Identification and Make-Believe: the Fallacies of Prosthetic Memory

Valentina Pisanty’s article critically examines the concept of "prosthetic memory" and its application in trauma museums and memorial sites, particularly concerning the Holocaust. She argues that while these strategies aim to foster empathy and awareness, they risk creating an illusion of identification that distorts both historical understanding and ethical engagement.

The notion of prosthetic memory, introduced by Alison Landsberg, refers to the incorporation of memories of events not personally experienced, facilitated by immersive technologies such as interactive exhibitions, cinema, and virtual reality. These techniques, used in institutions like the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the House of Terror in Budapest, seek to transform visitors into "secondary witnesses," recreating in them the emotions and experiences of victims. However, Pisanty contends that such emotional identification oversimplifies history, turning the past into an immediate sensory experience rather than an object of critical reflection.

One of the main issues she highlights is the widespread tendency to treat survivor testimonies as absolute truth, disregarding the fallibility of human memory and the influence of narrative construction. Furthermore, the belief that symbolically reliving the suffering of victims necessarily leads to greater political awareness is questioned: while immersive experiences may evoke empathy, they do not guarantee a deeper understanding of the historical mechanisms behind genocide and persecution.

Pisanty also critiques how prosthetic memory eliminates historical distance, imposing a deterministic perspective in which the past is presented as inevitable. Visitors are encouraged to experience history as if they were "there," yet their engagement remains passive—they cannot alter the course of events or critically interrogate the past. By prioritizing emotional immersion over historical analysis, these memory practices reduce critical thinking to a scripted experience that reinforces rather than challenges dominant narratives.

Paradoxically, despite the prominence of memory culture, xenophobic and nationalist movements continue to rise. This suggests that fostering empathy through prosthetic memory may be ineffective or even counterproductive. Pisanty argues that instead of relying on immersive emotional experiences, memory should be used as a tool for historical analysis, helping visitors understand the role of individual and collective choices in shaping history. Only by engaging critically with the past—rather than merely "feeling" it—can memory serve as a foundation for responsible citizenship and active political engagement.