Historical explanation of the Holocaust does not yield comprehension of its meaning for modernity.

Evidence

I did not wish to explain the Holocaust – but to better understand modernity. I thought then that in terms of the ordinary meaning of the idea of explanation (presenting an event as a chain of causes and effects) all that was to be done to explain the Holocaust as an event in history had been done already. … But such further research could only be of the ‘more of the same’ nature. The volume of facts would grow, but not necessarily the knowledge or the comprehension of the process. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 629

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes explanation (a causal chain) from comprehension (grasp of significance) — a useful analytical distinction for theory vocabulary.
• XREF: Parallels the Geertzian or hermeneutic distinction between explanation and understanding common across critical theory. — connects to: Understanding historical atrocities requires resisting them rather than explaining them away.; The Holocaust must be read as integral to modernity, not as its aberration. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 630; The Holocaust is a possibility modernity contains, not its paradigm — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 49 (+3 more)

Related

• Comprehending the Holocaust requires breaking its own unfamiliar code (similarity 0.90)
• The Holocaust rendered Western civilization itself incomprehensible, not just the event. (similarity 0.89)
• Understanding historical atrocities requires resisting them rather than explaining them away. (similarity 0.87)
• The Holocaust is a possibility modernity contains, not its paradigm (similarity 0.85)
• The Holocaust must be read as integral to modernity, not as its aberration. (similarity 0.84)
• All Holocaust scholarship is ultimately a debate over modernity’s self-image. (similarity 0.83)
• The Holocaust reveals sociology’s inadequacy more than sociology explains the Holocaust (similarity 0.83)
• Both dominant readings of the Holocaust leave sociology’s theory of modernity unchallenged (similarity 0.81)
• The Holocaust question must keep its full weight and horror (similarity 0.81)
• The Holocaust was unimaginable because existing categories could not comprehend it. (similarity 0.81)
• The Holocaust failed to transform sociology’s self-understanding of modern civilization. (similarity 0.81)
• Modern civilization was a necessary but not sufficient condition of the Holocaust. (similarity 0.80)
• The Holocaust was a product of modern civilization, not merely its failure (similarity 0.80)
• The Holocaust is a by-product of runaway modernist design (similarity 0.79)
• The Holocaust’s relation to representation and explanation is disputed among scholars. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Comprehending the Holocaust requires breaking its own unfamiliar code #expands (0.85) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 15
• The Holocaust is a possibility modernity contains, not its paradigm #qualifies (0.80) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 49