Authoritative Testimony and Authoritarian Discourse in Primo Levi's Se Questo E Un Uomo

By Druker, Jonathan | Italian Culture, Winter 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Authoritative Testimony and Authoritarian Discourse in Primo Levi's Se Questo E Un Uomo

Druker, Jonathan, Italian Culture

That Primo Levi intended his 1946 Auschwitz memoir, Se questo e un uomo, to be something more than an autobiography is evident in his copious (but not exclusive) reliance on a first-person plural narrative. So far, most scholars have viewed Levi's `we' and `our' as usefully inclusive pronouns that not only evoke a chorus of victims who speak through, and thus authorize, Levi's narrator, but also facilitate the reader's participation in the retelling. (1) In using the plural, they say, Levi refuses "to isolate the survivor's experience from the rest of humankind" (Bernstein 4). (2) Still other scholars notice "stylistic shortcomings" in the "haphazard shifts in person" from `I' to `we' (Sodi 275).

These observations, however, stop short of asking whether the various appearances of `we' in Levi's memoir have different, and even evolving, functions and meanings. Consider two passages from the text; the first describes the excruciating train trip from Italy to Poland. "Soffrivamo per la sete e il freddo: a tutte le fermate chiedevamo acqua a gran voce, o almeno un pugno di neve, ma raramente fummo uditi" (Se questo e un uomo 12). ["We suffered from thirst and cold; at every stop we clamored for water, or even a handful of snow, but we were rarely heard." (Survival in Auschwitz 18).] Here, the plural subject (in the past tense) speaks as a credible, authorized chorus conveying a shared experience of physical privation that engages the reader's sympathy and conscience. In recounting the details of the episode, Levi attempts to give voice to the unheard, and not yet fully dehumanized, `we' who were deported but never came back.

In roughly the middle of the memoir, the choral voice briefly but tellingly gives way to a more authoritative first-person plural whose knowledge exceeds the local boundaries defined by the camp. In contrast to the implicit humane and ethical stance conveyed by the first passage, the second one I have chosen puts forward a sweeping, yet detached, statement on the value of studying all human experience, including that gained in Auschwitz.

   Noi siamo infatti persuasi che nessuna umana esperienza sia
   vuota di senso e indegna di analisi, e che anzi valori
   fondamentali, anche se non sono sempre positivi, si possano trarre
   da questo particolare mondo di cui narriamo. (83)

   [We are in fact convinced that no human experience is without
   meaning or unworthy of analysis, and that fundamental values,
   even if they are not positive, can be deduced from this particular
   world we are describing. (87)]

Here, the plural subject (in the present tense) is no longer situated among the victims, but is a disembodied `we' located in some indeterminate but apparently objective position outside the camp. Indeed, this `we' is stylistically awkward and oddly distanced. Why does Levi use it at all when, clearly, he alone thinks and writes these thoughts? What community is constituted by this `we' and what does it have to do with inferring general principles from the "particular world" under scrutiny here?

In answering these questions, and in raising still others, I will suggest that the construction of this detached `we' and the drive to deduce meaning from Auschwitz are two crucial elements, interdependent and unstable, in Levi's vexed attempt to understand and make others understand his experience of the Holocaust. The adequacy of inadequacy of particular narrative strategies (i.e. the `we') and conceptual frameworks (i.e. the deduction) to the task of salvaging something useful from Auschwitz demand consideration in any analysis of Holocaust representation. Indeed, the stakes could not be higher for Levi himself, who always judged his success of failure on whether he made the tragic world of Auschwitz intelligible to his readers, whether his extraordinary experience could be shown to have some bearing on ordinary life.

Fully invested in secular humanism and positivism, and trained in scientific method, Levi trusted in the ability of empirical observation and reason to make sense of the world and impart meaning.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Authoritative Testimony and Authoritarian Discourse in Primo Levi's Se Questo E Un Uomo


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?