Mnemonic Intersections: Renegotiating Turkey’s Contested Past through Familial Memory in Fethiye Çetin’s My Grandmother

Introduction. Historical memory determines a person’s attitude towards the country, towards their people, ethnic group, and other groups with which they identify themselves with. The formation of historical memory involves not only the state, which is interested in fostering a sense of patriotism and citizenship in the young generation, but also such social institutions as the family, school, University, media, etc. Family attaches the individual to the social experience of the past, as it lays the foundation of the individual forms of self-awareness, love for the homeland, and its past. Family memory is part of historical memory, because there is no family history outside the history of the country. Materials and methods. The article presents an analysis of sociological qualitative research of semi-structured interviews in order to identify the role of the family in the process of forming the historical memory of young people in the Finno-Ugric families of Mordovians and Udmurts. 28 interviews were conducted (14 Mordovian and 14 Udmurt families were interviewed). The research included the study of the main mechanisms, factors and features of the formation of historical memory in the Finno-Ugric families of Mordovians and Udmurts. Research and Discussion. It was revealed that the main mechanisms for transmitting family memory to the younger generation are family stories, observance of a certain family, ethnic traditions, commemorative practices, etc. The central event of historical memory in the families of Mordovians and Udmurts is the Great Patriotic war, which affected every family. Most of the informants participate in the action «Immortal regiment». The interest in the history of the family, the family name is higher than interest in the homeland, the history of their ethnic group. In Udmurt families, there was a better awareness of ethnic traditions and holidays than in Mordovian ones. The most visited places of memory are churches, cemeteries, and the Eternal fire memorial. Conclusion. The family aspect of historical memory is given more attention in the Finno-Ugric families of Mordovia and Udmurts than the regional (ethnic) or Federal one. Most respondents believe that family and school play a crucial role in shaping the historical memory of the younger generation.

The article is devoted to the analysis of intergenerational features of the transformation of the migrants’ family memory in the context of global trends in five Russian regions. Using transnational and praxeological approaches, the authors examined the migrants’ family memory as a configuration of narratives and practices, including the memory of both the country of origin and the commemorative practices of the host society. Based on the biographical method of Fritz Schütze, the authors identified and analyzed the curves of family narratives of the first, 1.5 and second generations of migrants. The article concluded that family commemorations continue to play an important role in constructing the identity of migrant communities in the Russian provinces. The main difference between the Russian case and global trends in the transformation of migrants’ family memory is the dominance of first-generation migrants influencing family commemorations. It was concluded that “parallel” communities of memory between migrants and the host society are preserved. With regard to migrants, this was expressed in their openness only to the Russian language, while their attitude towards Russian traditions and festive culture was neutral. Turning to the generational features of the transmission and reproduction of family memory revealed an increase in differences between the first and second generations. Based on the three most common ways of relating to the family past in the second generation (reluctance to adopt, uncritical perception of traditions, co-production of common meaning), potential conflict zones were identified in intergenerational relationships regarding shared family memories.

To investigate the heritability of memory and other cognitive measures in families with multiple individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) to determine if neuropsychological measures can be used to better understand genetic contributions to AD. The genetic contributions to the variation in declarative memory, attention, abstract reasoning, language, and visuospatial function using a variance component method were estimated. For memory scores, the proportion of genetic contribution was estimated, controlling for APOE. The unadjusted heritability estimates for the declarative memory tasks ranged from 0.47 for delayed recall to 0.25 for delayed recognition, where a heritability estimate of 1 indicates that genetic factors explain all of the phenotypic variance and a heritability score of 0 indicates that genetic factors explain none. When adjusted for sex, age, education, and general intelligence, the heritability estimates increased to 0.60 for delayed recall and 0.41 for delayed recognition. None of the other cognitive tests showed heritability estimates as high as that observed for memory. When the influence of APOE was taken into account, the heritability estimates changed modestly for delayed recall and consistent long-term retrieval, whereas the estimates for other memory scores did not change, suggesting that APOE contributes little to these memory scores. Declarative memory in familial AD is under strong genetic influence, only part of which is attributable to APOE. Memory performance should prove to be a useful phenotypic component in the investigation of the genetic basis of AD.

How do families remember? How are families remembered? How are family memories structured, and what functions do they serve? “Family memory” as a focus of historical, sociological, and anthropological research often finds itself situated in the amorphous space that lies between autobiographical memory and collective memory. Reviewing memory literature that investigates family memory, this chapter proposes that family memory can be distinguished as its own realm for specific memory production, modes of remembering, and mnemonic transmission. Primordial in shaping families’ identities, family memory engages constant dialogue between the family understood as a collective unit and the family understood as a collection of remembering individuals. This chapter examines how family memory shapes individual identities; how it is organized around specific narratives, places and objects, and routines and rituals; and how it persists and evolves over time through intrafamilial and intergenerational transmission.

This chapter explores family memory as an analytical tool and research field of primary importance. It argues that in spite of a relatively frequent use of the term in various publications, family memory is understudied in both humanities and social sciences. Emphasizing the advantages of the micro-perspective of family memory, this chapter offers a thorough overview of the family memory research field, shedding light on subtle processes which may be overlooked when studying larger mnemonic entities. It describes the current state of the field, the founding father and founding decade of the 1990s. Advancing the reasons for the significance of family memory and some of future directions of the field, this chapter attempts to elucidate what family memory is and establishes family stories and family rituals as its essential components. Two aspects of family memories are underscored: their locatedness in particular time, space and culture and their capacity to move beyond borders and continents. This chapter documents that family memory is a research tool of global importance that cuts across four research areas: individual and collective identities; intersections with national and transnational memories; intergenerational transmission processes; and moves of people pertaining to migration, transnational and diasporic studies.

The history of the Great Patriotic War has become post-Soviet Russia’s universal language for political discussion and the only effective “bond.” As the most advantageous narrative from the perspective of the regime’s interests, it is this narrative of war that the Kremlin seeks to control above all. Memory of the war has been “appropriated” by the state, and the more freedom it has to manipulate this, the less veterans are able to challenge its triumphal mythmaking. However, the memory of war is, for most Russians, not limited to any official narrative in school texts, books, or films. For each family, it is also a family history, an object of pride, and a memory of tragedy. The state’s appropriation of the war and the pressure of “military-patriotic propaganda” have sparked resistance among a significant portion of society, along with a desire to affirm their own family memories. The “Immortal Regiment” was originally an attempt to seize power from the state monopoly and to assert the history of the war as a family history, one not inscribed in the state narrative alone, but that also subordinates the state narrative to family memory. Millions of Russians took to the streets to assert their right to history, the most powerful political statement in Russia’s entire post-Soviet history. The state has tried to paint the Immortal Regiment as a loyalist movement, because it speaks to the same topic that constitutes the core of the regime’s own political ideology, the Great Patriotic War. Meanwhile, it is clear even to the regime itself that this movement is discussing the war differently, in fact undermining the state’s interpretive monopoly on the military past and, consequently, its right to make political statements that exploit the theme of the war. It nevertheless remains too early to say whether the state has fully integrated this action into the propaganda mainstream. Furthermore, the power of the Immortal Regiment is even forcing propaganda to adapt to the demands of family and personal memory.

This chapter aims to show the challenges of archiving family memory of displaced families in postcolonial India. Focusing on the Partition of India of 1947, I argue that family memory helps us understand the processes of meaning-making that families of displaced communities adopt. I argue that the family archive of refugees is always incomplete as more effort is invested in collecting resources that are needed to establish a new life in a new place. Despite their incomplete and make-shift nature, family archives, held together by family memories that are passed on to the next generation, point to ways of countering the annihilation of an earlier way of life. What lives on in the family archives of the displaced often contrasts sharply with the history of nation building that newly independent India had adopted. Far from being a nostalgic indulgence, the archives of family memories mark the displaced population’s implicit critique of the national identity bestowed by the state. Family memories represent the difficult negotiations with the processes of citizenship that displaced people face. The family archives which begin and grow at home enable us to analyse social identity and cultural practices, and challenge our understanding of local and national histories.

The history of the Great Patriotic War has become post-Soviet Russia’s universal language for political discussion and the only effective “bond.” As the most advantageous narrative from the perspective of the regime’s interests, it is this narrative of war that the Kremlin seeks to control above all. Memory of the war has been “appropriated” by the state, and the more freedom it has to manipulate this, the less veterans are able to challenge its triumphal mythmaking. However, the memory of war is, for most Russians, not limited to any official narrative in school texts, books, or films. For each family, it is also a family history, an object of pride, and a memory of tragedy. The state’s appropriation of the war and the pressure of “military-patriotic propaganda” have sparked resistance among a significant portion of society, along with a desire to affirm their own family memories. The “Immortal Regiment” was originally an attempt to seize power from the state monopoly and to assert the history of the war as a family history, one not inscribed in the state narrative alone, but that also subordinates the state narrative to family memory. Millions of Russians took to the streets to assert their right to history, the most powerful political statement in Russia’s entire post-Soviet history. The state has tried to paint the Immortal Regiment as a loyalist movement, because it speaks to the same topic that constitutes the core of the regime’s own political ideology, the Great Patriotic War. Meanwhile, it is clear even to the regime itself that this movement is discussing the war differently, in fact undermining the state’s interpretive monopoly on the military past and, consequently, its right to make political statements that exploit the theme of the war. It nevertheless remains too early to say whether the state has fully integrated this action into the propaganda mainstream. Furthermore, the power of the Immortal Regiment is even forcing propaganda to adapt to the demands of family and personal memory.

This chapter present the importance of memory making in migrant families lives and how emigrants ‘do’ family memory. A representative survey of Lithuanian residents shows that those with emigration experience since 1990 participate in family memory construction more actively. The development of such communicative family memory is family work which demonstrates family solidarity and occurs between and within generations. However, this research shows that gender, age and location influence who is involved in this process with men and younger family members less likely to participate.

Reviewed by: To Follow in their Footsteps: The Crusades and Family Memory in the High Middle Ages by Nicholas L. Paul Kathryn Smithies Paul, Nicholas L., To Follow in their Footsteps: The Crusades and Family Memory in the High Middle Ages, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2012; cloth; pp. xiv, 336; 11 b/w illustrations; R.R.P. US$55.00; ISBN 9780801450976. Nicholas Paul’s book, To Follow in their Footsteps: The Crusades and Family Memory in the High Middle Ages is an extension of his doctoral thesis. It provides a meticulous study of the lay nobility’s motivations for crusading and is predominantly focused on the twelfth century. The principal focus of the book is on the ways in which memory and family influenced those who took the cross. While Crusades scholars have long recognised the role played by families in supporting and encouraging their kin to participate in a crusade, this work reveals the many ways and processes in which this was brought to fruition. [End Page 270] The book is divided into two sections, essentially theory and practice. The five thematic chapters of Section I consider a variety of evidential sources and their authors, authorial relationships with specific individuals, family groups, and objects, and events such as victory and death. Paul mines a wide selection of sources and the result is an extensive survey that demonstrates the multifaceted ways in which family histories commemorated and remembered their ancestors, and which in turn influenced contemporary crusaders. Section II provides two case studies that bring into play the findings disclosed in Section I. Section I is the largest part of the book and demonstrates Paul’s skill in textual selection, examination, and enquiry. His analysis and proposals provide new ways of understanding the first crusaders’ and their families’ motivations, specifically in relation to their ancestors and those who wrote of their deeds. It supplements the body of scholarship on memory and commemoration and thanks to the thematic approach, each chapter can, if required, be read as a stand-alone critical work. Section II’s case studies of Henry II of England and Alfonso II of Aragon are interesting choices. Each is anomalous in relation to Paul’s previous findings; nonetheless, Paul does not shy away from the anomalies, but addresses them judiciously. The strength of this section lies in the application of Section I’s five themes to the ways in which the two rulers used family and memory to understand their crusading heritage. Paul’s book is an important contribution to crusading scholarship in that it expands the current scholarship on memory and commemoration. An added strength of this work lies in the variety of themes undertaken. This is a compelling work that opens the way for further scholarship and methodologies on many aspects of crusading, not least of all the ways in which texts and objects intersected with individuals and families to provide meaning and context to the early crusaders. Kathryn Smithies The University of Melbourne Copyright © 2014 Kathryn Smithies

Monetary compensation to victims of historical injustice is a worldwide political and academic theme; however, it is rarely seen in the light of family memory. This article, based on evidence from 90 semi-structured interviews, explores the impact of official policies on individuals and families involved in the reparation procedures set up in the 1990s by the Austrian state for the victims of National Socialism. It focuses on the meaning of the oft-voiced complaint ‘ too little, too late’, arguing that there is a difference between what the phrase has commonly been understood to mean (a critical evaluation of the compensation efforts) and what analysis shows it to mean in the frame of ‘family memory’. The article argues that while this narrative of anger at first sight boycotts a dialogue, it also has an important performative and empowering function as well as an integrative function within the ‘post-memory’ generation. Exploring the mutual influence of compensation reception and family memory will help to theorize the role of anger in reconciliation processes.

The article presents the results of theoretical analysis of the “collective memory” constructs as a repository of collective experience of a large group, represented in the meanings, symbols, images, cultural patterns, means, mechanisms of reproduction and translation of the past, and the “family memory” constructs as its kind in the context of a small group. We believe, that collective and family memory act as specific ontological support that allows actors to establish order and harmony in the society, understand the principles of its life organization, construct social and cultural identity, determine the existential meaning, trajectory and strategy of a person’s life, preserve the configuration of key values and transmit them to the next generations. The purpose of the study is to determine the specific features of collective and family memory as phenomena arising from the interaction of I and the Other/Others. The main research method is the theoretical self-reflection of collective and family memory in the context of the interaction of I and the Other. We assert that collective memory is a generalized and controlled memory of Others, whose dominant function is the preservation of the integrity and security of a large group, while family memory is a communicative memory based on the effect of sympathy and participation of the lived, experienced and spoken experience of a Significant Other – a small group representative. The applied aspect of the problem under study is to use the results of the theoretical self-reflection in developing the basics of the memory policy and commemorative practices, managing the past and resolving memory conflicts within the framework of the Great History discourse, and also forming meta-settings of family system members in relation to their own real and effective family history.

Accurate and detailed accounts of what people are doing when where and for how long tell us a great deal about their lives. But the question of how we use our time is quite different from the issue of how we experience our time. Anthropological research on time has shown that people’s experience of time is dependent upon the cultural models of time available to them (Evans-Pritchard 1969; Geerts 1973; Gell 1992; Shore 1996). The experience of time is also always retrospective, dependant upon how people recall their activities. In order to affect recall, cultural models of time must also become cognitive models (Cole 2004). Our project goal at the MARIAL Center at Emory University is to understand how family members develop a sense of common identity through shared memory schemas that helped define a distinctive kind of autobiographical memory that we call ‘‘family memory’’ (Kendall-Taylor and Shore 2002; Fivush in press; Fivush et al. in press; Shore 2008; Shore 2005). ‘‘Family memory’’ lies at the intersection of shared activities and memory and the conversations and narratives through which these activities and objects become transformed into durable shared memory schemas. While such longterm family memory is presumably grounded in a wide range of shared activities, it turns out to be highly selective, and depending on structures of cognitive salience that are negotiated in the course of family conversations (Bartlett 1932; Fitzgerald 1988; Fivush in press b). This particular research project is based upon numerous family conversations with four middle-class working families in a small town in north central Georgia. These conversations were recorded approximately every two weeks over a period of two years. During these conversations families recounted and debated the typical organization of family activities during the year, the season, and the day. Families were allowed to establish their

This article is based on a Franco-German collective research project on family memories that has been conducted at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) of Paris over the past five years by a dozen of young German and French researchers and coordinated by the two authors. Based on an empirical study of eight family monographs, method inspired by the anthropology of kin relations, this article traces the process that has led us from the analysis of family memories toward the analysis of the production of history(ies) within and through kin groups. It is the Franco-German comparison, but also the necessity to interrogate the concepts of family and history/memory which has led us to propose an original approach of family memories, ultimately leading to a dissatisfaction with the conceptualization we started with. The term “family memories” suggests simultaneously the existence of a group (the family), common souvenirs (collective memories), and underlines their difference to history (produced by professionals). This triple definition finally reveals being little useful for this research, since we have rather tried to investigate ways in which individuals and groups, linked through relations of kinship, produce histories through reappropriations of stories constructed and transmitted within several institutions. It is the practices of kin relations, common or contradictory discourses, communicated and linked through emotions, which will produce these (hi-)stories. These multidimensional interactions and configurations contribute in turn to the production of history.

The article analyzes and summarizes the results of a qualitative sociological study of the family memory of young people. generation of “centennials”, using the example of students of Mordovian State University, implemented by the method of in-depth interviews in order to identify the main characteristics of the family memory of young people in the context of the formation of their civic identity. Regular interaction of the family with wider communities of memory, as well as institutional “places of memory”, in modern Russia has been established, including the exchange of information and material evidence of memory through digital and traditional archives, museums, local history publications, the media, etc., construction “assemblage points” between significant people and events in the history of the family, on the one hand, and the country, on the other, through which the historical past of the country is included in the family narrative, and the family’s past in the public memorial culture. The similarities and differences between the basic structure of informants’ family memory narratives and the official narrative of Russian memory policy are shown. It was revealed that the family memory of “centennials” mediates the individual’s connection not with individual social groups, formed in the form of mnemonic communities, but with the community of memory of an indefinite set of people, which can be correlated with the category of “people” as a state-civil community.