Twenty Years After Communism – The Politics of Memory and Commemoration
Twenty Years After Communism – The Politics of Memory and Commemoration
复制标题
共产主义二十年后——记忆与纪念的政治
DOI：
10.1080/09644008.2015.1032510
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Alexander Wochnik
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alexander Wochnik
迈克尔·伯恩哈德（Michael Bernhard）和扬·库比克（Jan Kubik）编辑了一本精辟而及时的选集，讲述了17个欧洲后社会主义国家如何纪念欧洲近代史上最重要的关键时刻之一——1989/91年共产主义的终结——20周年。关于社会记忆的内容和方式的历史和社会学描述比比皆是，关于某些行为者如何以及为什么将集体记忆用于政治目的的政治科学文献往往是描述性的、规范性的和单一国家的。这个体积是不同的。伯恩哈德和库比克引入了一个令人信服的理论框架，允许对17个后社会主义国家2009年9/11纪念导致共产主义垮台的奇迹年进行严格的分析和比较。从以工具主义行为者为中心的观点出发，该框架的核心是“记忆行为者”和“记忆制度”的概念。本书中有四种类型的助记者：“战士”，他们两极分化，声称提供“正确”的历史版本，并攻击其他演员的版本；“多元主义者”，他们接受对历史有不同的解释；不沉湎于过去的“否定者”；还有“展望者”，他们利用过去来实现理想的未来。考虑到文化和结构制度的制约因素，各种政治行为者做出了理性的决定，并在“记忆制度”中定位自己以获得政治优势。“记忆制度”被定义为“为公开纪念和/或记住单一事件而设计的一套文化和制度实践”。14)，并且，根据参与者类型的平衡，在后共产主义欧洲可以确定三种类型的“记忆制度”：“断裂”、“支柱化”和“统一”。
Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik have edited an incisive and timely anthology on how 17 European post-socialist states commemorated the twentieth anniversary of one of the most significant critical junctures of Europe's recent history: the end of communism in 1989/91.Historical and sociological accounts of what and how societies remember abound, and much of political science literature on how and why certain actors instrumentalise collective memory for political ends tends to be descriptive, normative and single-country focused. This volume is different. Bernhard and Kubik introduce a convincing theoretical framework that allows for a rigorous analysis and comparison of 17 post-socialist states’ 2009/11 commemorations of the annus mirabilis that led to the fall of communism. Departing from an instrumentalist actor-centred view, at the heart of the framework lie the concepts ‘memory actor’and ‘memory regime’. Four types of mnemonic actors are encountered in the volume:‘warriors’ who polarise and claim to offer the ‘correct’version of history and attack other actors’ versions;‘pluralists’ who accept that there are alternative interpretations of history;‘abnegators’ who do not dwell on the past; and ‘prospectives’ who use the past to attain an idealised future. Taking cultural and structural-institutional constraints into account, the various political actors take a rational decision, and position themselves to gain political advantages within the ‘memory regime’.‘Memory regimes’ are defined as a ‘set of cultural and institutional practices that are designed to publicly commemorate and/or remember a single event’(p. 14), and, depending on the balance of the types of actors present, three types of ‘memory regimes’ can be identified in post-communist Europe:‘fractured’, pillarised, and unified.