Page 24 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 24
Introduction
Memory studies is not only a simple narrow subfield, but also provides
powerful lessons for sociology, and thus provides important insights for
social theory at the broadest level; the views of historians about the rela-
tionship between memory and history are much more discordant (Bosch,
2016; Olick & Robbins, 1998, pp. 110–111, 134).²⁰
The move in historical sociology to culture-oriented research can en-
tail overlapping with the sociology of culture, which sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu successfully did (Knöbl, 2013).²¹ Among other things, this can
illuminate the interaction of myth, memory and place and consequently
open new avenues for exploring societies and their core beliefs (Bor-
say, 2006, p. 867). In addition, if we rely on Calhoun’s (1996, pp. 306–
307) quest for stronger theoretical foundations and longer historical-
sociological perspectives of American/Western regimes and thus impli-
cations for future development, on the principle of analogy, we can draw
parallels with the contemporary Slovenian and Croatian societies. These
societies are characterised by multi-dimensional internal divisions aris-
ing from past conflicts²² and the present post-socialist atmosphere, em-
igration, unresolved border and other post-Yugoslav issues, to mention
only those less pleasant. Istrian society, where public memorial practices
are based on the traumatic 20th century, is not immune to these phenom-
ena. Consequently, researching Istrian social reality is very reasonable.
²⁰ More about heterogeneous views and methodological issues related to collective memory
in historiography can be found in Kansteiner (2002).
²¹ More can be found in Steinmetz (2011).
²² Slovenians and Croats were never in a mutual armed conflict.
24
Memory studies is not only a simple narrow subfield, but also provides
powerful lessons for sociology, and thus provides important insights for
social theory at the broadest level; the views of historians about the rela-
tionship between memory and history are much more discordant (Bosch,
2016; Olick & Robbins, 1998, pp. 110–111, 134).²⁰
The move in historical sociology to culture-oriented research can en-
tail overlapping with the sociology of culture, which sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu successfully did (Knöbl, 2013).²¹ Among other things, this can
illuminate the interaction of myth, memory and place and consequently
open new avenues for exploring societies and their core beliefs (Bor-
say, 2006, p. 867). In addition, if we rely on Calhoun’s (1996, pp. 306–
307) quest for stronger theoretical foundations and longer historical-
sociological perspectives of American/Western regimes and thus impli-
cations for future development, on the principle of analogy, we can draw
parallels with the contemporary Slovenian and Croatian societies. These
societies are characterised by multi-dimensional internal divisions aris-
ing from past conflicts²² and the present post-socialist atmosphere, em-
igration, unresolved border and other post-Yugoslav issues, to mention
only those less pleasant. Istrian society, where public memorial practices
are based on the traumatic 20th century, is not immune to these phenom-
ena. Consequently, researching Istrian social reality is very reasonable.
²⁰ More about heterogeneous views and methodological issues related to collective memory
in historiography can be found in Kansteiner (2002).
²¹ More can be found in Steinmetz (2011).
²² Slovenians and Croats were never in a mutual armed conflict.
24
