Shaping the Communal Past, Tinkering with the Communal Past. A Few Notes in the Margin of Piotr Okniński’s Book

Although the study of memory has been very popular in the social sciences since the 1980s, scholars studying world politics started paying attention to memory politics only relatively recently, during the past two decades. Initially, scholars working at the “margins” of the discipline of international relations (IR), in the fields of post-structuralism and political sociology, integrated the concept of memory into their studies. They acknowledged that traumatic memory is essential for the formation and functioning of political communities. Collective traumas, like crises in world politics, can mark new beginnings for political life when new discourses and new identities are formed. Later questions related to identity formation attracted the attention of constructivists. With the rise of the constructivist paradigm in IR, the study of memory politics and especially the relationship between memory and foreign policy attracted more scholars. These scholars became interested in the creation of official historical narratives, state apologies, and reconciliation. Most recently, scholars working in the fast-growing field of ontological security (OS) have started to engage questions related to political memory in their analyses. These scholars are particularly interested in the ways in which states create their biographical narratives to make sense of the world to themselves and engage other states. Memory plays a major role in the creation of these narratives, and thus it is of crucial importance to those who try to understand OS. This article offers an overview of the major works on memory and world politics, most of which have been written by scholars in political science and IR. However, occasionally works from other disciplines were included if they engaged themes that are essential for understanding the role of memory in global politics. These themes include trauma and memory. Memories of war play a major role in “shaking up” political communities, producing new narratives and reshaping identities. Political transitions play a similar role. During political transitions, historical memories are instrumentalized to legitimate new political orders. Consequently, the study of memory cannot be separated from the processes of democratization and democratic consolidation. Furthermore, both democratic and non-democratic states practice intervention in memory practices, outlawing certain practices of memory and silencing others. The rise of memory laws is another theme reflected in this essay. This essay also includes works attempting to imagine “ideal” memory politics when different versions of the past are coexisting and when states adopt a critical gaze into their dark pasts.

The policy of memory is a strategy of interaction between power institutions and social groups in the public space on issues of national history. Images of social memory are used by actors to create narratives – complete, plot-complete narratives of past events. Social groups declare their identity and the right to their own interpretations of historical events through the creation of narratives. The clash of alternative interpretations of events leads to a mnemonic conflict, which is the reflection of the political struggle for the right to memory. Dialogue and mediation are tools of memory policy. The logic of this policy implies reconciliation and solidarity of all social groups that have survived a single historical fate, but have a differentiated social memory. People remember how these events reflected on the fate of their families. The methodology of researching the politics of memory is based on sociocultural and historical-comparative analysis, combines phenomenological and constructivist approaches. In analyzing the problem, the article uses the theory of attraction fields of P. Bourdieu. Such a methodological construction helps to study the field structures of social memory, the specifics of constructing a narrative, and the possibilities of a political solution to the mnemonic problems of the nation. The policy of memory is presented as a tool for managing public consciousness in the mental structures of the community. It is contradictory, ideologically determined, involves the collision or coordination of alternative narratives. The structures of power that determine the rules of the “game” on the “memory field”, articulating “official narratives”, have the right to decide on the priority strategy of memory policy. But the influence on the formation of memory policy strategies is possessed by any social groups representing “unofficial” narratives. The construction of a memory policy is based on strategies — targeted, sequential actions that assert in the collective consciousness the version of national history as dominant. Strategies are embodied in variable scenarios - tactical measures of a situational nature that determine the moves and placement of acting characters for the implementation of strategies. The authors identified the main types of memory policy strategies: reproach (realization of a “martyrdom”), oblivion of the tragic past (crowding out facts contradicting “heroic” interpretations from official narratives), conflict of interpretations (contradicting “official” and “unofficial” narratives), dialogue (discourse and coordination of interpretations) with the relevant scenarios of the development of the political situation - the chanting of “historical greatness”, silence, repentance, contradictory narratives, reconciliation and solidarity . The result of the analysis of the problems of social memory in Russia are the theoretical constructs of the narrative confrontation with the following options for scenario solutions that formulate memory policy strategies.

This article is part of the special cluster titled Social practices of remembering and forgetting of the communist past in Central and Eastern Europe, guest edited by Malgorzata Glowacka-Grajper Controversies over social memory form an important aspect of reality in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe. On the one hand, there are debates about coming to terms with the communist past and the Second World War that preceded it (because important parts of the memory of the war were “frozen” during the communist era), and, on the other hand, and intimately connected to that, are discussions about the constant influence of communism on the current situation. This article presents some of the main trends in research on collective memory in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe and reveals similarities and differences in the process of memorialization of communism in the countries of the region. Although there are works devoted to a comparative analysis of memory usage and its various interpretations in the political sphere in the countries of Eastern Europe, there are still many issues concerning daily practices (economic, religious, and cultural) associated with varying interpretations of the war and the communist past which needs further elaboration and analysis.

This article is devoted to the problem of constructing a collective memory of the "inconvenient past" by modern elites of Russia on the example of the events of the 1917 revolution and the subsequent civil war. The conflict aspects of commemoration (installation of monuments and memorial signs) in the process of constructing an official historical narrative are considered. Concidered changes in the official historical narrative regarding the "difficult past" in different periods of time. The preservation of historical memory largely depends on the political objectives of the current government, which not only supports collective memory through various commemorative practices, but also constructs a modern historical narrative. This narrative does not imply the restoration of Soviet historiography; it combines a variety of interpretations of the events of the Revolution and the Civil War in the context of building the historical continuity of Russian statehood. Therefore, the images of some Soviet figures coexist with the figures of their opponents, forming ideas among the mass audience about patriotic service to the Russian state, regardless of ideological and political views. The "lost memory" is not being restored; current generations of Russians have not accepted the political experience of supporters of democratic socialism, who rejected Bolshevism and did not support the "white movement" in the civil war. The attitude towards the losers in the fight against the Bolsheviks today is negative, as towards weak and incapable politicians. Considering historical memory as an integral part of collective memory, it is concluded that only those events of the past that are perceived by society as extremely useful for modern generations are integrated into the structure of collective consciousness. In addition, the inertia of public consciousness affects the "selection of event material". For this reason, during the entire post-Soviet period, it was not possible to completely replace the former Soviet ideological cliches with a new historical narrative.

This article explores the role of critical engagement with official and alternative historical narratives for dissident/diverse activists in Chile. Intervening in the debate surrounding queer temporality, which has tended to focus on the idea of futurity, the article brings Elizabeth Freeman's concept of “temporal drag” into conversation with Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's theorization of ch'ixi subjectivity to argue that temporal drag on ch'ixi bodies renders visible the impact of colonial norms surrounding race and sexuality in the creation of the modern Chilean nation-state. Through four case studies, gathered via archival research and ethnographic participant observation, the author makes the case that by engaging with and questioning, rather than running from, official historical narratives, dissident/diverse activists in Chile carry out activism that brings to light both the country's historical and continuing oppression of sexual and racial minorities and the violent histories of colonialism and dictatorship that have made this oppression possible.

The study deals with the historical narrative of the modern Central European constitutions. The earlier 20th century constitutions were also in some way responsive to historical changes, but in the post-1989 constitutions, the historical narrative has also acquired a strong legitimating function. This was partly related to the fact that several states gained state independence at the time. Another important aspect is the confrontation with the communist past. Typically the constitutional preambles deal with history. The normative nature of the preambles is disputed, but they can play an important role in the process of legal interpretation by constitutional courtes. The most interesting in this respect is the Hungarian preamble adopted in 2011, which is both the longest and the most ideological in the Central European region. The ideological elements in the post-transitional constitutions has not weakened over time, but rather strengthened. This is particularly obvious in Hungarian constitutional development. However, a strong historical narrative can sometimes become counterproductive. This is especially true for states, where there is no co-decision consensus on the judgement of certain key historical events and thus an one-sided presentation of historical issues can also make it difficult for constitutions to fulfil their social integration function.

ABSTRACTThis article explores the relationship between criminal justice and historical master narratives about the communist past in post-1989 Bulgaria and Germany. It focuses on the legal and historical debates that have unfolded within the Bulgarian Revival Process trial and the trial of the National Defence Council of the former German Democratic Republic. Previous literature on transitional justice has argued that trials of former authoritarian officials have an important epistemic function for societies in transition, because they challenge and overturn the dominant historical accounts about the dictatorial regime. In contrast, this article shows how in two different post-communist cases the outcomes of trials had been influenced by entrenched master narratives about the ousted political order. Criminal justice thus played a limited role in providing new readings of the dictatorial past.

Review: <i>The Palace Complex: A Stalinist Skyscraper, Capitalist Warsaw, and a City Transfixed</i>, by Michał Murawski

In April 2015, Ukraine adopted the so-called decommunization package which reflects its attempts to deal with the past and defines directions of its current memory policy. To cope with the communist past and create a new pantheon of national heroes, Ukraine is re-writing its history, selectively choosing among the several memories those that can foster its national identity and cohesion. This is a controversial process which divided Ukraine’s society and resulted in so-called memory wars – a clash of the State-sponsored historical narratives – with Russia and Poland. The internal and external contradictions which are a feature of decommunization in Ukraine give a reason to state that the frontline of European memory wars goes across this country. The present Article provides an overview of memory laws from Ukraine’s decommunization package, analyses Ukraine’s “official” historical narratives, and discusses the memory wars with Russia and Poland that it has been recently involved in.

This is a chapter about how nations imagine possible futures in the context of transitional justice and coming to terms with the communist past in Eastern Europe. For post-communist countries engaged in democratic development, the most significant question was that “of the relation of the treatment of the state’s past to its future” (Teitel, 2000, p. 3). This chapter focuses on the condemnation of communism in Romania in the Tismăneanu Report and on how the Report is constructing the image of a collective future around the issue of how to represent the communist era in public consciousness.

Summary This paper concerns works by the Polish contemporary author and journalist Mariusz Szczygieł (*1966). I analyze Szczygieł’s Czech reportages (Gottland [2006], Zrób sobie raj [2010] and to some extent Nie ma [2018]) from the perspective of memory studies, focusing particularly on the question of taboo in collective memory and the issue of false memory (the products of the minds of individual persons or groups of people that make them sure that a certain event took place despite the fact that it never occurred), which are meant to show the untrustworthiness of memories and reminiscences. I argue that Szczygieł’s Czech reportages are to be read in the context of questions that have been vividly discussed in the Polish public sphere in recent decades: the dilemma of how to deal with the communist past after 1989 (lustration; Polish: lustracja); and how to proceed with the referential pact when writing and reading literary nonfiction.

This article is a reflection on the category of authenticity in cinema, based on Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's movie The Lives of Others (German: Das Leben der Anderen). The action of the film takes place in the late 1980s in East Berlin. The film can be classified as belonging to the category of “coming to terms with the past” and may be treated as a representation of collective memory concerning Berlin, as it depicts Berlin and the former institutions of communist terror. However, it is also an important statement about German collective memory in general. The focal point in the debate on this film is the category of authenticity, which I attempt to trace in the topography of Berlin related to the communist past present in the movie. The main problem is the juxtaposition of materialized and authentic forms of remembering (e.g. buildings, the streets of Berlin) with a fictional story. In case of this movie, it turns out that the pursuit of authenticity to some extent violates taboos of German collective memory, as it conflicts with the canon of official memory, as well as, in some cases, the canon of the audience’s memory (many of whom can still recall the communist past).

The article aims to explain the relationships between the official historical narrative (politics of memory) and the image of the state on the international area (nation branding). The analysis was based mainly on the Kazakh cinematography and the Kazakh TV station programs.I argue that the official historical narrative may contribute to the change of Kazakhstan perception on the international area. Politics of memory aims at highlighting the selected historical periods and concealing others. Kazakhstan elites are trying to emphasize the recent history, modernization and economic successes of the state after 1991. The pre-Soviet history is also strongly accentuated, and the historical continuity of the Kazakh nation (or even its statehood) from the end of the 15th century is highlighted. The politics of memory also aims at retraditionalization, i.e., the traditional lifestyle of nomads is widely publicized. On the other hand, the period of Russian and Soviet rule, painful events in the history of the twentieth century, are omitted or even concealed. Such a manner of conducting politics of memory may change the image of Kazakhstan, from the post–Soviet state to a modern one, modernized but at the same time nomadic, with a rich tradition.

Tarot cards are one means to unlocking an image. In this article, the image is that of the Albanian writer and political dissident Musine Kokalari at her 1946 trial. Her photograph features in Albanian discourses about its communist past. I argue that the image provides clues as to the manner in which the country has faced up to its own history. For what is certain is that the Albanian account of the Enver Hoxha dictatorship (1944–1991) remains incomplete. Drawing on Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘here-and-now in a flash’, and Roland Barthes’ and Italo Calvino’s reflections on photography and the power of the visual, we can identify at least two distinct memory regimes in the relevant historical, legal and political narratives.

The article is devoted to the study of the role of legislation in the construction of the official historical narrative of the Great Patriotic War, as expressed in memorial legislation. Based on the analysis of the form, content and meaning of normative legal acts dedicated to the memory of the Great Patriotic War, it is concluded that the legitimization of historical memory is associated with the desire of the state to articulate frames of historical memory that explicate social ideas about key individuals, events and symbols that are crucial for ensuring national security and social identification, not only in in historical retrospect, but also in relation to modern social reality. The memory of the Great Patriotic War, consolidating society, is the most important means of social identification and acts as a value standard of citizens' behavior, which has shown its effectiveness in the past. By constructing frames of historical memory, memorial legislation ensures not only the preservation of the image of the Great Patriotic War and its interpretation in accordance with the official historical narrative, but also its transmission to citizens and representation in commemorative practices that explicate the axiological intentionality of Russian politics. This creates a sense of belonging between the state and civil society in the process of perpetuating the memory of the Great Patriotic War. The author emphasizes that memorial legislation is not only a legal, but also a legitimate means of preserving, broadcasting and representing the memory of the war. On the one hand, it explicates the conventional image of the Great Patriotic War, formed in the memory of Russian society. On the other hand, it is intended to broadcast the official historical narrative to the neophytes.