1997
DOI: 10.2307/2171068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Writing the Individual Back into Collective Memory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
70
0
6

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 188 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
70
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Several authors suggested that collective memories are actualized in reception (Irwin-Zarecka 1994;Crane 1997;Kansteiner 2002;Wertsch 2002;Linde 2009). Indeed, Kansteiner (2002) notes that many memory projects fail, and he partly attributes such failures to memory recipients who may ignore or transform meanings that political elites intended.…”
Section: Individual Beliefs On the Past And Reception Of Collective Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors suggested that collective memories are actualized in reception (Irwin-Zarecka 1994;Crane 1997;Kansteiner 2002;Wertsch 2002;Linde 2009). Indeed, Kansteiner (2002) notes that many memory projects fail, and he partly attributes such failures to memory recipients who may ignore or transform meanings that political elites intended.…”
Section: Individual Beliefs On the Past And Reception Of Collective Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Connerton claims that 'the practice of historical reconstruction can in important ways receive a guiding impetus from, and can in turn give significant shape to, the memories of social groups (Connerton 1989: 14). Hutton argues in a more radical way that historiography cannot be seen as a process freed from memory, but rather as an official version of memory which enjoys the sanction of academic authority (Hutton 1993;see also Assmann 1999;Crane 1997;Hall 1998). This does not mean that memory and history are synonymous, but rather that 'memory is history located in relatively subjective space; history is memory located in relatively objectified space.…”
Section: The Fine Line Between Memory and Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Focusing on the identity and status of those who carry out memorial practices may be a useful way of writing individuals or at least contradictory groups of people back into the study of memory (cf. Alcock 2002: 132-175;Crane 1997). Addressing the identity and context of past individuals also relates to the wider question of agency: is it the attitudes of the conqueror or the conquered that make a difference to what is remembered or forgotten?…”
Section: Memory In Archaeological Theory and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%