No abstract

Collective memory quite naturally brings to mind notions of mnemonic speech and representation. In this article, however, we propose that collective silences be thought of as a rich and promising arena through which to understand how groups deal with their collective pasts. In so doing, we explore two types of silence: overt silence and covert silence, and suggest that each may be used to enhance either memory or forgetting. We illustrate our conceptual scheme using data on the commemoration of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.The concept of collective silence quite naturally brings to mind notions of forgetting and amnesia. Collective memory is generally understood to entail the narration and representation of the past, while collective forgetting is antithetically thought to be a silencing and muting of the past. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that when nations, collectives or individuals wish to ensure that certain events, eras, people and experiences are remembered, they quite naturally turn to words and images. What can be heard, seen and touched has become the cornerstone of memory. As a result, absence and silence have often resulted in protest by groups who have shared the assumption that recollection is impossible without talk and representation (see for example Zolberg 1998; Scott 1996; Young 1993; Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz 1991). While no one can guarantee the mnemonic maintenance and survival of issues that have received textual and narrative representation because memory is unstable, changing and unpredictable (Zelizer 1995), commemoration seems to amount -at least in its beginning stages -to words, narratives and much talk. In other words, speech, narrative and text seem to be perceived as necessary -if not sufficient -for ensuring collective memory.Scholars of collective memory have focused much attention on such representations of the past and have paid attention to both the form and content of these representations. In terms of form, they have examined formal and informal rituals, historical museums, central and peripheral monuments, history books, school curricula and much more. In terms of content, scholars have paid attention to the words, texts and narratives that have filled the above-mentioned forms. In addition, scholars of collective memory have quite naturally taken note of what is missing and not talked about in representations of the past. In this way, theyWe gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Simone Ispa-Landa, Graziella Silva, the

According to the literature, commemorations of difficult pasts can be categorized into two main types, fragmented and multivocal—both of which serve to express, if not to enhance, social conflicts. Our analysis of the first apartheid museum in South Africa, however, points to a commemorative type that aims at agreement, not through disagreement and debate but through overarching consensus. That consensus is constructed through a large degree of control in terms of the form and content of the mnemonic object. Having outlined the techniques used to control for consensus, we briefly explore the social context of the commemorating society, which informed and enabled such a mnemonic construction.

No abstract

We asked in an open-ended way in 1999-2000 what national and world events Israeli Jews consider most important from the past 60 years. Ten events were identified as foremost, including three from the time of independence and one that was quite recent. All the major memories are associated with efforts of the state through commemorations and in other ways to create a unitary collective memory. Five social background variables help account for which events are mentioned as most important: birth cohort, education, gender, ethnic origin, and religiosity. Other specific factors such as personal Holocaust experience and voting preferences are also considered.