Page 52 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 52
Memorialisation Theory and Discourse
connection between a social group and the collective memory limited in
space and time (Benčić, 2016, p. 5; Confino, 1997, p. 1388, 1392; Kansteiner,
2002, p. 185; Širok, 2012, p. 139) – this term can thus be treated as a meta-
concept in social sciences (Benčić, 2016, p. 2). Benčić (2016, pp. 3–4)
claims that the collective memory discourse relies on multiculturalism,
conflicts/wars (the strongest elements of memory) and other events of
the 20th century (this is compatible with Erll’s (2011; 2014) transcul-
tural memory). As a complete contrast, a nation’s collective forgetting,
as identified by Haebich (2011, p. 1033), also exists; the terms social or
collective amnesia are also in use. The evaluation of memories inevitably
takes place in tandem with amnesia, which is the other side of the same
process. Amnesia is an essential component of the building of mem-
ories of a community; it is most important to forget those events that
could impede the construction of a shared image of the past (Širok,
2012, p. 138). Memory can be imagined as a box from which individu-
als can select ‘what to remember, what to forget, and what, eventually,
to forgive’ (Miklavcic, 2008, p. 443). Societies are strengthened because
of their painful past, where particular groups may still be experiencing
some negative/unpleasant consequences. The need to remain silent on
the one hand, and the need to tell the associated stories on the other
hand, constantly coexist and are permanently influenced by different
big shots in the society who wish to forget or to impose their particu-
lar memory (Hrobat Virloget, 2017; McAuley, 2013; Vinitzky-Seroussi &
Teeger, 2010). In his work on memory and amnesia, and the relationship
between them, Ricoeur (2012) highlights identities that are established
on the act of violence (based on ‘wounded memories’) or on the cult
of victory and the cult of mourning – see also Širok (2009; 2012) and
Kushinski (2013). Memory-related topics are actually socially sensitive.
Individuals or groups/communities/nations are sometimes ready to die
for their interpretation of the past, which means that a wider memory
conflict is always possible (Confino, 1997, pp. 1399–1400); interestingly,
memory might produce violence, violence might become an object of
memory, and memorial practices based on past violence might also per-
petuate new violence (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 36).¹¹ As an example, we
can mention many politically agreed controversial and degrading conse-
quences of wwi, which remained in the collective memory and then led
to wwi i. Another example is the unforgettable inter-ethnic and regime-
¹¹ See also Šuligoj and Kennell (2022).
52
connection between a social group and the collective memory limited in
space and time (Benčić, 2016, p. 5; Confino, 1997, p. 1388, 1392; Kansteiner,
2002, p. 185; Širok, 2012, p. 139) – this term can thus be treated as a meta-
concept in social sciences (Benčić, 2016, p. 2). Benčić (2016, pp. 3–4)
claims that the collective memory discourse relies on multiculturalism,
conflicts/wars (the strongest elements of memory) and other events of
the 20th century (this is compatible with Erll’s (2011; 2014) transcul-
tural memory). As a complete contrast, a nation’s collective forgetting,
as identified by Haebich (2011, p. 1033), also exists; the terms social or
collective amnesia are also in use. The evaluation of memories inevitably
takes place in tandem with amnesia, which is the other side of the same
process. Amnesia is an essential component of the building of mem-
ories of a community; it is most important to forget those events that
could impede the construction of a shared image of the past (Širok,
2012, p. 138). Memory can be imagined as a box from which individu-
als can select ‘what to remember, what to forget, and what, eventually,
to forgive’ (Miklavcic, 2008, p. 443). Societies are strengthened because
of their painful past, where particular groups may still be experiencing
some negative/unpleasant consequences. The need to remain silent on
the one hand, and the need to tell the associated stories on the other
hand, constantly coexist and are permanently influenced by different
big shots in the society who wish to forget or to impose their particu-
lar memory (Hrobat Virloget, 2017; McAuley, 2013; Vinitzky-Seroussi &
Teeger, 2010). In his work on memory and amnesia, and the relationship
between them, Ricoeur (2012) highlights identities that are established
on the act of violence (based on ‘wounded memories’) or on the cult
of victory and the cult of mourning – see also Širok (2009; 2012) and
Kushinski (2013). Memory-related topics are actually socially sensitive.
Individuals or groups/communities/nations are sometimes ready to die
for their interpretation of the past, which means that a wider memory
conflict is always possible (Confino, 1997, pp. 1399–1400); interestingly,
memory might produce violence, violence might become an object of
memory, and memorial practices based on past violence might also per-
petuate new violence (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 36).¹¹ As an example, we
can mention many politically agreed controversial and degrading conse-
quences of wwi, which remained in the collective memory and then led
to wwi i. Another example is the unforgettable inter-ethnic and regime-
¹¹ See also Šuligoj and Kennell (2022).
52
