Page 56 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 56
Memorialisation Theory and Discourse
Politics of memory are a reflection of political development and are
often a revitalised ideology and thus related to political conflicts; mem-
ory in this case is a concept of (political) culture (Confino, 1997, p. 1393;
Jerše, 2017, p. 249; Mustapić & Balabanić, 2018). The dominant narrative,
as defined by Misztal (2003, p. 160) and Mustapić and Balabanić (2018),
is a memory of the political elites with whom they shape the desired im-
age of the past (as presented in the preceding paragraphs). This is in line
with Ahonen’s (2012, p. 23) ‘public memory,’ which is described by the
author as a politically canonised story of the past, an official history, em-
phasising the non-academic nature of these presentations. Commemora-
tive speeches delivered by politicians, although stimulating the increase
of the ‘emotional dimension of arousal, unpleasantness, sadness, anger,
fear and disgust,’ also increase ‘attention, motivation and reasoning about
the implications of the commemoration for the national cultural model,
which is one of the most important functions of commemorative rituals’
(Pavlaković & Perak, 2017, p. 301). Hence, frequent appearances in the me-
dia can generate a culturally distributed collective memory (Pavlaković
& Perak, 2017). In connection with politics, we often mention historical
revisionism, mythologisation²⁰ and/or politicisation, as well as reconcili-
ation, which are ordinary ‘companions’ of commemorative practices (see
Miklavcic, 2008), where the ‘content’ of the myth is more important than
the accuracy of historical facts (Schopflin & Hosking, 1997, p. 19). Simi-
larly, Confino (1997, p. 1402) also warns of the danger of reducing culture
to politics and ideology, when it should be the exact opposite: from the
political (with political significance) to the social and experiential aspect,
and then to memory (collective memory). The history of memory is use-
ful in defining how the past is represented, the mentality of the people
in the past, commingled beliefs, practices and symbolic representations
that form people’s perceptions of the past (p. 1389). Negative deviations,
about which Confino writes above, are not difficult to find: politicisation
(or even political abuse) of memory is nowadays a common occurrence
in the post-socialist states. Mustapić and Balabanić (2018) note that the
2015 parliamentary campaign in Croatia has changed into a ‘site of mem-
²⁰ On the other hand, we can take into consideration Armstrong’s (1991) understanding
of myth not as false consciousness, but rather as a unifying factor, lowering the strong
consciousness of the group members about their common destiny: together with sym-
bols, communication and many other cultural and symbolic components are decisive for
shaping the common identity.
56
Politics of memory are a reflection of political development and are
often a revitalised ideology and thus related to political conflicts; mem-
ory in this case is a concept of (political) culture (Confino, 1997, p. 1393;
Jerše, 2017, p. 249; Mustapić & Balabanić, 2018). The dominant narrative,
as defined by Misztal (2003, p. 160) and Mustapić and Balabanić (2018),
is a memory of the political elites with whom they shape the desired im-
age of the past (as presented in the preceding paragraphs). This is in line
with Ahonen’s (2012, p. 23) ‘public memory,’ which is described by the
author as a politically canonised story of the past, an official history, em-
phasising the non-academic nature of these presentations. Commemora-
tive speeches delivered by politicians, although stimulating the increase
of the ‘emotional dimension of arousal, unpleasantness, sadness, anger,
fear and disgust,’ also increase ‘attention, motivation and reasoning about
the implications of the commemoration for the national cultural model,
which is one of the most important functions of commemorative rituals’
(Pavlaković & Perak, 2017, p. 301). Hence, frequent appearances in the me-
dia can generate a culturally distributed collective memory (Pavlaković
& Perak, 2017). In connection with politics, we often mention historical
revisionism, mythologisation²⁰ and/or politicisation, as well as reconcili-
ation, which are ordinary ‘companions’ of commemorative practices (see
Miklavcic, 2008), where the ‘content’ of the myth is more important than
the accuracy of historical facts (Schopflin & Hosking, 1997, p. 19). Simi-
larly, Confino (1997, p. 1402) also warns of the danger of reducing culture
to politics and ideology, when it should be the exact opposite: from the
political (with political significance) to the social and experiential aspect,
and then to memory (collective memory). The history of memory is use-
ful in defining how the past is represented, the mentality of the people
in the past, commingled beliefs, practices and symbolic representations
that form people’s perceptions of the past (p. 1389). Negative deviations,
about which Confino writes above, are not difficult to find: politicisation
(or even political abuse) of memory is nowadays a common occurrence
in the post-socialist states. Mustapić and Balabanić (2018) note that the
2015 parliamentary campaign in Croatia has changed into a ‘site of mem-
²⁰ On the other hand, we can take into consideration Armstrong’s (1991) understanding
of myth not as false consciousness, but rather as a unifying factor, lowering the strong
consciousness of the group members about their common destiny: together with sym-
bols, communication and many other cultural and symbolic components are decisive for
shaping the common identity.
56
