Page 48 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 48
Memorialisation Theory and Discourse
of belonging and identification with the space, local history and collec-
tive memory are strongly linked to the cultural heritage of a certain area
(Urošević, 2013, p. 85; van Dijck, 2010, pp. 266–270). Collective memory is
therefore the subject of interdisciplinary discussions where the sociologi-
cal perspective is not insignificant (Benčić, 2016, pp. 2–3, 5; Hoskins, 2001,
p. 333). Hence, memory and practices of commemoration are subjects of
constant change, which is only a consequence of evolution and develop-
ment of society (Jerše, 2017, p. 257; Olick, 2007; Širok, 2012, p. 139, 147). A
new ‘culture of commemoration’ is constantly developing through com-
memorations, which link old traditions with new practices and challenge
the distinction between ‘history, memory and the practices of commem-
oration’ (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011, p. 193; Wolff, 2006). Commemoration, as
a process of institutionalisation of memory, establishes and fixes in the
public sphere the ‘correct’ representations of events deemed significant
by and for a given group (Jedlowski, 2002, p. 99). In this manner, the past
becomes accessible through the categories and schemes of its own cul-
ture, through which people perceive and interpret it – also in a distorted
form (Burke, 1997, pp. 45–47).
Jerše (2017, p. 256) summarised that the ‘sites of memory’ syntagma
is a metaphor which illustrates the spatial, material, narrative and non-
narrative points on which the national memory is based;² they are ma-
terial and immaterial symbols important for the memory. Sociologist
Zerubavel (2005) describes this as ‘a socio-mental topography of the past’
– socially constructed structures that are similar to the maps with which
the human mind builds the image of the past. These reconstructions
of the past help us understand how collective forms of memory work.
Hence, the acquisition of collective memories and, therefore, the iden-
tification with its collective past, is part of the process of acquiring so-
cial identity; the adjustment of members to this past is the main effort of
assimilation. The community/society determines what is worth remem-
bering and how this memory will be preserved. In addition, society main-
tains and supports collective memory, while individual memory can be
understood only if individuals interpret it within the group they belong
to (Halbwachs, 1992); within the collective memory and through appro-
priated thinking, individuals maintain contacts with the group (Misztal,
2003, pp. 53–54). ³ This means that memory, as a term, is not completely
² More can be found in Nora (1984; 1989).
³ Kansteiner (2002, pp. 181–182) problematised the redundant terminological diversity of
48
of belonging and identification with the space, local history and collec-
tive memory are strongly linked to the cultural heritage of a certain area
(Urošević, 2013, p. 85; van Dijck, 2010, pp. 266–270). Collective memory is
therefore the subject of interdisciplinary discussions where the sociologi-
cal perspective is not insignificant (Benčić, 2016, pp. 2–3, 5; Hoskins, 2001,
p. 333). Hence, memory and practices of commemoration are subjects of
constant change, which is only a consequence of evolution and develop-
ment of society (Jerše, 2017, p. 257; Olick, 2007; Širok, 2012, p. 139, 147). A
new ‘culture of commemoration’ is constantly developing through com-
memorations, which link old traditions with new practices and challenge
the distinction between ‘history, memory and the practices of commem-
oration’ (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011, p. 193; Wolff, 2006). Commemoration, as
a process of institutionalisation of memory, establishes and fixes in the
public sphere the ‘correct’ representations of events deemed significant
by and for a given group (Jedlowski, 2002, p. 99). In this manner, the past
becomes accessible through the categories and schemes of its own cul-
ture, through which people perceive and interpret it – also in a distorted
form (Burke, 1997, pp. 45–47).
Jerše (2017, p. 256) summarised that the ‘sites of memory’ syntagma
is a metaphor which illustrates the spatial, material, narrative and non-
narrative points on which the national memory is based;² they are ma-
terial and immaterial symbols important for the memory. Sociologist
Zerubavel (2005) describes this as ‘a socio-mental topography of the past’
– socially constructed structures that are similar to the maps with which
the human mind builds the image of the past. These reconstructions
of the past help us understand how collective forms of memory work.
Hence, the acquisition of collective memories and, therefore, the iden-
tification with its collective past, is part of the process of acquiring so-
cial identity; the adjustment of members to this past is the main effort of
assimilation. The community/society determines what is worth remem-
bering and how this memory will be preserved. In addition, society main-
tains and supports collective memory, while individual memory can be
understood only if individuals interpret it within the group they belong
to (Halbwachs, 1992); within the collective memory and through appro-
priated thinking, individuals maintain contacts with the group (Misztal,
2003, pp. 53–54). ³ This means that memory, as a term, is not completely
² More can be found in Nora (1984; 1989).
³ Kansteiner (2002, pp. 181–182) problematised the redundant terminological diversity of
48
