Do monuments really work? Mendeley "collective memory" analysis
The problem with monuments:
1- collective memory: does it really exist? what about subjectivity?
2- visibility
2- "In the absence of large viewing audiences the question arises: How could
these monuments function as symbols of the "nation," and as transmitters
of the national ideas that Nipperdey so clearly explicates? To be effective
as national emblems, they had to be made accessible to a much larger
population. In other words, these structures, themselves representations
of national strength and unity, had to be represented for wider distribu?
tion. Their stature and "monumentality" were communicated secondhand,
through visual reproductions and replicas." (Belgum, 1993)
--Abide-i Hürriyet için "mediated monument" olayıyla bağlanır
--Önderin Benjamin+Warburgunu buraya alalım
1- Collective Memory and National Membership Identity and Citizenship Models in Turkey and Austria (Cinar, 2015)
official history has a comparative advantage in the formation of collective memory:
"While the state does not hold monopoly over representations of the past, official history has a comparative advantage in the formation of collective memory. The institutionalized character of official history gives it wider publicity and recurrent exposure to it furthers its persistence. Moreover, its position is further enhanced by enforced standardization through curriculum and bureaucratic supervision. Furthermore, its quasi-scientific nature and the fact that it is taught at schools gives it considerable authority."
"Once certain historical narratives became dominant, they provided the society with a repertoire of collective memory that is ready to be deployed in order to justify the dominant group’s views and marginalize the opposing views"
1- The Collective Memory Reader (2011)
INTRO
"Such a view sometimes led them to see collective solidarity—and the shared beliefs and practices that constitute it—as an outmoded form of social organization (Douglas 1986; Shils 1981). "Primitive" societies, in such a view, are societies of collective memory, while modern ones are societies of individual memory"
"Contemporary use of the term "collective memory" traces itself largely to the sociologist Halbwachs, who published his landmark Social Frameworks of Memory (Les cadres sociaux de la memoire) in 1925, though the term was by then in general use in a variety of contexts related and unrelated to sociology (common cognates in this regard were "public memory" and the already-discussed "racial memory," the use of which in fact predated Jung's)"
"Halbwachs's interest in memory combined insights from two important figures in late nineteenth-century France, philosopher Henri Bergson and sociologist Emile Durkheim, both of whom were concerned—though in very different ways—with so-called advances of European "civilization."
"Halbwachs thus distinguished between "autobiographical memory" and "historical memory."
"In this sense, very few people may be able to identify key figures or events of the Civil War, but those figures or events may nonetheless be important elements of American collective memory,"
"He characterized collective memory as plural, show-ing that shared memories can be effective markers of social differentiation."
"Here the divide has been between those who see history and memory as entirely distinct
(usually with the implication that memory is inferior) and those who see them
as continuous with each other."
"A century earlier, Nietzsche (1997) was critical of both "antiquarian history"
(perhaps scientific, but sterile) and "monumental history" (memorable, but in-evitably distorted). In the present, it sometimes seems as if the battle continues unashamedly between these two misconceived varieties (Funkenstein 1989)."
"Outside of the Annales tradition, as pointed out above, most historians' discussions of
memory concern either oral history or the value of testimony and eyewitness
accounts."
"One version of this comes from the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer's (1975) reconstruction of philosophical hermeneutics, which encourages a "fusion of horizons" between past and present in an ongoing circle of interpretation. Another, related approach comes from J. Assmann's (1997: 9) articulation of "mnemohistory," which is "concerned not with the past as such, but only with the past as it is remembered," and is thus a sort of "reception theory applied to history."
-Klein, Kerwin Lee. "On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse." Representations 69: 127-50, 2000
-Portelli, Alejandro. The Death of Luigi Trastulli: Form and Meaning in Oral History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.
1- Collective memory and social sciences in the post-truth era (2017)
De Saint-Laurent et al. (2017) question global collective memory research because of focusing mostly on the essentialist and exclusionist aspects of collective memory, ignoring the resistant character of remembering and the potential of collective memory to create bridges between conflicting parts. In a post-truth era, where "objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief", collective memory seems to have lost touch with historical facts and "lying had become the norm".
"when politicians are not punished for their lies, they have full latitude to invent the past that suits them most".
1- collective memory: does it really exist? what about subjectivity?
2- visibility
2- "In the absence of large viewing audiences the question arises: How could
these monuments function as symbols of the "nation," and as transmitters
of the national ideas that Nipperdey so clearly explicates? To be effective
as national emblems, they had to be made accessible to a much larger
population. In other words, these structures, themselves representations
of national strength and unity, had to be represented for wider distribu?
tion. Their stature and "monumentality" were communicated secondhand,
through visual reproductions and replicas." (Belgum, 1993)
--Abide-i Hürriyet için "mediated monument" olayıyla bağlanır
--Önderin Benjamin+Warburgunu buraya alalım
1- Collective Memory and National Membership Identity and Citizenship Models in Turkey and Austria (Cinar, 2015)
official history has a comparative advantage in the formation of collective memory:
"While the state does not hold monopoly over representations of the past, official history has a comparative advantage in the formation of collective memory. The institutionalized character of official history gives it wider publicity and recurrent exposure to it furthers its persistence. Moreover, its position is further enhanced by enforced standardization through curriculum and bureaucratic supervision. Furthermore, its quasi-scientific nature and the fact that it is taught at schools gives it considerable authority."
"Once certain historical narratives became dominant, they provided the society with a repertoire of collective memory that is ready to be deployed in order to justify the dominant group’s views and marginalize the opposing views"
1- The Collective Memory Reader (2011)
INTRO
"Such a view sometimes led them to see collective solidarity—and the shared beliefs and practices that constitute it—as an outmoded form of social organization (Douglas 1986; Shils 1981). "Primitive" societies, in such a view, are societies of collective memory, while modern ones are societies of individual memory"
"Contemporary use of the term "collective memory" traces itself largely to the sociologist Halbwachs, who published his landmark Social Frameworks of Memory (Les cadres sociaux de la memoire) in 1925, though the term was by then in general use in a variety of contexts related and unrelated to sociology (common cognates in this regard were "public memory" and the already-discussed "racial memory," the use of which in fact predated Jung's)"
"Halbwachs's interest in memory combined insights from two important figures in late nineteenth-century France, philosopher Henri Bergson and sociologist Emile Durkheim, both of whom were concerned—though in very different ways—with so-called advances of European "civilization."
"Halbwachs thus distinguished between "autobiographical memory" and "historical memory."
"In this sense, very few people may be able to identify key figures or events of the Civil War, but those figures or events may nonetheless be important elements of American collective memory,"
"He characterized collective memory as plural, show-ing that shared memories can be effective markers of social differentiation."
"Here the divide has been between those who see history and memory as entirely distinct
(usually with the implication that memory is inferior) and those who see them
as continuous with each other."
"A century earlier, Nietzsche (1997) was critical of both "antiquarian history"
(perhaps scientific, but sterile) and "monumental history" (memorable, but in-evitably distorted). In the present, it sometimes seems as if the battle continues unashamedly between these two misconceived varieties (Funkenstein 1989)."
"Outside of the Annales tradition, as pointed out above, most historians' discussions of
memory concern either oral history or the value of testimony and eyewitness
accounts."
"One version of this comes from the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer's (1975) reconstruction of philosophical hermeneutics, which encourages a "fusion of horizons" between past and present in an ongoing circle of interpretation. Another, related approach comes from J. Assmann's (1997: 9) articulation of "mnemohistory," which is "concerned not with the past as such, but only with the past as it is remembered," and is thus a sort of "reception theory applied to history."
-Klein, Kerwin Lee. "On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse." Representations 69: 127-50, 2000
-Portelli, Alejandro. The Death of Luigi Trastulli: Form and Meaning in Oral History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.
1- Collective memory and social sciences in the post-truth era (2017)
De Saint-Laurent et al. (2017) question global collective memory research because of focusing mostly on the essentialist and exclusionist aspects of collective memory, ignoring the resistant character of remembering and the potential of collective memory to create bridges between conflicting parts. In a post-truth era, where "objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief", collective memory seems to have lost touch with historical facts and "lying had become the norm".
"when politicians are not punished for their lies, they have full latitude to invent the past that suits them most".
Comments
Post a Comment