xii

Preface

In wider Europe, the problems of collective memory and national history have long
been topical. This process brings together the founding fathers of the European
Union and transitive states that could be geographically far from the EU but close
to it with their attempts to implement European values. In both cases history and
collective memory always were and today are a powerful mobilization resource for
both the destruction of old political regimes and the creation of new institutions
designed to sanction democratic experience and give legitimacy to new regimes.
Often, the line of divergence is national history, or more precisely, the attitude of
representatives of various political forces towards the historical past.
Historical memory is widely considered as a specific form of collective memory
and as such, it is distinguished from the individual practices of remembering the past
(for instance, see: Schacter, 2001). By means it helps to capture and structurize the
past, historical memory primarily functions as community solidarization, especially
in the context of dramatic changes in society, politics, economy, and culture
(Purcell, 2000). Yet, while it is past-oriented and provides a collective perspective
as well as a “meaning” of the sameness, the concept is elusive and offers a number
of challenges. Most importantly, historical memory does not necessarily reflect
“historical realities”, but instead includes a degree of subjectivity, so the choice
of how to remember the past necessarily includes value judgments. Accordingly,
historical memory can potentially play a functional role that exposes it not only to
a policy of memory but also carries the risk of becoming a tool for misinterpreting
or even falsifying history (Prutsch, 2015).
In a situation of transition from former authoritarianism to current democracy,
complicated not only by objective socio-economic difficulties but also by historical
speculation and the rise of nationalism, intellectuals throughout Europe and beyond
have to admit that history became a politicized science. The propensity to make
politically accurate assessments of the past in the European and post-Socialist
space is closely linked to the significant revisionist trends and the reinterpretation
of previously dominant history writing patterns. According to some historians,
Preface

revisionism in Eastern Europe is manifested in the following: with the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the formation of new states, a state began to review the previous
idea of self, faced with the coexistence of old and new identities. This has caused a
crisis of self-awareness and is not always rationally controlled political projections
related to the denial of the old regime and its political and socio-cultural system.
The politicization of history seems virtually inevitable in contemporary Eastern
Europe with a long-standing Socialist history, as well as in Eurasian states-in-
transition - a region with numerous and unresolved national, regional and ethnic
contradictions (for instance, see: Bechev & Nicolaïdis, 2010). The fall of authoritarian
regimes, the actual rehabilitation of nationalism, the nationalization of historical
memory, and the reduction of the role of left-wing authoritarian ideologies - all of
these factors have led to relevance loose between the task of writing a single story
and the backdrop of an attractive prospect of writing numerous national stories.
Memory studies is a well-established academic discipline since the mid-1970s
(Halbwachs, 1925; Nora, 1989) but the revised issue of ethnicity poses a new set of
research questions, particularly in relation to the problem of the operational character
of memory and ethnicity in the context of traumatized identity. Contemporary
political processes in Europe, populism and nationalism lift in addition to ethnic
challenges in the form of demographic shifts have created a situation, in which
new national identities have been developed simultaneously with emerging new
competitive historical memories.
The interaction between politics and managed historical memory is of scholarly
and practicality interest. This book is to shed light on the evolution in the politics
of memory in European regions and beyond, as well as the tools and techniques
of their empowerment. The topic of the book is a subject of public debates since
it introduces new theoretical frameworks for collective memory, and European
nationalism and regionalism analysis. All questions being discussed accentuate
the urgency of memory and forms of nationalism during periods of crisis and/or
austerity measures in contemporary Europe.
As a comprehensive collection of cases, the publication represents the efforts of
experts in the European and Eurasian regional development. The volume combines
theory and empirical study; each chapter is based on a particular case, offering a
coherent and pragmatic picture. Although different methodologies are used, cases
address the key theoretical concepts of memory, identity, nationalism, and security
as discursive practices and introduce public policies in contemporary European
regions and those stated on the European track of values. By this approach, the
volume provides a new lens to formulate a concept of Europe as multifaceted identity
and diverse practices.
The aim of the volume is to provide a reference source for those interested in
new regionalism studies, the European Union and Eurasian Neighbourhood by

xiii
 Preface

introducing a provoking and comprehensive overview of practical cases. Therefore,

some chapters would be interesting for researchers working in geopolitical studies,
foreign policy, securitization, public diplomacy, and cultural studies. Some other
researchers and practitioners would find interesting cases with comparative inter-
state or in-state perspectives. Finally, there are specifically practice-oriented chapters
focusing on the development of the CIS countries as evolved in the European orbit
of memory policy. The volume is unique not only by its wide scope but also by
its balance theory and relevant empirical shreds of evidence coming from real-
world experience. Authors write from the grassroots’ perspective to reflect current
realities of European collective memory policy and country-based socio-political
development. The volume covers different and diverse topics related to challenges
and opportunities of the different implications of history to complex social and
political phenomena.
The first chapter on the “Collective Memory After Violent Conflict” by Markus
Breitweg develops a framework for analyzing collective memory in post-conflict
situations. It is argued that collective memory is still not sufficiently theorized in the
study of peace and conflict, even though, after violent conflicts, competing memories
easily become the subject of an overt struggle that may even lead to another upsurge
in violence. It is these competing perceptions of the past that researchers need to pay
more attention to, and lack the appropriate heuristic structure. Focusing on conceptual
and multidimensional concepts from the fashionable field of memory research, the
author proposes a new framework for analysis that offers categories and ideal types
for practice-oriented research. Based on the poststructuralist discursive analysis, the
structure allows linking discursive structures and identity models on the one hand,
with actual influence on the other hand, thus contributing to effective intervention.
Chapter 2 by Goran Ilik titled “Restoring Memory: The European Union as a
Postnational Agent for Reconciliation of the Balkans” examines the key features
of postnationalism as a concept, its methodological and theoretical implications
for the European Union. The main purpose of the study is to examine the EU as a
model and agent for reconciliation in the Balkan region. To this end, it considers
the main operational elements of both the South-East European cooperation process
and the “Yugosphere”. The main idea of the chapter is that the imitation of the
EU’s post-national model by the Balkan countries makes reconciliation possible.
Consequently, the Balkan states seem to be “forced” to cooperate with each other
in order to achieve their common goal of full EU integration, which convincingly
confirms the role of the EU as a reconciliation agent in the Balkans.
Among issues raised in the EU countries after the breakthrough of the USSR
and raising the Eurasian Economic Union is the problem of security that seems to
be a systemic problem in this macro-region. Chapter 3 titled “Memory as a Security
Policy: The Case of Poland” by Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz emphasizes on the

xiv
Preface

interconnectedness of nationalism, memory and securitized narrative history has

made memory and history policies particularly important. The chapter examines
the issue of memory and history policy through the prism of ontological security
theory, which is used as a basis for understanding public policy in the field of
security perception and behavior. For the purposes of this chapter, the historical
policy is understood as building a mandatory historical memory by organizing history
in certain narrative constructs that help to develop and/or maintain outstanding
group identity. After defining the theoretical framework, the interaction between
security and managed historical memory is examined in its political, institutional
and discursive aspects. Three interrelated factors important in ontological security
behavior: 1) the discursive framework; 2) the institutional set-up; and 3) policy will
be analyzed in the Polish context.
Chapter 4 titled “Development of Slovak Public Diplomacy in the Post-
Independence Period” by Alexander Marchukov is devoted to the history of public
diplomacy in Slovakia after independence. The process is seen as non-linear and
can be divided into two stages. The first stage covers the period since Slovakia’s
accession to the EU, and public diplomacy is characterized by the use of traditional
methods of cultural diplomacy, propaganda, and international broadcasting. At
this stage, the practice of public diplomacy was a reflection of national debates on
European identity. The second phase lasts from 2001 to the present and focuses on
new approaches to promotion in the country (e.g. national branding). Public diplomacy
activities were mainly influenced by the efforts of the Slovak government to rethink
national identity during this period. At present, Slovakia seems to invest more in
cultural and digital diplomacy to help Slovaks not only to improve relations with
their neighbours but also to contribute to the development of their national identity.
The topic of the EU model is followed by an attempt to expand the borders of
Europe in terms of the operationality of memory and nationalism to the East by
evolving North Caucasus. Chapter 5 titled “Where Does Europe End? European
Values vs. Power Traditionalism in the Contemporary North Caucasus” of Victor
Apryshchenko pointed at modernization as a driver, which led to the emergence
of modern European society. Modernization was an attractive target for Russian
officials who proclaimed European values an important part of Russian identity.
However, the North Caucasus, which is a specific part of Russia, does not seem to
meet these “European standards”. The patron-client system of governance in the North
Caucasus and the fragmentation creates strong stereotypes among people living in
the region and in Moscow. This system reflects the broader attitude of Russian elites,
cultural commentators and politicians towards the region. “Caucasian Archaism” is
a common discourse to characterize the North Caucasus among central and regional
elites. This “applied archaic” and military rhetoric explains political pessimism
and inefficiency of reforms in the North Caucasus. In fact, when cooperating with

xv
 Preface

Moscow, post-modern Europe is dealing with Russian modern society, which contains
pre-modern subjects and mechanisms of political communication, complicating both
international communication and effective cooperation.
Chapter 6, “Border Commemoration in Contemporary Armenia,” authored by
Ekaterina Arkhipova, continues the discussion on symbolic borders of Europe and
the role of memory in supporting nationalistic approach in interpretation. By the
end of the 20th century, manipulation of history had become the main instrument
of mass mobilization. To create a public identity, the nation-state uses collective
memory and creates the idea of the past as a goal of self-existence. In addition to the
chronological model, collective memory describes the geographical scope of society,
creating it. The chapter analyses the practice of defining the geographical boundaries
of “Armenia” in the collective memory of Armenians. Using the concept of “places
of memory” invented by P. Nora, this chapter defines markers and geographical
points defined in the collective memory of the Armenian people as their own. The
chapter presents the results of the author’s observations made during the studies
conducted in 2014, as well as a discursive analysis of the Armenian tourist site’s
memorial sites as data that present the collective memory to outsiders in the form
of information messages. In conclusion, the author raises the issue of an effective
model of collective memory, adopted in the name of the development of society.
Chapter 7, “The Polish Problem in the Soviet-American Relations (1944-1945):
History and Memory,” by Radmila Ayriyan and Alexander Egorov, raises the question
of the intersectionality of history and memory in the geopolitical perspective. This
chapter is an attempt to analyze the Polish problem and its impact on the development
of Soviet-American and Russian-Ukrainian relations. The Polish problem consists
of two parts: first, the issue of territorial claims of the Soviet authorities against
Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (the territory of Poland until 1939); second,
the return of the Polish government in exile to Warsaw and its recognition as the
only legitimate government. The chapter looks at the evolution of the US position,
which was caused by the logic of development rather than by the change of state
leader, as is commonly believed. The presence of the Soviet army in Poland created
objective difficulties in the return of Polish territories and the return of the Polish
government from emigration. Despite the pressure from the multi-million dollar
Polish diaspora, American presidents were unable to resist the will of the Soviet
Union and were forced to abandon further disputes. The story, which became a
reality in Ukraine in 2014, led to an unprecedented war of memories.
In Chapter 8, “Monuments to Heroes or Construction of Memory About the April
Uprising of 2010 in Kyrgyzstan,” Aijarkyn Kojobekova examines the events of April
7, 2010 in Kyrgyzstan, which are officially called the second revolution against
authoritarianism, when 86 demonstrators were shot in front of the Government House
(White House) in Bishkek. The official position on 7 April considers monuments to

xvi
Preface

fallen demonstrators based on presidential speeches and the views of scholars and
students, as well as Internet forums as a mirror of public perception.
Global revisionist trends have changed the world dramatically. It is possible
that a European style of reflection on the past may emerge in the long-running
perspective. In this case, national collective memories even beyond the geographical
borders would contribute to the European Union public space and vice versa. The
new and the old players are arguing about success stories with memory policy
implementation. Among these participants are European Union member-states,
candidate countries in transition, and the greater Eurasian region with enormous
potential from the economic, political and cultural perspectives. We hope these
chapters will generate ideas for future research and for the development of relevant
policies that will influence global as well as national prosperity and will help to
predict future crashes. The Eurasian macro-region pushes analytical efforts to the
still unexplored border of geopolitical thought, and we believe that it helps to see
historical memory as a matter, not of political, but civic action.

Oxana Karnaukhova
Southern Federal University, Russia

Victor Apryshchenko
Southern Federal University, Russia

REFERENCES

Bechev, D., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2010). Mediterranean Frontiers: Borders, Conflict,

and Memory in a Transnational Era. New York: Tauris Academic Studies.
Halbwachs, M. (1925). Les cadres sociaux de la mйmoire. Paris: Librairie Felix
Alcan (Travaux de l’annee sociologique). Retrieved from: http://gallica.bnf.fr/
ark:/12148/bpt6k5824900t
Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire. Representations
(Berkeley, Calif.), 26.
Prutsch, M. J. (2015). European Historical Memory: Policies, Challenges, and
Perspectives. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
Purcell, S. J. (2000). War, Memory and National Identity in the Twentieth Century.
National Identities, 2(2), 187–195. doi:10.1080/713687692
Schacter, D. L. (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and
Remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

xvii