Keywords
securitization
identity
historical memory
politics of memory
Latvia
narrative
memory regime
security dilemma
How to Cite
Abstract
The article suggests and argues a theoretical framework for studying a particular case of memory securitization. It is based on the constructivist perception of security that is systematically framed in the studies of representatives of the Copenhagen School, who consider security as a socially constructed phenomenon and define identity protection to be one of its primary goals.
Pursuant to this approach, the article presents a correlation between memory and security in at least three aspects. In the first instance, similar to security, collective memory is socially determined. In the second instance, collective memory lies at the core of various forms of identity, including national identity. In the third instance, collective memory is not only an object of protection but also a resource, which is used by securitization actors for threat identification, enemy image modeling as well as for defining the means of protection.
The Latvian case is applied for setting the theoretical framework of the memory securitization model. In future, it might be used to study specific juridical and political mechanisms of memory securitization in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
The authors perceive the securitization of memory as a diverse complex of measures aimed at establishing and setting a certain historical narrative, as well as convincing society to be actively loyal to it. Accordingly, the policy of memory is defined as a mechanism for putting securitization in practice. The initial conditions for understanding this process in Latvia are the post-communist transition, ethnocultural divisions of the society, and the external factor represented by Russia, that promotes its historical narratives.
In one respect, R. Brubaker’s concept of the “nationalized” state is taken as a theoretical model of the politics of memory in Latvia. According to this concept, the official narrative of post-communist countries has been set as a nation-oriented one. On the other hand, the concept of the memory regime developed by M. Bernhard and J. Kubik is also considered. As per their theory, the memory regime in Latvia can be described as being divided into the official and alternative narrative of counter-memory, which is based on the Soviet legacy.
References
Apryshchenko V. (2016), Pamyat’ kak bezopasnost’, „Novoye proshloye”, No. 3.
Apryshchenko V. (2018), Memory as Security: Images of the Past in 2014 National Referenda in Europe, in: Memory and Securitization in Contemporary Europe, (eds.) V. Strukov, V. Apryshchenko, London.
Assmann А. (2014), Dlinnaya ten’ proshlogo. Memorial’naya kul’tura i istoricheskaya politika, Moskva.
Assmann A. (2006), Memory, Individual and Collective, in: The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, (eds.) R. E. Goodin, Charles Tilly, Oxford.
Assmann A. (2016), Shadows of Trauma. Memory and the Politics of Postwar Identity, (trans. S. Clift), New York.
Bernhard M., Kubik J. (2014), The politics of memory and commemoration, in: Twenty years after Communism, Oxford.
Brubaker R. (1996), Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe, Cambridge.
Buzan B. (1991), People, States and Fear, in: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post Cold War Era (2nd ed.), London.
Buzan B., Waever. O., de Wilde J. (1997), Security a New Framework for Analysis, London.
Confino A. (1997), Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method, “The American Historical Review”, Vol. 102, No. 5.
Gaufman E. (2017), Security Threats and Public Perception: Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis (New Security Challenges), London.
Giddens A. (1990), Consequences of Modernity, Stanford.
Halbwachs M. (1992), On Collective Memory, ed. and translated by L. Coser, Chicago–London.
Hobsbawm E., Ranger T. (eds.) (1992), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge.
Hodgkin K., Radstone S. (2003), Contested Pasts: The Politics of Memory, New York.
Kaprāns M. (2016), Remembering communism in Latvia: a nationalizing state and the multi-directionality of the past, in: The new heroes – the new victims, (ed.) I. Gubenko, Riga.
Malinova О. (2018), Politika pamyati kak oblast’ simvolicheskoy politiki, in: Metodologicheskiye voprosy izucheniya politiki pamyati: Sb. nauchn, (tr., eds.) A. I. Miller, D. V. Yefremenko, Moskva–Sankt-Peterburg.
Mälksoo M. (2015), Memory must be defended: Beyond the politics of mnemonical security. “Security Dialogue”, Vol. 46(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614552549 (10.03.2020).
Miller А. (2020), Vrag u vorot istorii. Kak istoricheskaya pamyat’ stala voprosom bezopasnosti, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/81207 (10.03.2020).
Mitzen J. (2006a), Ontological security in world politics, “European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 12(6).
Nora P. (1996), General Introduction: Between Memory and History. Realms of Memory. Rethinking the French Past, Vol. 1: Conflicts and Divisions, New York.
Onke E.-C. (2010), Memory and Democratic Pluralism in the Baltic States – Rethinking the Relationship, “Journal of Baltic Studies”, Vol. 41, No. 3.
Ozolina Z. (2010), Re-considering the Concept of Security, in: Rethinking Security, (eds.) Z. Ozolina, Riga.
Ozolina Z. (2016), Societal Security: Conceptual Framework, in: Societal Security. Inclusion-Exclusion Dilemma. A portrait of the Russian – speaking community in Latvia, (ed.) Z. Ozolina, Rīga.
Politika pamyati v Rossii, stranakh YES i gosudarstvakh postsovetskogo prostranstva: tipologiya, konfliktnyy potentsial, dinamika transformatsii – Stenogramma diskussii (2018), in: Metodologicheskiye voprosy izucheniya politiki pamyati: sb. nauchn, (tr., ed.) A. I. Miller, D. V. Yefremenko, Moskva–Sankt-Peterburg.
Roe P. (2005), Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma, Abingdon.
Rostoks T. (2010), Securitization and Insecurity Society, in: Rethinking Security, (eds.) Z. Ozolina, Riga.
Smith A. (1996), Memory and modernity: reflections on Ernest Gellner’s theory of nationalism, “Nation and Nationalism”, Vol. 3, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8219.1996.tb00004.x.
Strukov V., Apryshchenko V. (2018), Introduction, in: Memory and Securitization in Contemporary Europe, (eds.) V. Strukov, V. Apryshchenko, London.
Tambovtseva М. (2017), Teoreticheskiy podkhod Kopengagenskoy shkoly k obespecheniyu mezhdunarodnoy bezopasnosti: osnovnyye polozheniya teorii sek’yuritizatsii, https://www.gramota.net/articles/issn_1997-292X_2017_9_48.pdf (07.03.2020).
Topolski J. (1999), The Role of Logic and Aesthetic in Constructing Narrative Wholes in Historiography, “History and Theory”, Vol. 38, No. 2, DOI: 10.1111/0018-2656.00086.
Verovšek P. (2016), Collective memory, politics, and the influence of the past: the politics of memory as a research paradigm, “Politics, Groups, and Identities”, DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2016.1167094.
Weaver O., Buzan B., Kelstrup M. (1993), Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, Continuum International Publishing.
Zelče V. (2018), The Transformation of ‘Holiday’ in Post-Soviet Space: Celebrating Soviet Victory Day in Latvia, “Europe-Asia Studies”, Vol. 70, Issue 3. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2018.1454402 (10.03.2020).
Zelče V. (2009), History – Responsibility – Memory: Latvia’s Case, at: Latvia. Human Development Report, 2008/2009: Accountability and Responsibility, (eds.) J. Rozenvalds, I. Ijabs, Rīga.
License
Articles published in "Przegląd Strategiczny" are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. License (CC BY 4.0). They may be copied, redistributed and shared only if appropriate credit is given.