Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and His Critics

A striking aspect of the so‐called “Goldhagen debate” hasbeen the bifurcated reception Hitler's Willing Executioners hasreceived: the enthusiastic welcome of journalists and the public was as warm as the impatientdismissal of most historians was cool. This article seeks to transcend the current impasse byanalyzing the underlying issues of Holocaust research at stake here. It argues that a “deepstructure” necessarily characterizes the historiography of the Holocaust, comprising atension between its positioning in “univeralism” and“particularism” narratives. While the former conceptualizes the Holocaust as anabstract human tragedy and explains its occurrence in terms of processes common to modernsocieties, the latter casts its analysis in ethnic and national categories: the Holocaust as anexclusively German and Jewish affair. These narratives possess important implications for thebalance of structure and human agency in the explanation of the Holocaust: where theuniversalism narrative emphasizes the role of impersonal structures in mediating human action,the particularism narrative highlights the agency of human actors. Although historical accountsusually combine these narratives, recent research on the Holocaust tends in the universalistdirection, and this bears on the sensitive issue of responsibility for the Holocaust byproblematizing the common‐sense notion of the perpetrators' intention and responsibility.Goldhagen is responding to this trend, but by retreating to the particularism narrative andemploying an inadequate definition of intention, he fails to move the debate forward. It is time torethink the concept of intention in relation to events like the Holocaust.