âLes AnnĂ©es noires avaient Ă©tĂ© grises:â A Meta-Ethical Examination of Pierre Assoulineâs Appropriation of Primo Leviâs Concept of the âGrey Zoneâ1 Helena Duffy The Grey Zone: Readings, Re-readings and Overreadings Primo Leviâs landmark essay âThe Grey Zoneâ opens with criticism of those who, when trying to understand the dynamics of lâunivers concentrationnaire, reduce the complex network of human relationships to the mutually opposing categories of evil tormentors and saintly victims. Reflected in Christâs gesture on Judgment dayââhere the righteous, over there the reprobatesââ, such dualistic thinking fails, according to Levi, in relation to Auschwitz whose horror consisted also in its indecipherability. Namely, some of the victims were dragged into defiling complicity with their oppressors, thus entering what Levi describes as an area so âincredibly complicated [in] its internal structureâ that it âconfuse[s] our need to judgeâ (The Drowned and the Saved 27). Within this âgrey zoneâ the Italian writer-survivor situates all kinds of âprivileged prisoners,â beginning with kettles washers, bed smoothers, checkers for lice or interpreters (29), and ending with Sonderkommandos. Recruited predominantly amongst Jewish inmates, these âspecial squadsâ were responsible for maintaining order among those to be gassed, disposing of the victimsâ bodies, and sorting out their belongings. Seeking examples of the âgrey zoneâ beyond the Lager, Levi invokes controversial leader of the ĆĂłdĆș ghetto, Chaim Rumkowski, or even SS Erich MĂŒhsfeldt, who briefly showed pity to a young survivor of gassing and whom Levi gives the benefit of the doubt by believing that, under different circumstances, he could have been a decent man (40). However, whereas Levi recommends that our moral judgment be suspended in relation to the âprivilegedâ prisoners, in line with his more general and emphatic declaration of his unwillingness to ever forgive his oppressors, he fully endorses the 1948 verdict of the Supreme National Tribunal to sentence MĂŒhsfeldt to death (37). [End Page 29] Since the publication of Leviâs essay, critics have been arguing about who indeed should be included in the âgrey zone.â2 While some mobilize the morally murky area as a universal figure of enforced complicity with oneâs oppressor, others believe it to be restricted to the physical space of Nazi concentration camps. Giorgio Agamben, for instance, has famously and controversially deployed the âgrey zoneâ as a paradigm for post-Auschwitz ethics, positioning all human beings within this space of moral ambiguity (101).3 Others have reapplied Leviâs term to bystanders, collaborators or resisters, or have even assimilated it with Holocaust-unrelated situations.4 As for Levi himself, he expands the meaning of the âgrey zoneâ by reaching with his intertextual references beyond lâunivers concentrationnaire, as exemplified by the analogy he draws between the Sonderkommandos and the collectors of corpses in Alessandro Manzoniâs novel The Betrothed (1827) (39). In the same vein, Levi likens MĂŒhsfeldtâs brief hesitation to an old womanâs single good deed in Dostoevskyâs The Brothers Karamazov (1880) (40). More directly, the Italian writer-survivor inscribes into this area of moral ambiguity, where dichotomies of evil and goodness are no longer operational, various collaborating governments, including Vichy (27). He also identifies it within the Soviet gulag or compares the Nazisâ strategy of burdening their victims with guilt to the practices of the Italian Mafia (27â28). Yet, despite Leviâs broader references, Adam Brown, who has written extensively on the âgrey zone,â firmly believes in the termâs historical and topographical specificity (52). His view is shared by Debarati Sanyal who points to Leviâs repeated insistence on the singularity of the prisonerâs physical and emotional experience of the camp (34): âThe mental mechanisms of HĂ€ftlinge were different from ours; curiously and in parallel, different were also their physiology and pathologyâ (The Drowned and the Saved 60). Another contentious point raised by Leviâs essay and relevant to the present inquiry is the confusion of victims with victimizers that some have inferred from the Italian writerâs definition of the âgrey zoneâ as a space âwith ill-defined outlines which both separate and join the two camps of masters and servantsâ (27) or, from what...