transformations between history and memory

8/12/2019 Transformations Between History and Memory

1/25

Transformations between History and MemoryAuthor(s): Aleida AssmannSource: Social Research, Vol. 75, No. 1, Collective Memory and Collective Identity (SPRING2008), pp. 49-72Published by: The New SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40972052.

Accessed: 29/03/2014 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The New Schoolis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 182.185.206.108 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:45:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40972052?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40972052?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschool


2/25

Aleida AssmannTransformations etweenHistory nd MemoryCOLLECTIVE MEMORY-A SPURIOUS NOTION?THERE IS NO NEED TO CONVINCE ANYBODY THAT THERE IS SUCH A THINGas individualmemory;memoryttaches o persons n thesingular.Butdoes itattach o them n theplural?Althoughhe term collec-tivememory"asgained urrencynd awholenewdiscourse as beenbuilt round tthatfills xtendedibraryhelves, here restill nvet-erate kepticswhotenaciously eny hephrasehas any meaning. tis of courseeasyto create newterm, ut how canwe be sure theterm orrespondso anythingnreality?usanSontag, or nstance,is one ofthosewhoquestionednd denied hemeaning f this erm."Photographshat veryoneecognizes,"hewrotenRegardinghe ainofOthers,arenow a constituentart fwhat societyhooses o thinkabout, r declares hat t haschosen o thinkbout. tcallsthese deas'memories,'nd that s,over he ongrun, fiction.trictlypeaking,theres no such hing s collectivememory."nd, he nsists,

allmemorys ndividual,nreproducibleitdieswith achperson.What s calledcollectivememorys not a remem-bering ut a stipulating:hatthis s important,hat hisis thestorybouthow thappened,with hepictureshatlock he torynourminds.deologiesreate ubstantiatingarchivesf mages, epresentativemages,which ncapsu-latecommon deasofsignificancendtrigger redictablethoughts,eelingsSontag,003:85-86).

social research Vol 75 : No 1 Spring2008 49

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

Accordingo Sontag, societys able to choose,to think ndto speak,butnot to remember.t can choosewithout will, t canthinkwithout hecapacity freason, tcan speakwithout tongue,but tcannot emember ithout memory. ith heterm memory,"her icenseoffigurativepeechreaches ts imit:memoryannotbethoughtf ndependentlyromnorgan ndorganism. spart fthebrain nditsneurological etworks,t is tied to individual ivesanddies with achperson. hiscommonsensicalrgument as its rrefut-able evidence. he statementscertainlyrue, ut,wemay rgue,t sincomplete.There s little ispute hat utobiographical emoriesre whatexistentiallyistinguishess from ach other. xperiential emoriesare embodiednd thus hey annot e transferredrom neperson oanother.n stressingheexperientialolipsismf ndividualmemory,however, e disregardwo mportantimensions fmemory:nter-actionwith therndividualsnd interaction ith xternal igns ndsymbols. utobiographical emories annotbe embodiedyanotherperson, utthey anbe shared ithothers.Oncethey re verbalizedin the form fa narrative rrepresentedya visual mage, he ndi-vidual'smemories ecomepart fan intersubjectiveymbolicystemandare,strictlypeaking, o longer purely xclusive nd unalien-ableproperty.y ncodinghemn thecommonmedium f anguage,they an be exchanged,hared, orroborated,onfirmed,orrected,disputed,nd evenappropriated.n addition othat, t is sometimesnotoriouslyifficultodistinguish hatonehas experiencedneselffromwhat one hasbeen toldand afterwardncorporatednto one'sown tock f utobiographicalemories.imilarly,hatwehave xpe-rienced urselvesnd whatwehaveread boutorseen n films an beequally ifficultodisentangle.ralnarratives,exts,ndphotographsare mportantrops f utobiographicalemory,hich xplainswhytheboundary etweenndividualmemorynd sharedmaterial igns(such s texts nd mages)s not lways asy o draw.Sontagwouldprobablyoncede ll thesepoints, rovidedhatwe ntroducehedistinctionetweenmind ndmemory.Mind" eferstothecognitiveart fthebrain,nwhichgeneral oncepts re built

50 social research



4/25

up,where xternal nowledge,aken nthroughexts ndimages, sassimilatednd reconstructed.There s collectivenstruction,"ontagaffirms85).Psychologistsfferhedistinctionetween semantic"nd"episodic"memory,hichmayhelpus to furtherlucidate heproblem(Tulving,972:382-402). emanticmemorys related o the earningandstoringapacityf hemind. t sacquired y ollectivenstructionand thesiteofcontinuousearning,cquisition,nd retentionfbothgeneral nd specializedknowledgehat onnects s withothers ndthe urroundingorld. pisodicmemory,n theother and, nshrinespurely ersonal ncidents s individuallyxperienced;hought canbe communicatedndexchanged,tcannotbe transferredrom neindividualo anotherwithout hanginghequality ftheexperiencethroughxternalepresentation.WhenMauriceHalbwachswho s acknowledged oday s oneofthepatrons fmemory iscourse)ntroduced he term collectivememory"n1925,hewasalreadywareof potentialmisunderstand-ing.Topreemptingeringoubts econnected he oncept f ollectivememory ith nother erm: social frame." ccordingoHalbwachs,theterm collectivememory"annot eunderstood ithout eferringto theconcept f"social frames." e writes: Nomemorys possibleoutside rameworkssedbypeople ivingnsocietyodeterminendretrieve heir ecollections"Halbwachs, 992:43).Bydefiningollec-tivememorynterms f ocialframes, albwachsdopted construc-tivisterspective,hich istances im rom ollectivemythmakersndessentialistslikeHerderwithhisnotion fVolksgeist).orHalbwachs,collectivememorys not a "spuriousnotion"but an innovatingndgroundbreakingoncept hathas thecapacity as has beenproved 0to 70yearsater toopenupanentirelyewfield fresearch.Inspite foursound nd ustifiedkepticismfcollectivemysti-ficationsnd thepoliticalbuseof uchnotions nracist ndnational-istdiscourse, emustnotforgethathumanbeingsdo not ive nthefirsterson ingularnly, ut lso nvarious ormatsf hefirstersonplural.Theybecomepartofdifferentroupswhose "we"they dopttogether ith herespectiveocialframes. socialframes animplicitorexplicit tructurefsharedconcerns, alues,experiences, arra-

TransformationsetweenHistoryndMemory 51



5/25

tives.Thefamily,heneighborhood,hepeer group, hegeneration,thenation, he culture resuch arger roups hat ndividualsncor-porate ntotheir dentity yreferringo them s "we."Each "we"isconstructedhroughhared racticesnddiscourses hatmark ertainboundaries nddefine heprinciplesf nclusion nd exclusion. o bepart f collectiveroup uch s thenation ne has to share ndadoptthegroup'shistory,hich xceeds heboundaries f one's individuallife pan.The individual articipatesnthegroup'svisionof tspastbymeans ofcognitive earning nd emotional cts of dentificationandcommemoration.hispastcannot e "remembered";thas to bememorized. hecollectivememorys a crossoveretween emantic ndepisodicmemory:t has to be acquired ialearning,utonly hroughinternalizationnd rites fparticipationoes t create he dentityf"we."Thispointwas madeclearly yMargarettwood:

WhenI lived n the ruralOntario ountrysideorth fToronto, localmansaid, There's hebarnwherewe hidthewomen ndchildren,hat ime he Fenians nvaded."Anindividual arn; ndividualwomen nd children. hemanwhotoldme about hebarnwasborn ome ixty earsafter heFenianattack, ut he said we notthey; e wasrememberings a personal xperiencen event t whichhe hadnotbeenpresentntheflesh,nd believewe havealldonethat.t s at suchpoints hatmemory,istory,ndstoryllintersectAtwood,997:7).What s calledcollectivememory, rites ontag,s not remem-bering ut a stipulating:roups ndeeddefine hemselves y agree-inguponwhat heyholdto be important,o which tory hey ccordeminence, hich nxietiesnd values hey hare.AccordingoSontag,the term ollectivememorys just anothernamefor deology. heGerman istorian einhart oselleck hared hisopinion.He distin-guishedbetween woforms ftruth: ne subjective,ne objective.Subjectiveruth an beclaimed y he ndividual ho ownshisspecificdistinctivendauthenticmemories.hetruth f hesememoriesrises52 social research



6/25

from he ndisputablevidence f unmediatedxperience. bjectivetruth,n the otherhand, an be claimed ytheprofessionalistorianwhoreconstructsastexperiencen an impartialway.Thehistoriancompares ources,weighs rgumentsnd engages n an open-endeddiscourse fexpertswho continuouslyorrect ach other o comecloser nd closer othetruth.What ies between hesepolesof ubjec-tiveexperientialruth ndobjective cientificruth s referredobyKoselleck s "ideology."It s interestingo notethat fter period fheavy sage nthe1960s nd1970s, heterm ideology" asdropped romontemporarydiscourse. s tdeclined nddisappeared,heterm ollectivememoryrose otake tsplace.Whathappenednthediscourses f he1990swasmore han simple ubstitutionfone term y nother. hechange flabelswas an indexofa deeper heoreticalransformation.hetermideologys derogatory.t denounces mentalframe s false,fake,manipulated,onstructed,nsincere ndharmful,herebyresuppos-ing nabsolute ruthhat s as clear s it sindisputable.he useof hetermdeologysgroundedn therock f self-assuredruth. hisrockhas beeneroded ince he1990sunder he nfluencefmulticultural-ist ndconstructivisthinking. ehavecometo earn hatKoselleck'sconceptsf ubjectiverobjectiveruthndeed haremany f hequal-ities hatwe hadassignedo deology.t s nparticularhe nsightntothe rreducibleonstructednessf bothourmemories ndtheworkof thehistorianhathas taught s todiscard he termdeology s adescriptiveerm ndrecognizet as a purely olemical ool.

Individualremembering,s psychologists ell us, does notpreservenoriginaltimulusna pure ndfixed orm ut sa process fcontinuouseinscriptionndreconstructionn an ever-changingres-ent.Historiography,s theoreticiansxplain,nvolveshetoricalse oflanguage nd, nspiteof all claims oimpartiality,specific antagepoint, nunacknowledgedgenda, hidden ias. naddition, ehavecometoaccept hatwe live na worldmediated yrepresentationsntheform ftexts nd images, n acceptance hathas had an impactonboth ndividual ememberingndtheworkofthehistorian. hehistorian ftodayhas lostthemonopoly verdefiningndpresent-TransformationsetweenHistoryndMemory 53



7/25

ingthepast.Thisdoes notmean,however,hathe has losthis or herauthority.hevoices fprofessionalistoriansre as importants everwhen tcomes o udgingndcorrectingvidence, robinghe ruth frepresentations,iscoveringewsources nd interpretinghem n anew ight. heyhave ost omeof heir ingularuster,hough,s theyhavetocopewith he"memoryoom,"nwhich ctivists,oliticians,citizens, rtists, ilm roducers,mediamagnets,ustodians fmuse-ums, ndmany ther xpertsreengagedn thecommonnterprisefreconstructingndshapinghepast.This situations often escribedn terms fa postmodernela-tivism hat s inducedbythereign f themedia,whichrestage hepastandexploittaccordingocurrentopular asteor the nterestsof pecificroups.t s argued hatfeelingsreexploitedn themediamarket t theexpenseofcognitiveunctions.o concedememories,individualndcollective,new tatus ndrightn themediated emo-craticociety,s toacknowledgehemultiplend diversempact f hepast, nd nparticularf traumaticast, n itscitizens. hememoryboomreflectsgeneral esire oreclaim hepast s an importantartofthepresent,nd toreconsider,orevalue,nd toreassesst as partof ndividual iographiesndtheway ndividualsositionhemselvesin a widerhistoricalerspective.t alsoprovides repositoryor roupaffinities,oyalties,ndidentityn a postindividualistge.Whilethetermmemoryas ousted hetermdeology,t hasreinforcedheterm"identity"nan individualnd nparticularna collectiveevel.Thischangeofterminologynd orientationannotmean,however,hatthefunctionsfcriticism,iscrimination,nd ethical valuation avebecomeobsolete.Onthecontrary,t is up to thememory iscoursetodevelop ts ownstanceofcritical igilance nd todevelop riteriafor robinghequality fmemoryonstructions,istinguishingore"malign"frommore"benign"memories thatis, memories hatperpetuate esentment,atred, nd violencefrom hosethathaveatherapeuticrethical alue.To counter he criticismfskeptics uchas SusanSontag ndReinhart oselleck,tmustbe emphasizedhat hestepfromndivid-

54 social research



8/25

uai to collectivememoryoes not affordn easyanalogy.nstitutionsandgroupsdo notpossessa memoryike ndividuals o; there s,ofcourse,no equivalent o theneurological ystem.nstitutionsndlarger ocialgroups, uch as nations, overnments,hechurch, rafirm o not "have" memory they make"one for hemselves iththe aid of memorial igns uch as symbols,exts,mages, ites, ere-monies, laces, nd monuments.ogether ith ucha memory,hesegroups nd institutionsconstruct"n identity.A.Assmann, 006)Such a memorys based on selectionndexclusion, eatly eparatinguseful rom otuseful,nd relevant rom rrelevant emories. encea collectivememorysnecessarilymediatedmemory.t s backedupbymaterialmedia, ymbols,ndpractices hichhave obegraftedntothehearts nd minds f ndividuals. heextentowhich hey akeholdtheredepends n theefficiencyf thepolitical edagogy n the onehand nd the evelofpatrioticr ethnic ervorntheother.The term ollectivememory,wouldargue, s notnecessarilyspurious otion, ut t s much oovague o serve s a criticalerm. t sanumbrella erm or ifferentormatsfmemoryhat eed obefurtherdistinguished,uchas familymemory,nteractiveroupmemory,ndsocial,political, ational,ndculturalmemory.nteractivendsocialmemoryre bothformatshat reembodied,roundedn ived xperi-encethat anishwith heir arriers.hemanifestationsfpoliticalndculturalmemory,n theother and, reradicallyifferentnthat heyaregrounded n themoredurable arriers f external ymbolsndrepresentations.norder o transformphemeral ocialmemoryntolong-termollectivememoryhat an be transmittedrom enerationtogeneration,thas to be elaborated ndorganizednvarious orms,including:emplotmentf ventsn anaffectivelyhargedndmobilizingnarrative;visual nd verbal igns hat erve s aids ofmemory; nstitutionsf earningndthedisseminationfmassmedia; ites ndmonumentshat resent alpablerelics;

Transformations etween History nd Memory 55



9/25

commemorationites hat eriodicallyeactivatehememoryndenhance ollective articipation.Though roundednexternalymbols, collectivememoryanbe re-embodiednd transmittedrom negenerationoanother. heculturalmemoryf societysbased on institutionsuchas libraries,museums,rchives,monuments,nstitutionsf ducationnd the rtsaswell as ceremoniesnd commemorativeates ndpractices.Whilesocialforms fmemoryreshort-livedecause hey epend n embod-iedandinteractiveommunication,olitical ndcultural ormatsfmemoryre designedfor long-termse to be transmittedcrossgenerations.Whether hey chievethisgoal, is ofcourseanothermatter,ependingnthe tabilityndcontinuityf hepoliticalnfra-structure.)swe passtheshadow ine from hort-termo long-termdurabilityrfrom n embodied ntergenerationalo a disembodiedand reembodied ransgenerational emory,n implicit, eteroge-neous, ndfuzzy ottom-up emorystransformednto muchmore

explicit,omogeneous,nd nstitutionalizedop-down emory.Howeveroverlappingnd intertwinedhe formats f socialandpoliticalmemorymaybe,theyhavebecome hefocus fdifferentacademic isciplines.hebottom-upocialmemorys studied y ocialpsychologistshoare nterestedn theways n whichhistoricalventsare perceivednd rememberedyindividualswithin heir wnlifespan.Thetop-downoliticalmemorys investigatedypoliticalcien-tistswhodiscuss heroleofmemorynthe evelof deologyormationand constructionfcollectivedentitieshat regeared oward oliticalaction. ocialpsychologistsookat ndividualsnspecific istoricalitu-ations nd nvestigateowmemoriesreestablishedndexperiencescommunicatedndcontested;oliticalcientistsxamineollectivenitssuch s institutions,tates ndnationsnd askhowmemoriesreusedand bused or oliticalctionndtheformationfgroupdentities.HISTORY AND MEMORYUntil ecentlyherewas a widespread onvictionhatwhilehumanschangeovertime, hepastdoesnot. twas consideredobe beyond

56 social research



10/25

the touch nd control f the iving nd therefore rittenngranite.We havewitnessed owover he ast20years rso,this ommonsensi-cal truth asbeen called ntoquestion nd evenreversed.Whileuntilfairlyecentlyeoplewere onvincedhat hepastwas closed nd fixedand the future asopentochange,we are nowexperiencinghat hepast s constantlyhangingndthefuture roves obe heavily eter-mined ythepast.Thepast ppears o be no longerwrittenngranitebutrathernwater; ewconstructionsf tareperiodicallyrisingndchanginghecourse fpoliticsndhistory.t snot afelyockedupinhistoryooks andstowed way nlibraries utcontinuallyeclaimedas an importantesource or ower nd dentityolitics. istorys notonlywhat omes ong fterolitics;thasalso become he tuffanduelofpolitics. hisparadigmatichange lerts stothe ntangledelation-shipbetweenhistoryndmemory.obetter nderstandhis omplexrelationship, e needto lookat it in a longerhistorical erspective.Ifwe do so,we candiscover hat he relation etween history"1nd"memory" as itself historyhathas evolvedovertime,passingthroughhree tages:1) the dentityetween istoryndmemory,2)thepolarizationetween istoryndmemory,nd3)the nteractionetween istoryndmemoiy.

Thefirstrpremoderntagesmarked y he dentityf istorynamemory.efore hefoundationsf critical istoricalcholarship erelaid in theeighteenthndnineteenthentury,istoryndmemorywerenotclearly istinguished.n thecontrary,twas considered hecentral unction fthewritingfhistoryopreservehememoryfadynasty,hechurch, r a state norder olegitimizeuch nstitutionsandto ensure heir ontinuityyprovidingor hem nhonorable ast.Historiography,nthis tage,wasfullydapted o thedemands fthepresent;tservedpecificunctionsor he tate rcommunityuch sjustifyinghe nstitutionsf heruling lass, egitimizinghe uthorityof raditions,ndcontrollinghefuture. istory as,to use an expres-sionof heEnglish istorian. lumb,he handmaid f uthority."he




11/25

legitimizingunction as ntertwinedith hememorial unction.hebattles f heroes ndkingsweresungbybards nd written ownbychroniclersnorder o rescue hem rom blivion nd to establish ameand anhonorablememoryor he nobledead.The memorial unctionofhistoriographyas nevergivenup throughout reek ndRomanantiquity.icero till efined istoriographys aweapon gainst bliv-ion,a formulahatbecame a toposand was stillvery opular n theRenaissance.The intimate ink betweenmemory nd history haped theaccounts fthepast n a specific ay. t narrowedhecriteria or heselection fpeopleand events o bememorized;nly hose fhighestrankweresingled ut for continuationnmemoryndonly hosefeats nd achievements ereselected hatcontributedo the honorandfame f hosewhowereremembered.nadditionothis, nly ucheventswere selected hat upportedheopinions nd interests ftheruling lass. notherwords: he dentityetween istoryndmemorywasguaranteed ythereference o a collectivedentitynforced ya specific ower tructurehatwas itself onfirmed,egitimated,ndperpetuatedn theprocess. he dentityetween istoryndmemoryisgroundedn a quadrangularelationshipetweenmemory,istory,identity,ndpower.The second or modernphase is characterizedya polarizationbetween emoryndhistory.hisdichotomy as theeffectfa longprocess f ntellectualnd nstitutionalvolutioneginning ithGreekhistoriography.nearlymodernity,ritical istoriographyharpenedits ools n the trugglesor ower, ittinghe ruth f uthoritygainst

Memory

Identity Power

History

58 social research



12/25

thenew uthorityfhistoricalruth.WhenRenaissanceumanistslikeLorenzoValla)deployedheir cholarshipotarget ertain ocumentsas forgeries,hey xposed s the willful onstructionshat ecure heestablishmentndmaintenance fpower nd shookthefoundationsof nstitutionsndtradition. sustained ndsystematicifferentiationbetweenmemoryndhistoryroseonlywhenprofessionalistoriogra-phywas establisheds a specialized isciplinend ndependentnstitu-tion nuniversitiesfthe nineteenthentury. istoriographyecamea discipline ydefiningts ownstandards ftruth elling, ncludingspecific ules forverificationnd intersubjectivergumentation.ydevelopingn idealofdisinterestedbjectivity,heold bondbetweenhistorynd dentity as cut.2 his swhyErnest enan mphasizedna famouspeechn1882thathistoryan become realproblemor hecollectivememoryonstructionsf henation:

The act offorgettingImightlmost ayhistoricalrrorplays significantole nthe reation f nation,ndthere-fore dvances n the field fhistoryreoften threat othenation.Historicalnvestigation,nfact, ften ringsolight hose asesofviolencewhich ccur ttheorigin f llpolitical ormations,ven f heir onsequencesweremostbeneficent.nitysalways ffectuatedybrutal orce; heunificationf northernndsouthern rancewasbroughtaboutby ontinuousxterminationndterror hichastedfor lmost centuryRenan, 996:41-55).Historians anplaycontraryoles:they an either upport heplay fpolitical ower rchallenget;they anact as architectsr crit-ics ofnationalmemoryonstructions.3Thepolarization etweenhistoryndmemory ecamea firmandlong-lastingoposamongphilosophers,ociologists,ndhistori-ans of thenineteenth ndtwentiethenturies. ietzsche ontrasted

"history"nd "life,"withhistorytanding or n endlessly rowingstorehouse funusableknowledgend ife tandingor hevital apac-Transformations etween History nd Memory 59



13/25

ity oforgetnd thus o restricthe copeofknowledgeothe izeofusablepast Nietzsche, 872).WhenMauriceHalbwachs escribedhemechanisms f ocialmemoryn the1920s,he introducedistorys anegativeoil.Hecompared istoricaliscourse o an ocean that ramesall thepartial arrativesnd memoriesHalbwachs,991:72).Forhim,histor(iograph)ys the universalmemoryfhumanity, hilecollec-tivememories re embodied y specific roups ndthereforelwayspartial nd biased.Beforehesememories an be integratedntothetotal iew fhistory,heymust e severed rom heir arriersnd theirsocialmilieus. hetransformationfmemorynto he bstractchemeofhistory,owever,nvolves heevaporationf iveexperience ndmeaning. ixty ears fter albwachs,heFrench istorianierreNorarevivedheconcept fcollectivememorynddispelled ingeringriti-cal doubts bout tstheoreticaltatus. e extended albwachs' otionof n oralmemoryhared y socialgroup otheculturalmemoryfnation, hich,s a networkf ymbols,alues, ites,nd ocal raditionsprovideshecohesive ement f society. ora harplyontrastedhisshared ollectivememoryf ieux emmoireo thescholarlyiscourseofhistoriography:

History, emoryrebyno means ynonymousut, s wearebecomingmoreand moreaware,opposite erms nevery espect. . . Memorys always palpablephenom-enon,a tie experiencedn eternalpresence.History,ntheother and, s a representationf hepast Memorysacralizeshepast,historyhichsorientedowards isen-chantment,esacralizest.Memorys ownedbya groupand t s thecement f hisgroup History,ntheotherhand,belongingoeverybodyndnobody,makes claimtouniversalityNora, 984-1992:3-43).Whereas the pioneersof criticalhistoriographyiscreditedmemorys a rival fhistory,heoristsuchas Nietzsche, albwachs,and Norarehabilitated emoryver gainst he deal ofobjectivendabstract istor(iograph)y.hey ediscoveredndreclaimedhe social60 social research



14/25

Memory History-is an embodied form fmemory -is a disembodied form ofmemory-stresses differencesnd exists n -provides a universal rame ndtheplural exists n hesingular-is linked o the dentityf n indi- -is disconnectedfrom he iden-

vidual, group, r nstitution tity f individuals, roups,orinstitutions-bridges the past, present, nd -separates thepastfrom resentfuture and future-is highly selective, deploys -develops an event nd impartial

forgetting attention-creates values andmeaning,nd -searches for ruth nd triesto

providesmotivation nd orien- suspend values,disconnectedtation or ction from ctionTable 1functionsfmemorys importantndindispensablemodesofassess-ing hepast.They llagree, owever,npolarizingmemoryndhistoryalong hefollowingines seetable1).Thethirdlet's all tthepostmodern)tage anbe characterizedby new nterestnthe nteractionsetweenemoryndhistory.fterhelong periodofpolarizaiton, hey renow considered s complemen-tary,achoneadding omethinghat heother annot upply. newawareness f the nteractionsetweenhistoryndmemory as trig-gered ytheprofound olitical hanges fthe1980s nd1990s,whennewmemories merged nd old ones wereseenin a differentight.After989,with hethawing f frozenmemories nd theopening farchives, othmemoryndhistoryook on a newforce hatcarriedthem ntothecenter f thepublicarena.Historianswere baffled ythe normousmpact f ivingmemories hat hey adhithertoonsid-ered to be a negligiblentity. historicalaesuraalways ntroducesthechancetonarrate hepast n a differentay.Such a moment f




15/25

retrospectionan become a moment frevelation;hen t suddenlybecomesobvious hatwhathad beenpresentedndpassedas objec-tivehistoryurns ut to have beena biased constructionfpoliticalmemory.heexperience fa fundamentalhangeofvaluesexposedthecontingencefearlier ccounts f hepast. nsuch ituationsothhistoryndmemoryecome elf-reflexive;sense sdeveloped f heirconstructednessy discoveringhatmemory as a historynd thathistorys tself form fmemory.Historys notonly hepointofviewfromwhich trategiesfcollectivememory re targeted nd exploded,but also the realmfromwhich hey re describedndexplained. hisparticularrea ofresearchs a new domainwithinhefield f cademichistory.naddi-tiontoreconstructingvents n thepastand showing ow andwhythey happened,"omehistorians owalso reconstructhesymbolicpracticeswith whichevents of the pastwere collectively xperi-enced, nterpreted,emembered.n mportantewconfigurationfmemoryndhistoryasbeendevelopedn a new branch fhistoriog-raphyhat anbe termed mnemohistory."ince he1980s,historianshave becomemore nd more nterestedn modesofrememberingsa form fsocialand cultural ractice. hey tartedoinvestigatendanalyzethesymbolic ractices ftheirowncontemporaryulture,asking uestions uchas What s known f thepast n thepresent?Which vents romhepast re selectednd how rethey epresented?Which mageshave survived?Whatkindofcommemorationcts aredevised?n thisway,memory ecame tselfheobjectofhistoriogra-phy.4Mnemohistorys interestedn the constructives well as thedistortingffects fmemory;t takes ntoaccount heambivalenceofthepastboth s a conscious hoice nd as an unconscious urden,trackinghevoluntarynd involuntaryathsofmemory.Whilethetask f raditionalistoricalcholarshiponsistsnseparating emory(themythicallements) rom istorythefactual ruth),t s thetaskof mnemohistoryoanalyze hemythicallementsn traditionnddiscoverheir idden genda J. ssmann,997:10).Theresearchfmnemohistoryoesnot xclude criticaltanceespeciallyhose tudies hatfocus n currentractices f remember-

62 social research



16/25

inghavecriticallyxposedthem n analyzinghem.Some historicalstudies venhavemade an impact n therespectiveationalmemory.HenriRousso's ook on theVichy yndrome,ornstance, as mmedi-atelympingedn Frenchmemoryulture o theeffecthat ollabora-tion s acknowledgedoday oa much arger xtent han tused to beand wenowspeakofa mytheersistanceRousso, 991).Similarly,hebookbyJanGross nJedwabneas nstigatedpassionate iscourse nmemorynPoland Gross, 001). n thesecases,historians avechal-lenged ollectivememoryractices.CharlesMaierwrote hat memorymotivates istoricalctivity;historical esearch tilizesmemory"Maier, 993:143)Wemay dd:memory omplements istory, istoryorrectsmemory. istoricalscholarship epends nmemoryotonly or ral estimonyndexperi-ence,but lso for riteriafmeaningndrelevance;n theother and,memory epends nhistoricalcholarshipor erification,ubstantia-tion, ndfalsification.orthisreason, t s importantotto conflatethe wo erms utkeep hem istinctobeabletoanalyze heir aryingformsfmutualnteraction.HISTORY INTO MEMORYWemay hink f he nteractionetween istoryndmemorysrepre-sented n an imaginarycalewherememoryndhistoryoincide ntheone endandarepolarized n theother,withmanyvariations fmixturesnbetween.Wherehistoryndmemoryrepolarized, hehistorianssumes n ntellectualndethical unctionndconcentrateson the acunae fnationalmemory.nfocusingnwhat sforgotten,eor shecreates countermemory.hecritical istoricaliscourse as tochallengendsubvert he trategiesfpolitical ower. eter urke asdescribedhecritical istorian

as theguardianofawkwardfacts, he skeletons n thecupboardf he ocialmemory.here sedto beanofficialcalled he"Remembrancer."he titlewasactually euphe-mismfordebt-collector;heofficial'sob was to remindpeopleofwhattheywouldhave likedto forget. ne ofTransformationsetweenHistoryndMemory 63



17/25

themost mportantunctions f the historianss tobe aremembrancerBurke,989:110).Let saddressheotherndof he pectrumnd ook t nstancesof conflationfhistoryndmemory. uthoritariannstitutionsuchas thechurch nd totalitariantates im at a monopolyver ruth ndthepast.Whereas npremodernultures,herewere neithermedianor nstitutionsfwritingndependentfpower ndauthorityhatcould backup independentccountsof thepast,the institution fcensorshiperved hefunctionodestroyivalmedia and carriers fcounterhistorieshat hreatenedhestabilityfa uniform iew andan authoritarian oice ofhistory. otalitarianisman therefore edescribed s anattempto restorehepremoderntatemonopolyverhistoryndermodern ircumstancesnd withmodernmeans.Thissituation s presentedmblematicallynGeorgeOrwell'snovel1984,which escribeshemeticulousabor nvestedy he tatensuppress-ing ndchangingocumentshat ontradictheunified oiceofpower

inthepresent.We shouldnotforget,owever,hat here recertain ontextsinwhichhistoryndmemoryre also conflatedn democratication-states. fwe lookat the sector fpublichistoricalducationwe canobserve similarelf-enforcingelationshipetween istory, emory,identity,ndpower.nthis ontext, istoryecomes he tufffwhichpoliticalmemory,dentity,ndmyths made of.There s a closealli-ance between he nation-statendthehistoryextbook. he modernnation-states notonly uilt nthegeneral rowthf iteracyhroughmassmedia ndpublic ducation. ducationsan importantactornthebuildingf henation-stateecause twasby earningheir istorythattheheterogeneousmembers fa populationweretransformedintoa distinctndhomogenousollective,onceivingfthemselvesas "a people"with collectiveautobiography."n all cultures, istorytextbooksrethevehicles fnationalmemory hichhavebeenappro-priatelyermed weaponsofmass-instruction"theformula omesfrom harlesngrao,mentionedta conferencen"Historyextbooksin a GlobalPerspective"t theUniversityfChicagonApril 007).By

64 social research



18/25

rememberingshared istory,remodernubjects ere ransformedintomodernitizens.To ome onsiderablextent nationalistffortispremisedntheneed o constructdesirableoyaltyo and nsid-er'sunderstandingfone's ountry,radition,aith."nthis oliticalcontext,he tudyfhistory,farromeing neutralxercisenfactsandbasic ruths",s "of ourseheunderpinningfmemory,othnschool nduniversity"Said, 76).nthe ealm f chool urriculandtextbooks,istoryutomaticallyecomespplied istory.tservessthe ackbone orhenation-statend upportstsvalues y onstruct-ingheroicndmobilizingatrioticarratives.Forms fparticipationn collectivememory iffer idelybetweennformalocialmemoryndthemore rganizedormatfpoliticalmemory.articipationn socialmemorys always ariedbecauset s basedon ived xperiencend inkedoautobiographi-calmemory,hich sirreduciblypecificn tsposition,erspectiveandexperientialuality.hememoryf heHolocaust,ornstance,willvary astlymong urvivorsependingn thefactwhethertheynduredhe ormentsf he oncentrationamps, id nsecretplaces, rmanagedoescape nto xile.For hesecond nd thirdgenerationf he urvivors,owever,swell s for hemembersfother ations,hismemory illbecomemore ndmorehomoge-neous s it s reconstructedyhistoriansndaccessed hroughhesharedepresentationsfpublic arratives,mages,ndfilms.hosewho ccess ollectivememoryia differenthannels articipatencognitiveearningor emantic emory)bout hepast,n magina-tive ndemotivedentificationithmages,oles, alues,nnarra-tives,ndvarious orms f ction uch s celebrations,rocessions,anddemonstrations.bstractndgeneralizedhistory"urns ntore-embodiedollectivememory"hent stransformednto ormsfshared nowledgend ollectivearticipation.nsuch ases, historyingeneral"sreconfigurednto particularndemotionallyhargedversion f ourhistory"ndabsorbedspart f collectivedentity.While ollective articipationnnationalmemorys enforcedntotalitariantatesoercivelyhroughndoctrinationndpropaganda,indemocratictates t scirculatedyway fpopularmedia, ublic




19/25

discourse, nd forms f "liberalrepresentation"Williams1998).In bothcases, however,t relieson effectiveymbols ndrites hatenhance motions fempathynd dentification.MEMORY,MYTH, DEOLOGYAccordingoEdwardaid, collective emorysnot n nert ndpassivething, ut a field factivityn whichpastevents reselected, econ-structed, aintained, odified,nd endowedwithpoliticalmeaning."A similar ointwas made earliern an influentialook editedbyEricHobsbawmnd Terence anger, henventionfTradition1983). n thiscollection fessays, heauthors howed hatmany raditions fthenineteenthenturyhatparaded s age-old ndstemmingrom imesimmemorial, ad infactbeen"invented" ather ecently.t is todaygenerallycknowledgedhat the nvention ftraditions" aspart fthenineteenth-centuryroject fnation-building,nd a considerablepartoftheproject onsistednprojectingheself-imagend culturalpracticesfone's owngroup nto hepast.Thesehistorians, owever,tooktheargumentnestepfurther.yfocusingncertain raditionsthat heydentifieds "new" nd"invented,"hey uggestedhat heywere "fiction"nd thereforefalse." hediscoveryhat ertain itesand ceremoniesuch as the ntroductionfBastille ay,fornstance,couldbedated ack o 1880was away oexpose nd "unmask"hem sinstrumentsfruleby hose npowerwho mposedheirwill opdownonthemasses.There sa methodologicalroblemnherentnthisMarxistead-ingoftraditions.yshowing hat sometraditionsre a fake, suchcategoriess "true" nd "authentic" ereaffirmednd reinstatedxnegativo.t was thetrust fenlightenmentharedbythesehistorianswritingn thepresuppositionsfMarxist nd modernizationheorythatbythevery ctofexposure, ymerely ointingothe nvented-ness,manifacturedness,ndhencetothe"falseness" fthetradition,itsspellwouldbe broken ndautomaticallyissolved. hisrecipeofcritical ismantlingordeconstruction)id indeed work n certaincaseswherethedemonstrationhat documentwas a "fake" suchas the ancient archmentalled"theConstantinonation") auseda

66 social research



20/25

crisis ndtriggeredhecollapse f n institution.he term fiction"smisleadingnthe arger ontext fmemorytudies. Fiction" an hasdifferenteanings:tcan refer o a narrativesa pure nventionhat sthereforeualifieds a lie; tcan referothe ackof historicalronto-logical tatus nfictionalharacters;nd it canrefer o thestrategiesandconstituentshatgo intothemaking fany symbolic onstruct.Collectivememory,s we haveshown,dependson transitions romhistoryntomemoryhat nvolve heframingf historical vents ntheshapeofaffectivelyhargednarratives ndmobilizing ymbols.Ifhistoric ates suchas thestormingftheBastille) re selected obe collectivelyndtransgenerationallyemembered,fiction"nthesense fmaking,haping, onstructingsalways mpliedn their arra-tiveemplotmentrvisualencoding.Memoryonstructshat nformcommemorativeracticesndtraditionsretherefore otnecessarilyfalse ecause heyreconstructedof ourse heyre Thequestions obeasked houldnotonly ocus nempiricalvidence ndthe ubstanceofthenarrativer traditionlone butought otakethewider ontextinto ccount:Why ndhow domemoryonstructs ork?Why otheysucceed o mobilize?Why othey ind rfail o raisemass upportndresonance? sthey renecessarilyelective,hequestion s:Bywhichnormsndbias arethey hosen?What s ncluded ndwhat sexcludedfrom heconstructionsfcollectivememory?ndwhat rethepoliti-calconsequences f uch hoicesnthepresentndfor uture?When Saidwrote hat theprocesses fmemoryrefrequently,ifnotalways,manipulatednd intervenedn for ometimes rgentpurposesnthepresent"Said, 79), his entence as ntendedsa crit-icalstatement.rom hepoint fviewofcollectivememoryesearch,however,t sa puredescription.ollective ationalmemorysalwaysselective bymanipulatingertain itsof thenational ast, uppress-ingothers, levatingtillothers n an entirelyunctional ay" 179).As a rule,writesMargaret twood rom heBritish-Canadianoint fview, wetend orememberheawful hings onetous,andtoforgetthe wful hings e did.TheBlitzs still emembered;hefire-bombingofDresden well,not somuch, rnotbyus.Tochallengen acceptedversion fhistorywhatwe'vedecided t'sproper orememberby




21/25

dredging p things hat ociety as decided re better orgotten,ancause cries f nguish ndoutrage" Atwood,997:8).Given heclosefunctionalelationshipetween he nationalnarrative nd the den-tity fthenation,Atwood tresses hat ollective ationalmemorysalwaysdesigned or purpose nd specific se: "thepast belongs othosewho claim t, nd arewilling oexploret, ndtoinfuse t withmeaning or hosewhoare alive oday. hepastbelongs ous,becausewe are theoneswho need t" 39).While n the context fhistoriographyhe word"myth"s anindex o what s tobe exploded nddebunked,nmemorytudies,tacquires differenteaning. ere tmayrefer oan idea,an event,person, narrativehathasacquired symbolicalueand sengravedand transmittednmemory. hile n thediscourse frationalnlight-enment,myths used todistinguishetween ruth r ie (orauthen-ticityndfiction),n the discourse fmemory esearcht is used todistinguishetween heobjectofhistorical nowledge n the onehand ndcollectivelyememberedvents n theother. he dea behindthisnew andnonderogatoryeaning fmyths thatnotonlyfictiveevents reatemyths ut also historicalventsn their ransformationinto ollectivememory. ythn this enseof collectivelyememberedhistory"smeant s a neutral escription.hismorerecentnd schol-arlymeaning,owever,asnotyet ained wider urrency.n thepolit-icizedpublic rena t seasilymistakens "untruth"nd cangive ise oconflict.nMay 007,fornstance, conferencen Berlin nthe BatakMyth" ad tobe cancelled t the ast moment ecausetheBulgariansprotestedgainst heirmemoryeingpresenteds "myth."5Hobsbawm's rgumentativetrategy,hichwas based on thedistinctionetween"fabricated"nd "constructed,"elongsto theframeworkf"ideology ritique" s practicedn theMarxist radi-tion ortheFrankfurtchool. n thesediscursiveraditions,deologywas considereds a form fflawed onsciousnessndwrong alues.Ideology assomethingobeexploded romhepoint fviewof hosewho likehistoriansrphilosophers) erefree f hetaint f deology.Yet lreadyn the1980s,whenHobsbawm's ookappeared, herigid

68 social research



22/25

polarizationetween usand them"nherentn the ermdeology avewayto a morefuzzy nd inclusivenotionof"consensus,"whichnolonger xcluded ut mplicatedhepoint fviewofthe observer.hisshiftignaled n important ental hange hat an be summed p astherecognitionhat here s noviewpointutsidedeology.deologysall-pervasive;n thewords fBarbara odwin:wecanonly scapefromone deologynto nother"Flood, 996).Thisnew nclusiveoncept fideologywas stepbystepdivested f ts normativeaggage. oquoteSacvanBercovitch:

I meanby deologyhegroundnd texture f onsensus.nitsnarrowestense, hismaybe a consensus f marginalor maverick roup. nthe broad sense nwhich use theterm . . , ideology s the system f interlinkeddeas,symbols,nd beliefsbywhicha culture anycultureseeksto ustifyndperpetuatetself; heweb of rhetori-cal, ritual,ndassumptionhrough hich ocietyoerces,persuades,nd coheres.Bercovitch,986:635).In Bercovitch's se, "ideology"has shifted rom n exclusivetermcriticizinghat they" o)toan inclusive ermdescribinghat"we"do).Thismovehas stimulated ewquestions. he ssue s notonlywhether collectivememoryonstructs true rfalse, utalsowhy tmanages o convince.nasking hesenewquestions,nother uestionarises: n changing hemeaning f such nherentlyritical erms s

mythnd deology,avememorytudies bandoned ndbetrayedhecriticalpirit?heanswer s:of oursenot.Critiquesalsoanobjectiveofthememory iscourse, ut tstarts n a differentevel. tdoesnotstart rom hepremise fauthenticityndtruth uttakes tsstartingpointfrom herecognitionhatwe cannot hink, ommunicate,ndactoutside fsymbolicultural rames.t is therefore o longer heconstructednessfa collectivememorys such but theuse to whichitis putthathasbecome thebasis for nvestigation,valuation,ndcritique.TransformationsetweenHistoryndMemory 69



23/25

Historyansupport "painless xercisenpatrioticervor,"utitcan also become countermemory"Foucault, 977). nfocusingheirattentionnforgottenpisodes ndshamefulmoments,istoriansanhelpto create more honest nd complex elf-imagefthe nation.Over heyears, change nstyle fhistoryextbooksan be observed,whichmaybe characterizedythe move frommonumentalo self-critical arrativesndfromsolationistarrativeso those hat onnectto othersn a transnationalndglobalperspectives.riteriareemerg-ingfor criticalvaluation fnational arrativesndpoliticalmemory.One concerns hequestion fwhether henationalnarratives toldmore n terms f essentialismmythsforigin) r nthoseofhistori-cism; nother as to do with hequestionwhethertress s laidmoreon identitysameness) ronchange.Textbooksnd other epresenta-tions fthenationalnarrativean be subjectedo an analysis ftheirprinciplesf electivity:tcan beput othe estwhetherheydhere oexclusive orms rwhetherheynclude wkwardactsndrecognizethevoices ndexperiencefminorities.NOTES1. Thetermhistory"s usedhere n the ense fhistoriography.2. Historiography,rites acques eGoff,must imatobjectivityndmust e built na beliefn historicalruth"LeGoff,986,preface).Inspite fhis deal of mpartialitynd commitmentoobjectivity,eventheprofessionalistorians of coursenever ompletelyreefromoyaltiesndprejudices.uthe differsromthersn that he

is aware f his act,nd nstead f ndulgingisprejudiceseeks oidentifynd correcthem"Lewis,975:52).3. Whetherhenewtoolof objective"cholarshipasactuallymple-mentedor notdepended argely n the specific istoriographiediscourse.Antiquarian istoriographyas embraced t,therebyenlargingherealm fhistoricaluriositynderodingheconceptofa "normativeast."Historiansfthenational ast, nthe otherhand,were nspiredy pecificisions fthefutureorwhich heyselectedndconstructedmotivatingast.70 social research



24/25

4. Thepioneersnthis ormfhistoriographyereoftenmedievalists,who hadalready eenused to nvestigatingocialformsfreligiousand secularmemorializiation.eefor nstance .G.Oexle 1995).5. InApril 007, hefollowingewsblog ouldbereadon the nternet:"More han century,imehas notwashed way hememoryfourancestors' ate.Therefore,ccordingo President arvanov,veryattemptore-writeistoryrartificiallyo create rerequisitesortension n delicate istoricalopics,s notonly eeply nacceptablebutwill lso meet herepudiationf hewholeBulgarianociety.Thepresident'seaction as come after heMayor f BatakPetarPaunov nnounced hat hecitizens fBatakwouldnot eta confer-enceon18Mayhappen. hereason or heir ecisions the xpectedpresentationfa thesis,which laims hat he Batakmassacre s amyth,tsvictimsreexaggerated,nd Turkishlaverys sham." eeKostadinov2007).

REFERENCESAssmann,Aleida. "Memory,ndividual nd Collective."TheOxfordHandbookfContextualoliticalnalysis.ds.Robert . Goodin ndCharles illy. xford: xford niversityress, 006:210- 24.Assmann,an.Moseshe gyptian.heMemoryf gyptnWesternonotheism.Cambridge:arvard niversityress, 997.Atwood,Margaret.nSearchfAliasGrace. ttawa:UniversityfOttawaPress, 997.Bercovitch,acvan."The Problem fIdeologynAmerican iterary

History."riticalnquiry2 Summer986): 31-653.Burke, eter.Historys SocialMemory." emory,istory,ulturend heMind. d.Thomas utler. xford:xfordniversityress, 989.Flood,Christopher.olitical yth. Theoreticalntroduction.ewYork:Garland,996.Foucault,Michel.Language,ounter-Memory,ractice:electedssaysndInterviews.xford:lackwell,977.Gross, an .Neighbours:he estructionf he ewishommunitynjedwabnePoland.rinceton:rincetonniversityress, 001.Transformations etween History nd Memory 71



25/25

Halbwachs,Maurice. nCollectiveemory.d. LewisA. Coser.ChicagoandLondon: hicago niversityress: 992 1925).Kostadinov,etar. TheBatakMassacre: Sacred ubtext." he ofiacho,May ,2007.LeGoff,aques. istoiretmmoire.aris:Gallimard,986.Lewis,Bernard.HistoryRemembered,evered,nvented. rinceton:Princetonniversityress, 975.Maier, harles ."A urfeitfMemory?eflectionsnHistory, elancholyandDenial.HistoryndMemory:2 1993): 36-151.Nietzsche,riedrich.heUse ndAbusefHistory.ewYork:MacmillanPublishingompany,957 1872).Nora,Pierre. EntreMmoire t Histoire." es ieuxde Mmoire.aris:Gallimard,984-1992,ol.1:23-43.Oexle,OttoGerhard,d.MemorialsKultur.ttingen:andenhoeckndRuprecht,995.Renan, rnest.What sa Nation?"ecturet theSorbonne nMarch 1,1882.Becomingational:Reader.ds.Geoffley ndRonaldGrigor

Suny. xford:niversityress, 996: 1-55.Rousso,Henry.TheVichyyndrome.istoryndMemorynFrance ince 944.Cambridge: arvard niversityress, 991 Le yndromeeVichy.Paris: aeuil, 987).Said,Edward: Invention, emory,lace." Criticalnquiry6 (Winter2000):175- 92.Sontag, usan.Regardinghe ain fOthers.ewYork: arrar,traus ndGiroux,003.Tulving,ndel. Episodicnd SemanticMemory."rganizationfMemory.Eds.EndelTulvingndWayneDonaldson.New York:AcademicPress, 972:382-402.

72 social research

transformations between history and memory

Documents