Security and memory
Introduction
The aim of this essay is to explore how national identity and history are treated as problems of security and why collective remembrance is sometimes securitised in public policy. My referent object is therefore collective memory; by 'memory' I mean a discursive strategy of remembering the past that is implemented by political actors. I draw mainly on Anthony Giddens, Alexander Wendt, Brent Steele, Jennifer Mitzen and Maria Mälksoo to show that in addition to physical security, states also seek ontological security.
How is memory securitised?
Securitisation, as we know from the Copenhagen school, is a discursive process through which certain issues are turned into a threat. Presenting a particular way of relating to the past as an issue of ontological security (i.e. 'the right remembrance') could in mean that the state could legitimate the use of force for protecting this 'memory'.
Brent Steele argues that in addition to physical security, ontological security is important to states as well. Seeking ontological security means looking for a way to constitute the self: where mainstream IR theory sees “security as survival,” ontological security is “security as being”. The latter means the 'idea' or the narrative a state tells about itself. In the process of telling such a story, a historical memory can be constructed. Steele emphasises the importance of memory in sustaining a coherent and consistent 'biographical narrative' of a state: “It creates the 'person' of the state. Without narrative, without a state agent collecting the history of a nation state into a story that informs current actions, the Self of a state does not exist. /--/ conceptually, the 'idea' of the state cannot exist without thi...
... middle of paper ...
...ical moment can be given away for small change. – Mälksoo, Diplomaatia
Implications: The social framing of issues of historical remembrance as ontological security problems legitimates the rhetoric and means of security for handling them. Emphasising a particular remembrance of the past as the 'right remembrance' does not let the political actors break away from the old and possibly damaging narratives for both themselves and their 'others'. Desecuritisation of memory and pluralism instead of consensus in remembering in my opinion would help depoliticise some public political issues that are present in CEECs (integration policies concerning Russian minorities, immigration, language issues etc), but I also want to question if it is possible to depoliticise memory at all.
The proposed solution in the essay would still be pluralism instead of consensus in remembering.
...et the wrongs they’ve suffered, even if these tribulations were justified. But mostly forgetting history poses a serious threat to the future. Sometimes we do need to know where we’ve been in order to know where we’re going. However, remembering is also a sticky subject. Debates erupt about which history is correct, and which should be remembered. It’s also a matter of enthusiasm as much as anything else. Remembering the Civil War as many Northerners and Southerners remember the war, as a war that happened, had certain ramifications, and otherwise doesn’t affect contemporary life, is much easier to justify and deal with than a zealous attitude toward a "Lost Cause." It is just that great enthusiasm leads to reverence for ancestors that do not necessarily deserve it. Still, it is not as if any individual can decide for another which ancestors are worth revering.
Joshua Foer’s “The End of Remembering” and Kathryn Schulz’s “Evidence” are two essays that have more in common than one might think. Although on two totally different topics, they revolve around the central point of the complexities of the human mind. However, there are some key elements both writers have contemplated on in differing ways. A vital difference between Foer’s essay and Schulz’s essay is the overall thesis. Foer uses a comical tone throughout his essay to get readers to realize just how dependent society has become on external means rather than ourselves.
Charen presents her thesis prominently at the beginning of her essay in her title. By doing so, she not only clearly expresses her thesis that we must give up some liberty to secure the United States, but also peaks the interest of the reader with a provocative and timely statement. To understand the appeal of the title as a narrative hook, the reader should consider the context in which it was written. Charen’s essay was written at a post-9/11 time when security was on the minds of everyone in the United States.
When the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011 rocked New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C., the word “tragedy” was used on a grandiose level around the world. For the people who lived close enough to experience the events first-hand, they may not have even called it a tragedy; perhaps they called it a misfortune, retaliation, lack of a strong government, unreal, or maybe even rebirth. In the coming years after the attacks, everything between standing united as a nation to declaring a war had flourished; but how has that left us - the land that has no distinct ethnicity - feel about each other? Why is it that fear is usually missing in the affective mnemonics of memorial sites, which, after all, are signifiers of some of the most horrific violence in human history? Do memorials dedicated to these attacks bring us together in terms of understanding, or is it just continual collective grief? This paper will cover the global complexity of the 9/11 attacks, the Empty Sky 9/11 Memorial in Liberty State Park, NJ, and factors and theories that memorials do influence a sense of complexity. The ground of public memory is always in motion, shifting with the tectonics of national identity. I chose the Empty Sky 9/11 Memorial as my topic of observation as I, personally, visit a few times throughout the year to pay respects to people I personally knew who perished in the attacks to the World Trade Center. I was in the 5th grade when this happened, and had absolutely no clue what was going on until my father did not return home until two days later with a bandage wrapped around his head and his devastating recollection of what happened just before he arrived to his job. The emotions that I feel within myself compared to others will...
and Memory in a World Without Relics.” Past and Present. The Past and Present Society,
Historically, citizens of many countries sacrifice their personal liberties for a sense of security masked as a governmental attempt for pushing their views onto the citizens. A historical example of this scenario is the passing and enforcement of the Es...
Watson, Robert P., Devine, Michael J. and Wolz, Robert J. eds., The National Security Legacy
Repressed memories is a topic that has been an ongoing dispute among some, however ac...
...ity of commemoration continually reinterprets the past in the light of an ever-changing present. In so doing, commemoration enables the community both to cohere in the present and to (re)define its aspirations for the future: memory working forward. (27)
Memories of World War II play a very important role in the world today, especially in East Asia. These memories are not simple but complicated factors that created many of the controversial issues that exist today. Two of the main issues that revolve around East Asia are the Nanjing Massacre and the comfort women issue. People have debated over the truth of the Nanjing Massacre and the comfort women issue, and people on different sides have not come to an agreement on the historical facts. Daqing Yang’s “The Malleable and the Contested, Joshua Fogel’s “Nanjing Atrocity and Chinese Historical Memory ” discusses the issues in detail, and Chungmoo Choi’s “The Politics of War Memories toward Healing”.
“Collective Memory and the Meanings of the Past” in Martyrdom and Memory by Elizabeth Castelli is overall not very similar to other scholarly texts. The text mainly focus on Christianity, which isn’t a religion that was discussed in class. The one major similarity between Castelli’s argument and other scholarly texts
One of the main concerns of contemporary philosophy has been the role of the memory in the life of the individual and the group, or more precisely - the lack and excess of memory. Memory is something very unreliable, because it causes the same kind of decay that invades our physical bodies, undermining the identity of every individual and every society. Even though human identity is based on historical memory, neither individuals, nor societies should be limited in categorical way by it and the importance of forgetting should not be diminished. In consideration of memory, psychoanalysis and history as disciplines may be merged to provide one with a more expansive view of this phenomenon, without reducing one to the other. Reading Freud's account of melancholia in relation to Nietzsche's account of historical illness can help enhance the understanding one derives from each individual discourse, in addition to highlighting an important theme in contemporary philosophy.
As Berger says, “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (157). The upper class mystifies us to stay in control; without being able to see things in our own way, we are being deprived from our right to understanding ourselves and placing ourselves in a role of society.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.