Beyond multidirectional memory: Opening pathways to politics and solidarity

IF 1.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Memory Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-05 DOI:10.1177/17506980231176040
Zoltán Kékesi, Máté Zombory
{"title":"Beyond multidirectional memory: Opening pathways to politics and solidarity","authors":"Zoltán Kékesi, Máté Zombory","doi":"10.1177/17506980231176040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our article responds to the ongoing crisis of memory politics that has brought the problem of de-politicization of memory studies scholarship to the forefront. This reflexivity is manifested in the demand for theories that explicitly address the problems of politics and solidarity. A representative theory in this regard is Michael Rothberg’s multidirectional memory that examines “the Holocaust in the age of decolonization” and offers a non-exclusive model of public remembering and reconciliation. While we acknowledge Rothberg’s attempt to overcome the “competition paradigm” of contemporary memory, we argue that the model of multidirectional memory as a politico-ethical framework of solidarity ultimately fails because of its underlying social ontology and presentist-ahistorical method of interpretation. We give a critical analysis of his model while applying the same historical and empirical focus. By doing so, we show that the direct theoretical link between memory and solidarity is the outcome of a de-politicization of the historical record. Ultimately, we make a case for Leftist-antifascist internationalism, a paradigm he misidentified as multidirectional Holocaust memory.","PeriodicalId":47104,"journal":{"name":"Memory Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980231176040","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: 0

Abstract

Our article responds to the ongoing crisis of memory politics that has brought the problem of de-politicization of memory studies scholarship to the forefront. This reflexivity is manifested in the demand for theories that explicitly address the problems of politics and solidarity. A representative theory in this regard is Michael Rothberg’s multidirectional memory that examines “the Holocaust in the age of decolonization” and offers a non-exclusive model of public remembering and reconciliation. While we acknowledge Rothberg’s attempt to overcome the “competition paradigm” of contemporary memory, we argue that the model of multidirectional memory as a politico-ethical framework of solidarity ultimately fails because of its underlying social ontology and presentist-ahistorical method of interpretation. We give a critical analysis of his model while applying the same historical and empirical focus. By doing so, we show that the direct theoretical link between memory and solidarity is the outcome of a de-politicization of the historical record. Ultimately, we make a case for Leftist-antifascist internationalism, a paradigm he misidentified as multidirectional Holocaust memory.
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
超越多向记忆:开启政治和团结之路
我们的文章回应了记忆政治的持续危机,这场危机将记忆研究学术的去政治化问题带到了最前沿。这种自反性表现在对明确解决政治和团结问题的理论的需求上。这方面的一个代表性理论是迈克尔·罗斯伯格的多向记忆,该理论考察了“非殖民化时代的大屠杀”,并提供了一个非排他性的公众记忆与和解模式。虽然我们承认罗斯伯格试图克服当代记忆的“竞争范式”,但我们认为,作为团结的政治伦理框架的多向记忆模式最终失败了,因为其潜在的社会本体论和呈现主义的非历史解释方法。我们对他的模型进行了批判性分析,同时运用了同样的历史和经验焦点。通过这样做,我们表明记忆和团结之间的直接理论联系是历史记录去政治化的结果。最终,我们为左翼反法西斯国际主义辩护,他将这种范式错误地认定为大屠杀的多向记忆。
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