Towards a cognitive pragmatics of collective remembering

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas M. Bietti

This article aims to provide a cognitive and discourse based theory to collective memory research. Despite the fact that a large proportion of studies in collective memory research in social, cognitive, and discourse psychology are based on investigations of (interactional) cognitive and discourse processes, neither linguistics nor cognitive and social psychologists have proposed an integrative, interdisciplinary and discursive-based theory to memory research. I argue that processes of remembering are always embodied and action oriented reconstructions of the past, which are highly dynamic and malleable by means of communication and context. This new approach aims to provide the grounds for a new ecologically valid theory on memory studies which accounts for the mutual interdependencies between communication, cognition, meaning, and interaction, as guiding collective remembering processes in the real-world activities.

Discourse ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 46-63
Author(s):  
A. A. Nechaeva

Introduction. Collective memory research helps to uncover the deeply imbedded meaning of the past in the present, to follow the identity development process in various communities, to find narrative structures that define societal foundations. Simultaneously, such research can be complicated from the empirical point of view. The scientific novelty of the given article lies in the fact that theoretical and methodological approaches to collective memory research have not yet been summarized and systematized up to this date. The goal of this research is to provide such a review and determine the most valid research methods in Memory Studies. The relevance of the presented research is determined by the fact that the proposition of a methodological apparatus for Memory Studies is necessary for the finalization of its formation as an independent discipline.Methodology and sources. Collective memory theory served as the theoretical-methodological foundation of the conducted research, it allowed to view the past not as a set given but as an object undergoing interpretation and representation. Such academics as M. Halbwachs, M. Bloch, A. Warburg, Jan and Aleida Assmann, J. Olick, A. Erll and others developed the following theory. A range of scientists dedicated their work to the discovery of collective memory research methods, among them M. Bulanova, W. Kansteiner, A. Erll, B. Zelizer, A. Confino, T. Kapitonova, V. Belokrylova, etc. J. Olick made a considerable impact into the understanding of the given issue, having suggested to view memory as a process developing in time, which required to define the methods of analysis that would be able to take this characteristic into account. However, a complete list as well as a general system and classification of methods have not been developed in the academic literature up to the present day. Having appeared at an intersection of various humanities and social sciences, Memory Studies adopts empirical research methods from Sociology, Political science, Culture Studies, Psychology, Media Studies, Visual Studies, etc. In course of the presented research, the relevant empirical research works in the Memory Studies field by international and Russian authors have been analyzed, we considered the research carried out by Ch. Lindt, A. Vasil'ev, T. Emel'yanova, A. Timofeeva, V. Kasamara, E. Hakokongas, E. Keightley, M. Meyers, B. Zelizer, and others. That allowed us to determine the most frequently applied collective memory research methods, to compile their overview and develop the author classification of the used methods.Results and discussion. An overview of key theoretical approaches to collective memory research was provided. They include functional, phenomenological, post-structural, social-historical and information approaches. J. Olick enriched the list of five theoretical approaches suggested by M. Bulanova by introducing the process-relativist approach to studying collective memory. The main research methods applied in Memory Studies were outlined; moreover, a classification of key disciplinary traditions that academics turn to in memory research was introduced featuring sociological, psychological, information, cultural and historical traditions as well as a separate branch of Computer Sciences.Conclusion. As a result of the conducted research, a systematic overview and an author's classification of theoretical-methodological approaches to collective memory analysis were introduced. The findings of the given research can be implemented by a range of academics working on the issues of group identity building, ways of working with contested past, historical events representation in the present, the functioning of memory communities, etc. The defining of the methodological apparatus of Memory studies serves as a moving force for the effective development, generalization and bringing to a common understanding the further research of collective memory structures formation and distribution as well as concepts related to it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth M. Van Dyke

This review provides a road map through current trends and issues in archaeological studies of memory. Many scholars continue to draw on Halbwachs for collective memory studies, emphasizing how the past can legitimate political authority. Others are inspired by Bergson, focusing on the persistent material intrusion of the past into the present. “Past in the past” studies are particularly widespread in the Near East/Classical world, Europe, the Maya region, and Native North America. Archaeologists have viewed materialized memory in various ways: as passively continuous, discursively referenced, intentionally invented, obliterated. Key domains of inquiry include monuments, places, and lieux de mémoire; treatment and disposal of the dead; habitual practices and senses; the recent and contemporary past; and forgetting and erasure. Important contemporary work deploys archaeology as a tool of counter-memory in the aftermath of recent violence and trauma.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis LF Lee ◽  
Joseph Man Chan ◽  
Dennis KK Leung

Collective memory studies have emphasized how people can utilize important historical events as analogies to make sense of current happenings. This article argues that the invocation of historical analogies may, under certain circumstances, become an occasion for people to negotiate and contest the significance of the historical events. Focusing on Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement in 2014, this article analyzes how references to the 1989 Tiananmen Incident emerged in the news as a dominant historical analogy when the movement began, foregrounding the possibility of state violence. But when state violence did not materialize, the authorities, young protesters, and radical activists started to contest the relevance of Tiananmen. The analogy was largely abandoned by the movement’s end. The analysis illustrates the recursive character of the relationship between past and present events: after the past is invoked to aid interpretations of the present, present developments may urge people to reevaluate the past.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 94-109
Author(s):  
Elifcan Karacan

This article explores the use of biographies in qualitative research about collective memory. It is argued that commemorative ceremonies, as well as changes appearing in macro-level structures within the time-span of individuals’ life histories need to be included when analyzing biographies in collective memory studies. The article suggests enhancement of the biographical case reconstruction method (Rosenthal 1993; 2004) with two additional stages: analysis of the experienced past with more emphasis on socio-historical transformations; and inclusion and analysis of the ethnographical data collected from collective mnemonic practices. By providing empirical data from the research conducted with political exiles in Germany, these analytical steps of the method of socio-historical analysis are demonstrated in detail.


Author(s):  
Tanja Bosch

The relationship between the practice and field of journalism and the interdisciplinary field of memory studies is complex and multifaceted. There is a strong link between collective memory production and journalistic practice, based on the proposition that journalists produce first drafts of history by using the past in their reportage. Moreover, the practice of journalism is a key agent of memory work because it serves as one of society’s main mechanisms for recording and remembering, and in doing so helps shape collective memory. Journalism can be seen as a memory text, with journalists constructing news within cultural-interpretive frames according to the cultural environment. Journalism also plays a key role in the production of visual memory and new media, including social media. Journalism is thus a key agent of memory work, providing a space for commentary on institutional and cultural sites of memory construction.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kuhn ◽  
Daniel Biltereyst ◽  
Philippe Meers

Over the past two decades, the relationship between cinema and memory has been the object of increasing academic attention, with growing interest in film and cinema as repositories for representing, shaping, (re)creating or indexing forms of individual and collective memory. This Special Issue on memory and the experience of cinemagoing centres on the perspective of cinema users and audiences, focusing on memories of films, cinema and cinemagoing from three continents and over five decades of the twentieth century. This introduction considers the relationship between memory studies and film studies, sets out an overview of the origins of, and recent and current shifts and trends within, research and scholarship at the interface between historical film audiences, the cinemagoing experience and memory; and presents the articles and reviews which follow within this frame. It considers some of the methodological issues raised by research in these areas and concludes by looking at some of the challenges facing future work in the field.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brant Burkey

Although the preponderance of collective memory research focuses on particular cultural repository sites, memorials, traumatic events, media channels, texts, or commemorative rituals as objects of study, this article fills a gap in literature by arguing that it is time to refresh established media-memory studies to now also consider how multimodal practices promise insight into the process of shared remembering in the new media ecology. The specific focus here is to propose a conceptual approach for how collective remembering can be observed, experienced, and researched in the digital ecosystem. In addition to a survey of collective memory and media memory studies, this article identifies specific ways to examine this issue by introducing the concepts of multimodal memory practices and platformed communities of memory, and by arguing that metadata analysis of digital practices should be considered a contemporary form of studying collective memory.


2020 ◽  
pp. 175069802092143
Author(s):  
Emre Gönlügür ◽  
Devrim Sezer

This article proposes to read the history of Izmir’s Kültürpark as symptomatic of Turkey’s troubled relationship with its political past and urban heritage. Combining insights from political theory, urban and architectural history, and memory studies for a transdisciplinary analysis, it problematizes the oblivion surrounding Kültürpark and explores the ways in which this collective amnesia is questioned by contemporary artists and civic initiatives. First, we examine how Kültürpark rose on a foundation of forgetting of the uprooting of Izmir’s non-Muslim communities from their homeland and the disappearance of their cultural traces from collective memory. Second, we explore how contemporary artistic and civic interventions that engage with the themes of remembrance and coming to terms with the past contest highly selective memory constructs. Third, we raise the question of whether the agonistic debates on the national narratives about the past might open up a new memoryscape and signal a relatively late ‘memory turn’ in Turkey. Finally, we argue that these artistic and civic interventions might shed new light on the theoretical disputes in memory studies, in particular on the debates about cosmopolitan and agonistic modes of remembering. More specifically, we suggest that the recent memory turn Turkey has been experiencing demonstrates that these two modes of remembering are not mutually exclusive.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-16
Author(s):  
A. A. Linchenko ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of the specificity and transformation of the research field of the collective memory of migratory communities. It was shown that the era of multiculturalism, which contributed not only to an increase in the number of studies, but also to the expansion of the very aspects of the study of the topic, played a key role in the study of the memory of migratory communities. Three main areas of research were identified and analyzed: a) personal and group memories of migration, as well as the specificity of the collective memory of various migration groups; b) the study of collective perceptions of the past of migrants in the context of the politics of incorporation and the politics of memory of host societies; c) study of the representation of the historical experience of migrations and migratory communities in museum practice. The idea was substantiated that the theoretical and practical potential of addressing the memory of migratory communities contributed not only to the transformation of the research optics of memory studies, but also showed the inevitability of significant changes in the understanding of ontology of collective memory. This found expression in the actualization of the transcultural turn, focused on overcoming methodological nationalism and considering collective memory not only within the framework of certain cultures or communities, but also it’s dynamic beyond cultural and social boundaries. The article analyzes the significance of the transcultural turn for research into the collective memory of migrants.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Guya Accornero

In this article, I analyze how former activists opposed to Estado Novo, Portugal's fascist regime, see their past, as well as the emotions and perceptions associated with it. I argue that what Antonio Costa Pinto called a “double legacy” shapes these activists' process of remembering. This means that the legacies of dictatorship in Portugal's consolidated democracy are strongly shaped by how it ended and by how democracy was implemented in the country—that is, through a revolution and a radical “cut with the past.” I use semistructured interviews and open questionnaires to study how former activists are affected by and contribute to building this double legacy. By adopting an interactionist perspective and by bridging the scholarship on transition and oral history, this research aims to strengthen the dialogue between social movement and memory studies, and also stresses the relevance of the co-construction of individual and collective memory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document