Collective Memory and Cultural Politics: An Introduction1
Roudometof, Victor, Political and Military Sociology
This article provides a brief overview of sociological efforts to develop conceptual edifices for the study of collective memory. First, it is argued that memory and heritage form a continuum or a "heritage/memory nexus" whereby claims to the past receive different degrees of reverence or legitimacy. Second, a critical review and comparison of current sociological perspectives in the field of memory studies leads to the presentation of three different methodological strategies currently pursued in the literature. These strategies are critically evaluated with regard to the extent to which they contribute to the development of the conceptual tools necessary for the construction of historically grounded generalizations in the field. Alexander's notion of cultural trauma construction is used as an example of a conceptual strategy for creating a cultural sociology of historical narratives. The article concludes through an examination of the relationship between these methodological strategies and the themes pursued in the special issue's individual contributions.
Over the last three decades, the realm of memory studies has become an area of scholarly preoccupation for several disciplines, each with its own epistemological assumptions, predispositions, research foci, conventions, and so on. Since 2003, when this journal devoted a special issue on the politics of collective memory (Roudometof 2003), publications in the area of memory studies have appeared from a variety of fields. The list includes philosophy (Ricoeur 2004), history (Fritzsche 2004; Seixas 2004; Todorova 2004), cultural studies (Radstone and Hodgkin 2003), sociology (Levy and Sznaider 2005; Olick 2005a; Zubrzycki 2006), anthropology (Cassia 2003) and many other subfields such as peace and conflict studies (Cairns and Roe 2003) and European studies (Eder and Spohn 2005). The above are only a fragment of a larger "memory wave" that has swept across disciplines.
It is a foregone conclusion that no comprehensive overview of this burgeoning realm of scholarly interest can be provided here. Although "collective memory is a messy, unsystematic concept," it nevertheless "allows one to describe the phenomenology of human experience" (Boym 2001:54). Precisely because memory is an area of scholarly interest for several different disciplines and specializations, there are no paradigms in the field of "memory studies" per se-for researchers from diverse fields follow up the disciplinary conventions of their own disciplines. In this special issue attention is focused on the thematic area that concerns the relationship between collective memory and cultural politics. This relationship is of particular importance to social scientists (and specifically to sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and some political scientists) because it seeks to explore the relationship between the past and the present in connection to contemporary and often competing political projects or agendas. Although contributions to this special issue are not restricted to a single discipline or subfield, the Editor's general orientation and focus has been on sociological aspects of memory studies-with attention paid to important contributions coming from history and geography, some of which have the potential to influence sociological writing on this theme.
In this introductory article, attention is focused on the sociological interpretations of memory and specifically on the range of conceptual strategies developed in the field. Over the past decade, the evolving frontier of contemporary sociological scholarship has featured several conceptual strategies or approaches that adopt different stances with regard to the conceptualization and interpretation of memory. The article provides a critical overview and evaluation of a variety of strategies in terms of their potential to contribute to the development of specifically sociological theories or paradigms of study.
THE MEMORY/HERITAGE NEXUS
Maurice Hawlbachs's ( 1975) seminal work Les Cadres Sociaux de la Mémoire provides the departure point for contemporary sociological research in the area of memory. The challenge of contemporary scholarship has been to revamp this earlier approach to the field as well as to explore different strategies for conceptual advancement.2 It turns out, however, that to this day, the field has not been able to achieve conceptual breakthroughs that would move the sociology of memory into a prominent position within the scholarly community (for overviews, see Kansteiner 2002; Olick and Robbins 1998).
On the contrary, the proliferation of different conceptualizations and the growth of even competing terminologies are highly suggestive that the interdisciplinary study of memory in the social sciences at large remains in a preparadigmatic level of development. Rival conceptualizations center on whether memory should be conceived as a primarily psychological or individual property or whether social or collective memory should be conceptualized as a group property (for an overview and critical assessment, see Olick 1999). Competing terminologies suggest additional terms to designate this field of study-such as "tradition" (Shils 1981), "invented traditions" (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), or "heritage" (Lowenthal 1998), to name some of the most prominent ones. These terms grow out of competing national and disciplinary conventions and modes of theorizing.
Terminological standardization remains an elusive goal that clearly marks the field's fragmentation and makes it harder to assemble the literature under a common heading-even for the purposes of classification. While "memory" is a term popular in France and the United States, British preoccupation with the field is typically subsumed under the rubric of another term, that of "heritage" (see for example, Hewison 1987; Merriman 1991). What is heritage? Heritage is "everything we suppose has been handed down to us from the past. Although not all heritage is uniformly desirable, it is widely viewed as a precious and irreplaceable resource, essential to personal and collective identity and necessary for self-respect" (Lowenthal 2005:81).
Such a definition raises immediately the issue of terminological choice. Is heritage different from memory? The very definition of "heritage" suggests that the concept does include an additional factor that contributes to its separation from psychological perspectives or from perspectives that are concerned with the memories of aggregates of individuals. That is, heritage refers to successfully institutionalized claims to the past. When they gain hold upon the public, such claims are transformed from memory into heritage. As such, heritage and memory are intertwined and perhaps it is not accidental that the very term "heritage" is more popular in a society (i.e., Great Britain) that has not experienced the revolutionary breaks with the past that the United States and France have (see Turner 2006). But, in the United States or France, where revolutionary breaks shifted the very foundations of national traditions, the term "memory" has greater currency. In this respect, "memory" is a term that flags the very act of constructing or recreating the past-as opposed to the reverence of the past inscribed in the term "heritage" (which is linguistically connected to the notion of inheritance).3
Concern with heritage, then, is but an aspect of the broader theme of social or collective memory. If the linguistic choice of terminology reflects a culture's own understanding about its relationship with the past, it is reasonable to argue that the field in question constitutes a memory/heritage nexus, an area of scholarship where the research agenda is set in terms of the relationship between a group or groups, on the one hand, and remembrance of events past, irrespective of whether such events and the practices involved in their imaginative reconstruction are conceived of in terms of "something being handed down to us" (e.g., heritage) or something "we" remember (e.g., memory). Thus, memory and heritage are not quite separate from each other, but rather they intertwine. The notion of "heritage" brings forth the historicity of mnemonic practices.4 It was only in the nineteenth century that the past became "heritage" as such: it is also the very first time in history that we witness the deliberate restoration of old monuments (Boym 2001:15), a practice usually associated with what today is referred to as "heritage industry."
Irrespective of the terminological choice, the appropriation of heritage/ memory is always contested as it intersects with the interests of different constituencies based on race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and class. For example, pre-modern rulers deserved heritage; for it defined them and confirmed their rule. Its loss or absence spelled impotence.5 But while in pre-modern societies concern with heritage preservation was confined to the upper classes, modern societies have caused the democratization of heritage-by redefining it as national heritage (Lowenthal 1998:60-68). This nationalization of heritage is partly responsible for the proliferation and dispersion of heritage across most societies around the globe (Graham, Ashworth, and Turnbridge 2000:13). In this respect, heritage is closely connected with the emergence and institutionalization of the concept of tradition in modern societies. Heritage preservation provides the concrete means for maintaining a society's real or more often alleged traditions. In this sense, concern with cultural descent or the inheritance of tradition is a problem that is borne out of modernity itself. For contrary to classical modernization perspectives, the category of tradition is a product of modernity (Bendix 1967), and its "invention" is an effect of modernization. Heritage does not exhaust itself to the realm of tradition, however, for it is not only cultural but natural, as well. Just as modernity transformed the meaning of cultural heritage, it also transformed the meaning of natural heritage-in some instances like the United States by employing natural wonders as emblems of national heritage (Kammen 1993).
In contrast to heritage, memory cannot be viewed as confined to aristocracy. While in traditional society, ordinary folk experienced memory directly in several realms, in modem society memory is disembodied as modernization erodes the "places of memory" (milieux de mémoire) leaving modern societies with only some sites where memory is preserved, the realms of memory (lieux de mémoire) (Nora 1996). Of critical significance for the transformation of the "memory/heritage" nexus during the modern era is the emergence of nostalgia. Initially, eighteenth century European doctors conceived of it as a medical condition-and nineteenth century romantics (including romantic nationalists) found in it a genre of expression that has provided the means for reconstructing and recapturing the national past (Boym 2001:12-13). In this context, it is important to note that initially nostalgia was a dominant genre in the accounts provided by the exiles and émigrés of the French revolution-such as François-René de Chateaubriand whose accounts are filled with a sense of loss, wreckage, and mourning for the world of the ancient regime. Fritzsche (2004:64-65) remarks that Chateaubriand's "nostalgia is premised on an understanding of historical change that is relentless and violent in character and general in scope," while the very genre of nostalgia thus constructed is the "product of a shared historical consciousness of general displacement" that renders individual suffering socially meaningful.
Fritzsche's (2004) lengthy descriptions illustrate the multitude of ways in which exiles and refugees viewed the social upheaval and transformations of the French revolution and the coming of modernity as unwelcome social ruptures that caused the disintegration of a dear and socially legitimate cultural universe. In so doing, these European exiles and strangers of all kinds implicitly intertwined the very genre of romantic nostalgia to the concept of tradition as such. The very understanding of tradition that emerged in continental Europe is thus strongly colored by this particular historical configuration-and it is perhaps this very reason that the concept of tradition is so notably absent from the United States, which for up to 1870 had little space for reverence toward the past (Kammen 1993). With the coming of the age of nationalism, the "invented traditions" (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) of European countries put the genre of nostalgia to good use, for nineteenth century European nationalisms cultivated a romantic and highly selective view of the past: "To forget-and I would venture-say to get one's history wrong, are essential factors in the making of a nation," Renan (1882/1995) observed at the time. Modernity thus has forged a radical transformation of the relationship between communities and the past, whereby, under the influence of nostalgia, new realms of memory were produced.
Nora's three volume (1996-1998) edited compilation, in itself a summary of the massive volumes that appeared in French over an eight-year period (1984-1992), is an attempt to capture precisely those realms of memory produced by modernity. In this approach toward memory, it is the modern world that feels the need to create rituals of memorialization as a means for the preservation of memory (and heritage), whose transmission can no longer be treated as automatic. This approach highlights the extent to which modern societies operate under the imperative to construct and maintain a whole array of products and practices that are essential for the transmission of memory from one generation to the other. Modernity is said to cause the erosion of identity, social values, and personal integrity-and this erosion leads to a perceived loss of a heritage and the inevitable nostalgia toward a real but most often imagined past. These processes provide the motivation for the "heritage industry" and justify the passing of legislation to protect monuments and sites as well as the institutional and public mobilization to preserve specific sites. Such actions are justified on the basis of an assumed loss of "something" that is felt to be of particular importance.6
Memory studies therefore concentrate on the processes of social signification through which relics or sites are conceptualized as being of great significance to the life of a group or a community (Strath 2000). Such a process is inherently political, for different constituencies employ their claims to the past as a means for fostering claims to the present. A good example is the Canadian Italians' mobilization to recognize Canada's first explorer's Italian roots thereby turning the legendary John Cabbott into Giovanni Cabbotto-and thus making an assertion about their co-founding role in contemporary Canada (Fortier 2002). Another case of such efforts is the Macedonian-Greek-Bulgarian contest over the heritage of ancient Macedonia, whereby each group attempts to provide a genealogy that would establish a link between itself and the Macedonian past (see Roudometof 2002). Such examples can be multiplied: The sense of past involved in the claims and counterclaims surrounding the conflict in Northern Ireland, the Basque country or Catalonia can easily provide additional material to substantiate the close connection between contemporary political movements and the appropriation (or construction) of the past. In other words, collective memory is a playground and not a graveyard of multiple individual or even collective recollections (Boym 2001:54). This means that the relationship between the production of collective memory and cultural politics underlies the entire range of topics within the field and represents a major focus of scholarly interest.
CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES IN MEMORY STUDIES: THREE SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES
What, if any, is the distinct sociological contribution to this area of inquiry? From a sociological perspective, the central challenge of the sociology of memory has to do with the development of specific conceptual strategies that would allow the development of bounded generalizations about the nature, scope, depth, and impact of what I have defined in the previous section as "the heritage/memory nexus." In order to develop a conceptual strategy to interpret the shape of the past, though, it is necessary to make some key assumptions with regard to the extent to which a sociological theory will be more "structuralist" (i.e., formal) or contextual (i.e., historicist). That is, authors have to make assumptions about the significance of historical contingency and the role of actors as creators of memory. On the one hand, each mnemonic construction can be viewed as unique or as purely or predominantly constructed out of the interactive processes the actors themselves are engaged in. In this sense, "invented traditions" are a constant feature of human action. On the other hand, mnemonic constructions can be analyzed in terms of their narratological structures. That is, the products of human memory can be viewed as typologies that follow specific patterns of organization. Such a structuralist analysis tends to render historical specificity irrelevant for the purposes of analyzing the formal elements of the narratological structures. Each of these conceptual strategies has important repercussions. While the former conceptual strategy leads to complete immersion into full-scale historical specificity with little-if any-room for generalization, the latter conceptual strategy leads to the detached construction of formal models that implicitly negate historical specificity. With respect to the role of actors, in the former conceptual strategy the actors are viewed as the principal creators of memory through the construction of mnemonic products, their engagement with mnemonic processes, and the performance of mnemonic practices. In the latter conceptual strategy, the actors are performers who apply specific cognitive or social models, whereby their purely creative role is greatly diminished. Between these two opposites, there is a third strategy of developing historically situated models that allow sufficient room for entertaining historical contingency.
Let me illustrate these different theoretical choices by referencing specific studies that adopt each of the aforementioned strategies in their research. The formal or structuralist approach is best exemplified in the writings of Eviatar Zerubavel (1985, 1992, 2003). Zerubavel's approach is derived from French structuralism and aims at examining the structures of social memorysuch as the "density" of history or the shape of historical narratives, the mental segmentation of time into distinct historical periods, and so on. Zerubavel's (2003:9) stated goal is "to develop a general framework that would reveal the fundamental structure of social memory," and for this reason data is collected from various levels (ranging from nations to banks or individuals). Because of the formal-structural approach, Zerubavel's strategy entails decontextualizing the historical data by pulling them out of their culturally and historically specific environments-for his goal is to articulate "a transcultural as well as a transhistorical perspective on social memory as a generic phenomenon" (2003:9).
While Zerubavel's approach is quite distinct in its pure and consistent application of structuralism into the field of memory, it is by no means an isolated case. In most instances, authors develop such formal or structural models even without succumbing full-scale to the theoretical demands of structuralism. For example, Giesen's (2004) work on triumph and trauma displays similar formal characteristics. In order to analyze the social construction of heroes, victims, and perpetrators, the author develops a theoretical scheme whereby moments of triumph are contrasted against moments of trauma. Depending upon whether the actor's subjectivity is preserved or damaged and whether the actor's efforts at mastering the world around him/her are successful or not, the end result is the creation of different characters, ranging from the tragic hero to the perpetrator (Giesen 2004:6). Such characters are fundamentally based on human personality structure and, therefore, on a transhistorical interpretation of subjective feelings and emotions. Still, Giesen is employing them in order to describe historically situated contexts-such as the construction of Holocaust survivors as victims and the construction of the post-World War II German nation as bearing the mark of the perpetrator.
At the other end of the conceptual spectrum is the strategy employed by Jeffrey Olick (2005b), who suggests that "collective memory" is an umbrella term that refers to a wide variety of mnemonic products and practices. Products include stories, rituals, books, statues, presentations, speeches, images, pictures, records, etc.; while practices include recall, representation, commemoration, celebration, regret, denial, rationalization, and others. In his view, individual and collective aspects of memory are intertwined. He suggests that the analysis of collective memory should rest upon three principles. First, scholarship should acknowledge the complexity and the contradictory nature of collective memory. Assumptions about a monolithic memory of a group or a society should be avoided even if "that makes it difficult to judge a whole epoch or a whole society" (Olick 2005b:8). second, scholarship should avoid the fallacy of attributing authenticity to memory as well as the fallacy of making memory a pure invention of the contemporaries. Third, memory is a process, not a thing: It is something people do but not something people have.
The above provide a paradigm of study that bears the mark of symbolic interactionism: Memory is ultimately contingent upon the individuals and it remains open to reconstruction and revision. If the field is viewed from such a perspective, however, we cannot expect the development of even limited generalizations-including historically grounded ones. The very reality of collective memory is, so to speak, up in the air: It is the product of social actors and not a factor that determines those actions. Memory is the explanandum (e.g., what needs to be explained), the effect that is accounted for through the social action of the producers of memory.
As such, memory has no a priori effect upon people: It is not the cause of social action but rather its aftermath. In this regard, the sociology of mnemonic practices is condemned to shy away from historically grounded or bounded generalizations and committed to a conceptual strategy of historical specificity. This approach provides ammunition for critics to argue that, despite the multiplication of memory studies, the field has not shown significant conceptual and methodological advances in the research of the processes of collective memory (Kansteiner 2002). As a result, while most studies focus on the representation of specific events within a given chronological, geographical, or other setting, their insights into past and present situations are insufficiently linked to social collectives and their historical consciousness.7
Olick's insistence on the sociology of memory is cause to draw some parallels with the sociology of culture at large. That is, as Alexander (2003) argues, a useful distinction can be drawn between the sociology of culture and cultural sociology. The former views culture (and by extension, memory) as a product to be explained through reference to some other "hard factors" (or "soft" factors, such as interaction processes at the individual or group level), while the latter views culture as an autonomous factor that is in itself a cause of social action. As a matter of fact, Alexander's (2003; Alexander et al. 2004) studies on cultural trauma are highly suggestive of a different approach to memory.8 Alexander is concerned with the role of trauma in the modern world and the ways in which cultural trauma is produced through claims in the public sphere by different and often competing carrier groups that seek to put forth their own interpretations of the past as a means of advancing specific claims.
Alexander's modeling of this process explicitly suggests that while memory is contingent upon individual actions and acts of remembrance, historically grounded generalizations and some general principles about the mechanisms at work can be described independently of specific cases. This perspective takes into account that, while each act of commemoration reproduces a commemorative narrative-e.g., a story about a particular past that accounts for the ritualized remembrance-the selection and organization of the vast array of facts into narratives requires more from the actors. Segments of the past are organized into master commemorative narratives that structure collective memory-to be set against alternative commemorative narratives that provide for a counter-narrative (Zerubavel 1995:6-11).
Alexander is thus analyzing the emergence and institutionalization of such master commemorative narratives that explain traumatic events in national or group history. To do so, Alexander (2003, 2004) suggests an elaborate mechanism that is responsible for shaping the creation of the narratives: In the case of cultural traumas, claim-making operates through carrier groups that proceed to address an audience within the context of a specific historical, cultural, and institutional environment (Alexander 2004:12-13). The cultural trauma is therefore a new master narrative that is produced by developing persuasive accounts of the nature of pain, the nature of the victim, the relation between trauma victim and wider audience, and finally, the attribution of responsibility. Moreover, the legitimization of the new master narrative is contingent upon successfully mastering control in a variety of suitable institutional arenaswhich might range from the law to state bureaucracy, depending upon the specifics of each case. Perhaps the best example of this model is the social transformation of the meaning of the Holocaust from a progressive to a tragic narrative (Alexander 2003). In developing his interpretation, Alexander stresses the significance of the aforementioned cultural structures, which provide the means for developing different frameworks of remembrance.
In terms of Alexander's theoretical contribution to the field, Spillman (2005:4) comments that "the close analysis of changes in the meaning of the Holocaust demonstrates that analyzing cultural structures offers empirical insight even beyond what we can read in the well-developed literature on collective memory." As Spillman (2005) writes, Alexander's work does not fully address a host of related issues-including the problem of studying routine events, which differ systematically from major events. But his perspective does begin the task of outlining a cultural sociology of narratives, whereby the researcher can examine the conditions that determine the creation of master narratives (as well as the articulation of alternative narratives) in different cases around the globe. For example, cultural traumas are practically universal-and their broad range can contribute to the cross-national popularization of the sociology of memory. Moreover, understanding cultural trauma creation is but the first step toward moving beyond it in terms of developing strategies for preventing its reproduction and the subsequent intergenerational circle of violence, highly visible in cases like Northern Ireland or Palestine.
Irrespective of the future directions of scholarship, however, it is likely that sociologists will continue to apply these different conceptual strategies as a means for developing generalizations about the shape of the past. In this regard, the above description should not be misinterpreted as suggestive of a single correct path but rather as an overview of different and related conceptual strategies that clearly illustrate that the sociological community's active engagement with this field has been far more productive than what might be conventionally believed.
IN THIS SPECIAL ISSUE
The contributions to this special issue do not follow just one of these conceptual strategies but rather show the multiplicity of approaches currently employed in the field.
In her contribution, Dee Britton examines the multitude of agents that have contributed to the construction of the U.S. memorial landscape of terrorism and terrorist victims. Her case is the commemorative processes of Pan Am 103 in 1988-an event that pre-dated 9/11 by thirteen years, but also, significantly, an event that did not become an immediate focus of public attention (by the press or the U.S. government) in the manner 9/11 became later on. In her article, Britton traces the painful process through which Arlington's Cairn was eventually constructed through the persistent efforts of various constituencies and in large part thanks to the tacit support of the Clinton administration. Britton's main focus is to showcase the articulation of different "carrier groups" (Alexander, 2003) that play critically important roles in the commemorative process. Her article provides a valuable vantage point for evaluating the differences and similarities between Pan Am 103 and the subsequent commemorative processes of 9/11. In many respects, the lack of initial public attention to the Pan Am 103 commemorative efforts stands in sharp contrast to the commemorative processes of 9/11.
In her contribution, Dalia Abdelhady is addressing the ways in which artists in the Lebanese diaspora negotiate their relations to multiple attachments in terms of place, belonging, and homeland. Her contribution is exploring the links among memory studies, transnationalism, and cosmopolitanism. In considering the ways in which the artists are simultaneously participating in transnational networks of immigrants while also developing different cosmopolitan sensibilities, she is innovatively negotiating the relationship between cosmopolitanism and transnationalism. The transnational Lebanese artists she studies are among the carrier groups that Levy and Sznaider (2005:46) consider as responsible for the construction of cosmopolitan memories. Moreover, the author is examining these groups' practices concretely, through ethnography and qualitative research, thereby avoiding the dangers of speculative theorizing. Her engagement with the field further illustrates the close and still under-explored relationship between nostalgia and memory (see Boym 2001).
Leavy's article on the appropriation of 9/11 on behalf of various political constituencies stands in sharp contrast to the largely-although not exclusively-actor-driven processes outlined by Britton in her article on Pan Am 103. In her article, Patricia Leavy examines the U.S. press's interpretative schemes for decoding 9/11 and argues that these schemes tacitly supported and endorsed the interpretation promoted by the U.S. administration at the time. Over the course of the decade that followed 9/11, it has become rather apparent that an entire series of political and military events-inclusive of the 2003 U.S.sponsored invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation of that country by the United States and its allies-were predicated on the endorsement and popularization of 9/11's interpretation. In her article, Leavy traces even further the selective appropriation of this rhetoric by various conservative political groups that have used 9/11 and its legacy to frame their own causes-such as the "war on drugs" and abortion.
Dealing with a completely different case, Mark Wolfgram makes a similar point in his article on the commemoration of elite resistance against the Nazi regime in the post-World War II West German Republic. Unlike conventional interpretations of the failed coup's commemoration in the Republic of West Germany, the author argues that at least for a considerable part of the postWorld War II period, these commemorations were popular among the public. To argue this case, Wolfgram employs records that are suggestive of the appeal of the commemoration among the public-using some new innovative approaches that scrutinize unexplored data but also raise interesting and though-provoking questions. Theoretically speaking, the author shows that prior to the emergence of the more universalistic version of the Holocaust-what Alexander (2003) has referred to as the cultural trauma of the Holocaust-the public in West Germany had developed quite a different interpretation regarding the Nazi regime. Undoubtedly, this interpretation deserves a place in the ever-lasting German discourse over the German guilt, the Holocaust and the legacy of the Nazi past.
Jeremy Straugh shares Wolfgram's interest in what eventually became a failed narrative. In this article, Straugh examines the fragmentation of memory in, what after 1989 became the former, East Germany. With the post-1989 "reunification" of Germany accepted as the new dominant master narrative, the specificity and national distinctiveness cultivated for nearly half a century in former East Germany became confined to the realm of memory. In this regard, re-unification provided the occasion for an emotional mnemonic split that reflected the public's ambivalence toward the new post-1989 national project of a reunited Germany. In his article, Straugh provides a detailed analysis of the different profiles developed vis-à-vis the post-1989 Germany. These profiles fracture widely, and as the author argues, they exemplify how social memories are not always collective but that they can also become fragmented: In the case of the former East Germany, this memory fragmentation is traced to the differences in generational cohorts as well as the overall public attitudes toward the former East German state and the consequences of the post-1989 re-unifications.
Finally, Kenneth Foote and Maoz Azaryahu provide an insightful review of recent studies on the geography of memory. In the aftermath of the "spatial turn" in the social sciences, it should be particularly useful for social scientists working in memory studies to take notice of the work done in this particular subfield. Over the last two decades, the geography of memory has grown in importance and the studies conducted in that area are of relevance to a broader audience in sociology, anthropology, political science, and related disciplines.
Alexander, Jeffrey C.
2003 The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2004 "Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma." Pp. 1-30 in Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by J.C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, NJ. Smelser, and P. Sztompka. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey, C., Ron Eyerman, Bernhard Giesen, Neil J. Smelser, and Piotr Sztompka
2004 Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1967 "Tradition and Modernity Revisited." Comparative Studies in Society and History 9(3): 292-346.
1992 Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2001 The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.
Cairns, Ed, and Micheal D. Roe (Eds.)
2003 The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict. London: Palgrave.
Cassia, Paul Saint
2003 Bodies of Evidence: Burial, Memory, and the Recovery of Missing Persons in Cyprus. New York: Berghahn Books.
Eder, Klaus, and Willfried Spohn (Eds.)
2005 Collective Memory and European Identity: The Effects of Integration and Enlargement. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
2002 "Bringing It All (Back) Home: Italian-Canadians' Remaking of Canadian history." Pp. 103-115 in Communities Across Borders: New Immigrants and Transnational Cultures, edited by P. Kennedy and V. Roudometof. London: Routledge.
2004 Stranded in the Present: Modern Time and the Melancholy of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2004 Triumph and Trauma. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Graham, Brian, GJ. Ashworth, and J.E. Turnbridge
2000 A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold.
 1975Les Cardes Sociaux de la Mémoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
1980 The Collective Memory. New York: Harper and Row.
1987 The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen.
Hobsbawm, Eric, and T. Ranger (Eds.)
1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
1993 Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture. New York: Vintage.
2002 "Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies." History and Theory 41 (May): 179-197.
Levy, Daniel, and Natan Snzaider
2005 The Holocaust and Memory in the Global Age. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
1998 The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2005 "Natural and Cultural Heritage," International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(1, March):81-92.
1991 Beyond the Glass case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
1996 "General Introduction: Between Memory and History." Pp. 1-20 in Realms of Memory. The Construction of the French Past, Vol. I: Conflicts and Divisions, edited by P. Nora. New York: Columbia University Press.
Nora, Pierre (Ed.)
1996-1998 Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past (3 vols.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Olick, Jeffrey K.
1999 "Collective Memory: The Two Cultures." Sociological Theory 17(3):333-348.
2005a In the House of the Hangman: The Agonies of German Defeat, 1943-1949. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2005b "Products, Processes, and Practices: A Non-Reificatory Approach to Collective Memory." Biblical Theology Bulletin (36):1-10.
Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce Robbins
1998 "Social Memory Studies: From 'Collective Memory' to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices." Pp. 105-140 in Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 24, edited by J. Hagan and K.S. Cook. PaIo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Radstone, Susannah, and Katherine Hodgkin (Eds.)
2003 Regimes of Memory. New York: Routledge.
1995"What Is a Nation?" Pp. 143-155 in The Nationalism Reader, edited by O. Dahbour and M.R. Ishay. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
2004 Memory, History, Forgetting, translated by K. Blarney and D. Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2002 Collective Memory, National Identity and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria and the Macedonian Question. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Roudometof, Victor (Ed.)
2003 Special Issue on "The Politics of Collective Memory." Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 31 (2).
Seixas, Peter (Ed.)
2004 Theorizing Historical Consciousness. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
1981 Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2005 "Is the 'Strong Program' Strong Enough?" Culture: Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture section of the American Sociological Association 19(2):1,4-6.
Strath, Bo (Ed.)
2000 Myth and Memory in the Construction of Community: Historical Patterns in Europe and Beyond. New York: P.I.E.-P. Lang.
1997 Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic and the Politics of Remembering. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Todorova, Maria (Ed.)
2004 Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory. London: Hurst.
Turner, Brian S.
2006 "British Sociology and Public Intellectuals: Consumer Society and Imperial Decline." British Journal of Sociology (57)2: 169-188.
1985 The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week. New York: Free Press.
1992 Terra Cognita: The Mental Discovery of America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2003 Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1995 Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2006 The Crosses ofAuschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in PostCommunist Poland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
University of Cyprus
Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Summer): 1-16
Victor Roudometof is Assistant Professor with the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Cyprus. His research interests lie in the areas of the sociology of culture and sociology of religion. He is the author of Nationalism, Globalization and Orthodoxy (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001) and Collective Memory, National Identity and Ethnic Conflict (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002). Additionally, he has authored over thirty articles and book chapters and has edited or co-edited six volumes on nationalism, transnationalism, Americanization, and religion. His latest volume is Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 2005), co-edited with Alexander Agadjanian and Jerry Pankhurst.…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Collective Memory and Cultural Politics: An Introduction1. Contributors: Roudometof, Victor - Author. Journal title: Political and Military Sociology. Volume: 35. Issue: 1 Publication date: Summer 2007. Page number: 1+. © Dr. George Kourvetaris Winter 1996. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.