Talk of reconciliation is a central component in the cultural debate on remembrance of the crimes of National Socialism. At the same time, a normalisation of the relationship between perpetrators and victims seems neither conceivable nor desirable for many of those affected and their descendants. These apparently contradictory demands are due, among other things, to ambiguous terminology and the multidimensionality of such communication processes:

• Individual remembrance needs of victims and their descendants are often in tension with collective expectations of reconciliation, for example if the aggrieved party refuses to forgive. The latter cannot be enforced by a society that is committed to reconciliation (Kodalle 2013). Regardless of this, reconciliation processes between collectives are often forced by political initiatives regardless of the attitude of individual persons or groups of persons. In this context, the question arises as to what extent reconciliation is possible without forgiveness (Grätzel 2018).
• An offer of reconciliation can be accompanied by different intentions. On the one hand, reconciliation is understood as a process that does not necessarily have to come to an end. On the other hand, it evokes the idea of a finalised state. Consequently, offers of reconciliation can be interpreted in different ways, either as a proposal to deal with or settle the conflict. The disparate reference to these two conceptual dimensions can disrupt the understanding between the positions.
• The concept of reconciliation implies a dynamic relationship between remembering and forgetting. In this field of tension between "wanting to remember" and "being able to forget", there is obviously always a non-negotiable residue that eludes the claim to reconciliation and is preserved as a memento of conflict experiences. In Jenseits von Schuld und Sühne, Jean Améry speaks in this context of an "unbridgeable gap" and in weiter leben, Ruth Klüger rejects reconciliation with the provocative statement "Forgiveness sucks".

This leads to the conclusion that a culture of remembrance must also recognise opposing positions and be able to withstand antagonisms. This challenge remains beyond the end of contemporary witnessing and continues in the relationship between subsequent generations.

The conference will examine how the topic of reconciliation is negotiated in literature and, if necessary, how it is mediated by a culture of remembrance. In this context, it should be discussed to what extent talk about the limits of reconciliation ultimately seeks dialogue and can thus contribute to reconciliation. From a literary studies perspective, the following questions, among others, can be asked:

• How is irreconcilability presented(discours)? Are there specific literary methods (narrative styles, linguistic devices, alienation techniques, intertextuality, etc.) that are particularly suitable for staging irreconcilability? What influence does the choice of literary genre have in each case?
• How is irreconcilability realised in terms of content(histoire)? Are there specific motifs (e.g. amnesia, repression, revenge), plot schemes (e.g. love relationships), character constellations (e.g. intergenerational relationships), etc.?
• To what extent can reconciliation be offered or denied in the context of literary communication between authors and readers? Can different functional potentials be identified for fiction and non-fiction (e.g. autobiographies)?

These and similar focal points can be analysed from a German studies or comparative perspective using concrete textual examples. In addition, contributions on systematic aspects are welcome, which can also be located in other disciplinary contexts (philosophy, theology, history, sociology, psychology).

Please send proposals for contributions in the form of a short abstract of max. 300 words and a short CV by 15 November 2018 to