Frontier Issues in Cultural Memory Research
pdf (Русский)

Keywords

cultural memory
frontier
border
spatial methodology
network
flow

How to Cite

1. Anikin D. Frontier Issues in Cultural Memory Research // Journal of Frontier Studies. 2020. № 2 (5). C. 12-25.

Abstract

The article analyzes the application of the concept of “frontier” to the study of the spatial dynamics of cultural memory. The author examines the evolution of spatial methodology in “memory studies”, identifying spatial, network, and streaming stages. The space is characterized by homogeneity of collective memories, the network allows revealing discreteness and heterogeneity of cultural memory, and the flow makes it possible to analyze the interweaving of different memorial practices referring to different cultural contexts. Shifting the memory understanding from a static state to a nonlinear and multi-layered process leads to a rethinking of the “frontier” category. Geographical determinism is abandoned, as a result of which border zones can now be called not only certain territories, but also images of cultural memory, which become points of contact and opposition of various strategies of addressing the past. The front line within the framework of the streaming methodology is characterized by mobility and relativity, as its specific outlines are established by claims of certain collective subjects to specific memorial images. This is evident in the context of a modern mobile society in which different communities, such as migrants and indigenous peoples, are interpenetrated.

https://doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v5i2.201
pdf (Русский)

References

Anikin, D. A. (2016). Frontier and boerder: spatial methodology in modern “Memory studies”. In Philosophy and Methodology of History (p. 8-15). Kolomna. (in Russian)

Anikin, D. A. (2020). Transfer of the past: cultural memory in conditions of migratory flows. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, (452), 66-72 (in Russian)

Brubaker, R. (2012). Ethnicity without groups. M.: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. (in Russian)

Etzioni, A. (2004). From empire to community: a new approach to international relations. Moscow: Ladomir. (in Russian)

Etzioni, A. (2012). Communitarianism as the key to world legitimacy. Retrieved from http://pu.virmk.ru/arhiv/2012/02/Etzioni-Petrosyan.htm (in Russian)

Halbwax, M. (2007). Social framework of memory. M.: New publishing house. (in Russian)

Law, D. (2015). After the method: mess and social science. M.: Publishing house of the Gaidar Institute. (in Russian)

Levada Center, (April 30, 2019). Victory Day. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/2019/04/30/den-pobedy-3/ (in Russian)

Nora, P. (1999). Between memory and history, the problems of places. In France-Memory (p. 17-50). SPb.: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University. (in Russian)

Olick, J. & Robbins, J. (1998) Social memory studies: From "collective memory" to the historical sociology of mnemonic. Annual review of sociology, 24 (1), 105-140. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.105

Safronova, Yu. A. (2018). Third wave of memory studies: Twenty-three years against wool. Political Science, (3), 12-31. (in Russian)

Turner, F. J. (1921). The Frontier in American History. New York: Holt.

Verch, D. (2018). Narrative tools, truth and quick thinking in national memory: the mnemonic confrontation between Russia and the West over Ukraine. Historical Expertise, (2), 15-32. (in Russian)

Victory in Europe Day (2020). Time of Celebration, Reflection. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Experience/VE-Day/

Wachstein, V. S. (2006). John Law: Sociology between semiotics and topology. Sociological Review, 5(1), 24-29. (in Russian)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.