Historical Memory Research

There is not any clear distinction between history and memory before the formeris separated from literature.However,with the development of critical historicalscholarship,history and memory move toward different directions.In the 1970s,withthe emerging of"history of mentalit(?)",the question of memory's valorization,whichleads to some new subject matters,has drawn increasing interest of the historians.Forinstance,what is the attitude of the historians to memory? How does memory make adialogue with the past? Can we equate history with memory? What is the attitude ofhistoricists and constructivists to memory? What is the relationship between memoryand forgetting? How does the"new history"of Annales School or"history ofmentalit(?)"promote the study of memory in modern history? In this new context,byreviewing the Western,particularly French and the American experience on historyand memory in the 20th century,the dissertation examines certain salient features ofthe relation among history,memory and historical interpretation,and aims todemonstrate how these issues contribute to our historical understanding and thinking.Besides the Introduction and the Conclusion,this dissertation includes fivechapters.The Introduction states the theoretical background,the producing process ofthe question under discussion and its writing purpose and method.It clarifies therelation between memory and other concepts like tradition,nostalgia andcommemoration.In the meantime,it claims that every kind of memory is nothistorical memory;it is one only when it surpasses an individual or a particulargroup's level.Memory is neither tradition,nor nostalgia,nor commemoration,norhistory.Social memory and culture memory are closely linked to history,but notmutually contradictory.And memory is not the raw material of history.The First Chapter"Review"centers on the discussion of the reasons whyhistorical memory rises in the 20th century.It first investigates the history of memory,which helps to understand why"memory"has received so much attention in the lastcentury.It maintains that historical thinking means critical and contextual thinking,and that the law of causality is the secret of history,as well as the secret of memory.Therefore we must discuss the reasons why the research of historical memory rises inthe last century,which can be concluded as follows:it has been promoted byHolocaust (Post-Holocaust),trauma,historical unconsciousness and national identity(the commemoration of French Revolution) and the like.It is also related to theauthenticity of memory,post-modern historiography and multiculturalism,etc.The Second Chapter"Multiple Perspectives of Modern Memory"aims toindicate that the historical memory methods in the 20th century are different fromthose in the ancient times.However we still acknowledge the validity of memorymethods in the ancient times (imago and place).It reveals that the diversity of traces,such as places or topoi,causes the diversity of historical memory.Simultaneously itholds that modern memory involves witness,historical identity and so forth.The endof the chapter emphatically points out that the three kinds of epistemological suppositions (reconstructism,constructism,deconstructism) on memory has causedthree different historical cognitions.And we also want to indicate that the traumaserves to memory,and that historical sublime easily serves to historical forgetting.Beginning with methodological individualism,Chapter Three"IndividualMemory"points out that the construction of history is not ascribed to individual,butnot irrelevant to it,which makes history understanding move towards thehermeneutical circle.It divides the time consciousness of individual memory into ninekinds,making individual represented as nine kinds of historical views.As to thehistorians,they may demonstrate consistency as well as inconsistency while treatingtheir history-writing.Taking the autobiographies of some famous Frenchhistorians--Fernand Braudel and Georges Duby--as examples,it analyzes twoapproaches that may exist in individual memory:constructism and experimentism (or"unconventional history"),and regards the latter as an effective"new way"tounderstand history.Starting with the semantic ambiguity of collective memory and how individualmemory enters into the collective,Chapter Four aims at distinguishing the five kindsof carriers of collective memory,namely,official carrier,organizational carrier,cultural carrier,academic carrier and others.Each of the four kept collective memoryin its own way,and revealed its positive or passive function respectively.Finally,according to narrative structure of the survivors,it shows that how historicalknowledge comes into being,which may have echoed the origin of historicalknowledge in individual memory.The Fifth Chapter is a case study.It mainly discusses Paul Ricoeur's thoughts onhistorical practices and his definition of historical memory.It also attempts to analyzehis positions by refining various arguments he used,and indicate how they relate tothe themes we mentioned previously.Moreover,we will comment appropriately onthe points neglected by him.For example,he has not noticed the impact of"multimedia"exerting on historical memory.The Conclusion emphasizes some barriers outside historical memory.Thebarriers can be stated as follows:Why are we so anxious about historical memory andits representation? What responsibility should we take for it? What ethics does itcontain? However,we also talk about historical mourning and melancholy,becausethey will possibly hinder remembering and recollection.The paper believes that oneof our responsibilities is to rewrite history.The ethical spirit of history must beresponsible for the truth,and speak for the victims,while carrying on the task of themoral judgment and balancing different goals.