Habits of collective memory.

Collective memory can generally be defined as an account of the past that is shared by members of a group and is part of their identity project. In this paper, we attempt to discuss collective memory in terms of narrative, schema, and habit, three constructs that reflect an underlying assumption that humans are "cognitive misers" who gravitate toward ways to handle large amounts of information in efficient ways. Narrative makes it possible to grasp together a series of events into a meaningful whole, and collective memory emerges when members of a group share the same narrative tools. Schemata in the form of "narrative templates" are posited underlying codes that provide insight into patterns of narratives in collective memory. Lastly, habit is what drives much of human behavior: it allows us to perform a behavior unconsciously and automatically upon mere exposure to a context cue, which in turn allows for increased ease and efficiency in everything we do. Together, narrative, schema and habit provide insight into the building blocks of collective memory and why it can be so notoriously resistant to change. While our account may raise more questions than answers, we believe that this could be a fruitful and novel approach to the study of collective memory and hope it can contribute to both theoretical discussion and practical efforts to address one of today's most vexing issues.

Competing national memories of World War II.

We assessed the knowledge of 1,338 people from 11 countries (8 former Allied and 3 former Axis) about World War II. When asked what percentage their country contributed to the war effort, across Allied countries, estimates totaled 309%, and Axis nations' estimates came to 140%. People in 4 nations claimed more than 50% responsibility for their country (Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States). The overclaiming of responsibility reflected in these percentages was moderated when subjects were asked to consider the contributions of other countries; however, Russians continued to claim great responsibility, the only country that remained well over 50% in its claim of responsibility for the Allied victory. If deaths in the war are considered a proxy of a nation's contributions, the Soviet Union did carry much of the burden. This study points to sharp differences in national memory even across nations who fought on the same side in the war. Differing national perspectives shape diverse memories of the same complex event.

Collective memory: conceptual foundations and theoretical approaches.

In order to outline the conceptual landscape that frames discussions of collective memory, three oppositions are proposed: collective memory versus collective remembering; history versus collective memory; and individual memory versus collective remembering. From this perspective collective remembering is viewed as an active process that often involves contention and contestation among people rather than a static body of knowledge that they possess. Collective remembering is also viewed as privileging identity formation and contestation over the sort of objective representation of the past that is the aspiration of formal historical analysis. And finally, while collective remembering involves individual minds, it also suggests something more in the form of socially situated individuals, a claim that can usefully be formulated in terms of how members of a groups share a common set of cultural tools (e.g., narrative forms) and similar content.