Collective memory as a metaphor: The case of speeches by Israeli prime ministers 2001–2009

Abstract

This paper presents a critical reading of the metaphor “collective memory”, coined by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs in the 1920s. The main argument is that collective memory scholars have lost awareness of the concept’s metaphoric character and have come to perceive the concept as expressing a concrete reality. In the research context, automatic adoption of collective memory as a concrete entity rather than a metaphor has shaped a “fixed” or “static” picture of historical events. In the political context, ignoring collective memory as a metaphor prevents our seeing the manipulative uses of collective memory to create the illusion of an ostensibly consolidated and unified “collective,” adhering to a coherent repertoire of memories. The corpus includes all the speeches delivered by two Israeli prime ministers, Ariel Sharon (in office 2001–2005) and Ehud Olmert (in office 2006–2009). The methodology was inspired by Charteris-Black’s critical metaphor analysis, an approach incorporating Critical Discourse Analysis and corpus linguistics. The analysis also used the Cultural Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA).

The memories of others: How leaders import collective memories in political speech

“…To do so effectively, however, it is not sufficient to merely present MON to a domestic audience; rather, speakers need to actively create resonance among existing cultural memories, appealing to the existing beliefs and norms of domestic audiences (Whitlinger, 2015). One key benefit of importing MON is that they permit the speaker to tactically select ideas and meanings, using them as transformative metaphors (Brugman et al, 2019; Gavriely-Nuri, 2014) to tweak existing meanings toward supporting their present points. 4…”

Angela Merkel’s discourse about the past: Implications for the construction of collective memory in Germany

“…To identify historical events that Merkel cites in her public speeches, I found the concept of “cultural codes” useful. Cultural codes comprise “shared values, norms, ethos and social beliefs” and “can appear, as, inter alia, a historical event that the members of the community are well familiar with, as a geographical site or a national hero (or heroine) to which the community members ascribe a special added value” (Gavriely-Nuri, 2014: 7). Cultural codes, such as memory narratives, are recognized by most members of society as having a particular meaning for the content of the collective identity (who are we?…”

Witnessing in the echo chamber: From counter-discourses in print media to counter-memories of Argentina’s state terrorism

“…The theoretical approach of this study is informed by critical discourse analysis (CDA), an interdisciplinary approach to studying discourse seeking to uncover relations of power, inequality and ideology and locating languages and texts as forms of ‘social practice’ (Fairclough, 1989). The principles of CDA have been applied to the politics of memory in the European Union (Kovacs and Wodak, 2003), collective memory as metaphor in speeches of Israeli Prime Ministers (Gavriely-Nuri, 2014) and constructions of memory in the public sphere (Resende and Silva, 2016) as well as media (Pardo and Lorenzo-Dus, 2010) and institutional military discourses (Achugar, 2009, 2008, 2007) in the Latin American context. CDA promotes flexibility in research design and is regularly combined with complementary theoretical lenses for analysis.…”

“…Methodologically, this research involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative research tools from CDA and corpus linguistics (e.g. Baker et al, 2008; Partington et al, 2013) which, though increasingly applied to media studies, remains a relatively underdeveloped methodological approach within memory studies (except for Gavriely-Nuri, 2014). Again, in adopting the synchronic-diachronic text analysis (SDTA) interpretation of CDA for qualitative analysis, specifically developed by Argentine linguist Pardo (2008, 2010) for application to her country’s media, this project seeks to capture the nuances of Argentina’s media discourses that criticised the regime and trace their connection with non-official memory of the period.…”