Collective memory and the politics of urban space: an introduction
Collective memory and the politics of urban space: an introduction
复制标题
集体记忆与城市空间政治：简介
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Maoz Azaryahu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Rose;D. Alderman;Maoz Azaryahu
近年来，关于记忆在社会生活和政治文化中的地位的著作大量涌现，引起了人们对回忆和遗忘过去的各种斗争的关注，因此，人们开始想象另一种未来。此外，许多地理学家强调了纪念空间在重塑记忆和遗忘地理方面的重要作用（Dwyer and Alderman 2008;Foote 2003; Foote and Azaryahu 2007; Forest et al.2004; Hebbert 2005; Hoelscher and Alderman 2004;约翰逊2004; Legg 2004，2005 a，2005 b，2007; Pred 2004; Rose-Redwood，2008; Till，2003，2005，2006）.来自社会科学和人文科学的学者为“记忆研究”这一跨学科领域做出了贡献（Till 2006），该领域现在有自己的一套专业出版渠道，如《记忆研究》杂志（2008年1月创刊）。此外，新的学术论坛H-Memory于2007年3月首次上线，作为一个非正式的网络，促进了那些与记忆问题作斗争的人之间的思想交流。推动记忆分析的主要原因是认识到过去--正如我们纪念和认同它一样--是一种选择性的社会和地理结构。最终在风景中可见（或不可见）的记忆并不是凭空出现的。相反，它们直接来自人们的纪念决定和行动，这些决定和行动嵌入并受到特定社会空间条件的限制。所有的迹象都表明，我们正在见证个人和集体记忆的重新价值化，而此时历史健忘症似乎达到了历史最高点。许多人正在研究和建立记忆的地方，这些地方可以在一个媒体饱和和“信息过载”的世界中提供一种“时间锚定”的感觉（Huyssen 1995，第7页）。不断发展的遗产产业，通常以旅游和保护为中心，推动了这种搜索。记忆可以是有益的，即使它对一个人的时间和地点感很重要，尽管Lowenthal（1996）警告我们“被过去占有”的陷阱。建立记忆的场所对于社会行动者和团体，甚至整个国家，也具有重要的意义和价值，因为他们寻求建立他们的公共身份和历史的合法性，
The proliferation of recent works on the place ofmemory in social life and political culture has calledattention to the various struggles over rememberingand forgetting the past and, hence, the imagining ofalternative futures. Moreover, numerous geographershave highlighted the important role that spaces ofcommemoration play in reshaping the geographies ofmemory and oblivion (Dwyer and Alderman 2008;Foote 2003; Foote and Azaryahu 2007; Forest et al.2004; Hebbert 2005; Hoelscher and Alderman 2004;Johnson 2004; Legg 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Pred2004; Rose-Redwood, 2008; Till, 2003, 2005, 2006).Scholars from both the social sciences and humanitieshave contributed to the interdisciplinary field of‘‘memory studies’’ (Till 2006), which now has itsown set of professional publication outlets, such asthe journal Memory Studies (launched in January2008). Additionally, the new scholarly forum,H-Memory, first went online in March 2007 andserves as an informal network to promote theexchange of ideas among those grappling withquestions of memory.Fueling much of the analysis of memory is arecognition that the past—as we commemorate andidentify with it—is a selective social and geographicconstruction. What memories are ultimately madevisible (or invisible) on the landscape do not simplyemerge out of thin air. Rather, they result directly frompeople’s commemorative decisions and actions asembedded within and constrained by particular socio-spatial conditions. All indications suggest that we arecurrently witnessing the revalorization of individualand collective memory at a time when historicalamnesia appears to be at an all-time high. Many aresearching for and building places of memory that canprovide a sense of ‘‘temporal anchoring’’ in a world ofup-to-the-minute media saturation and ‘‘informationoverload’’ (Huyssen 1995, p. 7). A growing heritageindustry, often centered on tourism and preservation,has driven some of this search. Memory can beprofitable even as it is important to one’s sense of timeand place, although Lowenthal (1996) warns us aboutthe pitfalls of being ‘‘possessed by the past.’’ Estab-lishing places of memory has also taken on greatmeaning and value for social actors and groups—and,indeed, entire nations—as they seek to establish thelegitimacy of their public identities and histories,