Mémoires en conflit et le rôle du silence dans Un plat de porc aux bananes vertes de Simone et André Schwarz-Bart et La mémoire aux abois d’Évelyne Trouillot

This article analyses the forms of cultural memory (storage and functio- nal memory) relying on the work of Aleida Assmann and the German cultural memory school (Assmann, 1999; 2004), and their changes in memory institutions in connection with the institution’s dialogue with individual and collective memory. Assmann’s theory is supplemented with museological communication schemes (Hooper-Grenhill, 1996) and a definition of the medium of collective memory (Erll, 2004). The aim of this article is to discuss the effect of functional memory in the context of the mediation work of a modern museum. The article will deal more thoroughly with the functionalizing process of cultural memory in the museum based on a specific pedagogical programme at the Estonian Open Air Museum.

The article reveals modern approaches to the culture of collective memory addressing the cornerstone historical events which influenced the further course of history and national identity construction. The question of how to construct the collective memory about wars, genocide, mass suffering is one of the most important issues in the modern historiography, sociology and social psychology, political science, and related disciplines. The "politics of memory", which also includes such categories as "ethics and culture of memory," essentially determines the ability of the nation to overcome its collective trauma, to find ways for selfdevelopment and development of the country, and the further role and place of the nation in the system of international relations. This article discusses the current research studies on the culture of memory applied to the Holocaust, the present approaches to the definition and implementation of strategies of politics of memory, and memory models developed by modern scholars on the Holocaust remembrance. The Armenian Genocide of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire serves as object of the analysis. The subject of the analysis includes the approaches to the memory about the Armenian Genocide in the modern Armenian society, which is discussed here as the complex culture of memory on the Armenian Genocide, which is partly resulted of the official politics of memory implemented by Armenian authorities, as well as practiced by the Armenian Diaspora, and is partly a consequence of manifestations of national identity and collective memory at the level of society, social groups and individuals. The article is an attempt to identify the memory models in scientific research studies, in particular with regard to the memory of the Holocaust, and analyze their application / applicability to the culture and social practices of the memory of the Armenian Genocide.

The article deals with the problem of ritualization of cultural memory, which became the main theme in the late 1990s in German and Austrian literature on the basic of postmodern novel by Christof Ransmayr “Morbus Kitahara”, published in 1995. The year of 1995 became a turning point in German-language literature and marked the so-called “boom” of memorial literature, which was devoted to the presentation of events of the recent historical past, the Second World War and the Holocaust. A number of novels were published in that year which in different ways deal with historical experience: from immersion into individual history to the creation of dystopian depiction of alternative history, while demonstrating the ambiguity of contemporary perception of collective historical memory. It is important that the notion of “collective memory” has been actively used in scholarly discourse since the early 1990s, and it marks a change in the paradigm of assessing social processes. Similar tendencies are also observed in fi ction, which tries to give a new assessment of the traumatic events of the past, to overcome the long silence on the issue of guilt and victim, using different approaches and mechanisms for memory representing. The methodology used in this paper refers to the memory studies of A. Assmann and M. Halbawchs, who both deal with the terms of cultural and collective memory as well as with mechanisms of ritualization of cultural and collective memory. Memory a concept is realized on three levels, distinguished by A. Assmann: individual, social (communicative memory) and cultural. For this, cultural memory, together with the individual memory of characters, occupy a signifi cant place in the novel. It is shown that the novel describes in detail the mechanisms of implanting of the cultural memory, using symbols and images, as well as rituals as memory stabilizers. At the same time, an intended instilling of guilt takes place that destroys the inhabitants morally and spiritually. The body is assumed one of the intermediaries of memory retention which is also used to instill the negative traumatic memories. The Kitaharadisease, which initially affects the vision of the main character of the novel, affects other characters fi gures, primarily combatants, and becomes a bodily expression of sick memory: visual impairment should be seen as an attempt to forget negative individual experiences. Keywords: ritualization of memory, cultural

This article analyses the narratives of Gukurahundi , how they are perceived as forms of collective memory culture, how they help to explain personal experiences shared by victims of the 1980s genocide in Zimbabwe, and how these experiences become memory. The Gukurahundi genocide shows that not only do individuals remember, but that remembering can be a collective endeavour. While individual memory is usually bound to the short time span of a human life and disappears with the death of a particular individual, intergenerational and collective cultural memory, on the other hand, is of longer term and is supported by institutions, monuments and rites. This article acknowledges different types of memories and dwells not only on the collective and cultural memory that honours and praises the heroic deeds of Zimbabwe, but also on the painful collective memories of perpetration or guilt. It highlights the importance of documenting events that happened during Gukurahundi. In Zimbabwe, there is state owned documentation and other documentation, which, in this paper, would be referred to as counter archives. The types of documentation can be regarded as a way that Zimbabweans, especially the Ndebele ethnic group, remember or memorialise the past.

MLR, 103.2, 2oo8 6oi level ofmediation in the reconstruction of the past (Anabel Aliaga-Buchenau, Katja Garloff, Ben Hutchinson). None of them, however, deals explicitly with aspects of intermediality. The final section on questions of history and trauma is the strongest of the book. Karin Bauer examines Sebald's adaptation ofBenjamin's and Nietzsche's concepts of history and his rejection of anyMessianic or utopian potential they might contain, ar guing thatconcepts such as the 'good European' or thefianeur fail towork in relation toAusterlitz. JanCeuppens offers an insightful examination of the ethical dimen sion of the respectful distance thenarratormaintains fromhis characters and objects, which leaves him constantly negotiating between a factualwritten discourse which adheres to a 'Bilderverbot' and a visualizing of individual fates.David Darby's ex cellent essay contrasts Fontane's, Benjamin's, and Sebald's projects of (re)integrating memories by inscribing them in the spatial order of landscapes bywalking, a project which is seen to fail in the disintegrating landscape of Sebald's Die Ringe des Saturn. Peter Fritzsche and Mark Ilsemann explore very convincingly the unresolved ten sions in Sebald's writing between nature and history, the generic and theparticular, melancholy and trauma, between continuous human catastrophes and theHolocaust as the finalchapter of history. Susanne Vees-Gulani and Christina Szentivanyi both address the central quest inSebald's text togain access to an event one has not lived through, but whose repercussions have nevertheless shaped one's life,by applying concepts of postmemory and trauma. A few contributions echo the reverential tone of the foreword,others pay only fleetingattention toSebald. Mark McCulloh's intro duction makes a valuable point indrawing attention to the twofoldnature of Sebald's ceuvre in its 'tandem existence' in theEnglish and German languages. Since Sebald is by now ubiquitous not only inGerman Departments but also inEnglish orHolocaust Studies, contexts inwhich theEnglish translations are often not treated as such, it seems appropriate to remind scholars of thedifferences between theoriginal German texts and theirEnglish translations as well as of some deliberate deviations made in these transitions from one to the other. The transcript of an interviewwith Sebald conducted byMichael Zeeman is an interestingbonus; an indexwould have been an evenmore useful addition to an otherwise very illuminating collection of essays. BIRKBECK, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON SILKE ARNOLD-DE SIMINE Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit: Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik. By ALEIDA ASSMANN. Munich: Beck. 2oo6. 520 pp. ?19.90. ISBN 978-3-406 54962-5. The request that a line should be drawn under Germany's critical engagement with itsNational Socialist past is as old asGermany's post-war memory politics. In recent years, theSchlussstrichdebatte has been accompanied by a public discourse onGerman wartime suffering which pitches private war memories against thepolitically correct discourse of contrition. The contemporary triumph of the private over the political indicates a reconfiguration ofGerman collective and cultural memory that requires detailed critical attention. This isprecisely theproject ofAleidaAssmann's latest study, which offersa careful analysis of the multiple transformations ofGerman cultural memory and its memory politics since the early I990s. Setting cultural memory in dialogue with the ques tion of a specifically German politics of remembrance, the study is divided into two parts. Part i elaborates Assmann's earlier work by differentiating theHalbwachsian notion of collective memory in fourways: she now distinguishes between individual memory, thememory of the social group, thememory of thepolitical collective (na tionalmemory), and, finally,cultural memory. For example, individual memory is 602 Reviews a dynamic medium of processing our experiences on the basis of 'ich' and 'mich' memories (pp. 1I9-24); it isnevertheless contingent on the social memory of families and generations. Assmann argues that thenotion of collective memory has taken the place of thecritique of ideologies andmyths thatdominated humanities debates in the I960s and I970S. The new focus on collective memory reflects the basic insight that human beings are socially constituted and thus dependent on images and collective symbols as carriers of identity. In thisway, Assmann brackets off thenotion of 'false consciousness' in favour of the critical analysis of all the symbols and images that define our changing cultural horizons. Assmann details her theoretical road-map further through the analysis of a range of topoi thathave dominated memory debates...

Russia's Historical Memory:Strict-Security or Hybrid? Sergey Toymentsev (bio) Николай Копосов . Память строгого режима: История и политика в России. Москва: Новое литературное обозрение, 2011. 320 с. ISBN: 978-5-86793-851-2. Nikolay Koposov's A Strict-Security Memory: History and Poli tics in Russia is an interdisciplinary study of post-Soviet collective memory explored from a variety of methodological perspectives: opinion polls, historiography, legal studies, political science, and memory studies per se. Viewed as one of the long-term effects of the cultural politics of Soviet totalitarianism, the historical consciousness of contemporary Russians is presented in its evolutionary transformation as well as compared to other cases of posttotalitarian collective memory, such as those of post-Nazi Germany and post-Soviet Eastern Europe. As the book's title pointedly suggests, Russian collective memory has always been an indispensable part of the state propaganda, as if it were vigilantly guarded in a strict-security prison. Besides being an invaluable contribution to the newly emergent field of memory studies, Koposov also makes a strong political argument for the liberation of Russian cultural memory out of the shackles of political manipulation and thus publicly positions himself as a purveyor of democratic values. And yet, despite Koposov's argument that the historical memory in contemporary Russia develops under the government's "strict security" control, in this review I hope to show that the contradictory data he presents point to a rather different logic of the collective memory dynamic, which is less monolithic and more hybrid. The book consists of six chapters, each dealing with a certain stage of the evolution of national collective memory and historiography. Chapter 1 generally introduces historical memory research as an international phenomenon that recently gained academic significance as the ex-ploration of collective memory in posttotalitarian societies. Chapter 2 traces the development of Soviet memory politics and historical consciousness from the 1920s to the 1980s. Chapter 3 delves into the dynamic of collective memory during perestroika. Chapter 4 examines yet another turn in Russian memory politics under Putin's regime. Chapter 5 explores the professional aspects of historical science and education in Russian academia as well as their fundamental role in establishing a democratic civil society. Chapter 6 provides a detailed analysis of the "Presidential Commission to Counteract Attempts to Falsify History to [End Page 336] the Detriment of Russia's Interests" created in 2009. Given the circular pattern of the book's composition (it opens and ends with the discussion of the current debates over how the Soviet past should be remembered), Koposov's study effectively demonstrates the urgent political relevance of historical memory research to the so-called memory wars as well as the state's legal attempts to authorize a more agreeable version of history. Even though the author states that the primary focus of his investigation is the historical consciousness of contemporary Russians from the 1980s to the present (P. 12), one-third of the book is dedicated to a preliminary overview of cultural memory practices worldwide as well as the specific nature of national memory politics in Soviet times. According to Koposov, the rise of both memory studies and general interest in the past coincides with the collapse of the "grand narratives" of the future (as well as the cognitive shift from "common" names of universalism to "proper" names of ethnic particularism), which resulted in the proliferation of fragmented subaltern memories where history is largely criminalized and victimized. In this regard, the Holocaust memory as the memory of the century and "civil religion" (P. 56) has become the dominant paradigm of cultural memory in liberal democracies. In his brief excursions into posttotalitarian memory debates in Germany, France, Belgium, and postcommunist Eastern Europe, Koposov points out that cultural memory could still be the object of political manipulation, as was the case with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's legal endeavors to criminalize the denial of the Holodomor of 1932-33 as the Soviet genocide against the Ukrainian nation. Unlike cultural memory in liberal democracies characterized as the memory of victims rather than of perpetrators, Soviet political memory served primarily for the legitimation of the totalitarian regime via systematic institutional control and mythologization of one particular vision of history, which was nevertheless repeatedly modified according to shifting ideological emphases introduced...

The aim of this paper is to examine the mechanisms of action of individual and collective memory on the features of remembering/ forgetting / interpreting complex pages of history. The use of oral historical memories has allowed to trace the level of influence of stereotypes and dominant (official) historical narratives that were formed both in the Soviet period and in the independence era. The methodological basis of the study is the tools of oral, social history and the history of everyday life. Scientific novelty. The article is written on the basis of oral historical evidence. The article focuses on the issues that break stereotypes about Jews formed during the Soviet period. The collected evidence constitutes an important source of information that explains the peculiarities of the formation of social memory and political factors that determine the agenda of historical policy in a given period. 
 Conclusions. The article considers several blocks of problems that reflect the most typical stereotypes, fixed at the level of consciousness, behavioral attitudes, partially presented (or omitted) facts from history, which to some extent destroy them. The memoirs used in the article, which were collected in the framework of the project "Voices" in 2020 in Zhytomyr region (in which the author has participated), reflect the similarity of general ideas, assessments, tone, and memory stereotypes about anti-Semitism, the legitimacy of the Holodomor’s status of the genocide directed exclusively against ethnic Ukrainians, the role and place of Jews in the victory over Nazism, the peculiarities of evacuation, and the issues of preserving and honoring the memory of those killed during the Holocaust. At the same time, those memoirs demonstrate the differences between collective and individual memory, which preserves plots that to some extent destroy stereotypical attitudes that have long been ingrained in the mind and, accordingly, influenced the formation of social memory. The analysis of the interviews shows that oral history has significant source potential for studying various issues and sections of Soviet and modern history that await their researchers.

DOI: 10.3176/tr.2008.3.01 1. Introduction Memory has become one of buzzwords in today's humanities and social sciences. Concepts like 'collective memory' (Halbwachs 1950), 'lieux de memoire' (Nora 1989, 1996, 1998), 'cultural memory' (Bal et al. 1999), 'social memory' (Fentress and Wickham 1992, Misztal 2003), and many others catch our attention in titles of recently published books and articles, in tables of contents and lists of keywords. We are witnessing an increasing 'memory boom' (Winter 2000) in humanities and social sciences and a new field of research--memory studies--has emerged and develops rapidly. Under these circumstances we should, more than ever, pose ourselves question--what do we mean by 'memory'? Is memory an object of study, a unit of research, or is it a theoretical perspective through which we investigate other phenomena? What are differences between concepts of memory and history or memory and tradition? In which aspects do processes of individual memory and collective memory correlate, and in which they diverge? How far can we extend sub-concepts related to memory like remembering, forgetting, or trauma? And how can individuals' remembering be juxtaposed to construction of social memory? What is agency of language or artefacts in producing memory, in reflecting experience of temporality? What kind of potential, individual and collective, cultural or political, does inversion of temporal order extend in narratives of memory? The current special issue aims to raise some of these questions while implementing an interdisciplinary perspective on particular phenomena that arise from these explorations, in order to consider different aspects of memory with particular focus on cultural memory. 2. From memory boom to critical contemplations Taking into account abovementioned developments, 'memory' has become an excessively used and 'abused' concept, in humanities and social sciences, to extent that 'memory's' meaning and heuristic value become almost unclear (see Berliner 2005, Klein 2000, Fabian 1999). Misuses of memory seem to stem from feeling that it may be easier to avoid providing an adequate account of memory rather than to risk providing an insufficient definition. In field of anthropology Johannes Fabian warns against 'dangers of overextension' of concept of memory in 'current boom of memory, whereby memory becomes indistinguishable from either identity or culture' (Fabian 1999:51). It appears that concept of memory is undergoing developments similar to those that concept of culture recently underwent (cf. Fox and King 2002). We, as authors of this introduction, recognize that whereas it is probably impossible to provide an exhaustive definition of memory, it is nevertheless necessary, in ongoing academic boom of memory research, to continue discussion on possibilities and limitations of memory as an object and as a method. One of first significant critiques of 'the memory boom' by historian Kerwin Lee Klein (2000:128) pointed out that memory has become a 'metahistorical category', something like a Foucauldian field of discourse, referring to both individual and collective practices of remembering. However, it does not mean that memory is becoming a more abstract object, quite opposite--we witness the new materialization of memory to status of a historical agent, and we enter a new age in which archives remember and statues forget (Klein 2002:136). Wulf Kansteiner has argued that cumulative research on collective memory has not yet established a clear conceptual or methodological basis for cultural study of collective memory processes. The characteristics of individual memory are too eagerly attributed to collective memory, ignoring that memory in group processes does not function same way as it does in individual mind, and collective memory as an object of study needs therefore appropriate methods for its analysis. …

Those who are alive receive a mandate from those who are silent forever. They can fulfill their duties only by trying to reconstruct precisely things as they were, and by wresting the past from fictions and legends. – Czeslaw Milosz WITNESSING IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD The previous chapters have explored a number of conceptual and normative issues related to individual and collective memory, including: the nature of and differences between these two types of memory; the reciprocal relationship between individual and collective memory, on the one hand, and individual and collective identity, on the other; the virtues associated with taking responsibility for one's personal past; the role of collective memory in repairing historical injustice; the relationship between history and collective memory; and the ethical and moral obligations of remembrance, collective remembrance as well as personal remembrance of the dear departed. Although collective memory is not reducible to the aggregate of individual memories, I have claimed that collective memory and individual memory do not exist in completely separate domains. On the contrary, each inevitably contributes to and is intertwined with the other. The collective memory of a group is incorporated, explicitly or implicitly, into the individual memories of its members, at the same time that they put the stamp of their personal memories on the memories they share. There are also analogies with respect to some of these issues between individual and collective memory, as was clear from my discussion of taking responsibility for one's personal past in Chapter 2 and collectively doing justice to the past in Chapter 3.

The article defines the concepts «historical consciousness» and «historical memory» which are studied by many social sciences and are termed differently. The author indicates multiplicity of social memory as a process. Besides the public (social) memory the author distinguishes «cultural memory» (researched, especially recent); «collective memory» (faced and meaningful common experiences living together); «individual memory» (represented experience); «historical memory», etc. «Historical consciousness» and «historical memory» are the terms that take a key position in the theory and methodology of historical science. The author of the article also draws attention to the analysis of the approaches of contemporary scientists L.P. Repina and Maurice Halbwachs (the founder of the theory of historical memory (1877-1945) to the interpretation of the problem. The essence of historical consciousness and memory is characterized, public consciousness is distinguished. The author draws attention to such an important aspect of the problem as identifying complex concepts-synonyms appearing in the theory and methodology of historical science like «historical consciousness» and «historical memory». Special emphasis is made on showing dialectical unity concepts mentioned above.

The Forgotten Apocalypse:Katherine Anne Porter's "Pale Horse, Pale Rider," Traumatic Memory, and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 David A. Davis (bio) As Katherine Anne Porter's short novel "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" opens, Miranda fitfully endures a vivid nightmare. She sees herself on horseback desperately racing from Death, the pale rider, who has already taken her grandfather, an aunt, a cousin, her "decrepit hound, and [her] silver kitten," and when he reaches her, she realizes that "he is no stranger to [her]" (270). Her nightmare tangles images of life and death with images of remembering and forgetting, and the relationship between survival and memory is a recurring motif in the story. Porter's allusion to the apocalyptic horseman described in Revelation proves to be appropriate because the story takes places during the influenza pandemic of 1918, the greatest public health catastrophe in modern history. The interplay between death and memory in "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" gives an aesthetic dimension to the pandemic's horrifying consequences and raises questions about literature as a form of traumatic memory. In the spring of 2009 fear of a swine flu pandemic and ongoing fear of a potential avian flu pandemic awakened dormant memories of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Global health officials mounted a campaign of contagion preparedness, and many officials still see another human pandemic as inevitable, if not imminent. To mitigate this potential disaster, scientists, epidemiologists, and government officials worldwide are looking [End Page 55] to the 1918 pandemic as a worst-case scenario as they develop contingency response plans. Before the emergence of the current virus, however, the 1918 influenza pandemic had largely disappeared from cultural memory. Few references to the 1918 pandemic exist in literature, popular culture, or even in history books, which makes Porter's story an important record of the outbreak. In the story, Miranda, a reporter for a Denver newspaper, enjoys a whirlwind romance with Adam Barclay, a young Army officer, until she collapses from the virus. Adam nurses her as she comes near to death, and while she recovers, he returns to his unit where he dies from the virus. Porter based "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" on her personal experience as an influenza survivor, and it is the most significant American literary work set during the pandemic. The novella illustrates the varieties of traumatic experience—personal trauma, cultural trauma, historical trauma, and aesthetic trauma. The story takes place in a unique and profound historical context, both because of Porter's personal traumatic experience and because memories of the pandemic have faded. "We Have Forgotten the Dead": Individual Trauma and Collective Memory In Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History, Cathy Caruth describes trauma as a "wound of the mind—the breach in the mind's experience of time, self, and the world—[that] is not, like a wound of the body, a simple and healable event, but rather an event that . . . is experienced too soon, too unexpectedly, to be fully known and is therefore not available to consciousness until it imposes itself again, repeatedly, in the nightmares and repetitive actions of the survivor" (4). Most trauma theorists locate trauma's impact in the individual memory, where the unsettling experience disrupts the victim's identity, but when a disruptive event affects a large population simultaneously, a collective trauma occurs. The influenza pandemic of 1918 complicates the distinction between individual trauma and collective trauma. One might stipulate that collective trauma merely consists of numerous individual traumas, but collective trauma amplifies the individual's experience by taxing the network of social resources that ordinarily stabilize the individual victim. Massive events such as wars, natural disasters, and pandemics have different dynamics than personal events such as crime, accidents, and illness.1 In both individual and collective forms of trauma, the event's impact lies not in the immediate experience but in the survivors' memory [End Page 56] of the event. Exploring the distinction between individual trauma and collective trauma leads to an explanation for how and why the pandemic has virtually disappeared from collective memory. Katherine Anne Porter survived the influenza pandemic of 1918. She worked for The Rocky Mountain News during the outbreak, and she contracted influenza as the...

ABSTRACTStudies on collective memory have recently addressed the distinction between cultural and communicative memory as a way to understand how the source of a memory affects its structure or form. When a groups’ memory is mediated by memorials, documentaries or any other cultural artifacts, collective memory is shaped by cultural memory. When it is based mostly in communication with other people, its source is communicative memory. We address this distinction by studying two recent events in Argentinean history: the 2001 economic-political-social crisis (communicative memory) and the 1976 coup (cultural memory). We also examine the political ideology and the type of memory involved in collective memory. The memory of the studied events may occur during the lifetime of the rememberer (Lived Memory) or refer to distant events (Distant Memory). 100 participants responded to a Free Recall task about the events of 2001 in Argentina. Narrative analysis allowed comparing these recalls with our 1976 study. Results show: 1) Cultural memories are more contextualised, more impersonal and less affective. 2) Communicative memories are more personal and affective. Study shows how collective memory form changes when it has a different prevalent source.

The article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of collective memory in the value contexts of post-modernity. During the 20th century, the culture of memory is revealed through the individual-collective polarity, and in the postmodern era attention is focused on the boundary between them, on the culture of memory in the dimension of the modern media, on the contexts of the global information war. While individual memory loses touch with the past in the dimension of simulated identity, collective memory is usually associated with tradition as a reservoir of memory of the past. Collective memory in the age of modern media is in certain danger of targeted negative external influence, falsification, and inflation. The deepest cultural fears of the 20th century are the deformation or loss of memory, as well as the fear of memory substitution. The main value is linking memory with authenticity in the reproduction of the basic narrative in the cultural practices of today, in which the individual intersects with the collective. That is why the article pays special attention to the border between individual and collective memory, the culture of recall in communicative projects, and the reflection of moral dilemmas in different models of historical memory, the confrontation of different memories.

Literature has always been a significant form of expression for popular culture. With the rapid development of the internet, Chinese web literature has exhibited a unique aesthetic style, becoming an important component of the contemporary cultural landscape and a crucial carrier of collective emotion and social memory. Anchored in Jan Assmann's Cultural Memory theory, this study employs case studies and textual analysis to delve into its mechanisms for constructing collective emotion. It reveals how web literature elevates individual experiences into group identity through mechanisms of emotional belonging, symbolic participation, and platform orchestration, thereby constructing a decentralized collective memory system. The research finds that web literature not only reshapes the generative methods of traditional cultural memory but also creates new "sites of memory" (lieux de mmoire) within the digital space. Through its reinforcement effect on individual memory and the cohesive function of external guidance on collective emotion, web literature forms a closed loop for collective memory construction.

Literature has always been a significant form of expression for popular culture. With the rapid development of the internet, Chinese web literature has exhibited a unique aesthetic style, becoming an important component of the contemporary cultural landscape and a crucial carrier of collective emotion and social memory. Anchored in Jan Assmann's Cultural Memory theory, this study employs case studies and textual analysis to delve into its mechanisms for constructing collective emotion. It reveals how web literature elevates individual experiences into group identity through mechanisms of emotional belonging, symbolic participation, and platform orchestration, thereby constructing a decentralized collective memory system. The research finds that web literature not only reshapes the generative methods of traditional cultural memory but also creates new "sites of memory" (lieux de mmoire) within the digital space. Through its reinforcement effect on individual memory and the cohesive function of external guidance on collective emotion, web literature forms a closed loop for collective memory construction.