English
Język Polski
Biography and the Contested Past: The Karski–Lanzmann–Haenel Controversy
Abstract
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to analyze the contested construction of the past through the debate involving Jan Karski, Claude Lanzmann, and Yannick Haenel. It aims to demonstrate how competing discourses about the past shape contemporary perceptions of Karski and how their confrontation relates to the relationship between history and memory.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The main research problem concerns the tension between testimony, its narrative framing, and its fictional reinterpretation. The study examines how each actor (Karski, Lanzmann, and Haenel) shapes historical meaning. The method consists of a comparative analysis of each actor’s different textual discourses. Historiographical sources are reviewed to contrast the debate, and recent studies of the same issue are related to this work.
THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The article first mentions Yannick Haenel’s Jan Karski (2009) and why Claude Lanzmann reacted against it. It then analyses the director’s critique, based on his film Shoah (1985), which included an interview with Karski. Lanzmann’s argument is contrasted with the conflict between testimony and narrative and with Karski’s view of Shoah. The argument shows how each figure questions the others’ representations as they negotiate the meanings of the past.
RESEARCH RESULTS: The analysis reveals that neither testimony nor historical narrative is monolithic. Karski’s own testimony was adapted to different circumstances; Lanzmann’s editing in Shoah constructs a specific narrative; and Haenel’s fiction poses new questions about how we relate to the past. The study demonstrates that the dispute itself exposes the multiplicity of “Karskis” produced across diverse discourses, showing that the past survives in a plurality of voices and interpretive layers rather than in a single authoritative account.
CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The article contends that a single, definitive image of the past limits historical rationality. Instead, recognizing the polyphonic nature of historical discourse. The analysis proposes considering the concrete conditions under which testimonies are generated and the narrative frameworks that structure them, which is connected to the dispute between historical writing and fiction. While fictional accounts of history inevitably involve risks, they may also contribute to the study of the past.
Keywords
Jan Karski ; Claude Lanzmann ; Yannick Haenel ; Historical fiction ; History and fiction
Details
References
Indicators
Authors
Zasady cytowania
Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise to use any of the following reserach society portals: