Educational Media, Textbooks, and Postcolonial Relocations of Memory Politics in Europe
Educational Media, Textbooks, and Postcolonial Relocations of Memory Politics in Europe
复制标题
欧洲记忆政治的教育媒体、教科书和后殖民迁移
DOI：
10.3167/jemms.2013.050101
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Otto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Fuchs;M. Otto
自20世纪90年代以来，记忆文化或记忆文化构成了一个跨学科的研究领域。虽然这一领域已经实现了高度的内部分化，但它通常认为它的职权范围包括“对历史事件、人物和过程的所有可想象的有意识记忆形式”。与“记忆文化”或“记忆文化”的这种全面的、因而相当模糊的定义相反，我们在这里以及随后在更具体的意义上使用“记忆政治”这一术语，是为了强调“在为当今目的服务的过程中，过去被功能性地利用，以最终塑造一种建立在历史上的身份”。从话语分析的角度来看这个问题，我们可以直接从这个定义出发，识别和研究记忆政治作为一种对过去的战略性辞职的话语，这种话语是在历史中形成的，并在当代身份政治的背景下实施的。虽然民族国家仍然是记忆政治的中心参考点，但这一领域绝不仅限于国家与其过去接触的官方形式。换句话说，它并不仅仅与一个国家的官方历史政策有关。相反，它还包含了社会中其他利益相关者所追求的记忆和身份的战略政治，这种政治经常（但并非总是）明确地与国家产生和国家认可的记忆政治相关联。因此，记忆政治目前正在展开一场持续的、高度激烈的辩论，围绕着现代、“文化”多层次和异质社会中的集体自我描述，在这些社会中，自我描述借鉴了历史发展和冲突事件。
Cultures of remembrance or memory cultures have constituted an interdisciplinary fi eld of research since the 1990s. While this fi eld has achieved a high level of internal differentiation, it generally views its remit as one that encompasses “all imaginable forms of conscious remembrance of historical events, personalities, and processes.” In contrast to this comprehensive and therefore rather vague defi nition of “culture of remembrance” or “memory culture”, we use the term “politics of memory” here and in what follows in a more specifi c sense, in order to emphasize “the moment at which the past is made functional use of in the service of present-day purposes, to the end of shaping an identity founded in history.” Viewing the issue in terms of discourse analysis, we may progress directly from this defi nition to identify and investigate politics of memory as a discourse of strategic resignifi cations of the past as formulated in history and implemented in light of contemporary identity politics. While the nationstate remains a central point of reference for the politics of memory, the fi eld is by no means limited to offi cial forms of the engagement of states with their past. In other words, it does not relate exclusively to the offi cial character of a state’s policy on history. Instead, it also encompasses the strategic politics of memory and identity pursued by other stakeholders in a society, a politics that frequently, but not always, engages explicitly with state-generated and state-sanctioned memory politics. Thus, the politics of memory is currently unfolding as a discourse of ongoing, highly charged debate surrounding collective self-descriptions in modern, “culturally” multilayered, and heterogeneous societies, where self-descriptions draw on historical developments and events that are subject to confl ict.