Politicians frequently make use of mythologized understandings of the past to mobilize memory as an instrument of politics in the present. Despite the postwar Òmemory boomÓ collective remembrance remains a slippery concept. In politics collective memory exerts its influence both from the bottom up, as interpretations of the past affect the identities and understandings of political elites, as well as from the top down, as statements by public figures place certain events into the national consciousness while silencing or forgetting others. In addition to summarizing the existing literature, this integrative review proposes a discursive conception of the politics of memory. I argue that research into political memory should focus on (1) the substantive content of collective memory as expressed by actors within state institutions, and (2) on the interactive channels through which ideas about the past are conveyed, disputed, silenced and negotiated outside these formal settings. I substantiate this argument Ð and demonstrate the relevance of collective remembrance to politics Ð by drawing examples of the role that memories of World War II continue to play Italian and Slovenian internal politics, as well as in their relations with each other.
Although Jürgen Habermas is widely recognized as a philosopher and social theorist, his political philosophy is often accused of excessive formalism. Habermas has not only responded to these critiques in his theoretical writings, but also by showing how his critical theory can be applied to concrete situations in his Short Political Writings (Kleine politische Schriften). Using his political commentaries on the future of Europe and the European Union (EU), I explore Habermas' melding of abstract principles with concrete political developments. The case of Europe reveals an ongoing process of adjustment, where Habermas' theoretical insights and the place of the EU in his political thought have to respond to political developments. I argue that this process of ‘meeting halfway’ (Entgegenkommen), a concept I borrow from Habermas' social theory, demonstrates how the formalism of his theoretical commitments may be applied to politics. This approach also allows me to critique Habermas when he does not go far enough in adjusting his theory to account for concrete developments in European politics.
Thirty years after 1989 Europe is once again divided despite 15 years of integration within the European Union. In contrast to the West's liberal conception of internationally constrained democracy rooted in the protection of individual and minority rights, Central Europe has developed an illiberal version centered on the popular sovereignty of the nation. I argue that these divergent understandings of democracy and the nation-state are rooted in collective memory. Whereas the West's historical imaginary is based on the traumas of Nazism associated with 1945, Central Europe's is dominated by the legacy of communism signified by 1989. These differing understandings of past teach strikingly different lessons for the present: one focused on the dangers of nationalism, the other on protecting national self-determination from external interference. The future of the EU depends on its ability create a common historical narrative that incorporates the lessons of the traumas of 1945 and 1989.
An ÒimpureÓ realism that draws extensively on non-philosophical sources has challenged mainstream political theory in recent years. These Ònew realistsÓ reject the Òpolitical moralismÓ of Òethics-firstÓ approaches, holding that theory should start from disagreement and conflict. My basic thesis is that its focus on Òthe politicalÓ and its utopophobia prevent realism from developing normative foundations that can ground social criticism. Many realists, including one of its primary progenitors, Raymond Geuss, recognize this problem. Interestingly, Geuss turns to critical theory to address this concern. While I welcome realismÕs desire to make political theory more relevant to politics, I argue that GeussÕs attempt to address the status quo bias by importing ideology critique from the Frankfurt School is ultimately unsuccessful. In my reading the critical theory of the Frankfurt School thus emerges as a more plausible approach to grounding critique of the pathologies of the present.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.