D_03 Racist West and Antisemitic Rest? Global Cohesion at the Tension between Postcolonial Critique and Critiques of Antisemitism

The relationship between postcolonial critique and critiques of antisemitism has long been marked by tension. In recent years, however, the two approaches appear increasingly irreconcilable. This is evident in memory-political controversies over the relationship between colonialism and National Socialism, in debates surrounding documenta fifteen, and in the escalation following the Hamas massacre of 7 October 2023 and the subsequent destruction of the Gaza Strip. At times, these conflict lines are framed geopolitically: a Western, antisemitism-sensitive Holocaust memory versus a racism-sensitive colonial memory in the Global South. This sharpening of positions not only resonates with a colonial block constellation described by Stuart Hall as “the West and the Rest,” but also reveals that a planetary form of cohesion—transcending nation-states and continental boundaries—is under severe strain, with global memory culture constituting a key factor in this process.

Memory culture proves to be a field of conflict in which interpretations of the past as well as struggles for recognition and visibility are negotiated. At the same time, it carries the promise of healing and reconciliation. In this sense, the conditions for the success or failure of global cohesion depend in no small part on the possibility of mediating between Holocaust memory and colonial memory.

It is significant that postcolonial critique has increasingly been confronted with accusations of antisemitism in recent years, while at the same time a debate has emerged about the so-called colonial unconscious of Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, a central reference point for critiques of antisemitism. Accordingly, it is necessary to ask about possible blind spots within each tradition: about the status of antisemitism within postcolonial critique, and about the status of (colonial) racism within critiques of antisemitism. At the same time, resentful dynamics must be considered as a potential factor, since specific interpretations of the world and constructions of self and other are at stake, as well as competitive struggles over resources.

In recent years, a diagnosis has gained traction according to which postcolonial critique is shaped by anti-Western resentment. Conversely, it is worth asking whether critiques of postcolonial critique themselves also contain resentful elements, particularly given that the rejection of postcolonial approaches and of engagement with colonialism and racism is sometimes expressed in highly vehement and sweeping terms.

This work package (WP) aims to reconstruct the historical genesis of the tension between postcolonial critique and critiques of antisemitism. Its starting hypothesis is that a reciprocal problem of recognition is at work here. This raises the question of whether and to what extent struggles over epistemic orders—condensed in postcolonial concepts such as “epistemologies of the South,” “epistemic disobedience,” or “provincializing Europe”—are linked to dynamics of attention. Ultimately, the project seeks productive points of connection between the memory of colonialism and racism on the one hand, and National Socialism and antisemitism on the other, or, more broadly, to ask what an inclusive memory would need to look like in order to generate democratic cohesion on a global scale.

In this context, the specific configuration of German memory culture must also be taken into account, in which National Socialism and the Holocaust occupy an exceptional position. Criticism of this exceptionalism is often met with accusations of relativizing the Holocaust. Against this backdrop, the German context can be understood as a historically conditioned special case that nevertheless illustrates, in a particularly vivid way, the structural complications involved in conceptualizing democratic cohesion through memory politics.