Suchergebnisse

This article traces the development of the politics of memory of the European Union. It analyses how the EU has slowly moved into a policy field that until then had been the exclusive prerogative of the nation state. It discusses the role that the Holocaust has played for the promotion of a European founding myth and how it transformed into the yardstick with which other political developments are being measured. By concentrating in particular on the last decades, it uncovers the main memory conflicts arising within the European Union after each enlargement and analyses how the different institutions deal with them. It furthermore investigates to what extent and by whom the antitotalitarian paradigm is being promoted and the consequences this has within the EU.

This article traces the development of the politics of memory of the European Union. It analyses how the EU has slowly moved into a policy field that until then had been the exclusive prerogative of the nation state. It discusses the role that the Holocaust has played for the promotion of a European founding myth and how it transformed into the yardstick with which other political developments are being measured. By concentrating in particular on the last decades, it uncovers the main memory conflicts arising within the European Union after each enlargement and analyses how the different institutions deal with them. It furthermore investigates to what extent and by whom the antitotalitarian paradigm is being promoted and the consequences this has within the EU.

Since the 1990s, the European Union has started to enter a policy area that until then had been one of the exclusive prerogatives of the nation state: the public dealing with Europe's bloody past. Within a few years the European Parliament passed several resolutions dealing particularly with the commemoration of human rights violations that took place on the territory of the EU while the European Commission made several funding instruments available aimed at using the realm of memory as a mechanism of public sphere formation. While European efforts for transnational historical remembrance have focused almost exclusively on the Holocaust and National Socialism as well as Stalinism, the EU remains curiously quiet about the memories of imperialism and colonialism. This essay analyzes the conflictual memory constellations at the European level with the aim of explaining why European memory politics are characterized by a sustained focus on specific time periods on the one hand and amnesia on the other. By closely analyzing protocols of the European Parliament (EP), the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council and European Council meetings using frame analysis, the essay digs deep into the complex dynamics lying at the heart of memory contests within the EU and provides a differentiated view on the ways in which memory is continuously dislocated, via resistance, consensus-making and conflict.

El presente artículo analiza el contexto más amplio del conflicto político en torno a la memoria pública de los acontecimientos de 1989. A tal fin, se recurre al concepto de lieux de mémoire para intentar explicar por qué se eligió el 23 de agosto de 1939 como "Día Europeo de Conmemoración", en lugar del 9 de noviembre de 1989. Al investigar con detenimiento el papel que los diferentes actores de la memoria desempeñaron en los debates a nivel europeo, se plantea la idea de que el aniversario del Pacto Mólotov-Ribbentrop tuvo más éxito a la hora de hacerse un hueco en el calendario conmemorativo europeo por permitir la promoción de un relato unificador del pasado del viejo continente. ; This article analyzes the broader context of the political conflict around the public memory of the events in 1989. To this end, the concept of lieux de mémoire is used to explain why August 23, 1939 was chosen as "European Day of Remembrance", instead of November 9, 1989. By carefully investigating the role played by different memory actors in debates at European level, it is suggested that the anniversary of the Mólotov-Ribbentrop Pact had more success making a hole in the European commemorative calendar for allowing the promotion of a unifying story of the old continent past.

This article analyzes the broader context of the political conflict around the public memory of the events in 1989. To this end, the concept of lieux de mémoire is used to explain why August 23, 1939 was chosen as "European Day of Remembrance", instead of November 9, 1989. By carefully investigating the role played by different memory actors in debates at European level, it is suggested that the anniversary of the Mólotov-Ribbentrop Pact had more success making a hole in the European commemorative calendar for allowing the promotion of a unifying story of the old continent past.

This article is part of the special section titled The Genealogies of Memory, guest edited by Ferenc Laczó and Joanna Wawrzyniak This article analyses the wider context of policy conflict concerning public memory of the 1989 events. It uses Pierre Nora's concept of lieux de mémoire in trying to explain why 23 August 1939 has been turned into a European Remembrance Day whereas 9 November 1989 has not. By investigating closely the role that various memory actors played during debates at the European level, it advances the idea that the anniversary of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been more successful in establishing itself within the European remembrance landscape because it has allowed for the promotion of a unifying narrative of the European past. In doing so, the article questions the frequently advanced idea that memory clashes in the EU form around an East–West divide that in some cases overlaps with a Right–Left divide. The analysis digs deep into the complex dynamics lying at the heart of memory contests concerning the end of the Cold War within the EU and provides a more differentiated view of discussions preceding EU decisions on policies of memory.

This article analyses the wider context of policy conflict concerning public memory of the 1989 events. It uses Pierre Nora's concept of lieux de mémoire in trying to explain why 23 August 1939 has been turned into a European Remembrance Day whereas 9 November 1989 has not. By investigating closely the role that various memory actors played during debates at the European level, it advances the idea that the anniversary of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been more successful in establishing itself within the European remembrance landscape because it has allowed for the promotion of a unifying narrative of the European past. In doing so, the article questions the frequently advanced idea that memory clashes in the EU form around an East–West divide that in some cases overlaps with a Right–Left divide. The analysis digs deep into the complex dynamics lying at the heart of memory contests concerning the end of the Cold War within the EU and provides a more differentiated view of discussions preceding EU decisions on policies of memory.

This introductory article to the special section on "Europe's Changing Lessons from the Past" argues for a close analysis of acts of public remembrance in Central and Eastern European countries in order to uncover the link between the issue of public memory and long-term processes of democratisation. In countries facing a period of transition after the experience of war and dictatorship, the debate over its memory is usually as much a debate about a divisive past as it is about the future. While it is part of a sensitive political scrutiny that is related to different ideas on how to ensure sustainable peace, it also provides the basis for the recreation of a common sense of belonging and identity. The often resulting coexistence of different memory traditions creates two clearly identifiable levels of conflict: one on the national level and one on the supranational one. In mapping change in Central and Eastern Europe, this special section aims at making the connections between the two visible by on the one hand questioning the sociological turn in Memory and EU Studies and on the other, pinpointing the necessity to concentrate on processes and not only on their results.

This introductory article to the special section on "Europe's Changing Lessons from the Past" argues for a close analysis of acts of public remembrance in Central and Eastern European countries in order to uncover the link between the issue of public memory and long-term processes of democratisation. In countries facing a period of transition after the experience of war and dictatorship, the debate over its memory is usually as much a debate about a divisive past as it is about the future. While it is part of a sensitive political scrutiny that is related to different ideas on how to ensure sustainable peace, it also provides the basis for the recreation of a common sense of belonging and identity. The often resulting coexistence of different memory traditions creates two clearly identifiable levels of conflict: one on the national level and one on the supranational one. In mapping change in Central and Eastern Europe, this special section aims at making the connections between the two visible by on the one hand questioning the sociological turn in Memory and EU Studies and on the other, pinpointing the necessity to concentrate on processes and not only on their results.