When Do Collective Memories Last?: Founding Moments in the United States and Australia

Abstract

In 1876, there was a huge commemoration of the centennial of American independence. The year was marked in many ways, by many groups, in many parts of the country. The central event, though, was a grand International Exhibition in Philadelphia, four years in the making. Planners first met in 1872 in Independence Hall and spoke at length about the sacredness of the venue: “It is altogether fit and wise that we should take our first step and utter our first words in this hall. There sat John Hancock, presiding over that immortal body. There came Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Sherman, and Livingston presenting the sacred declaration. There lies the broken and silent bell, which at the word proclaimed liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof” (USCC 1873: 24-25). The theme was taken up by many others in many different ways. Images of the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, Washington, and Franklin were scattered throughout centennial ceremonies, buildings, poems, histories, and other documents. The revolution was used as a touchstone in talk about the exhibition and as a rich source of national symbolism.

“Night fell on a different world”: experiencing, constructing and remembering 9/11

“…Dominated, again, by constructivism (Jedlowski 2001, p. 33), a diversity of models of mnemonic endurance have been posited here; a product, in part, of the spread of empirical cases explored (see for instance Spillman 1998). 3 Olick and Robbins (1998, pp.…”

Social Changes and the Generational Differences in the Formation of Collective Memories (Dissertation, 2012)

“…In addition, such studies also examine how the state and non-state memory entrepreneurs are both enabled and constrained by their social context (Olick and Levy 1997;Olick 2003a;Schwartz 1991), and how their memory-work is influenced by characteristics of cultural objects (Spillman 2003). Admittedly, characteristics of cultural objects have been examined less than memory entrepreneurs or social context, but a concept that can be usefully applied to this area is Griswold's (1987b) cultural power.…”

“…Next, characteristics of presentation of the past will affect its malleability. The semiotically multivalent (Spillman 2003) or the high-incultural-power (Griswold 1987a) presentations will more likely be commemorated by various audiences. Likewise, memories will be more successful if presented in credible or resonant forms (Schudson 1989a;Fine 1996).…”

“…Therefore, his evaluations invite divided opinions. Indeed, representations of Tito could be seen as semiotically multivalent (Spillman 2003) or as high in cultural power in their ability to both expresses an underlying consensus and evoke various interpretations (Griswold 1987a Although the role of journalists in supporting particular collective memories is less systematic and structured compared with textbooks' ability to influence wide segments of population, they still might be influential in suggesting certain ideas about the past. This is particularly evident from specific journalistic uses of the Yugoslav past in the Croatian context in the 1990s when newspapers presented elaborate historical contexts of the Yugoslav past, whose explicit purpose was to educate public on proper re-evaluation of Yugoslavia.…”

“…First, if memory entrepreneurs sponsoring the persistence of some presentation of the past have access to the state resources (Fine 1996;Bromberg and Fine 2002) And third, if the cultural object or presentation of the past is highly commemorable because, for example, it can be variously interpreted and appropriated by diverse audiences (Griswold 1987a;Spillman 2003) or it is dramatic in character (Pennebaker and Banasik 1997). All these conditions were satisfied in the case of Tito, thus allowing for his successful commemorations and for the persistence of his positive images in the journalistic discourse since late 1990s despite a general momentum towards negative re-evaluations of the Yugoslav past in Croatian public discourse.…”