| Sumario: | Observing the efflorescence of scholarly and public discourse about memory and commemoration since about the 1970s, historians and others have expressed concerns about "the memory boom" and "the memory industry." Referring instead, and less negatively, to "the mnemonic turn," this article responds to those concerns. It shows that many critiques were based on a Manichean distinction between "history" and "memory"—and between "historiography" and "memory studies"—that led to faulty predictions about the future of scholarly and public interest in memory. It makes a strong case for a robust memory studies that seeks not to displace historical truth-telling but to work alongside it to understand when, where, and how historiography might or might not be an effective response to problematic memory politics and practices.
|
|---|