Social Framework of Collective Memory and Cognitive Problems of Historical Knowledge

Abstract

The article demonstrates that the cognitive possibilities of historical memory and “living history”, which generates the agenda, questionnaires and source strategies of historians, are closely connected with the social framework of historical memory and, accordingly, with the self-identification of historians. They form cognitive maps that regulate the cognitive activity of a historian. It is shown that the social framework of historical memory within the crisis of globalization is changing rapidly, creating unusual, contradictory and sometimes absurd constellations. This topic is studied in the context of the history of discursive hegemony in historical memory by analyzing the ideas of A. Assmann, J. Laroche, A. Cento Bull and H. L. Hansen, who criticize the current state of historical memory and suggest new versions of it, based on the change of social frameworks and forms of discourse. The project of cosmopolitan memory created by the latter, its advantages and disadvantages are evaluated. The tools of analysis are N. Elias's theory of “civilization process”, G. Bateson's theory of schismogenesis, E. Erikson's theory of self-identification, E. N. Shulga's concept of pre-understanding. It is shown that cosmopolitan memory, while remaining within the framework of hegemonic discourse, reproduces antagonistic forms of memory. The most productive are the approaches of A. Assmann and S. Conrad, who carefully criticize the situation of cosmopolitan memory, seem to be the most productive. Cultural and historiographical processes in Germany, the British Empire and Southeast Asia served as the main material for the study. The works of N. Ferguson, close to the imperial historical school and the neo-Asianism (reorientalism) of Lee Kuan Yew, in which the values of empire, colonialism and traditionalism are defended in opposition to the ideal of human rights, have been analyzed. It is noted that historians strive to distinguish between the universalism of the idea of humanity and cultural pluralism in dialogue about human rights, which prevents criticism of alien or seemingly alien values outside a situation of cooperation and consensus. The ideal of cross historical memory as the historian's optimal cognitive tool is put forward.