Mobilising Lidice: Cosmopolitan Memory between Theory and Practice.

This paper interrogates the orthodoxies of cosmopolitanism via the example of an emerging commemorative network surrounding the Czech village of Lidice, drawing attention to a disjunction between idealised theories of memory and actual, instrumental memory practice. Razed by Nazi officials as an act of retaliation for the assassination of Reinhardt Heydrich in Prague, 1942, Lidice's male inhabitants – mainly miners and factory workers – were shot, and women and children deported. In a notable example of productive transnational identification, a group of coal miners in Stoke-on-Trent, England began a fundraising initiative which resulted in the construction of a new Lidice overlooking the former site (1947). Whilst the field-defining work of Daniel Levy and Natan Sznaider (2006) suggests that cosmopolitan memory-work avoids the homogenisation of Holocaust memories in the global sphere, I explore here the possibility that the complex motivations that guide such practices may undermine this premise. Accordingly the paper explores inscriptions of Lidice into local contexts via processes of de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation, focusing on its mobilisation in the 21st century in an examination the twinning of Lidice with Khojaly, Azerbaijan (February 2010) and with Stoke-on-Trent (underway). Campaigners in Stoke aim to inaugurate a new museum restore the town's ‘emotional bond’ with Lidice (Alan Gerrard 2010), whereas in Khojaly Lidice's memory is polemically aligned with the massacre of over 600 Azerbaijanis during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between ethnic Armenians and the Republic of Azerbaijan (1988–1992). The chapter considers the Lidice's twinning network as an example of cosmopolitan, supranational ‘glocalisation’ (Levy and Sznaider 2006). Whilst both cases rely on a sense of global-local solidarity rendered possible by the mobilisation of Holocaust memory, the motivations that ground them are significantly divergent; this essay assesses to what extent this may interfere with the potential of the twinning initiatives discussed to avoid a global homogenisation of Holocaust memory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]