarship that was written on the Holocaust, and that's the term that is used.
I'm also fully aware of the current situation in Gaza, which is a separate topic and beyond the scope of this piece.
As for the "banality of evil" remark, you're comments do not, in any way, contradict what the above piece is about and how a multitude of other scholars, including Dean, have implemented it. (I'm also fully aware of the 2025 Heritage Foundation's plan -- bringing it up is a red herring when this piece is focused on "bystander indifference" as it relates to a specific historical moment: the Holocaust. Any mention, let's say in the conclusion of the essay about the Heritage Foundation, would deviate from the thrust of the piece.)
You're also proving that age does not bring wisdom. In your case, it's a combination of arrogance and rudeness.
I am not being offensive when simply letting you know that I’m referring to the historiography that I’m writing about, Justin. I’m not sure why you have a bone to pick with me on this matter.
And anyone who has even studied an INKLING of history is fully aware of the adage of “history is written by the winners,” which, by the way, has shifted over the last several decades to say the least. (I myself was working on a PhD in history and was focused on marginalized groups during the Nazi period, so I take this point seriously.)
I am a STAUNCH supporter of the Palestinians, and I have written extensively about books here about the disgusting situation occurring there. Half of the proceeds from paid subscribers of this Substack go to a Gazan family.