Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs’ “Collective Memory”
Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs’ “Collective Memory”
复制标题
建筑与记忆的社会框架：莫里斯·哈布瓦赫斯《集体记忆》的后记
DOI：
10.15320/iconarp.2017.14
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Can Bilsel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Can Bilsel
本文评述了1925-1945年间莫里斯·哈尔瓦克斯关于“集体记忆”的著作。在这位法国社会学家的著作中，建筑空间和城市空间占据了突出的地位，因为他认为，记忆只有在被编入建筑场所，并被映射到城市和历史地形中的情况下，才能在漫长的时间中存活下来。这是一个警告：在他对“集体记忆”的开创性研究《圣特雷福音派的地形学：集体记忆研究》中，哈尔布瓦克斯强调了保存在物质文化中的考古记录-例如古代遗址和纪念碑-与宗教社区的生活记忆之间的差异。同样，在他对工人阶级的研究中，哈尔布瓦赫的新词“集体记忆”被定义为一个故意不稳定的、社会构建的范畴。 Halbwachs给“集体记忆”下的临时的、不稳定的定义为我们当前的困境提供了一个洞见。在过去的几十年里，建筑、城市设计和建筑保护在构建和保护稳定统一的文化遗产方面的能力受到了深刻的挑战。本文提出了一个新的方向，建立在Halbwachs的记忆的社会框架，从仅仅是技术调查，了解建筑和地方的“记忆的网站”。这是由于Halbwach的开创性，如果不完整，工作的“集体记忆”，我们可以理解如何新兴的和开放式的社会形态改变建筑和城市空间。
This paper offers a commentary on Maurice Halwachs’ writings on “collective memory” in the years between 1925-1945. Architectural and urban spaces figure prominently in work of the French sociologist since he maintains that memories survive in the longue duree only to the extent they are indexed into architectural places, and mapped into an urban and historical topography. This comes with a caveat: in his pioneering study of “collective memory,” La topographie legendaire des Evangiles en Terre Sainte: etude de memoire collective , Halbwachs highlights the discrepancy between the archaeological record preserved in material culture—for example ancient ruins and monuments—and the living memory of a religious community. Likewise, in his study of working classes, Halbwachs’ neologism, “collective memory” is defined as a deliberately unstable, and socially constructed category. The provisional and fluid definition that Halbwachs assigned to “collective memory” offers an insight into our present predicament. In the last decades, the ability of architecture, urban design, and architectural conservation in framing and preserving a stable and unified cultural heritage has been profoundly challenged. This paper makes the case for moving away from merely technical inquiries that understand architecture and places as “sites of memory” to a new direction that builds upon Halbwachs’ social frameworks of memory. It is thanks to Halbwach’s pioneering, if incomplete, work on “collective memory” that we may understand how the emerging and open-ended social formations transform architecture and urban spaces.