The talk given by Professor Yoder about Angela Merkel and her time as German chancellor highlighted a key aspect of Merkel’s speeches and actions that she found peculiar and noteworthy. This was the fact that she uses something known as memory politics in her speeches, something I understand to be atypical regarding most European leaders. Memory politics is the act of invoking the past or incorporating it into a speech, document, or other medium to convey a certain feeling, argument, or construct an identity.
Yoder began by laying out the context of why Merkel might use such a tactic in her speeches, saying that she was raised in East Germany, also known as the GDR. This shaped her knowledge and understanding of the events she typically calls back to using memory politics, such as the “Shoah” and the great forced migration of millions of East Germans from 1944-1950. The GDR denies responsibility for these horrific occurrences, so one can imagine that being brought up there would cause one’s education and opinion on the events to differ from perhaps a West German. This would make sense and probably explain why Merkel feels the way she does (at least, in the way she expresses through speeches) towards the horrors of Germany’s past.
Memory politics is an interesting topic when it comes to Europe, and Germany specifically. Memory politics, historically, is not frequently used, nor is it praised. Memory politics can be interpreted as both a good thing and a bad thing. It is good for the reasons Yoder mentioned: honoring lives lost, bowing the head to those that come to your country, acknowledging past mistakes and seeking both forgiveness and to better the country’s legacy going forward. However, it can also be negative. One student mentioned that memory politics can be frowned upon in Merkel’s case because it can be interpreted as a lack of pride or even anti-German. It focuses on the harsh realities of Germany’s historical reputation and Merkel continues to use shame as a driving force in speeches where events such as World War II or the ethnic German expulsions are mentioned. This has apparently caused a loss of support of some magnitude for Merkel, which I can sort of understand as I would want my leader to have some sense of nationalism at times, to show they are proud of their country. But that can be expressed in other ways apart from speeches, as shown by Merkel’s actions and her longevity (4 terms) and dedication to the German people.
This appeal to shame and humanitarianism that Merkel offers through speech is not necessarily a sign of a lack of pride, but rather, a sign of emotion, empathy, and respect for those Germany has affected. An unapologetic leader who refuses or elects not to acknowledge their country’s past could leave a poor impression on other world leaders and members of the public. I believe that Merkel offers enough on both ends of the emotional spectrum in her chancellorship and this has attributed to her long and popular run thus far.