Marginal(ized) plurality: An empirical conceptualization of Michael Rothberg’s “multidirectional memory” in German educational settings

IF 1.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Memory Studies Pub Date : 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1177/17506980231155562
S. Arnold, Sebastian Bischoff
{"title":"Marginal(ized) plurality: An empirical conceptualization of Michael Rothberg’s “multidirectional memory” in German educational settings","authors":"S. Arnold, Sebastian Bischoff","doi":"10.1177/17506980231155562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we apply Michael Rothberg’s concept of “multidirectional memory” to an empirical setting, by analyzing qualitative interviews with 124 educators in the field of memory work, such as museum and memorial site employees, teachers, volunteers of non-governmental organizations, and civil society initiatives. We analyzed where they come across memory conflicts and commonality, and what the respective “enabling conditions” were, that is, the influencing factors that promoted or prevented developments toward multidirectionality in the sense of a “differentiated solidarity.” We found only a few examples of this kind of multidirectional memory in educational settings. It was fostered by four factors: personal autobiographical experiences, political positions, structural/institutional aspects, and certain pedagogical principles. By contrast, different forms of competitive memory were dominant: first, “Conflicting Memory” characterized by differing politics; second, “Divided Memory” characterized by a perception of resource competition; and third, “Fragmented Memory,” consisting of a form of sympathetic ignorance by which memories of other groups or events are tolerated, but not actively interlinked. Central topics that emerge within memory conflicts and entanglements are the history of National Socialism, World War II and the Shoah, the history of the state of Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the Armenian Genocide, the history of the Ottoman Empire and—to a lesser extent—the history of colonialism. We argue that much can be gained by applying Rothberg’s concept to contemporary empirical settings, both in order to understand its current implications but also to help flesh out its underlying theoretical notions. These are regarding possible “negative” forms of multidirectional memory, as well as the implications and ethics of historical comparisons.","PeriodicalId":47104,"journal":{"name":"Memory Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980231155562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this article, we apply Michael Rothberg’s concept of “multidirectional memory” to an empirical setting, by analyzing qualitative interviews with 124 educators in the field of memory work, such as museum and memorial site employees, teachers, volunteers of non-governmental organizations, and civil society initiatives. We analyzed where they come across memory conflicts and commonality, and what the respective “enabling conditions” were, that is, the influencing factors that promoted or prevented developments toward multidirectionality in the sense of a “differentiated solidarity.” We found only a few examples of this kind of multidirectional memory in educational settings. It was fostered by four factors: personal autobiographical experiences, political positions, structural/institutional aspects, and certain pedagogical principles. By contrast, different forms of competitive memory were dominant: first, “Conflicting Memory” characterized by differing politics; second, “Divided Memory” characterized by a perception of resource competition; and third, “Fragmented Memory,” consisting of a form of sympathetic ignorance by which memories of other groups or events are tolerated, but not actively interlinked. Central topics that emerge within memory conflicts and entanglements are the history of National Socialism, World War II and the Shoah, the history of the state of Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the Armenian Genocide, the history of the Ottoman Empire and—to a lesser extent—the history of colonialism. We argue that much can be gained by applying Rothberg’s concept to contemporary empirical settings, both in order to understand its current implications but also to help flesh out its underlying theoretical notions. These are regarding possible “negative” forms of multidirectional memory, as well as the implications and ethics of historical comparisons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
边际(化)多元性:德国教育环境中迈克尔·罗斯伯格“多向记忆”的经验概念
在这篇文章中,我们将迈克尔·罗斯伯格的“多向记忆”概念应用到一个实证环境中,通过分析对124名记忆工作领域的教育工作者的定性采访,如博物馆和纪念馆的员工、教师、非政府组织的志愿者和民间社会倡议。我们分析了它们在哪里遇到记忆冲突和共性,以及各自的“有利条件”是什么,也就是说,在“差异化团结”的意义上,促进或阻止多向发展的影响因素。我们只发现了教育环境中这种多向记忆的少数例子。它是由四个因素促成的:个人自传体经历、政治立场、结构/制度方面以及某些教学原则。相比之下,不同形式的竞争记忆占主导地位:首先,以不同政治为特征的“冲突记忆”;第二,以资源竞争感知为特征的“分裂记忆”;第三,“碎片记忆”,由一种同情性的无知形式组成,通过这种无知形式,对其他群体或事件的记忆是可以容忍的,但不是主动联系的。记忆冲突和纠缠中出现的中心话题是国家社会主义史、第二次世界大战和大屠杀、以色列国历史和以巴冲突、亚美尼亚种族灭绝、奥斯曼帝国历史,以及在较小程度上的殖民主义历史。我们认为,将罗斯伯格的概念应用于当代实证环境可以获得很多好处,既可以理解其当前的含义,也可以帮助充实其潜在的理论概念。这些是关于多向记忆的可能“负面”形式,以及历史比较的含义和伦理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Memory Studies
Memory Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Memory Studies is an international peer reviewed journal. Memory Studies affords recognition, form, and direction to work in this nascent field, and provides a critical forum for dialogue and debate on the theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues central to a collaborative understanding of memory today. Memory Studies examines the social, cultural, cognitive, political and technological shifts affecting how, what and why individuals, groups and societies remember, and forget. The journal responds to and seeks to shape public and academic discourse on the nature, manipulation, and contestation of memory in the contemporary era.
期刊最新文献
My body my choice: The hostile appropriation of feminist cultural memory in American anti-vaccine movements. Commodification anxiety and the memory of Turkish revolutionary Deniz Gezmiş. Remembering activism: Means and ends. Solidarity: Memory work, periodicals and the protest lexicon in the long 1960s. Migrants, transcultural memory and World War I commemoration in post-conflict Northern Ireland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1