Projects / Programmes source: ARIS

Historical interpretations of the 20th century

Research activity

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
Evaluation (rules)
source: COBISS
Researchers (16)
no. Code Name and surname Research area Role Period No. of publicationsNo. of publications
1.  37520  PhD Rok Andres  Literary sciences  Junior researcher  2017 - 2018  110 
2.  36396  PhD Valter Cvijić  Anthropology  Junior researcher  2017 - 2018  25 
3.  24302  PhD Jasna Fakin Bajec  Ethnology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  270 
4.  29339  PhD Ana Hofman  Musicology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  425 
5.  11849  PhD Dušanka Knežević Hočevar  Anthropology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  338 
6.  32618  Teja Komel    Technical associate  2017 - 2022 
7.  38014  PhD Iva Kosmos  Culturology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  196 
8.  01008  PhD Oto Luthar  Historiography  Head  2017 - 2022  895 
9.  32090  PhD Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc  Culturology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  149 
10.  29625  PhD Katja Mihurko Poniž  Literary sciences  Researcher  2017 - 2022  474 
11.  27738  PhD Tanja Petrović  Anthropology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  539 
12.  29978  PhD Martin Pogačar  Culturology  Researcher  2017 - 2022  186 
13.  52017  Mateja Slovenc Grasselli  Anthropology  Junior researcher  2018 - 2022  29 
14.  27927  PhD Ana Toroš  Ethnic studies  Researcher  2017 - 2022  215 
15.  34800  PhD Aleš Vaupotič  Literary sciences  Researcher  2017 - 2021  254 
16.  50579  Vita Zalar  Historiography  Junior researcher  2020 - 2022  43 
Organisations (2)
no. Code Research organisation City Registration number No. of publicationsNo. of publications
1.  0618  Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts  Ljubljana  5105498000  62,712 
2.  1540  University of Nova Gorica  Nova Gorica  5920884000  13,873 
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
Views history