Page 51 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 51
3.2 Memory and History
ject of debates among historians and sociologists. History is generally ac-
cepted as a science,⁷ and thus a serious, intellectual, secular and objec-
tive subject, based on proven facts. Memory, on the other hand, is the
reflection of a particular group and its past, it is flexible, passable, often
romanticised, but inherently connected with history (Jerše, 2012; 2017;
Kansteiner, 2002; Nora, 1984; 1989, pp. 8–9; Schwedler, 2010; Wolff, 2006,
p. 117).⁸ Nora (1989, p. 8) claims that memory and history now appear to
be in fundamental opposition. In addition, true memories are remem-
bered only by living individuals,⁹ which is crucial for the preservation
of historic continuity or its strategic transformation – cultural transfor-
mation of commemorative practice during the transfer between genera-
tions (Nora, 1989, p. 8; Wolff, 2006, p. 110). This is comparable with Halb-
wachs’ autobiographical memory and Hirsch’s first-generation memory
which are transmitted to the following generation. According to Garago-
zov (2016, p. 28), this approach to collective memory can be described as
‘a widely shared knowledge of past social events that are collectively con-
structed through communicative social interactions, which can have a
significant impact on our behaviour, feelings, and thoughts.’ This knowl-
edge, if we want to call it that, is often a traumatic experience of the first
generation which is transmitted to the second in such a deep manner
that it seems to constitute memories in their own right and can be de-
scribed as a ‘transgenerational transmission of trauma’ (Hirsch, 2008, p.
103; Nora, 1989, pp. 18–19; Wolff, 2006, p. 110). Miklavcic (2008) high-
lighted (negative) phenomena related to collective memory in the Up-
per Adriatic border area, where young generations that were not directly
involved in the past conflicts displayed deviant behaviour as a result of
a successful transmission of past traumas.¹⁰ This process results in the
development of stronger empathic ties to the surviving generation (Ja-
cobs, 2014) and, therefore, remembrance changes into memorialisation
and eventually into history (Hirsch, 2012).
One of the first authors who used the collective memory concept in
the 1920s was cultural historian Aby Warburg, although the French so-
ciologist Maurice Halbwachs was the first to have used the concept sys-
tematically. His fundamental contribution was the establishment of the
⁷ The same applies to sociology.
⁸ In this context, Ramšak (2003) and Rožac-Darovec (2006) are critical to oral history.
However, historians have very discordant views in regard to these approaches.
⁹ The Rashomon effect should be considered – see Roth and Mehta (2002).
¹⁰ See also Verginella (2009b).
51
ject of debates among historians and sociologists. History is generally ac-
cepted as a science,⁷ and thus a serious, intellectual, secular and objec-
tive subject, based on proven facts. Memory, on the other hand, is the
reflection of a particular group and its past, it is flexible, passable, often
romanticised, but inherently connected with history (Jerše, 2012; 2017;
Kansteiner, 2002; Nora, 1984; 1989, pp. 8–9; Schwedler, 2010; Wolff, 2006,
p. 117).⁸ Nora (1989, p. 8) claims that memory and history now appear to
be in fundamental opposition. In addition, true memories are remem-
bered only by living individuals,⁹ which is crucial for the preservation
of historic continuity or its strategic transformation – cultural transfor-
mation of commemorative practice during the transfer between genera-
tions (Nora, 1989, p. 8; Wolff, 2006, p. 110). This is comparable with Halb-
wachs’ autobiographical memory and Hirsch’s first-generation memory
which are transmitted to the following generation. According to Garago-
zov (2016, p. 28), this approach to collective memory can be described as
‘a widely shared knowledge of past social events that are collectively con-
structed through communicative social interactions, which can have a
significant impact on our behaviour, feelings, and thoughts.’ This knowl-
edge, if we want to call it that, is often a traumatic experience of the first
generation which is transmitted to the second in such a deep manner
that it seems to constitute memories in their own right and can be de-
scribed as a ‘transgenerational transmission of trauma’ (Hirsch, 2008, p.
103; Nora, 1989, pp. 18–19; Wolff, 2006, p. 110). Miklavcic (2008) high-
lighted (negative) phenomena related to collective memory in the Up-
per Adriatic border area, where young generations that were not directly
involved in the past conflicts displayed deviant behaviour as a result of
a successful transmission of past traumas.¹⁰ This process results in the
development of stronger empathic ties to the surviving generation (Ja-
cobs, 2014) and, therefore, remembrance changes into memorialisation
and eventually into history (Hirsch, 2012).
One of the first authors who used the collective memory concept in
the 1920s was cultural historian Aby Warburg, although the French so-
ciologist Maurice Halbwachs was the first to have used the concept sys-
tematically. His fundamental contribution was the establishment of the
⁷ The same applies to sociology.
⁸ In this context, Ramšak (2003) and Rožac-Darovec (2006) are critical to oral history.
However, historians have very discordant views in regard to these approaches.
⁹ The Rashomon effect should be considered – see Roth and Mehta (2002).
¹⁰ See also Verginella (2009b).
51
