Page 47 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 47
orialisation Theory and Discourse 3
Memory-related questions were, as noted by Aristotle and Cicero, already
known in ancient Athens and Rome (Jerše, 2017, pp. 247–248), and they
are still one of the central challenges for humans and society nowadays,
when historical perception has changed as a consequence of the influ-
ence of the media (Nora, 1989, p. 7). However, the memory discourse is
a product of the 20th century (Jerše, 2017, p. 248), a century which was,
according to Kolko (1994), marked by wars, violence, and similar cruel
events, and can thus easily be described as the Century of War. It should
be pointed out, however, that not only the quantity of these conflicting
events, but also their intensity and negative consequences of an extent
that had never been seen before, affected people in all populated conti-
nents. Wieviorka (2005, p. 89) explains that the victims represent a sense
of remembering.
3.1 Memory Concept
Conflict and violence, both directly and symbolically, play a key role
in the ‘communitarianism’ construction, in the formation of discourses
about the past, their reproduction, dissemination and acceptance, but al-
ways in strong relation to historical power relations (Ćurković Nimac &
Valković, 2018; Gur-Ze’ev & Pappé, 2003). Thus, we can understand the
many cemeteries, monuments and other memorial sites placed in a cer-
tain area, which were set up to commemorate war and/or violent regimes,
and reflect the need to honour all victims (Biran et al., 2011),¹ the nation’s
identity and history (Misztal, 2003, p. 158; Nanda, 2004), or the values and
goals of the nation (Hogan, 2011). The nation can be understood as a ma-
jor mnemonic community, whose continuity is based on the vision of the
suitable past and a believable future, which justify a sense of lasting con-
tinuity between generations (Misztal, 2003, p. 17). Consequently, mem-
ory and memory discourse are not only a matter of events (commemora-
tions), but a part of everyday life which co-creates a common identity of a
certain community (Ćurković Nimac, 2015; Jerše, 2017, p. 250); the sense
¹ These examples form the ‘tangible cultural memory’ (Benčić, 2016, p. 6). More can be
found in Ricoeur (2012).
47
Memory-related questions were, as noted by Aristotle and Cicero, already
known in ancient Athens and Rome (Jerše, 2017, pp. 247–248), and they
are still one of the central challenges for humans and society nowadays,
when historical perception has changed as a consequence of the influ-
ence of the media (Nora, 1989, p. 7). However, the memory discourse is
a product of the 20th century (Jerše, 2017, p. 248), a century which was,
according to Kolko (1994), marked by wars, violence, and similar cruel
events, and can thus easily be described as the Century of War. It should
be pointed out, however, that not only the quantity of these conflicting
events, but also their intensity and negative consequences of an extent
that had never been seen before, affected people in all populated conti-
nents. Wieviorka (2005, p. 89) explains that the victims represent a sense
of remembering.
3.1 Memory Concept
Conflict and violence, both directly and symbolically, play a key role
in the ‘communitarianism’ construction, in the formation of discourses
about the past, their reproduction, dissemination and acceptance, but al-
ways in strong relation to historical power relations (Ćurković Nimac &
Valković, 2018; Gur-Ze’ev & Pappé, 2003). Thus, we can understand the
many cemeteries, monuments and other memorial sites placed in a cer-
tain area, which were set up to commemorate war and/or violent regimes,
and reflect the need to honour all victims (Biran et al., 2011),¹ the nation’s
identity and history (Misztal, 2003, p. 158; Nanda, 2004), or the values and
goals of the nation (Hogan, 2011). The nation can be understood as a ma-
jor mnemonic community, whose continuity is based on the vision of the
suitable past and a believable future, which justify a sense of lasting con-
tinuity between generations (Misztal, 2003, p. 17). Consequently, mem-
ory and memory discourse are not only a matter of events (commemora-
tions), but a part of everyday life which co-creates a common identity of a
certain community (Ćurković Nimac, 2015; Jerše, 2017, p. 250); the sense
¹ These examples form the ‘tangible cultural memory’ (Benčić, 2016, p. 6). More can be
found in Ricoeur (2012).
47
