The Future of the Mnemonic Turn.

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 t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Social Research Vol. 90; no. 4; pp. 781 - 808
Autor principal: Olick, Jeffrey K.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Johns Hopkins University Press Winter2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=174684413&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 174684413
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0037783X
        SRE
      jtl: Social Research
      issn: 0037783X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Winter2023
      vid: 90
      iid: 4
      pid: 226
      pub: Johns Hopkins University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        174684413
        10.1353/sor.2023.a916354
      ppf: 781
      ppct: 27
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 419KB
      tig:
        atl: The Future of the Mnemonic Turn.
      aug:
        au: Olick, Jeffrey K.
      su:
        Collective memory
        Historiography
        Public interest
        Efflorescence
      sug:
        subj:
          Collective memory
          Historiography
          Public interest
          Efflorescence
      ab: 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N