Scholarlink

<p>Are we as members of a group obliged to remember the past? Are there certain historical events that we as members of a group must not forget? These questions are particularly pertinent for the conception of collective memory. I will argue that we must distinguish between the duty to remember and memory work. The distinction plays a role as to prevent misuses of collective memory. Avishai Margalit’s idea that we are obliged to remember certain historical events and people quickly leads to memory-conservatism and traditionalism, which as a paradigm for collective memory is problematic. Conversely, if we delink the embedded valorization and the inherent affectivity tied to cultural heritage from the process of collective remembering, we end up with an instrumental view of the ethical role of memory, as can be found in Jonathan Lear’s idea of collective mourning. In the attempt to find a middle ground between these two positions, I consider Bernard Williams’s discussion of valuing what is <i>simply important</i> with regards to the transmission of values for future generations. Williams’ idea offers a constructive antidote to both traditionalism and instrumentalism with regards to collective memory.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rediscovering the Past: On the Importance of Collective Memory Work

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月19日

查看全文
  • Line Ryberg Ingerslev

摘要

Are we as members of a group obliged to remember the past? Are there certain historical events that we as members of a group must not forget? These questions are particularly pertinent for the conception of collective memory. I will argue that we must distinguish between the duty to remember and memory work. The distinction plays a role as to prevent misuses of collective memory. Avishai Margalit’s idea that we are obliged to remember certain historical events and people quickly leads to memory-conservatism and traditionalism, which as a paradigm for collective memory is problematic. Conversely, if we delink the embedded valorization and the inherent affectivity tied to cultural heritage from the process of collective remembering, we end up with an instrumental view of the ethical role of memory, as can be found in Jonathan Lear’s idea of collective mourning. In the attempt to find a middle ground between these two positions, I consider Bernard Williams’s discussion of valuing what is simply important with regards to the transmission of values for future generations. Williams’ idea offers a constructive antidote to both traditionalism and instrumentalism with regards to collective memory.