Memory Is Not Enough: Can Memory Policies Be More Effective?

Abstract

In the last few years, memory has been considered one of the ways in which we can help build better societies. Memory studies often focus on the objectives of memory policies. Should we prevent victims from taking advantage of their status, or should we limit ourselves to condemning perpetrators? Should we prioritize history over memory? Should we accept “forgetting” rather than the overabundance of references to the past? Should we defend the “historical truth” or the memory of “the weak” against “the strong” and thus remember the “forgotten to history”, such as the legitimate victims of colonial conflicts? Although these political and moral questions are interesting, they do not provide an answer to what we would actually do if one option were chosen over the other. In this book, we have therefore sought to move away from the terms of the existing debates in order to understand what is at work in these contemporary references to the violent past. As a result, there is no “lesson” to be learned here. But this does not rule out a reconceptualization of objectives or a reflection on the way in which memory policies could be more effective, in light of the goals that are generally assigned to them. This conclusion is the place to do so. In other words, if memory is not enough, can memory policies be more effective?