Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies
Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies
复制标题
寻找记忆的意义：集体记忆研究的方法论批判
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wolf Kansteiner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wolf Kansteiner
人文学科的记忆浪潮促成了文化史的复兴，但记忆研究的成功并没有伴随着集体记忆过程研究的概念和方法的重大进步。大多数关于记忆的研究都集中在特定时间、地理和媒体背景下的特定事件的表征上，而没有考虑到这些表征的受众。因此，对过去和现在的历史文化的丰富的新见解不能决定性地与特定的社会集体及其历史意识联系起来。心理学和神经学术语的隐喻性使用甚至加剧了这一方法论问题，这些术语将集体记忆的社会动力错误地描述为个人自传体记忆的影响和延伸。其中一些缺点可以通过广泛的语境化的具体策略的代表，连接事实的代表与事实的接收。因此，集体记忆的历史将被重新塑造为一个复杂的文化生产和消费过程，承认文化传统的持久性以及记忆制造者的独创性和记忆消费者的颠覆性利益。这三个不同的历史主体之间的谈判创造了记忆政治竞争竞技场中的参与规则，这些谈判的重建有助于我们区分大量失败的集体记忆倡议和少数成功的集体记忆构建案例。为此，集体记忆研究应采用传播学和媒介研究的方法，特别是在媒介接受方面，并继续使用从传统史学到后结构主义方法的广泛解释工具。从集体记忆研究的角度来看，这两种传统是密切相关和互利的，而不是相互排斥的历史文化分析方法。
The memory wave in the humanities has contributed to the impressive revival of cultural history, but the success of memory studies has not been accompanied by significant conceptual and methodological advances in the research of collective memory processes. Most studies on memory focus on the representation of specific events within particular chronological, geographical, and media settings without reflecting on the audiences of the representations in question. As a result, the wealth of new insights into past and present historical cultures cannot be linked conclusively to specific social collectives and their historical consciousness. This methodological problem is even enhanced by the metaphorical use of psychological and neurological terminology, which misrepresents the social dynamics of collective memory as an effect and extension of individual, autobiographical memory. Some of these shortcomings can be addressed through the extensive contextualization of specific strategies of representation, which links facts of representation with facts of reception. As a result, the history of collective memory would be recast as a complex process of cultural production and consumption that acknowledges the persistence of cultural traditions as well as the ingenuity of memory makers and the subversive interests of memory consumers. The negotiations among these three different historical agents create the rules of engagement in the competitive arena of memory politics, and the reconstruction of these negotiations helps us distinguish among the abundance of failed collective memory initiatives on the one hand and the few cases of successful collective memory construction on the other. For this purpose, collective memory studies should adopt the methods of communication and media studies, especially with regard to media reception, and continue to use a wide range of interpretive tools from traditional historiography to poststructural approaches. From the perspective of collective memory studies, these two traditions are closely related and mutually beneficial, rather than mutually exclusive, ways of analyzing historical cultures.