| Abstract | In this article, we argue that it is important to recognise the limits of memory if we are to explain its political force. We argue that the role of memory is to establish a specific normative relationship between a subject and a past it regards as its own. This account allows us to differentiate collective memory from, on the one hand, history and, on the other, myth. For several centuries, the most obvious and politically salient example of collective memory has been the nation–state. However, we use this account to cast light on two recent attempts to extend the notion of collective memory beyond the paradigm of the nation–state. The first, which we call the “universalisation thesis”, discovers new forms of memory, stretching across national borders. This shared memory across national borders – most notably of the Holocaust – is assumed to slowly transform local identities and to bring them closer to an endorsement of universally shared values. The second focuses on the recent attempts to form a European memory, one that might overcome the national divisions and create a new political identity. While we welcome the investigation of post-national forms of memory, we provide reasons to be sceptical of both these approaches. We argue for a form of memory that recognises the political complexity and divisions of memory projects and their inevitable particularity.
|
