Page 22 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 22
Introduction
1.3 Interdisciplinary Aspects of the Study
One of the most important discourses in contemporary Europe – espe-
cially from 1980 onwards (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 35; Ćurković Nimac
& Valković, 2018, p. 440)¹⁶ – is the attitude to memory or to the (re-
cent) past in order to avoid all past mistakes with extremely negative con-
sequences. According to Jerše (2017, p. 247), historiography has an im-
portant role in this discourse, in which scholars scrutinise and interpret
the standpoints of memory. As opposed to historiography in general, the
memory discourse is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, a distinct
phenomenon of modern and postmodern societies (see also D’Alessio,
2012a). Moreover, memory discourse is to be perceived as a distinct cul-
tural, historical and political phenomenon, which means that it is signif-
icantly connected to social sciences or even to interdisciplinary investi-
gation. In social sciences, the past is used to measure historic progress
and to bring contemporary events into clearer focus – from this aspect,
history provides (only) the basic materials for the historical perspective
approach. The so-called ‘historical perspective’ is the research of a topic
in light of its earliest development, differing from the historical research
focused on written documents and artefacts (Jacobs, 2010, pp. 127–128;
Lawrence, 1984, pp. 307–308; Wyche et al., 2006).¹⁷ Past or classical histor-
ical research focused on high level politics (politicians) and events (mile-
stones) is now facilitating the adaptation of analytical and other method-
ological procedures, and the opening of historiography to the (other) hu-
manities and social sciences, which is a very important step for histori-
ans (Stearns, 1983, pp. 11–13). As in historiography, where many strategic
jumps from political and economic history to social or cultural histori-
ography were made – see Iggers (2017), Benčić (2016, p. 4), Kocka (2012),
and Bhambra (2011, pp. 656–657) – the same happened in historical so-
ciology (Hobson et al., 2010), where new paradigms were identified. Ac-
cordingly, Bhambra (2011) and Lynn and Bonnell (1999) highlighted cul-
tural historical sociology.
‘The relation between history and sociology, between narrative and ex-
¹⁶ Ćurković Nimac and Valković (2018, p. 440) use terms like ‘memory surplus,’ ‘tyranny of
memory,’ ‘cult of memory,’ and ‘memory epidemic’ to illustrate contemporary trends in
social sciences and humanities.
¹⁷ Proponents of applied history use very similar (methodological) assumptions and views,
but this alternative approach within historiography has received many criticisms – see
Hakala (n.d.) and Tosh (2006).
22
1.3 Interdisciplinary Aspects of the Study
One of the most important discourses in contemporary Europe – espe-
cially from 1980 onwards (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 35; Ćurković Nimac
& Valković, 2018, p. 440)¹⁶ – is the attitude to memory or to the (re-
cent) past in order to avoid all past mistakes with extremely negative con-
sequences. According to Jerše (2017, p. 247), historiography has an im-
portant role in this discourse, in which scholars scrutinise and interpret
the standpoints of memory. As opposed to historiography in general, the
memory discourse is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, a distinct
phenomenon of modern and postmodern societies (see also D’Alessio,
2012a). Moreover, memory discourse is to be perceived as a distinct cul-
tural, historical and political phenomenon, which means that it is signif-
icantly connected to social sciences or even to interdisciplinary investi-
gation. In social sciences, the past is used to measure historic progress
and to bring contemporary events into clearer focus – from this aspect,
history provides (only) the basic materials for the historical perspective
approach. The so-called ‘historical perspective’ is the research of a topic
in light of its earliest development, differing from the historical research
focused on written documents and artefacts (Jacobs, 2010, pp. 127–128;
Lawrence, 1984, pp. 307–308; Wyche et al., 2006).¹⁷ Past or classical histor-
ical research focused on high level politics (politicians) and events (mile-
stones) is now facilitating the adaptation of analytical and other method-
ological procedures, and the opening of historiography to the (other) hu-
manities and social sciences, which is a very important step for histori-
ans (Stearns, 1983, pp. 11–13). As in historiography, where many strategic
jumps from political and economic history to social or cultural histori-
ography were made – see Iggers (2017), Benčić (2016, p. 4), Kocka (2012),
and Bhambra (2011, pp. 656–657) – the same happened in historical so-
ciology (Hobson et al., 2010), where new paradigms were identified. Ac-
cordingly, Bhambra (2011) and Lynn and Bonnell (1999) highlighted cul-
tural historical sociology.
‘The relation between history and sociology, between narrative and ex-
¹⁶ Ćurković Nimac and Valković (2018, p. 440) use terms like ‘memory surplus,’ ‘tyranny of
memory,’ ‘cult of memory,’ and ‘memory epidemic’ to illustrate contemporary trends in
social sciences and humanities.
¹⁷ Proponents of applied history use very similar (methodological) assumptions and views,
but this alternative approach within historiography has received many criticisms – see
Hakala (n.d.) and Tosh (2006).
22
