Doing Selfies in Auschwitz?

Selfies machen in Auschwitz?

 

Abstract: When young American Breanna Mitchell posted a selfie on Twitter in June 2014 of herself in front of the barracks of the concentration camp in Auschwitz with the caption: “Selfie in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp 🙂”, she might not have expected the consequences both the message and the picture would cause.[1] At first her selfie remained fairly unnoticed by the Twitter community, but then a storm of protest erupted and “Princess Breanna” – as she calls herself on Twitter – even received death threats.
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2019-14095.
Languages: English, Deutsch


When young American Breanna Mitchell posted a selfie on Twitter in June 2014 of herself in front of the barracks of the concentration camp in Auschwitz with the caption: “Selfie in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp 🙂”, she might not have expected the consequences both the message and the picture would cause.[1] At first her selfie remained fairly unnoticed by the Twitter community, but then a storm of protest erupted and “Princess Breanna” – as she calls herself on Twitter – even received death threats.

Warmest Greetings from Auschwitz

Tourist photos of and in concentration camps and memorials undoubtedly existed in the analogue world, and postcards with Auschwitz motifs were already sent by visitors of the site in the 1950s and 1960s, often with typical and quite profane greetings, e.g.: “Darlings! Best and warmest greetings from Auschwitz, Hania. P.S. The weather’s playing tricks, first the sun shines, then it rains”.[2] So today’s selfies are not a new phenomenon which has come out of nowhere, but rather represent a certain continuity of tourist practices. This also applies to the impulse to ‘produce’ something during a trip; to create memories (through photos) and to share these visual impressions.[3] Looking at photos after a trip has always been a jointly exercised practice, whether one presented and browsed a photo album with friends and relatives or invited them to an evening of slideshows.

Here I Am!

What is new, however, is the following:

First, with the collapse of the former Eastern Bloc mass tourism started to reach the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, which since then has become a tremendous challenge for these places. In 2018 the Auschwitz concentration camp documented a new visitor record with more than two million guests.

Second, unlike selfies postcards generally did not and still do not show visitors or tourists.

Thirdly, in the analogue era photos were available to only a limited number of people and usually remained within the family and a close circle of friends.

And finally, the new media and smartphones enable new modes of dealing and interacting with historic sites, also resulting in novel tourist practices. This includes the perception of places through the camera as well as the selfie and the increasing (self-)performance via social media – and in almost real time since the upload is easy, fast, and the distribution widespread.

Like former photos, the selfie serves as a confirmation, emphasising the message “I was there” and thereby attesting to the authenticity of the experience.[4] However, unlike common holiday snapshots, the selfie unequivocally privileges the self, conveying more than anything else the message “Here I am”. Simultaneously, the practice of doing a selfie has become part of our everyday life and developed into a central element of social (online) practices. Another relevant point which has hardly ever been considered is that while official postcards usually hide the presence of visitors at places of atrocity and terror, selfies manage to weave people into these places.[5]

Pluralising the Discourse

The example of selfies at emotionally and symbolically charged historic sites such as concentration and extermination camps illustrates that a single ‘correct’ handling of this kind of heritage is becoming ever more difficult and contested. A “de-hierarchization and pluralising of the ‘Elitenprojekt Erinnerungskultur’”[6] is emerging.[7] The public discourse is no longer shaped by the top-down approach of memorials, official institutions, or educational organisations, which have previously played a leading role in the discourse. Instead, in a bottom-up fashion Internet users inject themselves into the ‘picture’ and gain influence. Practices such as doing a selfie transform our perspective on historic sites and create new – and sometimes irritating and provocative – ways of perception. They are thus able to alter existent debates or even create new and unprecedented discourses. These tendencies must be observed and analysed –  which is both an opportunity and a challenge not only for Heritage Studies but also for the field of research-oriented Public History.

_____________________

Further Reading

  • Hodalska, Magdalena. “Selfies at horror sites: Dark tourism, ghoulish souvenirs and digital narcissism.” Zeszty Prasoznawcze 60/2 (2017): 405–423.
  • Szypulski, Paweł. Greetings from Auschwitz. Zürich, Kraków: Edition Frey, 2015.
  • Zalewska, Maria. “Selfies from Auschwitz: Rethinking the Relationship Between Spaces of Memory and Places of Commemoration in the Digital Age.” Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017): 95–116.

Web Resources

_____________________
[1] See the former press coverage, e.g., “’I wouldn’t do anything differently’: Teen who took selfie at Auschwitz is unrepentant as trend for grinning and pouting poses at memorials including Ground Zero grows,” Daily Mail Online, July 23 2014, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702161/I-wouldnt-differently-Teenager-took-selfie-Auschwitz-unrepentant-trend-posing-memorials-including-Ground-Zero-grows.html (last accessed 16 June 2019), Gideon Böss, “Darf man in Auschwitz Selfie Machen?,” Welt-Online, August 31, 2018,  https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article131772830/Darf-man-in-Auschwitz-ein-Selfie-machen.html (last accessed 16 June 2019). Many thanks again go to Vanessa Bühling (Heidelberg) for her proofreading.
[2] Paweł Szypulski, Greetings from Auschwitz (Zürich, Kraków: Edition Frey, 2015), 26.
[3] Maria Zalewska, “Selfies from Auschwitz: Rethinking the relationship between spaces of memory and places of commemoration in the digital age,” Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017):  95–116, here: 101.
[4] Yasmin Ibrahim, “Self representation and the disaster event: Self-imaging, morality and immortality,” Journal of Media Practice 16/3 (2015): 211–227, here: 212.
[5] Daniel P. Reynolds, Postcards from Auschwitz. Holocaust tourism and the meaning of remembrance (New York: New York University Press, 2018), 235.
[6] “Elitenprojekt Erinnerungskultur” can approximately be translated as “culture of remembrance as project of the elite”.
[7] Marketa Spiritova, “Performing Memories. Erinnerungspraktiken zwischen Geschichtspolitik und Populärkultur am Beispiel Tschechiens”, Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 110/1 (2014): 91–111, here: 111.

_____________________

Image Credits

Selfie © 2015 Steven Lilley, CC BY-SA 2.0 via flickr

Recommended Citation

Samida, Stefanie: Doing Selfies in Auschwitz? In: Public History Weekly 7 (2019) 25, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2019-14095.

Als im Juni 2014 die junge US-Amerikanerin Breanna Mitchell über ihren Twitter-Account ein Selfie postete, das sie vor dem Hintergrund der Baracken des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz zeigt und das sie mit den Worten “Selfie in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp 🙂” betitelte, dürfte ihr das Ausmaß, das sie mit dieser Nachricht und dem Foto hervorrufen sollte, nicht klar gewesen sein.[1] Einige Wochen blieb das Selfie von der Community zwar unbeachtet, dann brach allerdings der Shitstorm los und “Princess Breanna”, so ihr Twitter-Name, bekam sogar Morddrohungen.

Herzliche Grüße aus Auschwitz

Touristische Fotos von und in Konzentrationslagern und Gedenkstätten gab es zweifellos schon in der analogen Welt, ganz zu schweigen von Postkarten mit Auschwitz-Motiv, die Besucher*innen schon in den 1950er und 1960er Jahren mit klassischen und sehr profanen Grüßen verschickten wie z.B.: “Darlings! Best and warmest greetings from Auschwitz, Hania. P.S. The weather’s playing tricks, first the sun shines, then it rains”.[2] Die heutigen Selfies sind nicht aus dem Nichts heraus entstanden, sondern sie stehen durchaus in einer gewissen Kontinuität touristischer Praktiken. Geändert hat sich auch nicht der Impuls, während der Reise etwas zu ‚produzieren‘ bzw. Erinnerungen zu schaffen (eben durch Fotos) und diese visuellen Eindrücke zu teilen.[3] Fotos wurden nach einer Reise nicht selten gemeinsam angeschaut, sei es, dass man gemeinsam im Fotoalbum blätterte oder Freund*innen und Bekannte zum Dia-Abend einlud.

Hier bin ich!

Neu ist aber Folgendes:

Erstens hat mit der Auflösung der Staaten des ehemaligen Ostblocks ein Massentourismus auf die Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager eingesetzt, der diese vor große Herausforderungen stellt. 2018 erlebte z.B. das Konzentrationslager Auschwitz mit mehr als zwei Millionen Gästen einen neuen Besucherrekord.

Zweitens zeigten (und zeigen) Postkarten, anders als Selfies, in der Regel keine Personen.

Drittens waren die Fotos in der analogen Ära nur einer kleinen Anzahl an Menschen zugänglich, sie verblieben mehr oder weniger im engen Familien- und Freundeskreis.

Und schließlich ermöglichen die neuen Medien und das Smartphone neue Formen des Umgangs – auch in der touristischen Praxis. Dazu gehört das Wahrnehmen von Orten durch die Kamera genauso wie das Selfie und die dadurch zunehmende (Selbst-)Inszenierung über Social Media-Plattformen – und das nahezu in Echtzeit, weil ein Hochladen auf diese Plattformen schnell und die Verbreitung umgehend möglich ist.

Wie frühere Fotos dient auch das Selfie zur Bestätigung ganz nach dem Motto “Ich war da” und gilt als Ausweis der Authentizität des Erlebten.[4] Doch anders als die klassischen Urlaubsfotos privilegiert das Selfie eindeutig das Selbst, ganz nach dem Motto “Hier bin ich”. Gleichzeitig gehört das Knipsen eines Selfies aber mittlerweile zu unserem Alltag und ist schlicht Teil der sozialen (Online-)Praxis. Und noch ein Punkt ist relevant und bisher kaum beachtet worden: Während die offiziellen Postkarten die Anwesenheit von Besucher*innen bzw. Tourist*innen an Orten der Gewalt und des Terrors in der Regel ausblenden, holen die Selfies die Menschen wieder an diese Orte zurück.[5]

Den Diskurs pluralisieren

Das Beispiel um die Selfies an stark aufgeladenen historischen Stätten wie Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager verdeutlicht, dass die Sphäre der Unsicherheit im ‚richtigen‘ Umgang mit diesem Erbe mehr und mehr aufbricht. Es zeichnet sich eine “Enthierarchisierung und Pluralisierung des ‚Elitenprojekts Erinnerungskultur‘” ab.[6]

Nicht mehr nur das Top-Down der Gedenkstätten bzw. offizieller Institutionen und Bildungseinrichtungen, die bislang als der zentrale Player im Diskurs galten, prägt die öffentliche Diskussion, sondern das Bottom-Up der Internetuser gewinnt an Einfluss. Praktiken wie das doing selfie beeinflussen unsere Perspektive auf historische Stätten und schaffen neue, durchaus irritierende und provokante Lesarten und vermögen damit den Diskurs zu verändern bzw. noch nicht dagewesene Diskurse zu schaffen. Diese Lesarten und Tendenzen gilt es wahrzunehmen und zu analysieren – hier ist nicht nur die Kulturerbeforschung, sondern auch die forschungsorientierte Public History (auf-)gefordert.

_____________________

Literaturhinweise

  • Hodalska, Magdalena. “Selfies at horror sites: Dark tourism, ghoulish souvenirs and digital narcissism.” Zeszty Prasoznawcze 60/2 (2017): 405–423.
  • Szypulski, Paweł. Greetings from Auschwitz. Zürich, Kraków: Edition Frey, 2015.
  • Zalewska, Maria. “Selfies from Auschwitz: Rethinking the Relationship Between Spaces of Memory and Places of Commemoration in the Digital Age.” Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017): 95–116.

Webressourcen

_____________________
[1] Siehe dazu auch die damalige Presseberichterstattung z.B.: “’I wouldn’t do anything differently’: Teen who took selfie at Auschwitz is unrepentant as trend for grinning and pouting poses at memorials including Ground Zero grows,” Daily Mail Online, July 23 2014, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702161/I-wouldnt-differently-Teenager-took-selfie-Auschwitz-unrepentant-trend-posing-memorials-including-Ground-Zero-grows.html (letzter Zugriff 16. Juni 2019), Gideon Böss, “Darf man in Auschwitz Selfie Machen?,” Welt-Online, August 31, 2018,  https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article131772830/Darf-man-in-Auschwitz-ein-Selfie-machen.html (letzter Zugriff 16. Juni 2019). Many thanks again go to Vanessa Bühling (Heidelberg) for her proofreading.
[2] Paweł Szypulski, Greetings from Auschwitz (Zürich, Kraków: Edition Frey, 2015), 26.
[3] Maria Zalewska, “Selfies from Auschwitz: Rethinking the relationship between spaces of memory and places of commemoration in the digital age,” Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017):  95–116, here: 101.
[4] Yasmin Ibrahim, “Self representation and the disaster event: Self-imaging, morality and immortality,” Journal of Media Practice 16/3 (2015): 211–227, here: 212.
[5] Daniel P. Reynolds, Postcards from Auschwitz. Holocaust tourism and the meaning of remembrance (New York: New York University Press, 2018), 235.
[6] Marketa Spiritova, “Performing Memories. Erinnerungspraktiken zwischen Geschichtspolitik und Populärkultur am Beispiel Tschechiens”, Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 110/1 (2014): 91–111, here: 111.

_____________________

Abbildungsnachweis

Selfie © 2015 Steven Lilley, CC BY-SA 2.0 via flickr

Empfohlene Zitierweise

Samida, Stefanie: Selfies machen in Auschwitz? In: Public History Weekly 7 (2019) 25, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2019-14095.

Copyright (c) 2019 by De Gruyter Oldenbourg and the author, all rights reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for non-commercial, educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage right holders. For permission please contact the editor-in-chief (see here). All articles are reliably referenced via a DOI, which includes all comments that are considered an integral part of the publication.

The assessments in this article reflect only the perspective of the author. PHW considers itself as a pluralistic debate journal, contributions to discussions are very welcome. Please note our commentary guidelines (https://public-history-weekly.degruyter.com/contribute/).


Categories: 7 (2019) 25
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2019-14095

Tags: , ,

2 replies »

  1. To all our non-German speaking readers we recommend the automatic DeepL-Translator for 8 European languages. Just copy and paste.

    Als ich Auschwitz zum ersten Mal besuchte, gab es noch keine Handykameras, welche die Idee des Sichselberfotographierens förderten.
    Wenn ich mir vorstelle, mit einer Schulklasse ein KZ zu besuchen, dann habe ich die Idee, genau dieses Thema mit den Schüler*innen anzusprechen. Das Selfie rückt bereits grafisch das Selbst vor das Objekt. Ich war hier. Das Wo ist sekundär. Ich ist im Zentrum. Das soll man auf Schloss Neuschwanstein oder der Karlsbrücke tun.

    Der Besuch eines KZs möchte vom Selbst wegkommen, und den Schüler*innen zeigen, dass so viele andere ermordet wurden. Da muss das Selbst zurückstehen. Erst in der Aufarbeitung des Besuchs kommt das Selbst hinein, im der empathischen Nachempfindung. Davon kann man kein Foto machen.

  2. Editorial Note on Allegations of Plagiarism in the Article of Stefanie Samida

    On July 5, 2019, Dr. Zalewska contacted Prof. Krzysztof Ruchniewicz and Ms. Dominika Uczkiewicz and on July 7, 2019 the editorial board of Public History Weekly regarding an article by Dr. Samida that was published at Public History Weekly in No 7 (2019) 25 on July 4 (dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2019-14095). Dr. Zalewska claimed that this article represents a case of plagiarism of her own work, published as “Selfies from Auschwitz: Rethinking the Relationship between Spaces of Memory and Places of Commemoration in the Digital Age,” (Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media, 2017), 95-116. Dr. Zalewska also disclosed the allegations on Twitter and Facebook, therefore we feel obliged to publicly inform about our reaction to this allegations.

    On behalf of the Executive Board, the Editorial Board of Public History Weekly as well as the Publisher De Gruyter, we would like to assure everybody that we take this allegation very serious and that we took all steps that we found necessary and helpful to clarify the validity of the allegation in question. We did proceed as follows:

    First, we asked Dr. Stefanie Samida to comment on the accusation.
    Secondly, the publisher carried out a machine analysis of the text to determine whether it was plagiarised.
    Thirdly, we examined and reviewed the text of Dr. Samida a second and third time and conducted a detailed analysis of our editorial review process to ensure to not miss out any signs of plagiarism.
    Finally, we asked two renowned scientists in the field of Public History (Prof. Jasmine Alinder, Prof. Thomas Cauvin) for an expert opinion on this case.

    All these steps have refuted the fore-mentioned accusation. Dr. Samida points out that she has followed all the conventions of scientific procedure. The machine check revealed a text agreement with various sources of only 19%, which must be considered irrelevant. Even after repeated thorough analysis, we found no evidence of plagiarism in Dr. Samida’s text and were able to ensure that our editing procedure met the requirements for scientific publications. And both Prof. Alinder and Prof. Cauvin come to the conclusion in their detailed, systematic and thorough reports that no case of plagiarism can be established.

    As a result of the procedure described above, we come to the conclusion that the accusation is not substantiated. We therefore see no reason to make any changes to Dr. Samida’s article or to our editorial procedure.

Pin It on Pinterest