Contested Past: On Substantiation of a Pluralistic Approach to Historical Memory

The article aims to problematize the approach to historical memory, according to which the latter is considered as something integral and monolithic. The author shows that it is more productive to understand the collective memory of society as a field where the struggle of various narratives and mnemotic actors takes place. This thesis is proved, firstly, by the fact of cultural complexity of most modern nations. It is obvious that different ethnic, linguistic, regional and religious communities can have their own versions of the past, different from the dominant historical narrative. Examples include the Flemish national memory in Belgium, the counter-memory of the black community in the United States, which received its practical development in the activities of the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020, aboriginal memory of the past in Australia etc. Secondly, the problem of reassembling collective memory on a more pluralistic basis is analyzed in connection with the factor of external migrations. This situation is considered in detail on the example of Great Britain, where there are active discussions about the need to transform historical education in connection with changing ethnic composition of schoolchildren in recent decades. The third factor that requires pluralization of memorial culture is ideological and worldview splits characteristic of any society. This aspect of the study is analyzed using the example of debates between the left and the right in Spain regarding assessments of the Civil War and the period of Francoism, the German "historians dispute", etc. The author considers the problem of developing more inclusive memorial culture in Russia in the final part of the article. The focus is on the fact that many Russian regions (primarily ethnic ones) have their own version of the past, that does not coincide with the "Moscow-centric" vision of history. This periodically causes memorial conflicts within the Russian society over the content of federal history textbooks, attempts to glorify various historical figures, etc. The author concludes that it is counterproductive to consider the national state as an integral "memory community" and any attempts at forced unification will inevitably generate mnemonic resistance on the part of those whose memory is suppressed and marginalized.