Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyses the essayistic discourse of Jasmina Musabegović with a focus on her second and last book of such procédé, Naličje historije (The Reverse Side of History) (1999), without neglecting her early essayistic work compiled in her first book of essays, The Secret and the Meaning of a Literary Work (1977). Since the literary criticism and essayistic work of this author, on the one hand, and her literary and artistic work, on the other, are closely related and interwoven with seemingly contradictory but identical ideologemes, for a more complete insight, her micro-essays that make up fabric of her novels are occasionally taken into consideration in the analysis. The conclusion reached shows that the author’s later literary critique essays, i.e. those that the author wrote during and after the recent war, where the intimate intertwines with the universal and meets a multitude of opposing pairs as well as occasional paroxysms conditioned by a change in life experience, represent a specific, fluid essayistic discourse that can be characterized by the newly coined phrase “women’s essay”.

The purpose of this article is to conduct cultural research of the specifics of the processes of virtual communication and commemoration that arise from the interaction between individual and artificial intelligence in the digital space of culture in the XXI century. The research methodology is based on the principles of interdisciplinarity, combining cultural, historical, and psychological methods of analysis, which allows to deeply understand the various aspects of influence of artificial intelligence on the transformation of communicative models of culture in era of Internet technologies. The scientific novelty. Taking into consideration the emergence of numerous cultural, creative, and leisure practices related to the use of digital tools of artificial intelligence, in the article, the article analyses for the first time the ways and specifics of commemoration using the creation of digital copies of deceased persons based on the tools of artificial intelligence, which are considered in the context of the new communicative paradigm of the digital culture of the XXI century. Conclusions state that from a cultural point of view, the circulation of digital copies of deceased persons in the digital space of culture, which have emerged on the basis of technological progress, aesthetic and socio-cultural demands of society, refers to the category of simulacra and forms precedents of socio-cultural impact on the environment and the person themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1989 political transition, a multifaceted process of knowledge production and memory formation regarding rural Jews has been ongoing in Hungary's civil and academic spheres, often starting from or leading to local history research. These initiatives typically have multiple aims and functions: mourning the losses of the Holocaust, confronting and facing the difficult past, and uncovering the historical values of specific localities. Through the presentation of examples and analysis of a bibliography on the subject, this article evaluates the achievements, directions, and shortcomings in this field, using historian Diana Pinto's conceptual framework of "Jewish Space." Building on the theoretical and practical analyses by Diana Pinto, Erica Lehrer, and Ruth Ellen Gruber, the author emphasizes that the social memory of European Jews can be most effectively created in spaces where Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and individuals can collaborate, engage in dialogue, and make joint contributions. The analysis also highlights the need for more professional and financial support for individuals and organizations active in this area and stresses the importance of coordinating their work and developing strategies based on professional criteria to ensure the efficient use of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social Sciences & Humanities Studies / Društvene i Humanističke Studije (DHS) is the property of Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Tuzla and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Understanding the socio-historical processes after the April War of 1941 and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia presupposes a deeper knowledge of opposing national perspectives since 1918, when this country was created, of the events between the two world wars, as well as their multidimensional characters, since they largely determined wartime polarizations and alignments. The Second World War is one of the most problematic historical periods in the post-Yugoslav area, from a scientific and political point of view. With numerous relief and insufficiently explored components, it still belongs to the so-called “hot memory”. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1941 was greeted by its peoples and political subjects with different visions of whether (and if so: how) a new Yugoslavia should be established. The anti-fascist struggle was led by a partisan movement with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) playing a dominant role. Each Yugoslavia (“old” and “new”) also meant “a new constitutional concept of the relationship between its main peoples/political groups” (Dejan Jović). The history of the Slovenes, wrote Edvard Kardelj at the end of the thirties of the 20th century, “is nothing but a long chain of oppression and trampling of a small nation”. After the First World War (the “Great War”), the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the collapse of Austria-Hungary divided the Slovenes among four countries. The parcelization of the Slovenian ethnic space did not end there. The territory of Slovenia (Drava Banovina) after the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in 1941 was divided between Germany, Italy and Hungary, into six parts, with different administrative regimes. The Slovenian people were torn apart, humiliated, threatened with destruction and disappearance from the ethnic map of Europe. This people was one of “the most fragmented in Europe and all the occupiers planned to wipe it out through persecution, assimilation and denationalization. Research on refugees and exile is closely related to issues of human rights, nationalism, genocide and ethnocide. This issue has a humanitarian, political, legal and moral dimension. Part of the exiled Slovenes also came to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1941, which was part of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Slovenes have a specific place in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina since the end of the 19th century. They also contributed to the development of the National Liberation Movement ( NOP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by acting in an illegal revolutionary movement and partisan units, as well as participating in the constitution of the new government and defining the future internal structure of post-war Yugoslavia. The war in the territory of occupied Yugoslavia was, among other things, a civil war that destroyed the idea that this monarchist state can be restored in the form in which it was created in 1918. The ranks of the NOP included Slovenians who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war, as well as those who came as exiles in 1941. Major events related to the construction of the “new” Yugoslavia took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which Slovenians participated, important for the history of Slovenia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. By actively participating in the anti-fascist war, the engagement and visions of their prominent representatives at the top of the NOP (Edvard Kardelj and others) and in the activities of the AVNOJ in 1943, determining and making its landmark decisions, the Slovenians had a significant share in the victory and establishment of a new, federal the Yugoslav state and the construction of the statehood of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Complex Yugoslav federalism, with scattered forms and models, represented a specific historical phenomenon.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the coverage of the legacy of National Socialism in the memory policy of the FRG and historical policy of the GDR and various commemorative practices. The author revealed the conceptual apparatus that is used in professional historiography and public discourse. Its various contents and features of use in different chronological periods were also determined in the article. The author considered numerous methodological approaches used by researchers of memory problems. The difference between the concepts of "memory policy" and "memory culture" in content is that the first term provides for a set of government measures to preserve memory, while the second term is broader and focuses on involving public institutions and society in the discussion of "memory" problems. The article shows the differences in the attitude to the National Socialist past in the FRG and the GDR on specific examples. The author paid attention to new approaches to the memory of the World War II in modern Germany, which has resulted from the processes of migration and the transformation of the country into a multicultural community. Two factors influence contemporary debates about the politics of memory in Germany: a) globalization, cultural transfer and migration, which exacerbate conflicts in nationally oriented memory politics. Like most countries in Western Europe, Germany is an immigration country, comprising a population that can't longer be differentiated by nations and ethnic groups. Accordingly, historical memory refers less and less to national or ethnic historical foundations, as an ever-increasing proportion of the population has a second family origin and is therefore confronted with a past that lies beyond their ethnic beliefs; b) the Russian-Ukrainian war turned attention to the crimes of National Socialism during the Second World War (1939-1945) in Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores how the process of Europeanization affects the shaping of collective cultures of memory and oblivion, and shows in particular how the practice of European institutions in terms of Holocaust remembrance has been institutionalized. Methodologically article focuses on the research of the new institutionalism, and connects them with some elements of social constructivism in the theory of European integration. On the one hand, the culture of memory and the culture of oblivion is described by the action of Europeanization in the politics of the European Union, but also of its Member States in historical and institutional development, while the interpretation of European identity is left open and plural. The research relies on numerous works in the field of the construction of European identity and the process of Europeanization, especially works that have significantly contributed to this area of political theory of European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the article is to analyze the politics of memory as a broad system of cultural practices and communications in modern Yakutia in the context of the development of cinema as a segment of national identity. The author analyzes the role of historical politics in the development of national memory and identity in the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia in the context of the visuality of modern culture. Methodologically, the article is based on the principles proposed in the memorial and visual turns, which significantly changed the vectors of memory studies, actualizing the principles of interdisciplinarity. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of common and unique features of the functioning of visual dimensions in the politics of memory in Yakutia. The article analyzes 1) visualization strategies of memorial culture, 2) modern Yakut films as elements of modern mnemonic space, 3) the role of visual practices in the development of the memorial canon. The article presents a broad understanding of the historical politics of memory. The author believes that the politics of memory should not be limited only to the activity of specialized institutions and professional politicians who manipulate the facts of the past to solve the problems of the ruling elites. In this article, the politics of memory is analyzed through the prism of national cinema, perceived as one of the forms of constructing images of the past. National cinema, in the context of the politics of memory, solves tasks similar to the same ones of institutionalized actors, but does it by different methods. Therefore, in this article the impact of historical politics to the development of national identity is shown through the prism of the culture of memory and the memorial canon. The results of the study suggest that representatives of the Yakut national intelligentsia are the main actors in historical politics because they construct memorial culture contexts of collective memory visualization. It is assumed that visual forms of memory complement the traditional narrative-discursive strategies for constructing images of the past in the Yakut identity and common mnemonic space.

Copyright of Annals of Social Sciences / Roczniki Nauk Społecznych is the property of Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL & Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is devoted to the scientific analysis of the problem of memorialization of terrains of Babyn Yar in sovereign Ukraine. The author revealed the historical context of this issue, succinctly presenting the history of the tragedy of Babyn Yar, the crimes of Nazi regime, the murder of civilians — Jews and non-Jewish people of Kiev, during the German occupation of the city during World War II. The article pays special attention to the current state of preservation of the memory of the victims of Babyn Yar, the political component of this problem, in particular the fight against the pro-russian project of commemoration, including Holocaust victims and victims of Babyn Yar. The article considers the main scientific, memorial and political aspects and principles of activity of the private fund "Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center" (BYHMC). In the article are given the examples of this foundation's interference in Ukrainian memory policy in order to change the Ukrainian tradition of honoring the memory of the victims of World War II, which has developed over the past thirty years, and attempts to promote historical narratives of the Putin regime. The ways of overcoming such influence on the politics and culture of memory in Ukraine are offered, the advantages of the state concept of complex memorialization of Babyn Yar are presented.According to the author, the first step towards the implementation of this concept should be to consolidate the efforts of all those interested in honoring the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and Babyn Yar. First of all, it is a joint effort of specialized, professional institutions, state institutions and non-governmental, public associations to create a real National Memorial on the Babyn Yar territory, which will perpetuate the memory of all civilian and military victims of this tragic place not only in the capital but throughout the country. The author emphasizes the importance and urgency of this form of struggle for memory and history, the need to resist Russian aggression in the field of forming a historical memory of World War II in Ukraine.

Complex socio-historical processes and turning epochs, as well as numerous segments that are an integral part of people's lives, are the subject of interdisciplinary studies. War is one of the most dramatic, most complex social phenomena. In addition to armed operations, there are a number of other dimensions related to war, starting from psychological, legal, sociological, social, economic, cultural to others. Critical and multiple perspectives contribute to the completion of images of politics, wars and their relations. The disintegrations of the ideological paradigm and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were accompanied by the (re)construction of new national identities, the outbreak and duration of „wars“ of different memories, the reshaping of consciousness and the re-examination of history, especially those related to World War II. The history of that war in Yugoslavia was undoubtedly the history of several wars which were stacked on top of each other. The main issue with Bosniaks in that war is a multiperspectival topic that requires a multidimensional and deideologized presentation of the position and the position of all involved actors. Numerous issues related to that war, the complex position of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak, the emergence of civic responsibility, Bosniak protection of the vulnerable Serb Orthodox population, humanity and assistance, beyond post-war ideological premises and „official truths“ remained more or less marginalized, although they seek more objective and complete answers from multiple angles, for the sake of a more complete view of the past. What is called „local“ or „regional history“, as evidenced by diverse experiences, indicates the multidimensionality of the past, its features and specifics in a certain area. The Second World War in Sandžak could not be understood more objectively outside the broader Yugoslav context. This is also special for the history of Novi Pazar, the largest city in Sandžak which was the subject of many different political plans and conceptions. The history of this city has several sections. After the withdrawal of German forces from Novi Pazar, the Chetniks tried to conquer this city for three times in the fall of 1941. However, thanks to the dedicated defense and the help of Albanian armed groups from Kosovo, Bosniaks managed to defend themselves and Novi Pazar. Even in such a dramatic situation, numerous examples of humanity, solidarity and assistance of Bosniaks to the intimidated Serb urban population have been recorded. In the most difficult days of the war, when Novi Pazar was exposed to Chetnik attacks, a significant part of Bosniaks took actions to prevent anarchy, to save Serbs from terror and revenge. The task of science is to constantly discover forgotten and unknown parts of the past, to re-examine previous knowledge. Everything that happened has a whole range of perspectives. It is necessary to have a multidimensional understanding of the causes and course of events, circuits and time limits, to explain narrowed alternatives. Any reduction of historical totality to only one dimension is problematic. Every nation, every state, in a way, write their „histories“, remember different personalities, events, dates, emphasize various roles, perpetuates monuments, emphatize with different causes and consequences. Contemporary abuses of the interpretation of the war past, one-sided approaches, fierce prejucides and quasi-historical analyzes in the service of the politics damage interethic relations and lead to further growth of tensions and distancing between nations and states in their region.