Search

This paper adds to Hyvarinen's (this issue) argument that narrative interest emerged from many separate incentives and sources in the social sciences. I expand his claim by suggesting that the rise of 'the narrative turn' has been helped by the popularity of the concept of collective memory across the humanities and social sciences, and that a further interdisciplinary exchange between the sociology of memory and narrative studies can benefit both. In the last ten years, there has been a good deal of progress in 'memory studies', both theoretical and conceptual. In order for this progress not to be hampered by a lack of cross-disciplinary and cross-case reading, the paper calls for a better interdisciplinary exchange. The paper focuses on the mutual advantages of such an exchange for enhancing the ability to place individual narratives within larger collective stories and to comprehend how narrative's reliance on memory makes time human and problematises it. The paper also debates the relationship between memory narratives and 'the problem of the new'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that attempts to conceptualize the memory boom in amnesic societies have resulted in a clash between two theoretical stands: the approach which stresses the significance of remembering and the perspective which insists on the value of forgetting. It asserts that neither the value of memory nor the value of forgetting can be taken for granted and argues that any search for possible resolutions to the dialectical relationship between remembering and forgetting should be taken in the interest of cultivating a relationship with the past that enhances societal well-being in the present. Such reasoning leads us to judge the value of cosmopolitan memory in terms of its capacity to shape post-nationalist solidaristic political communities. The acceptance of the need to judge the act of putting the past in the service of the present requires us to question the contrasting projects of cosmopolitan citizenship: one claiming that remembering is vital for sustaining plurality and diversity of a global citizenship, and the other that stresses the importance of forgetting for the emergence of the politics of a global citizenship. After presenting contrasting views on the importance of memory for the development of cosmopolitan citizenship, the article searches for an approach to memory which is better suited to projects that aim to ensure post-nationalistic solidarity and human rights while protecting cultural rights, minority rights and personal identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reconstructs and evaluates prevalent assumptions in the literature about links between collective memory and democracy. There are widespread assertions that memory is important for democratic community to achieve its potential, avoid dangers of past crimes, and secure its continuation. These assertions assume collective memory as a condition for freedom, justice, and the stability of democratic order This article considers these assumptions with equally popular counterpropositions, arguing that memory presents a threat to democratic community because it can undermine cohesion, increase the costs of cooperation, and cause moral damage to civil society by conflating political and ethnic or cultural boundaries. The relationship between memory and democracy is discussed, along with the intermediate notions of identity, trauma, and ritual. The article concludes that what matters for democracy's health is not social remembering per se but the way in which the past is called up and made present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues that although Durkheim did not explicitly employ the notion of collective memory, his approach offers a very insightful understanding of the need for historical continuity. Durkheim's belief that every society displays and requires a sense of continuity with the past and that the past confers identity on individuals and groups allows us to see collective memory as one of the elementary forms of social life. The paper presents Durkheim's discussion of commemorative rituals in early societies, where he directly addresses the notion of social memory, which is seen as perpetuated by religious rites and as a means of ensuring shared morality and social cohesion. His conceptualization of the role of law and memory in sustaining organic solidarity is also considered. In conclusion it is discussed whether Durkheim's understanding of social memory provides us with relevant means to interpret social processes of remembering in today's societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]