1) The memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin was designed to honor the victims of crimes committed by the German regime. 2) Pierre Nora's theory describes how modernization has changed how societies relate to the past, with collective memory now manifesting in "sites of memory" like cultural expressions. 3) The analysis found that Eisenman's abstract memorial design lacks symbolic and historical references, risking becoming a neutral space that provides no basis for collective memory. Guidelines are needed for it to truly act as a site of memory.

1. Taken from:
Gedenken mit Gebrauchsanweisung – En undersøgelse af „Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas“ som erindringssted
Master thesis by Solveig Skovgård, April 2008. Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, University of Copenhagen. Grade: 12.
Abstract:
A Remembrance in Need of Guidelines
A study of “The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” as site of memory
In recent years, it has become common practice for political leaders to officially apologize for their
nation’s past misdeeds. Taking responsibility for the past now serves to consolidate the political
legitimacy and ethical self-understanding of a nation.
The 2005 inauguration of American architect Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of
Europe in Berlin, honouring the victims of crimes conducted by the German regime itself, is part of
this trend.
Drawing on sociologist Maurice Halbwachs’ theory on collective memory and its identity nurturing
functions, historian Pierre Nora has developed a new term for examining how societies remember.
According to Nora, the process of modernization in Western societies has changed the way we
relate to the past. Because of the disappearance of or changes in traditional environments of
memory (milieux de mémoire) such as the church, the family and the social class, collective
memory today can only manifest itself in sites or realms of memory (lieux de mémoire): cultural
expressions of a particular shared memory. Sites of memory are dual in nature, incorporating both
historiography and individual memory to provide a sense of continuity between past, present, and
future.
The analysis concludes that Eisenman’s memorial meets several of the requirements set by Nora.
However, due to its abstract design and general lack of symbolic and historical references, the
memorial risks becoming a neutral space; giving no information, no clues, and therefore providing
no basis for a collective memory or shared meaning. In order for this monument to act as site of
memory or even memorial, guidelines are needed.
Faced with the subject matter of a holocaust memorial, the site of memory as vehicle for social and
national cohesion is challenged, and a redefinition of some of Nora’s presumptions is called for.
Through an analysis of the federal government’s intentions for the memorial, backed by an account
of developments within the memorial genre, the thesis argues that the memory of the holocaust
provides a negative identification whereby Germany defines itself in opposition to the Third Reich
and thus supports its image as a modern democracy. The thesis concludes that even contested
symbols can build collective memory, and that consequently, representations of the holocaust may
indeed function as sites of memory.