Aline Sierp

History, memory, and trans-European identity : unifying divisions

Introduction. 1. History, Memory and Public Policy 2. Forty Years of National Memory Constructions 3. The Europeanisation of National Memory? 4. A European Memory? Conclusions.

Linking the Local and the Transnational: Rethinking Memory Politics in Europe

In this introductory article to the special issue on ‘Transnational Memory Politics in Europe,’ we argue for closer scrutiny of the dynamics between the local and the transnational realms of memory. We contend that thus far, scholarship has neglected empirical analysis of transnational mnemonic practices in Europe. We seek to provide a theoretical framework bringing together remembrance with research on globalization, governance, and transnationalism as a way of overcoming the often nation-centric nature of memory studies. The central puzzle for us is how memories are (trans)formed, displayed, shared, and negotiated through transnational channels, while maintaining their local rootedness. In particular, we focus on the construction of narratives that have the power to transcend national boundaries, as well as the role of individual and institutional actors in driving those narratives to (un)successful representation.

National stereotypes in the context of the European crisis

ABSTRACT In this article we position the contributions to our special issue in relation to existing scholarship on racism and stereotypes. We pay close attention to conceptual strands in the literature that emphasize two cognitive-discursive characteristics of stereotypes: their essentialist reductions and projections and their metonymical qualities. We then extend our conceptual and thematic map further to include recent discussions of the relationships between national and European identifications, particularly in crisis contexts, and the role of memory politics in them. We conclude with a brief mention of the scope and potential dangers of historical analogies in moments of crisis and fragmentation.

Drawing Lessons from the Past : Mapping Change in Central and South-Eastern Europe

This introductory article to the special section on “Europe’s Changing Lessons from the Past” argues for a close analysis of acts of public remembrance in Central and Eastern European countries in order to uncover the link between the issue of public memory and long-term processes of democratisation. In countries facing a period of transition after the experience of war and dictatorship, the debate over its memory is usually as much a debate about a divisive past as it is about the future. While it is part of a sensitive political scrutiny that is related to different ideas on how to ensure sustainable peace, it also provides the basis for the recreation of a common sense of belonging and identity. The often resulting coexistence of different memory traditions creates two clearly identifiable levels of conflict: one on the national level and one on the supranational one. In mapping change in Central and Eastern Europe, this special section aims at making the connections between the two visible by on the one hand questioning the sociological turn in Memory and EU Studies and on the other, pinpointing the necessity to concentrate on processes and not only on their results.

1939 versus 1989—A Missed Opportunity to Create a European Lieu de Mémoire?

This article is part of the special section titled The Genealogies of Memory, guest edited by Ferenc Laczó and Joanna Wawrzyniak This article analyses the wider context of policy conflict concerning public memory of the 1989 events. It uses Pierre Nora’s concept of lieux de mémoire in trying to explain why 23 August 1939 has been turned into a European Remembrance Day whereas 9 November 1989 has not. By investigating closely the role that various memory actors played during debates at the European level, it advances the idea that the anniversary of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been more successful in establishing itself within the European remembrance landscape because it has allowed for the promotion of a unifying narrative of the European past. In doing so, the article questions the frequently advanced idea that memory clashes in the EU form around an East–West divide that in some cases overlaps with a Right–Left divide. The analysis digs deep into the complex dynamics lying at the heart of memory contests concerning the end of the Cold War within the EU and provides a more differentiated view of discussions preceding EU decisions on policies of memory.

National days: Constructing and mobilising national identity

‘internal’ to the ‘external’ by overviewing the ‘track record’ of international interventions aimed at conflict settlement. This is the most contextual and empirically informed of all the chapters. The cases of Burma, DRC and Sudan are each examined before going into significant depth (some 24 pages) in the case of Kosovo. Chapter seven focuses on the institutional design principally in terms of models of democratic governance and group accommodation within diverse societies. Existing models such as liberal consociationalism, centripatalism and power dividing are reviewed along with various human and minority rights provisions. While no theory is considered to fully capture the practice of complex power sharing, liberal consociationalism stands out as most able to accommodate the key elements of the others. What underlines these methods for settling and managing conflicts (for example, power sharing, regional autonomy) is that they are reached by consensus. In contrast to this, chapter eight deals with so-called ‘alternative’ methods for arriving at conflict settlement by non-consensual means such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, hegemonic control, forced assimilation and partition/succession. What appears as a quandary for the authors is that these alternatives ‘have no obvious track record of success, yet they nonetheless continue to be pursued by major conflict parties’ (p. 71). It is not always clear that the authors provide the answer to why non-consensual means continue to be adopted, and, for that reason, why such policies should be considered as strategies aimed at conflict settlement. Overall, the authors argue convincingly that key actors involved in conflict settlement also need to know and understand the causes of ethnic conflicts. If a singular conclusion can be stated, it is that the greater the complexity of the situation – involving multiple actors at different levels and with competing interests, goals and structures – the more challenging it is for the international community to set in motion a process most likely to result in peaceful settlement.