记忆的局限

The limits of memory

笔者在本文中认为,如果我们打算解释记忆的政治力量,那么承认它的局限性就至关重要。我们认为,记忆扮演了在主体与主体视为属于自己的过去之间建立特殊的规范性关系的作用。这种解释使我们得以将集体记忆与历史及神话区别开来。数个世纪以来,最显而易见且政治意味最突出的集体记忆的例子一直是单一民族国家。然而,我们使用这一解释是要阐明近期两种力图使集体记忆的概念超越单一民族国家之范式的做法。第一种努力我们称之为"普遍化论题",它发现了延伸跨越国家界限的新记忆形式。这种跨越国家界限的共有记忆——最著名的是关于大屠杀的记忆——被认为会缓慢地改变地域特征,使之更贴近于对普遍共有价值观的认同。第二种努力聚焦于形成一种欧洲记忆的近期尝试,它也许会超越国家划分,创造一种新的政治认同。虽然我们欢迎就后国家记忆做调查,但也会提供可用以质疑这两种方法的理由。我们支持这样一种记忆形式:它承认记忆课题的政治复杂性和差异,也承认其不可避免的特殊性。

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 memoryis toestablish a specific normative relationship between a subject and a past it regards as its own. This account allows us todifferentiate collective memoryfrom, 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 nationstate. However, we use this account tocast light on two recent attempts to extend the notion of collective memory beyond the paradigm of the nationstate. 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 Holocaustis 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.