Projects / Programmes
Historical interpretations of the 20th century
January 1, 2017
- December 31, 2027
| Code |
Science |
Field |
Subfield |
| 6.01.00 |
Humanities |
Historiography |
|
| 6.03.00 |
Humanities |
Anthropology |
|
| Code |
Science |
Field |
| H000 |
Humanities |
|
| Code |
Science |
Field |
| 6.01 |
Humanities |
History and Archaeology |
| 5.04 |
Social Sciences |
Sociology |
historiography, memory, affect, experience, 20th century, new media, dealing with the past, revisionism
Data for the last 5 years (citations for the last 10 years) on
April 25, 2024;
A3 for period
2018-2022
| Database |
Linked records |
Citations |
Pure citations |
Average pure citations |
| WoS |
102 |
173 |
150 |
1.47 |
| Scopus |
120 |
350 |
295 |
2.46 |
Researchers (20)
Organisations (2)
Abstract
The research departs from the acknowledging the necessity of (self)reflection in research practices, discourses and the production of knowledge in the field of the humanities and particular the theory of historiography and memory studies. The team will focus on defining basic concepts (collective memory, plurality of historical interpretation, revisionism), as well as on the linguistic protocols and mobilisation of collective memory for social and/or political action. It will focus on the relationship between historiography and other discourses about the past. To do so, the team will investigate the following axiological aspects of the relationship: 1) Historiography and the “affective turn”: we will focus on the tensions and ambiguities that emerge from the entanglement of different historiographical interpretations on the one hand, and the experiential memory and affective investments into the past, on the other. In particular, the research is interested in epistemological, moral and political consequences of these tensions, and will rest on the long tradition of consideration of the ambiguous relationship between history and “life”. 2) Politics of memory (revisionism, influence of popular culture, influence of institutions on popular interpretations of history, etc.): we will investigate, in comparative perspective, the changes in memorial landscape in Central and Southeastern Europe and thoroughly investigate the extents of (re)appropriation and negotiation of memory on different social planes as well as at the interstices of the local and global, the European and national. 3) Space, memory and history: spatial contextualisations and materialisations of the past will facilitate a productive framework to investigate the complex relationship between affect, memory and institutionalised narratives about the past. 4) Memory, history and digital media: here we will focus on the changes in understanding of “being in time” in the era of instant connectivity, within the framework of affective relationship to technology and the past. We will highlight social and epistemological consequences of understanding the past, the present and the turn after the “connective turn” and in the culture of the past.
The research group will geographically focus on Slovenia and the neighbouring countries, particularly the region of the former Yugoslavia. It will compare findings with developments in the countries of the post-socialist east. Temporally and in terms of content, the programme will predominantly focus on the Second World War and the (socialist) Yugoslavia. Twenty-five years after the end of Yugoslavia and socialism, it is possible to engage in an extensive (re)interpretation of the events, reconstruction of social and (engaged) art practices and systematic analysis of political ideas and their ideological redefinitions. We are convinced that the processes of changing memory demand an interdisciplinary approach as they cannot be understood solely through the narrow perspectives of history and historiography.
Significance for science
International academic community in the humanities and social sciences has for some time acknowledged the need to reflect upon, problematise and systematically describe discourses and practices contributing to production of knowledge, formation of ideas about the past and collective identities, and the necessity to understand complexity and processual character of these processes.
The research of the programme group will importantly contribute to extending the knowledge of the regimes of production and mediation of knowledge about the past, as well as of their political, social and cultural functions and meanings. The results of the programme will significantly contribute to better understanding of the practices (from political programs to respective national and local protocols to individual practices of (re)creation of a collective memory), which have a decisive impact on the transformation of the national memorial landscapes in Central and Southeastern Europe. Finally, we should emphasise the reflective approach to objects of studies built into the very design of programme group work; only highly reflective scientific discourse that can facilitate sovereignty of the humanities.
Significance for the country
The allencompassing debate on (collective) memory (and forgetting) which at the end of modernity became decidedly marked by the shocking consequences of the Great War, facilitated after 1945 the shaping of ideologically highly polarized commemorative practices on both sides of divided Europe. After the end of the Cold War, however, the debate was revived and exerted unexpected influence on the transformation and self-perception of East, Central and Southeast European nations.
Debate about the status and nature of historiography had significant role in the outlined processes (see Brunnbauer 2004). The events before and just after 1989 most dramatically marked memorial landscapes of former socialist countries between the Baltics and Albania (see Ghodsee 2014). In some countries (as for instance in Slovenia) a reprise of cultural struggles reemerged, reminiscent of those from the interwar period. The debate on what part of the past to preserve, what to change and what to condemn and delete was blown out of proportions and caused a widespread polarization. The saying: “Tell me whom you remember and I tell you who you are” became trademark of most of political interpretations, naive historiographical discussions and part and parcel of all election campaigns. In this light, the research of the programme group has outstanding social relevance, reaching far beyond epistemological (self)reflection of historiography and related disciplines. Its results will importantly influence the social consciousness about processes such as use of the past and historical myths for political purposes, historical revisionism, etc.
Most important scientific results
Interim report
Most important socioeconomically and culturally relevant results
Interim report
