Politics of Remembrance: Exploring Collective Memory and Political Behavior
Introduction
Societies and states are often marked by deeply ingrained collective memories, encompassing both moments of pride and instances of tragedy. The past leaves a lasting imprint on the collective consciousness, shaping how people perceive their identity and experiences. Among these instances, memories of war stand out due to their profound impact on human lives, often being a glue of the imagined communities. Far from being confined to the past, these shared recollections influence social and political life in the present. It manifests in various ways, where historical events and their collective remembrance influence contemporary political processes. This makes the theory of collective memory a potent political science framework, utilized to better understand how political behaviors emerge and evolve. Therefore, this article explores the theoretical implications of collective memory and its key concepts, using concrete cases to show how collective memory has been an important mechanism in shaping political behavior to understand better the implications of remembrance.
Collective memory, individual memory, and history
Collective memory, or collective remembrance, has long been an important field in the social sciences, making it a contested area with diverse approaches. An initial consideration is that collective memory “signifies narratives of past experiences constituted by and on behalf of specific groups within which they find meaningful forms of identification that may empower” (Weedon & Jordan, 2012, p. 143). This implies that collective memory is crucial for the creation and recreation of communities, which often draw their cohesive glue from such remembrance. Society as a whole is an important mechanism in how something is remembered, but the existence of that society is also affected by those memories, making this dialectical process a foundation for the socio-political and institutional framework in a particular setting (Halbwachs, 1980).
Another implication of this definition is its political and ideological aspect. Indeed, remembrance is an ongoing process with a concrete political aim that utilizes certain memories (Wertsch & Roediger III, 2008). In particular, collective memory is important in nation-building and empowerment. However, the politico-ideological dimension presupposes the absolute hegemony of political elites when it comes to framing and guarding memories (Roudometof, 2003). In other words, memory in the political sphere is tied to the ruling elites, who frequently use it to advance their political agenda.
This is especially important concerning the distinction between collective memory and history. Two approaches dominate this discussion. The first approach argues that it is possible to view the two “not just as different, but in basic conflict” (Wertsch & Roediger III, 2008, p. 320). Conflict arises because history approaches the past to provide factual accounts of events, while collective memory almost always includes political projects charged with particular ideological underpinnings (Wertsch & Roediger III, 2008). This means that the past is often shaped and utilized to serve the needs of the present. On the other hand, even though the aims of collective memory and history seem different, the role of history in collective memory is inescapable, and vice versa—history is filled with collective experiences and their remembrance (Weedon & Jordan, 2012). Thus, the contested nature of history and collective memory is evident, but this does not make them mutually exclusive; rather, they are complementary (Halbwachs, 1980). Moreover, the space of collective memory, shaped by ideological factors, is often filled by history once it is emptied of those factors. That is to say, “general history starts only when tradition ends and the social memory is fading or breaking up” (Halbwachs, 1980, p. 78). Thus, collective memory is based on history, but it should not be equated to it due to its political dimension.
Another important point is the role of individuals in collective memory. While all individuals have autobiographical memories inherent to their personal lives, the same individuals participate in collective memories that maintain the interests of the groups they belong to (Halbwachs, 1980). These two types of remembering are interconnected. Individuals are important since “socially situated individuals are the agents of remembering” (Wertsch & Roediger III, 2008, p. 321). This agency is then reflected in collective memory, which is passed on through generational bonds, for example. However, this collective remembrance does not occur in a vacuum but is informed by broader social and political transformations. As a result, even the most personal memories are shaped by the evolution of wider society (Halbwachs, 1980). To summarize, collective memory encompasses different cultural elements within a framework that is then employed by individuals participating in that collective remembering (Wertsch & Roediger III, 2008).
Drivers of collective memory
One of the most significant impacts of remembering is the spatial dimension of collective memory. Physical space defines the people living within it, and those people then design their relations and boundaries to one another based on that spatial environment (Halbwachs, 1980). For example, it determines the routines and commonalities surrounding the setting and the people living in it. Hence, markers of memory are present in various ways, such as residential buildings, cultural institutions, streets, and more (Bélanger, 2002). Moreover, these markers do not have to be concrete material expressions of that physical environment but extend to abstract and traditional practices associated with that space (Bélanger, 2002). For instance, the physical church is essential in religious expressions, but it also invokes an additional set of images that go beyond the church as a building.
The quintessential role of the spatial setting in social consciousness leaves a particularly strong imprint when that setting is disturbed. That is to say, the destruction of any kind or displacement invokes even stronger connections to the physical space in which the group is located (Halbwachs, 1980). An abrupt break in the familiarity of physical space, whether man-made or natural, leaves a longer and deeper entrenched impact on a society. Moreover, such abrupt events are susceptible to political influence (Bélanger, 2002). Vulnerability and stress caused by the destruction of physical space often lead individuals to retreat further and rely on collectivity. This makes it easier for political elites to weaponize it for ideological projects.
Another driver of collective memory is commemoration. Simply put, “commemoration is a vehicle of collective memory” (Saito, 2010, p. 629). It is a public act in which a group comes together to illustrate important past events, and as such, it is a more tangible expression of collective memory. Through rituals, ceremonies, monuments, public holidays, and similar practices, commemoration reinforces a shared understanding of history, helping to solidify group identity (Conway, 2010). It also acts as an initiation into the group, linking individual memory to the collective one (Saito, 2010). Through the commemoration of certain practices, a sense of commonality is formed (Halbwachs, 1980).
Commemoration serves as a stage for political and social struggles since it is highly contested (Saito, 2010). What is commemorated and emphasized from the shared experience once again depends on hegemonic socio-political positions (Conway, 2010). Consequently, commemorative elements and the collective memory they represent, are changeable and contingent on shifts in political and social spheres and dominant political powers. This highlights how deeply intertwined remembering is with political and ideological aspects.
Collective memory in practice
Collective memory as a framework and its influence on political behavior, as presented in the previous section, has the potential to be used in various political inquiries. To better situate and understand the theoretical implications and relevant concepts, several examples of collective memory in practice are presented below.
As noted before, collective memory and the remembrance of pivotal historical moments have a strong impact on identity formation (Weedon & Jordan, 2012). For instance, the idea of Europe and, consequently, the European Union as a project has long been based on the straightforward understanding of WWII as a central event that brought Western European powers together (Mälksoo, 2009). This emphasizes the notion of the historical moment as an anchor of identity. However, historical facts and collective memory do not necessarily correspond (Halbwachs, 1980), and collective memory is more of an ideological project of hegemonic powers (Roudometof, 2003). When the EU expanded and incorporated Eastern European countries, these nations held a quite different understanding of WWII and its aftermath compared to that of the Western bloc. This created a struggle for hegemonic dominance in framing the collective memory of WWII as a foundation for the united Europe of today (Mälksoo, 2009). This case highlights the importance of distinguishing between collective memory and history, as well as the role of dominant political forces in using and framing collective memory.
War has a particularly strong potential to be used as a tool for collective memory and its utilization for ideological projects, due to the spatial disfigurement and commemorative aspects inherent to war (Halbwachs, 1980; Saito, 2010). In the context of former Yugoslavia, all states formed after the messy and bloody breakup of the country are prone to the influence of collective memory on political behavior (Glaurdić et al., 2022). Ultimately, due to the ethno-nationalistic nature of the conflict between former Yugoslavian states, nationalist parties on the right wing of the political spectrum often invoke war-related narratives to influence collective memory (Glaurdić et al., 2022). Indeed, war as a theme is highly salient and seeped into the ideology and policy choices of right-wing parties, and this does not occur in a vacuum but is used and reinforced by those parties as a political strategy (Glaurdić et al., 2022).
A similar case study of Croatian foreign policy shows that hegemonic collective memory impacts not only electoral behavior but also policy choices and political action (Horelt & Renner, 2008). Specifically, the collective memory of the Croatian War of Independence strongly influences the behavior of political classes from different political parties, even though it results in suboptimal policy outcomes (Horelt & Renner, 2008). More concretely, Croatian authorities were reluctant to cooperate with international courts in the prosecution of potential war criminals because collective memory framed those individuals as heroes of the war, which had been framed as the basis of Croatian identity (Horelt & Renner, 2008).
Even with temporal distance, the collective memory of war can remain salient enough to impact people’s choices. Commemoration, as an act of tangible collective memorization (Saito, 2010), can be triggered not only by direct and official commemoration but also by present events that reactivate the past. For example, during the Eurozone crisis in 2008, the tense relationship between Germany and Greece exacerbated anti-German sentiment in Greece (Fouka & Voth, 2023). Interestingly, this anti-German sentiment was more pronounced in parts of Greece that had been the sites of the harshest German massacres in WWII (Fouka & Voth, 2023). As a result, along the lines of this anti-German sentiment, the sale of German-produced cars dropped significantly, highlighting how the reactivation of even temporally distant conflicts can influence collective memory and modify not only political behavior but also market inclinations (Fouka & Voth, 2023).
All this research emphasizes the importance of collective remembrance in shaping political behaviors. Moreover, it demonstrates how political and ideological projects can utilize and distort historical facts to create a collective memory that serves the interests of dominant political forces. War and conflict appear to possess a uniquely strong potential for influence due to the spatial and commemorative aspects associated with them.
Conclusion
Collective memory plays a pivotal role in shaping both individual and societal behaviors, offering profound insights into the dynamics of identity formation, political action, and social cohesion. The interplay between memory, history, and political ideology underscores its complexity, revealing how dominant powers manipulate remembrance for strategic purposes. The theoretical framework demonstrates how memory transcends personal experiences to form a collective narrative, deeply embedded in social and spatial contexts. Practical examples of the European Union, former Yugoslavia, and Greece illustrate the enduring influence of collective memory on contemporary politics, from identity struggles to electoral choices and foreign policy decisions. They also highlight the susceptibility of collective memory to ideological distortion, where historical facts are often subordinated to hegemonic goals. Commemorative practices serve as powerful vehicles for embedding these memories, reinforcing group identities while perpetuating political agendas. Recognizing the critical impact of collective memory, it becomes evident that memory is not just a reflection of the past but a tool wielded in the present to shape future trajectories. Understanding its mechanisms and implications is essential for addressing the challenges posed by memory politics in an increasingly interconnected and contested world.
Bibliographical References
Bélanger, A. (2002). Urban Space and Collective Memory: Analysing The Various Dimensions of The Production of Memory. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(1), 69–92.
Conway, B. (2010). New directions in the sociology of collective Memory and Commemoration. Sociology Compass, 4(7), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00300.x
Fouka, V., & Voth, H. (2023). Collective Remembrance and Private Choice: German–Greek conflict and Behavior in Times of Crisis. American Political Science Review, 117(3), 851–870. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422001095
Glaurdić, J., Lesschaeve, C., & Mochtak, M. (2022). Contesting war memories: Parties and voters in contemporary Southeast Europe. Party Politics, 28(6), 1094–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688211039378
Halbwachs, M. (1980). The Collective Memory. Harper Colophon Books.
Horelt, M.-A., & Renner, J. (2008). Denting a Heroic Picture: A Narrative Analysis of Collective Memory in Post-War Croatia. Perspectives, 16(2), 5–27.
Mälksoo, M. (2009). The memory politics of becoming European: the East European subalterns and the collective memory of Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 15(4), 653–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109345049
Roudometof, V. (2003). Beyond Commemoration: The Politics of Collective Memory. Journal of Political & Military Sociology, 32(2), 161–169.
Saito, H. (2010). From collective memory to commemoration. In Handbook of Cultural Sociology (pp. 629–638). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891377.ch60
Weedon, C., & Jordan, G. (2012). Collective memory: theory and politics. Social Semiotics, 22(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.664969
Wertsch, J. V., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Collective memory: Conceptual foundations and theoretical approaches. Memory, 16(3), 318–326.
Σχόλια