Presenting the Handbook
State-sponsored history is not a widely used academic concept or an established field of study. When used, it is mostly considered in a narrow sense, for example, in a standard association with āofficial history.ā With this handbook, we aim to introduce state-sponsored history as a much more diverse and complex series of processes and outcomes of direct and indirect state influence on the construction of history and public memory (Bodnar 1992). In doing so, we aim to provide the first systematic integrated analysis of the role that states or state actors have played in these processes since 1945.
Engaging the past through diverse practices and institutions has been a constitutive aspect of the phenomenology of the modern state. Managing the circulation of information and ideas about history and even conjuring up the past through public activities such as commemorative rituals, re-enactments or the creation of monuments, often has served to cement the relationship between the state and the nation . In order to analyse this close relationship in a broad sense, we take into account the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the state. Such a broader take on state-sponsored history allows us to connect diverse phenomena as well as separate strands of literature related to history and public memory that we believe belong together. This handbook therefore aims to contribute to the study of history and public memory by combining elements of state-focused research in separate fields of study. Looking at the memorial capacities of modern states furthermore allows us to contribute to the study of the state itself. Looking at the state through its broad memorialising capacities adds an analytical perspective that is not often found in classical studies of the state. In order to fulfil this ambition, the handbook has a broad geographical focus and analyses cases from different regions around the world. We mainly look at democratic contexts, although dictatorial regimes are not excluded.
State-Sponsored History?
Official history in the narrow sense refers to forms of officially sanctioned history, often written by historians working in state departments or public functions. The bourgeoning field of public history, for example, owes a lot to historians working for governments or in public functions (Tyrrell 2005, pp. 153ā155; Jordanova 2006, p. 137). In the United States, historians working for the federal government have their own professional society and journal (Society for History in the Federal Government; see Leopold 1977; Hewlett 1978; Kammen 1980, pp. 44ā45; Reuss 1986; Graham 1993). In New Zealand state(-related) agencies offer a major source of employment for historians (Dalley and Phillips 2001, p. 10; Dalley 2009). Topics of official histories can greatly differ, ranging from military history, histories of government agencies and policies to more general themes of (perceived) public interest. Historians working on official histories tend to receive the criticism that they merely execute political agendas. Yet, some have claimed that official histories can be intellectually innovative. Official military histories in the United States, for example, according to Jeffrey Grey (2003, p. xi), focused on the roles of women and Afro-Americans well before these subjects were studied in mainstream historiography (Grey 2003). Supporters argue that official historians sometimes enjoy relatively extensive intellectual autonomy and have the leeway to voice opinions other than those of their employers (Reuss 1986).
Despite the continuing importance of official history , state-sponsored history is much broader, varied and, we argue, important. Modern states delegate parts of their functions and responsibilities to individuals and groups which cannot be considered state officials or personnel. āThe modern state,ā Matthew Flinders (2006, p. 223) argues, ācould not function without delegation ,ā and this also applies to state-sponsored history. The relation between the modern state and the writing of (national) history has always involved forms of delegation including publicāprivate partnerships. In some states it has been commonplace to leave crucial aspects of the collective relations to the pastāincluding national commemorations , heritage conservation and archival practicesāto private initiative. In these cases the state provides financial aid or symbolic sanction rather than taking the direct initiative. The history of the relations between historians and the state in the United States provides an important example (Tyrrell 2005, p. 155). Yet, delegation also occurs in countries with long traditions of state intervention. A prime example is the so-called historical expert commission (see Part IX of this Handbook, Historical Expert Commissions and Commissioned History), often created when states are confronted with difficult historical issues which demand state initiative but where official history would be suspect and counter-productive. Another prime example is the common financial and logistical arrangement between the state and universities or research institutes (see Part III of this Handbook, Research Institutes and Policies). To study state-sponsored history we have to include the blurry boundaries between the public and the private and the more indirect, āarmās length,ā forms of governance.
In addition to official history , state-sponsored history is also often associated with censorship or official denial. State-sanctioned censorship of history has been a widespread phenomenon in the past and there are few indications that this will change in the near future (see De Baets 2002). Censorship , certainly when enforced through intimidation and violence , is arguably the most blunt and disabling way in which states commonly intervene in the formation of history and public memory . In its most clear-cut form we encounter this in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Yet, as complex a phenomenon as state-sponsored history should not be reduced entirely to its most extreme manifestations. Indeed, forms of (self-)censorship , for strategic reasons of funding, for example, are quite common in democratic regimes as well.
In its broad approach, this handbook addresses restraining or disabling as well as constructive or enabling aspects of state-sponsored history . States can indeed be deeply involved in politics of historical denial and can severely violate academic freedom . Yet, states also have been, and still are, of crucial importance in the creation and protection of academic freedom or autonomy through legislation , funding and logistics. This can shelter academics from the direct demands by market forces, ruling classes or partisan groups. Investments by states in academic research and higher education , of course, also often come with demands and therefore with a price. As Pierre Bourdieu (1994, p. 3) argues for the social sciences (and by extension for the humanities ):
History attests that the social sciences can increase their independence from the pressures of social demand ā¦ only by increasing their reliance upon the state. And thus they run the risk of losing their autonomy from the state, unless they are prepared to use against the state the (relative) freedom that it grants them. 1
The autonomy of academia vis-Ć -vis the state is always relative and differs from case to case (Neave 1982; Neave and Van Vught 1991). Yet, because most modern states claim to impartially represent the general interests of their citizens (rather than the specific interests of any particular group), they often have a certain āinterest to disinterestednessā (Bourdieu 1994, p. 18), even if only nominally. This can be used as leverage by academics to stress the social and political importance for the state of their profession, which they often claim to be based on the values of autonomy, impartiality and disinterested objectivity . Keeping a close relationship with the state can in many cases be attractive to academics, because they want to share in its authority, access its resources or contribute to the perceived general interest .
States can also deploy their enabling capacities in policies of counter-denial. They can do this, for example, by officially acknowledging certain events or even by actively granting a specific moral status to particular pasts. Contemporary victim or survivor groups, indeed, frequently turn towards the state in their struggles for memory and against denial. Memory activists often demand official acknowledgment, the official recognition by states or state-actors of specific knowledge or value claims. 2 As Peter Gray and Oliver Kendrick (2001, p. 13) argue, the state āremains for many the ultimate arbiter of the status of a particular memory.ā
In short, one who considers the complex relationship between...