Theory formation and the politics of history. Historical memory in the work of Reinhart Koselleck

: I argue that the emerging genre of autofiction provides a number of useful techniques and methods by which postcolonial writers engage with the politics of memory in their depiction of a number of largely forgotten brutalities committed by the European imperial powers during the colonial era. More specifically, two of the elements of autofictional practice that have been of particular interest to postcolonial writers are its capacity to mediate between individual and collective forms of memory on the one hand; while also radically destabilizing notions of absolute truth and authenticity on the other. Drawing on research into the relationship between writing and forms of public commemoration, the article analyses Fred D’Aguiar’s portrayal of the killing of African slaves thrown overboard the slave ship Zong in 1781 in Feeding the Ghosts (1997); Kamila Shamsie’s depiction of the massacre of demonstrators protesting against colonial rule in India in Peshawar in 1930 in A God in Every Stone (2014); and Jackie Kay’s homage to the sinking of the SS Mendi, a ship carrying southern African non-combatant personnel to assist in the British effort in World War One in “Lament for the Mendi Men” (2011). It will suggest that even though these texts are not strictly works of autofiction, the techniques afforded by that genre are useful to those writers seeking to draw attention towards a number of neglected historical events. Colonial massacres, enslavement of people and naval disasters during the imperial period have received far less historical or cultural memorialization than other more widely recognized historical events such as VE Day or the Somme. By establishing these events as being culturally and morally important to remember, the article will argue, autofiction provides a number of tools for engaging with the politics of public memory and commemorative events in the present

The article substantiates the importance of studying the problems of historical memory and the politics of historical (national) memory today, during the period of Russia’s armed aggression and information war against Ukraine, the manifestation of which is the transfer of the confrontation into the sphere of public consciousness and collective historical memory. It is proved that the above is due to the role played by historical memory and the policy of historical (national) memory in the processes of national identification, nation-building and state-building, ensuring national security, determining the political future of the Ukrainian the state and the Ukrainian nation. The main approaches to the concept of historical memory are analyzed and its understanding is proposed as reflected in the collective consciousness of knowledge and reflection on events, traditions, ideas and theories, with the help of which the people (ethnic community) realizes and preserves its past. An understanding of the concept of the policy of historical (national) memory as a set of social practices aimed at the representation (modification) of certain images of the common past, actualized by the modern political context, is proposed. It has been proven that in modern democracies, the formation (construction) of memory policy is one of the directions of state policy. It is proven that the policy of historical (national) memory is objectified in the form of legislation, strategies, concepts that determine the ways of reproducing past events or memory in society, being incorporated into political declarations, government programs, commemorative practices, memorial objects. The purpose of the politics of memory is to form a collective interpretation of the past and to identify certain events, symbols or personalities that should be commemorated in society. It is substantiated that the crisis state of historical memory in modern Ukrainian society, together with the shortcomings and gaps in the past implementation of the policy of historical (national) memory, especially under the conditions of information warfare and the influence of hostile propaganda, can hinder the unity of society, cause a serious threat to social harmony and national security. Emphasis is placed on the priority of the task for state bodies and civil society of forming a consolidated model of historical (national) memory, and it is stated that such a policy should be balanced, take into account modern realities and be based on a strong legislative basis. It has been proven that in the conditions of Ukraine’s ongoing war with the Russian aggressor, the policy of historical (national) memory should be based on the previous and recent experience of the struggle of the Ukrainian people against Russian colonialism and aggression, as well as on historical facts, events, personalities, symbols that citizens of Ukraine consider important in the context of state formation and ensuring national security, regardless of the historical, political, and social context of their formation. Emphasis is placed on the importance of such a component of the policy of national memory as honoring and respecting the heroes and heroines of the ongoing war. As the prospects for further research, the expansion of scientific approaches to the study of the peculiarities of the historical memory of the Ukrainian nation and the policy of historical (national) memory in Ukraine, in order to accelerate the formation of their consolidated, objective, non-controversial models, is defined. It was emphasized that the main strategies and mechanisms used for the construction of national memory, as well as an assessment of their impact on the state of national and state security, require further research.

The aim of the study is to examine the contemporary politics of memory in Greece in the early 2020s. The author analyzes the role and place of various ideological trends in modern Greek social thought, defining them as factors in the development and transformation of memorial culture and the collective historical memory of society. The novelty of the study lies in addressing the current stage in the development of the historical policy of the Greek society in the context of an objective lack of interdisciplinary research. The article is based on the principles of interdisciplinary historiography on memory studies. The author uses the achievements of the memorial turn and intellectual history to analyze Greek politics of historical memory and memorial culture. The article reveals the importance of factors of weak institutionalization of memorial culture in the context of significant politicization and ideologization of historical memory. The article shows that social activists as agents of the politics of memory in modern Greek society make a significant contribution to the development and transformation of memorial culture, the spectrum of memorial practices of Greek intellectuals varies from nationalism to liberalism, the participation of intellectuals in memorial politics impacts the parallel co-development of various competing forms of historical memories and versions of memorial cultures. The research suggests that the role of society in the historical politics of modern Greece will increase, and the intellectual community will remain among the active participants in the collective memorial politics.

This article presents an attempt to analyse historical politics as politics of memory in modern Georgia in the context of perception of the images and heritage of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG). The aim of the study is to analyse the images of the Democratic Republic of Georgia between 2018 and 2020 as part of the history and genealogy of the modern project of Georgian statehood in historical politics. The article is based on the methods used in studies of the politics of memory (historical politics) in modern interdisciplinary historiography. The article describes the features of the instrumentalisation of DRG images in the historical and political cultures of Georgia. The article examines the forms of participation of modern elites in the politics of memory in contexts of jubilee celebrations, memorial, and commemorative events that inspired the actualisation of the DRG images in the cultural and public spaces of Georgia. It is revealed that modern elites and heirs of DRG politicians became actors of historical politics and actual “battles for history”. As a result, the author concludes that images of the DRG became a symbolic resource for the consolidation of society and the development of the political identity of Georgian statehood. It is assumed that images of the DRG are integrated into the symbolic tools that political elites used in their attempts to correct identity and historical memory in modern Georgia. It is demonstrated that by initiating memorial celebrations dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the DRG in 2018, Georgian elites launched a series of commemorative events planned until 2024 solving political problems, localising, and interpreting historical traumas in the politics of memory proposed by the state as the main former of the official historical canon.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the peculiarities of the perception of the Islamic State of Indonesia (1949–1962) in modern Indonesian memorial culture and historical collective memory. It is assumed that the ideological contradictions and methodological difficulties of localizing the history of Islam in the culture of memory of Indonesia are aggravated by the collective traumas of mutual violence and mistrust between secular nationalists and their Islamic opponents. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of the attempts of the Indonesian society to form a compromise canon of the culture of historical memory as a space for dialogue and development of the images of the Islamic State, which was previously the object of negative mythologization, which led to its marginalization in the collective historical memory. The author analyses 1) the features of the imagination of the Islamic State in the politics of memory, 2) the prospects and contradictions of integrating the history of the Islamic State into the historical imagination of the memorial culture of Indonesia, 3) attempts to revise the history of the Islamic State in the context of the development of the memorial culture of modern Indonesian society. The results of the study suggest that Indonesian society is active in its attempts to use the mechanisms of historical politics to form a new image of the history of the Islamic State, seeking to build a compromise version of the memorial culture, which would include secular and religious versions of historical memory.

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 article analyses the perception of the history of the Muslim community in the modern Indonesian politics of memory. For the first time in Belarusian historiography, the features of the historical politics or the politics of memory in modern Indonesia are considered. The novelty of the article lies in the integration of Indonesian issues into the contexts of modern interdisciplinary memorial studies. The key subjects of the politics of memory in Indonesia are determined in contexts of the revision of the history of political Islam in the second half of the 20th century. The activity of the media is considered as the main form of the revision of history, criticism of old historical narratives and the formation of a new memorial canon of the history of Indonesian Islam. Attempts to revise the history of Islam are analysed, including new interpretations of Muslim activists, who impact participated in the national movement. The author analyses the contradictions of historical politics in the context of integration of the history of Indonesian political Islam of the 20th century into the secular memorial canon. It is assumed that attempts to construct the history of political Islam in the modern collective Indonesian memory have a compromise character. The author shows how intellectuals assimilate the history of Islam, integrating it into the current memorial canon. It is noted that within the framework of the politics of memory, ideologically and politically controversial points related to the history of radical political Islam, which in the early model of national memory were marginalised and forgotten. Modern manipulations with historical memory are analysed as attempts to achieve a memorial compromise between secular intellectuals and representatives of the Muslim community.

The purpose of the study is to analyse the perception of the problems of the history of the status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the politics of memory of modern North Macedonia. The author analyses the role and place of church narratives in historical politics and the development of memorial culture. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of the features of the religious dimension of the politics of memory in modern Macedonian society as a secular state. The article analyses the perception of church issues in modern memorial Macedonian culture. The article also shows that the politics of memory that forms and promotes the perception of the history of the Church in the Macedonian ethnic coordinates system determine on the development of Macedonian nationalism. It is assumed that the political elites of modern North Macedonia actively use the problems of the history of the Church consolidating national identity in politics of memory. The results of the study suggest that the memorial culture of modern Macedonian society in contexts of the perception of the history of the Church is distinguished by a nationalistic character, and the perception of church history in the collective memory of Macedonia develops in contexts of memorial wars with other Balkan societies, integrating the historical heritage of Orthodoxy on the territory of Macedonia into their own historical memories.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the liberal version of the politics of memory in the modern Arab world. The author analyzes the features and main directions of constructing the past by Arab intellectuals. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of liberal trends in the actual memorial culture of the Arab world. Methodologically, the article is based on the principles of interdisciplinary historiography of historical and cultural collective memories. The author distinguishes the concepts of "historical politics" and "politics of memory". It is assumed that “historical politics” is conducted by political elites for the reproduction of conservative stability and loyalty. The author analyzes the “politics of memory” as a number of practices and strategies of Arab liberal intellectuals using radical humanitarian epistemology for construction and promotion of new versions and forms of the past, forming alternative memorial cultures and canons. The article analyzes the activity of liberal Arab intellectuals in contexts of the heterogeneity of modern intellectual historical culture. The article also analyzes attempts to transplant a radical humanitarian epistemology as a form of revision of historical memory. It is assumed that the liberal form of the memorial politics is alternative and marginal simultaneously, but theoretically and methodologically, the ideas of Arab liberals are comparable with the main trends in the development of Western interdisciplinary historiography of memorial cultures.

This study aimed to examine the impact of Asian countries’ memory politics on the development of regional conflicts. A comparative analysis was conducted alongside a discursive analysis of official memory narratives and a content analysis of political documents and commemorative practices. The research explored key concepts and classifications of memory politics. Case analysis demonstrated that official interpretations of historical events and commemorative practices not only generate contradictions but also directly influence contemporary diplomatic relations. In the case of the partition of British India, divergent historical narratives in India and Pakistan continue to fuel tensions, manifesting in border clashes in Kashmir, diplomatic blockades, and confrontations on international platforms, including the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Japan’s aggression in Asia during the twentieth century remains a source of disputes between Japan, Korea, and China, reflected in mutual economic sanctions, ongoing controversies over historical events, and periodic diplomatic démarches. Military conflicts between Cambodia and Vietnam illustrate the enduring impact of the colonial past: memories of military actions and occupation are reflected in border tensions, restrictions on trade relations, and political rivalry for influence within Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Importantly, memory politics not only affect domestic political processes but also play a key role in international politics and the foreign policy identity of states. Analysis of current trends indicated that the use of historical memory as a tool for political legitimisation or the mobilisation of nationalist sentiments contributes not only to the escalation of conflicts but also to the creation of long-term barriers to regional integration and international cooperation. The findings of the study may be applied to the development of strategies for managing historical memory, with the aim of reducing interstate tensions, promoting dialogue and reconciliation, and shaping policies that prevent the manipulation of historical narratives in both foreign and domestic policy

The relevance of the work is due to the development of a new scientific direction related to the study of collective memory, Memory Studies. Philosophers, historians, sociologists, cultural scientists, and political scientists take part in the development of this interdisciplinary direction. As research has been carried out in various fields, many terms have appeared describing the phenomenon of collective memory, for example, "historical memory", "social memory", "political memory" and so on. Memory Studies is considered as a field of knowledge that acts as an alternative to the "traditional" historical science. The purpose of the article is to describe the structure of collective memory in the context of the methodology of constructivism. The advantage of this approach is that it makes it possible to study the structural elements of collective memory, to identify the mechanisms of its functioning in social life. As a methodological basis for the analysis, the concept of the American philosopher J. Searle, in which the perception of society is constructed with the help of social and objective facts. Historical facts, which are the result of scientific research, have a certain impact on collective memory. For historical science, collective memory is an object of critical analysis, and not a solid basis for conclusions. In constructivism, the formation of collective memory is considered as the creation of social facts based on ideal objects, intentionality and constitutive rules. This structure of social facts is used in the work to describe the mechanisms of collective memory. The formation of ideal objects takes place on the basis of a selective attitude to the events of the past. At the level of individual experience, information about the past is recorded using the means of communication and becomes available not only to eyewitnesses of events, but also to other members of the community. The processes of intentionality create a general idea of the events of the past in the form of a narrative, which are used to form an identity. Constitutive rules are used to manage collective memory in order to solve political problems. Thus, collective memory from the standpoint of constructivism is considered as a dynamic structure that changes under the influence of social factors of modern social life. Актуальность работы обусловлена развитием нового научного направления, связанного с изучением коллективной памяти, Memory Studies. В развитии данного междисциплинарного направления принимают участие философы, историки, социологи, культурологи, политологи. По мере проведения исследований в различных областях появилось множество терминов, описывающих феномен коллективной памяти, например, «историческая память», «социальная память», «политическая память» и так далее. Memory Studies рассматривается как область знаний, которая выступает в качестве альтернативы по отношению к «традиционной» исторической науке. Цель статьи состоит в описании структуры коллективной памяти в контексте методологии конструктивизма. Преимущество такого подхода состоит в том, что он дает возможность изучить структурные элементы коллективной памяти, выявить механизмы ее функционирования в социальной жизни. В качестве методологической основы анализа использована концепция американского философа Дж. Серла, в которой восприятие общества конструируется при помощи социальных и объективных фактов. Исторические факты, которые являются результатом научных исследований, оказывают определенное влияние на коллективную память. Для исторической науки коллективная память выступает объектом критического анализа, а не прочным основанием для выводов. В конструктивизме формирование коллективной памяти рассматривается как создание социальных фактов на основе идеальных объектов, интенциональности и конститутивных правил. Данная структура социальных фактов использована в работе для описания механизмов коллективной памяти. Формирование идеальных объектов происходит на основе избирательного отношения к событиям прошлого. На уровне индивидуального опыта информация о прошлом фиксируется при помощи средств коммуникации и становится достоянием не только очевидцев событий, но также других членов сообщества. Процессы интенциональности создают общее представление о событиях прошлого в форме нарратива, которые используются для формирования идентичности. Конститутивные правила применяются для управления коллективной памятью в целях решения политических задач. Таким образом, коллективная память с позиций конструктивизма рассматривается как динамическая структура, которая меняется под влиянием социальных факторов современной общественной жизни.

The problem of the relationship between monumental politics and the politics of historical memory is increasingly attracting the attention of scientists and the public. This is due to the fact that conflict situations periodically arise associated with publicly formed historical memory in the form of monumental art. The article makes an attempt to comprehend the concepts of politics of memory, historical memory and their influence on the formation of monumental politics and culture of commemoration relying on the scientific concepts of M. Halbwachs, J. Assman and others and to consider monumental politics as an instrument of memory politics in the context of modern socio-political processes in the Caucasus, its role in the construction of national identity, maintaining historical memory and influencing interethnic relations. In the course of the research the author uses the method of retrospective analysis, since the formulation of the problem requires the reconstruction of the historical process, fixation of the available conclusions and their influence on the state of public opinion. The combination of retrospective and problem-chronological methods with the principles of historicism and objectivity has made it possible to consider events in an interconnected and unbiased manner.

Historical memory is a necessary element of the nation-building process. It has various forms of realization, including visual ones. The article discusses one of the forms of visualization of historical memory through specific historical places – officially confirmed historical monuments. The author proves the thesis that the list of national historical monuments depended on the history politics implemented by the authorities and considers the evolution of this politics from 1826 (the first decree of Emperor Nicholas I on compiling in Russia a list of historical monuments, this was done by the Ministry of the Interior) until 1917. Initially, the authorities sought to recreate the picture of the historical past by fixing the surviving monuments. However historical politics was changing in the late 19th – early 20th centuries. The purpose of the empire was to present Russian history as the apotheosis of the Romanov dynasty, especially its last representatives (Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II). Therefore, according to their description of 1901–1903, most historical monuments were modern monuments to the last emperors and members of the imperial family. They were not historical monuments in the true sense of the term. It was an ideological, a propaganda campaign. The author draws attention to its inefficiency; these monuments could not improve the image of the Romanovs in the eyes of society. The author draws attention to the similarity of the principles of visualization of history through historical monuments in the Russian Empire and the USSR. In both cases, an ideological basis shaped the history politics, which was less about preserving historical memory and more about ideology and channeling specific ideas through selected monuments. Moreover, in both cases, it was a cause of inefficiency of history politics.

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.

Memory and justice are intricately linked. To adequately address historical wrongs, liberal democracies must engage the past. Historical memory provides a connective tissue between past wrongs and present injustices. Yet the question that arises with the politics of memory and its usefulness for addressing historical injustice resides precisely in the process by which we create historical memory. More than just an acknowledgment of past events, collective memory is constructed through narrative and memorial practices that impart meaning to past events. This paper amends the politics of memory by attending to the complex relationship between the narrative figuration of historical wrongs and present attributions of collective responsibility. By viewing memory of historical wrongs as narrative constructions of the past, we argue that the narrative form of historical injustice shapes contemporary notions of political responsibility. In elaborating this claim, we examine how different narrative representations of historical injustice engender different understandings of collective responsibility. Through a reading of the Native American political theorist Vine Deloria Jr.’s famous work, Custer Died for Your Sins, we then explore how irony and satire help expose the limitations of tragic, romantic, and comedic narratives in conceptualizing political responsibility for historical injustice.