Mission Impossible?
In Andrei Markovits and Simon Reich’s research on how Germany’s past influences present policies, they found an interesting phenomenon: Even though collective memory is “the biggest factor mitigating the exercise of German power,” it is “an element many political scientists usually avoid but any journalist working in Germany regularly sees in action.” 1
The politics of collective memory—impossible to quantify , hard to measure with the methods of survey research , yet still very real—is a major ingredient of the political arena, the public discourse, and the policy setting in every country. It circumscribes the acceptable. It defines such key ingredients as pride, shame , fear, revenge, and comfort for a large number of a country’s citizens. It is central to an understanding of the forces of nationalism. 2
Research methodology is indeed a major reason why political scientists usually avoid using historical memory as a variable in their research. There are concerns that historical memory cannot be researched scientifically because, in social life, the past does not exist as a hard, objective, or factual reality to be grasped and appropriated. 3 Historical memory is a fluid set of ideas often reshaped by time, emotion, and the politically savvy, not something solid, immutable, or truly measurable.
Not only a problem for political scientists, how ideational factors affect human behavior and social relationships have been one of the most bewildering puzzles for scholars in different disciplines. Progress in incorporating cognitive variables into empirical research on decision-making has been relatively slow and uneven. 4 Scholars who have struggled with this question list three factors that may pose difficulties to research that uses identity as a variable .
First, the existence of identity as a universal but largely implicit concept makes it difficult to isolate and understand. 5 This is because identities and perceptions are only one variable cluster within a rich and complex causal framework for decision-making ; identities and perceptions influence, but do not unilaterally determine decision-making behavior. 6 Second, it is extremely difficult to find a one-to-one correlation between perceptions and behavior. 7 Third, when identities are measured, the techniques used (large-N surveys, interviews with policy makers, ethnographic field work) are typically not available to social scientists who study elites in closed or semi-closed states.
One of the important reasons why few scholars have used historical memory as a variable in their research is because it does not fit neatly in one specific academic discipline; the subject and its implications are scattered throughout many academic fields. Insights into its theories are strewn across diverse bodies of literature on anthropology, culture, history, literature, politics, psychology , and sociology. Each discipline cites its own reason for not attending to historical memory. In the field of history, Roudemetof argues that the discipline’s tradition of seeking “scientific objectivity,” has not until recently allowed the examination of historical writing in relationship to the articulation of collective memory. 8 In sociology and anthropology, the legacy of pioneers such as Emile Durkheim and Maurice Halbwachs were “eclipsed in mid-twentieth century by the more empirically oriented and positivist tradition of U.S. mainstream sociology.” 9
Does historical memory matter in international relations ? To what extent, do collective memory and its social narrative influence a country’s relationship with another state and with regional security? For mainstream international relations specialists, discussing how historical memory directly influences foreign policy behavior would likely be considered extraneous to serious analysis. Scholars may believe that historical memory matters, but only influences emotions or relates to the actor’s psychology and attitudes. Others may think historical memory as a social narrative is mainly created and manipulated by political elites as a tool to mobilize people to work in their own interests. In general, ideas (including historical memory and other ideational factors) have been underestimated—if not entirely ignored—in the field of international relations. 10 This is because the most current and widely accepted systemic approaches to the study of international relations (IR) are realism and liberal institutionalism . Both approaches take rationalist models as the starting point and focus on how structures affect the instrumental rationality of actors. In such models, actors’ preferences and causal beliefs are given. Most analysts who rely on such approaches have relegated ideas to only a minor role. 11 In this regard, as Ian Johnston has argued, the concepts of historical memory , even though not completely missing from transatlantic IR, are “theoretically and empirically among the least developed questions in transatlantic IR.” 12 Furthermore, East Asian international relations in recent years have served to suggest that transatlantic IR theory faces “a major omitted-variable problem.” 13
However, the concepts of historical memory are not unique to East Asia IR. While exploring the sources, dynamics and structures of contemporary conflict, scholars of different regions have paid special attention to historical memory’s power over human thoughts, feelings, and actions. For example, according to Polish historian Jerzy Jedlicki, “the twentieth century history of Eastern Europe is a perfect laboratory to observe how the genuine or apparent remembrances of the past may aggravate current conflicts and how they themselves are modified in the process.” 14 Victor Roudometof of the University of Cyprus believes that “the conflicting ethnocentric national narratives of the different sides have generated the Greek-Bulgarian-Macedonian dispute of 1990s.” 15 And Irish historian Ian McBride writes that “in Ireland, the interpretation of the past has always been at the heart of national conflict.” 16 From Europe to the Middle East, these case studies illustrate that many intractable conflicts are deeply rooted in the involved parties’ history and memory.
Objectives and Organization
This book is about conducting research on historical memory . It aims to contribute to the theoretical and methodological discussion concerning the use of historical memory as a variable to explain the political action and social movement. Definition and measurement are two main barriers to a more systematic incorporation of historical memory (and other ideational factors) as a variable in helping to explain the political action. Based on theories and research from multiple fields of study, such as political science, international relations , sociology, and conflict resolution , this book proposes a series of analytic frameworks for the purpose of conceptualizing the functions of historical memory. A series of questions are asked to define and/or measure whether and how the contents of historical memory serve as specific functions.
By creating the analytic frameworks for research , the author hopes to provide a model by which researchers can conduct a more rigorous study of historical memory. These frameworks can help categorize, measure, and subsequently demonstrate the effects of historical memory. Even though this research focuses on using historical memory as a collective identity , the framework can also be used for researching other types of social identity . The focus here is on understanding the function of historical memory in group identity formation and how historical memory influences actors’ perceptions, interpretations, and decision-making processes. These analytical frameworks can be used to (1) help researchers determine which aspects of an event are worth considering; (2) generate research questions; (3) provide researchers the tools for analyzing empirical data; (4) guide categorizing and measuring the effects of historical memory.
The chapters of the book conceptualize the relationship between historical memory and national identity formation, perceptions, and policy making. The book also discusses the function of formal history education and social dis...