Page 49 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 49
3.1 Memory Concept
homogeneous/uniform (Benčić, 2016, pp. 5–6; Hoskins, 2001, p. 335).⁴
Thus, significantly different memories and attitudes to the past must be
highlighted here (Hirsch, 2008; Stone, 2012):
• first-generation memory of the people that personally experienced
the trauma either first hand or through the media at the time;
• second generation memories are those of their direct descendants
and their generation, and are transferred to influence their under-
standing of the world;
• third-generation memory (as well as all successive generations) is
represented only through historical narratives.
Similarly, Halbwachs (1992) identified:
• autobiographical memory, which is related to events people experi-
enced themselves;⁵
• historical memory, which is contained in historical records;
• history, as the past to which there is no direct connection; and
• collective memory, being an active past which forms our contempo-
rary identity.
Milic (2016, p. 27) exposed and graphically displayed many other ‘types
of memory,’ of which many are pointed out in this research as well, e.g.
collective, individual, prosthetic and the like; the same applies to many
authors referred to therein. She also presents memory-identity, memory-
media, memory-history and some other relations relevant for this re-
search. Regardless of all these perspectives, and according to the purposes
and objectives of this research, ‘mediated’ and ‘transcultural’ memories
will be additionally highlighted.
For Erll (2011; 2014, p. 178), transcultural memory means the transition
from the ‘stable and allegedly “pure” national/cultural memory towards
the movements, connections, and mixing of memories’ within the global-
isation processes. Indeed, the author explains this as the movement of ‘(a)
mnemonic archives across spatial, temporal, social, linguistic and medial
borders as well as (b) the mixing of memories in contexts of high cultural
complexity’ (no version of the past ever belongs to just one community
memory studies, which includes collective memory, social memory, collective remem-
brance, popular history making, national memory, public memory, vernacular memory,
and counter-memory; see also Ćurković Nimac and Valković (2018, p. 440).
⁴ The Rashomon effect should be (also) considered; see Roth and Mehta (2002).
⁵ See also van Dijck (2010).
49
homogeneous/uniform (Benčić, 2016, pp. 5–6; Hoskins, 2001, p. 335).⁴
Thus, significantly different memories and attitudes to the past must be
highlighted here (Hirsch, 2008; Stone, 2012):
• first-generation memory of the people that personally experienced
the trauma either first hand or through the media at the time;
• second generation memories are those of their direct descendants
and their generation, and are transferred to influence their under-
standing of the world;
• third-generation memory (as well as all successive generations) is
represented only through historical narratives.
Similarly, Halbwachs (1992) identified:
• autobiographical memory, which is related to events people experi-
enced themselves;⁵
• historical memory, which is contained in historical records;
• history, as the past to which there is no direct connection; and
• collective memory, being an active past which forms our contempo-
rary identity.
Milic (2016, p. 27) exposed and graphically displayed many other ‘types
of memory,’ of which many are pointed out in this research as well, e.g.
collective, individual, prosthetic and the like; the same applies to many
authors referred to therein. She also presents memory-identity, memory-
media, memory-history and some other relations relevant for this re-
search. Regardless of all these perspectives, and according to the purposes
and objectives of this research, ‘mediated’ and ‘transcultural’ memories
will be additionally highlighted.
For Erll (2011; 2014, p. 178), transcultural memory means the transition
from the ‘stable and allegedly “pure” national/cultural memory towards
the movements, connections, and mixing of memories’ within the global-
isation processes. Indeed, the author explains this as the movement of ‘(a)
mnemonic archives across spatial, temporal, social, linguistic and medial
borders as well as (b) the mixing of memories in contexts of high cultural
complexity’ (no version of the past ever belongs to just one community
memory studies, which includes collective memory, social memory, collective remem-
brance, popular history making, national memory, public memory, vernacular memory,
and counter-memory; see also Ćurković Nimac and Valković (2018, p. 440).
⁴ The Rashomon effect should be (also) considered; see Roth and Mehta (2002).
⁵ See also van Dijck (2010).
49
