Lev Student Research Fellow Sarah Ernst presents on queer(ing) Holocaust testimonies
On September 24, 2024, Sarah Ernst, 2024 Beth and Arthur Lev Student Research Fellow at the USC Dornsife Center for Advanced Genocide Research, delivered a lecture titled “Queer(ing) Holocaust Video Testimonies: Introductions, Explorations, and Reimaginings.” This lecture was based on the research they conducted during their monthlong residence at the Center in Summer of 2024. During their residency, they explored Holocaust survivor testimonies in the USC Shoah Foundation Visual History Archive (VHA) and identified recurring themes related to queer experiences while considering the role of archives and sources in how these queer experiences are studied in various settings.
They opened their lecture by defining the term queer as it appears in their research. While they agree with the definition of queer as umbrella term referring to sexual desires and acts that fall outside of the boundaries of heteronormativity, they expanded their definition to include elements such as gender performance, self-identity and other bodies deemed outside of the norm. They argue that this creates more conversations about the variety of human experiences.
After reviewing the scholarly literature from the field that their work is in conversation with, they situated their research within the methodology of “queering” – examining complexities, sitting with the uncomfortable, questioning assumptions, interrogating not only the past but how we view it in the present.
They then gave a list of sample search terms they used to help find the testimonies that fall into their definition of queer, especially as ‘queer’ is not a keyword within the VHA. These terms range from the obvious, such as ‘lesbian sexual activities,’ to the more nuanced, like ‘attitudes to towards people with disabilities.’ After exploring the ways those subjected to genocidal violence were further othered, they were able to highlight both continuities and discrepancies within the experiences of targeted groups.
Ernst went on to highlight a number of themes they identified during their research. They first discussed animal imagery as a metaphor employed by survivors discussing queerness within the camp setting. In these testimonies, Ernst noted that this metaphor underscored removal of agency and became a vehicle for the further dehumanization. Punctuating their talk with clips from testimony, Ernst argued that this deliberate choice of wording in testimony creates a distance between heteronormative and queer behaviors, along with a further stigmatization of the latter. Within this, Ernst also discussed the visual cues of disgust by the survivor and interjections by supposedly impartial interviewers. Both of these elements combine to support dominant heteronormative narratives. Ernst advocated for considering the historical, societal, and archival contexts of the interviews, arguing that this would result a fuller consideration and centering of queer knowledge production.
Delving deeper into the role of the interviewer, Ernst highlighted how the interviewer’s framing of questions can possibly shape, sometimes unconsciously, the response or perspective given by the survivor. Ernst argued that in becoming a more active participant in the interview, interviewers impact the resulting interview and how it is studied by future researchers. Again using an illustrative clip, Ernst emphasized that even if interviewers frame a question regarding queerness in camps in a certain way, survivors do push back against anti-queer stereotypes in both scholarship and public attitudes.
The final theme Ernst discussed was that of queer kinship within oral history testimonies. Ernst argued that the concluding part of a testimony where the survivor’s family joins the survivor can be a space in which queer kinship can be illuminated. They noted that, in cases like this, queer as a term extends beyond just sexual acts, gender identity or sexual identity, but also chosen partnerships that lie outside the framework of a nuclear family and the dominant heteronormative narrative. Using the example of a pre-interview questionnaire by Roman Kent, Ernst illustrated that in addition to the testimony itself, survivors can redefine the boundaries and kinship terms established by or used by archival institutions.
When discussing future research, Ernst discussed their plans to pursue various research paths include an expanded intersectional approach, broader use of video testimonies, and engaging with queer and trans theory as well as archival practices. All of these combined can lead to a more nuanced and clearer picture of the experiences of queer and trans individuals within the Holocaust.
After the lecture there was a lively Q & A in which Ernst responded to questions about the possibility of adding queer as a searchable term, the historical context in which the testimonies were collected, the possible impact of self-censoring on the part of survivors, archives they plan on exploring in the future, where the field is going, and where they see their research fitting in dialogue with others.