The theme of public, collective, and/or social memory has been at the center of growing interest on the part of scholars in last two decades. Halbwach’s concept of mémoire collective (1992) was a milestone for all the memory studies that followed, contributing at marking a sharp distinction between memory (as a subjective account of the past) and history (as an objective account of the past). Following this path, mainstream of memorial studies have underlined the fluid dimension of memory, or, as Nora (1989) claims, the fact that memory is a living thing, remaining in permanent evolution, manipulation and appropriation.
Assuming the fact that a public memory if part of a collective memory that has been institutionalized by the States, the questions arise: does the ‘liquid’ concept of memory described above also fit the concept of public memory? Should we consider public memory as a solid and long-lasting memory rather than a continuing changing one?
In this paper I claim that public memory is indeed a more stable form of collective memory but always exposed to ‘counterforces’ or, as Radstone (2005) states, to a process of mediation and articulation. I claim that mediation and articulation play a fundamental role in the shaping of public memory.
Such a theoretical framework will be used to analyze one specific case study: that of the institutionalization of the Day of Remembrance. With this Bill, in 2004 the Italian Parliament intended to preserve and renew the memory of the tragedy of the Italians and all the victims of the foibe, of the exodus from their lands (Ballinger 2003; Lazzarich 2020). I will analyse some of the oppositions to the celebration of the Day of Remembrance (in the past and in the present) aimed at cancelling the memories of those events from public memory, so as to stress the process of articulation and mediation that took place in the formation of the Italian public memory in connection to this specific case.
Mots clés : public memory|public/counter-public|Istrian exile|Foibe
A103953DL