记忆证券化:拉脱维亚案例研究的理论框架

Q4 Social Sciences
S. Pakhomenko, O. Sarajeva
{"title":"记忆证券化:拉脱维亚案例研究的理论框架","authors":"S. Pakhomenko, O. Sarajeva","doi":"10.14746/ps.2020.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article suggests and argues a theoretical framework for studying a particular case of memory securitization. It is based on the constructivist perception of security that is systematically framed in the studies of representatives of the Copenhagen School, who consider security as a socially constructed phenomenon and define identity protection to be one of its primary goals. \nPursuant to this approach, the article presents a correlation between memory and security in at least three aspects. In the first instance, similar to security, collective memory is socially determined. In the second instance, collective memory lies at the core of various forms of identity, including national identity. In the third instance, collective memory is not only an object of protection but also a resource, which is used by securitization actors for threat identification, enemy image modeling as well as for defining the means of protection. \nThe Latvian case is applied for setting the theoretical framework of the memory securitization model. In future, it might be used to study specific juridical and political mechanisms of memory securitization in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. \nThe authors perceive the securitization of memory as a diverse complex of measures aimed at establishing and setting a certain historical narrative, as well as convincing society to be actively loyal to it. Accordingly, the policy of memory is defined as a mechanism for putting securitization in practice. The initial conditions for understanding this process in Latvia are the post-communist transition, ethnocultural divisions of the society, and the external factor represented by Russia, that promotes its historical narratives. \nIn one respect, R. Brubaker’s concept of the “nationalized” state is taken as a theoretical model of the politics of memory in Latvia. According to this concept, the official narrative of post-communist countries has been set as a nation-oriented one. On the other hand, the concept of the memory regime developed by M. Bernhard and J. Kubik is also considered. As per their theory, the memory regime in Latvia can be described as being divided into the official and alternative narrative of counter-memory, which is based on the Soviet legacy.","PeriodicalId":37800,"journal":{"name":"Przeglad Strategiczny","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Securitization of Memory: a Theoretical Framework to Study the Latvian Case\",\"authors\":\"S. Pakhomenko, O. Sarajeva\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/ps.2020.1.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article suggests and argues a theoretical framework for studying a particular case of memory securitization. It is based on the constructivist perception of security that is systematically framed in the studies of representatives of the Copenhagen School, who consider security as a socially constructed phenomenon and define identity protection to be one of its primary goals. \\nPursuant to this approach, the article presents a correlation between memory and security in at least three aspects. In the first instance, similar to security, collective memory is socially determined. In the second instance, collective memory lies at the core of various forms of identity, including national identity. In the third instance, collective memory is not only an object of protection but also a resource, which is used by securitization actors for threat identification, enemy image modeling as well as for defining the means of protection. \\nThe Latvian case is applied for setting the theoretical framework of the memory securitization model. In future, it might be used to study specific juridical and political mechanisms of memory securitization in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. \\nThe authors perceive the securitization of memory as a diverse complex of measures aimed at establishing and setting a certain historical narrative, as well as convincing society to be actively loyal to it. Accordingly, the policy of memory is defined as a mechanism for putting securitization in practice. The initial conditions for understanding this process in Latvia are the post-communist transition, ethnocultural divisions of the society, and the external factor represented by Russia, that promotes its historical narratives. \\nIn one respect, R. Brubaker’s concept of the “nationalized” state is taken as a theoretical model of the politics of memory in Latvia. According to this concept, the official narrative of post-communist countries has been set as a nation-oriented one. On the other hand, the concept of the memory regime developed by M. Bernhard and J. Kubik is also considered. As per their theory, the memory regime in Latvia can be described as being divided into the official and alternative narrative of counter-memory, which is based on the Soviet legacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Przeglad Strategiczny\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Przeglad Strategiczny\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/ps.2020.1.24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przeglad Strategiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/ps.2020.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出并论证了一个研究记忆证券化具体案例的理论框架。它基于建构主义对安全的看法,这种看法在哥本哈根学派代表的研究中得到了系统的框架,他们认为安全是一种社会建构的现象,并将身份保护定义为其主要目标之一。根据这种方法,本文至少在三个方面展示了内存和安全性之间的相关性。首先,与安全感类似,集体记忆是由社会决定的。在第二种情况下,集体记忆是包括国家认同在内的各种形式的认同的核心。在第三种情况下,集体记忆不仅是一种保护对象,也是一种资源,被证券化参与者用于威胁识别、敌人形象建模以及确定保护手段。以拉脱维亚为例,建立了记忆资产证券化模型的理论框架。未来,该研究可用于研究中欧和东欧国家记忆证券化的具体法律和政治机制。作者认为,记忆的证券化是一种旨在建立和设定某种历史叙事的多种措施的综合体,同时也说服社会积极地忠于它。因此,内存策略被定义为实现证券化的一种机制。理解拉脱维亚这一进程的初始条件是后共产主义转型、社会的民族文化分裂,以及以俄罗斯为代表的推动其历史叙事的外部因素。在一个方面,布鲁贝克的“国有化”国家的概念被视为拉脱维亚记忆政治的理论模型。根据这一概念,后共产主义国家的官方叙事被设定为民族导向的叙事。另一方面,也考虑了M. Bernhard和J. Kubik提出的记忆机制的概念。根据他们的理论,拉脱维亚的记忆制度可以分为官方和反记忆的替代叙事,这是基于苏联的遗产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Securitization of Memory: a Theoretical Framework to Study the Latvian Case
The article suggests and argues a theoretical framework for studying a particular case of memory securitization. It is based on the constructivist perception of security that is systematically framed in the studies of representatives of the Copenhagen School, who consider security as a socially constructed phenomenon and define identity protection to be one of its primary goals. Pursuant to this approach, the article presents a correlation between memory and security in at least three aspects. In the first instance, similar to security, collective memory is socially determined. In the second instance, collective memory lies at the core of various forms of identity, including national identity. In the third instance, collective memory is not only an object of protection but also a resource, which is used by securitization actors for threat identification, enemy image modeling as well as for defining the means of protection. The Latvian case is applied for setting the theoretical framework of the memory securitization model. In future, it might be used to study specific juridical and political mechanisms of memory securitization in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The authors perceive the securitization of memory as a diverse complex of measures aimed at establishing and setting a certain historical narrative, as well as convincing society to be actively loyal to it. Accordingly, the policy of memory is defined as a mechanism for putting securitization in practice. The initial conditions for understanding this process in Latvia are the post-communist transition, ethnocultural divisions of the society, and the external factor represented by Russia, that promotes its historical narratives. In one respect, R. Brubaker’s concept of the “nationalized” state is taken as a theoretical model of the politics of memory in Latvia. According to this concept, the official narrative of post-communist countries has been set as a nation-oriented one. On the other hand, the concept of the memory regime developed by M. Bernhard and J. Kubik is also considered. As per their theory, the memory regime in Latvia can be described as being divided into the official and alternative narrative of counter-memory, which is based on the Soviet legacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Przeglad Strategiczny
Przeglad Strategiczny Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The periodical “Strategic Review” is published by the Faculty of Political Science and Journalism of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. The aim of the journal is to create possibilities to share views and present results of research focusing on contemporary international relations, internal and international security and strategic studies. The journal’s aim is to encourage discussion and debate in these fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信