Page 54 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 54
Memorialisation Theory and Discourse
38; Širok, 2012, p. 142, 147).¹³ The (collective) memory is manufactured,
manipulated and, predominantly, mediated (Hoskins, 2001, p. 334). Many
find the contention that the past is not constructed as facts but as a myth,
which serves the interest of particular communities,¹⁴ to be problematic
as well.
The term ‘memory’ can be useful in the description of the connec-
tion of the relationship between the cultural, social, and political as-
pect, and between representation and social experience (Confino, 1997,
p. 1387–1388); Ćurković Nimac (2015) and Ćurković Nimac and Valković
(2018) also highlighted the ethical aspect of memory. Anthropologist
Ballinger (2002), for example, wanted to investigate the link between
history, commemoration, preservation and mythologisation of the past
in Istria and the Trieste area, while historians Širok (2009; 2012), Dato
(2014). and Kavrečič (2017), similarly, explored the same slightly to the
north – in the Gorizia/Goriška region. The Italian totalitarian ideology
with perpetual mobilisation (constant forced ‘education’ of the masses
by the regimes) and ‘fascistisation’ (fascistizzazione) thus created col-
lective harmony (in many respects only illusory).¹⁵ The state and the
ruling party were extremely connected, existing and completely new
public rituals were politicised, meaning fascistised (Dato, 2014; Gentile,
1996, pp. 25–28, 88; Kavrečič, 2017; Orlović, 2014a, p. 118); the custom
of damnatio memoriae was used systematically. Post-wwi i reactions in
the border region were thus only a logical consequence of pre-war cul-
tural violence against the Slavic population; completely new memorial
practices were introduced. The collective memory of one community,
was/is constructed in opposition to the memories of other(s) (Hrobat
Virloget, 2015, p. 536); damnatio memoriae was/is used frequently by both
sides, Slavic and Italian. Radical changes in the political system addition-
ally influenced memorial practices. Different people (people of different
ages, ethnic groups, beliefs, etc.) remember life in the Upper Adriatic
and this is not only a question of the past but also of the contemporary
moment.
Generally speaking, post-w w i i memory is constructed around the
¹³ More can be found in Ricoeur (2012).
¹⁴ More can be found in Nora (1989), Olick and Robbins (1998) and Ćurković Nimac (2015).
¹⁵ Totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, which knew the future and made up the past,
were rejecting historical sociology (Smith, 2011, p. 11). These regimes have the same atti-
tude to (collective) memory as well (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 38).
54
38; Širok, 2012, p. 142, 147).¹³ The (collective) memory is manufactured,
manipulated and, predominantly, mediated (Hoskins, 2001, p. 334). Many
find the contention that the past is not constructed as facts but as a myth,
which serves the interest of particular communities,¹⁴ to be problematic
as well.
The term ‘memory’ can be useful in the description of the connec-
tion of the relationship between the cultural, social, and political as-
pect, and between representation and social experience (Confino, 1997,
p. 1387–1388); Ćurković Nimac (2015) and Ćurković Nimac and Valković
(2018) also highlighted the ethical aspect of memory. Anthropologist
Ballinger (2002), for example, wanted to investigate the link between
history, commemoration, preservation and mythologisation of the past
in Istria and the Trieste area, while historians Širok (2009; 2012), Dato
(2014). and Kavrečič (2017), similarly, explored the same slightly to the
north – in the Gorizia/Goriška region. The Italian totalitarian ideology
with perpetual mobilisation (constant forced ‘education’ of the masses
by the regimes) and ‘fascistisation’ (fascistizzazione) thus created col-
lective harmony (in many respects only illusory).¹⁵ The state and the
ruling party were extremely connected, existing and completely new
public rituals were politicised, meaning fascistised (Dato, 2014; Gentile,
1996, pp. 25–28, 88; Kavrečič, 2017; Orlović, 2014a, p. 118); the custom
of damnatio memoriae was used systematically. Post-wwi i reactions in
the border region were thus only a logical consequence of pre-war cul-
tural violence against the Slavic population; completely new memorial
practices were introduced. The collective memory of one community,
was/is constructed in opposition to the memories of other(s) (Hrobat
Virloget, 2015, p. 536); damnatio memoriae was/is used frequently by both
sides, Slavic and Italian. Radical changes in the political system addition-
ally influenced memorial practices. Different people (people of different
ages, ethnic groups, beliefs, etc.) remember life in the Upper Adriatic
and this is not only a question of the past but also of the contemporary
moment.
Generally speaking, post-w w i i memory is constructed around the
¹³ More can be found in Ricoeur (2012).
¹⁴ More can be found in Nora (1989), Olick and Robbins (1998) and Ćurković Nimac (2015).
¹⁵ Totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, which knew the future and made up the past,
were rejecting historical sociology (Smith, 2011, p. 11). These regimes have the same atti-
tude to (collective) memory as well (Ćurković Nimac, 2015, p. 38).
54
