On the justification of Durkheimian program in contemporary memory studies: commemorative ritual and the ambiguity of the memory

Authors

  • Ilya S. Sulzhytski Belarusian State University, Nezavisimosti avenue, 4, 220030, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

Keywords:

collective memory, E. Durkheim, the ambiguity of the sacred, commemorative ritual, time, collective representations

Abstract

The article considers the importance of Durkheim’s sociology language to contemporary memory studies. It is indicated that the theme of past can be disclosed in the Durkheim’s project of social epistemology and the sociology of knowledge. In this case Durkheim’s epistemological argument can be used whis referring to the concept of time and understanding the phenomenon and commemorative rituals. It is shown that the acceleration of social life and the collapse of the temporal perspective gives rise to the so-called «Neo-tribes», that hence the multiplicity of time. Further, the article discusses the possibility of explication of the main provisions of Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge in the theoretical frame of memory studies, as well as the features of the conceptualization of such concepts as collective representations and sacred. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of the ambiguity of the sacred and transgression. In the conclusions is suggested the possible theoretical model in which collective memory is presented as a very significant collective representations of the past (the sacred), that are produced in commemorative practices and have internal binary logic and causality power.

Author Biography

  • Ilya S. Sulzhytski, Belarusian State University, Nezavisimosti avenue, 4, 220030, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

    postgraduate student at the department of sociology, faculty of philosophy and social science

References

  1. Romanovsky N. V. New in sociology – memory boom. Sotsiologicheskie issled. 2011. No. 6. P. 13–23 (in Russ.).
  2. Rozhdestvenskaya E. Yu., Semenova V. V. Sotsial’naya pamyat’ kak ob'ekt sotsiologicheskogo izucheniya. INTER. 2011. No. 6. P. 27–48 (in Russ.).
  3. Olik J., Khevnyuk D. Figurations of memory: a process-relational methodology illustrated on the German case. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2012. Vol. 11, No. 1. P. 40–74 (in Russ.).
  4. Gensburger P. Halbwachs’ studies in collective memory: a founding text for contemporary ‘memory studies’? J. Class. Sociol. Vol. 16, issue 4. P. 396–413.
  5. Halbwachs M. Sotsial’nye ramki pamiati [Social frames of memory]. Moskow, 2007 (in Russ.).
  6. Halbwachs M. On collective memory / ed., trans. and with an introduction by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago, 1992.
  7. Vasil’ev A. G. Embodied memory: commemorative ritual in sociology of Emile Durkheim. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2014. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 141–167 (in Russ.).
  8. Gofman A. B. Problems of tradition in the works of E. Durkheim. Sotsiol. zhurn. 2007. No. 4. P. 63–73 (in Russ.).
  9. Misztal B. Durkheim on collective memory. J. Class. Sociol. 2003. Vol. 3. P. 123–143.
  10. Watts Miller W. Durkheimian time. Time Soc. 2000. Vol. 9, issue 1. P. 5–20.
  11. Milorati L., Mori L. Memory of resistance movement and conflict potential of memorial festivities. Sotsiologicheskoe issled. 2014. No. 1. P. 108–115. (in Russ.).
  12. Olick J. The collective memory reader. New York, 2011.
  13. Eyerman R., Khlevnyk D. Social theory and trauma. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2013. Vol. 12, No. 1. P. 121–138 (in Russ.).
  14. Alexander J., Kurakin D., Olkovikov G. Watergate as a democratic ritual. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2012. Vol. 11, No. 3. P. 77–104 (in Russ.).
  15. Alexander J., Kurakin D. Cultural trauma and collective identity. Sotsiologicheskii zhurn. 2012. No. 3. P. 5–40 (in Russ.).
  16. Alexander J. Culture trauma, morality and solidarity. The social construction of «Holocaust» and other mass murders. Thesis Eleven. 2016. Vol. 132, No. 1. P. 3–16.
  17. Oegin A. Durkheim as a sociologist of knowledge. Rudiments of a reflexive theory of the concept. J. Class. Sociol. 2016. Vol. 16 (1). P. 7–20.
  18. Rowlz A. W., Korbut. A. Durkheim’s Epistemology: the Neglected Argument. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2014. Vol. 13, No. 2. P. 84–140 (in Russ.).
  19. Dyurkgeim E. Elementarnye formy religioznoi zhizni. Totemicheskaya sistema v Avstralii. Klassiki mirovogo religiovedeniya : antologiya : in 2 vol. Moscow, 1998 (in Russ.).
  20. Dyurkgeim E., Moss M. O nekotorykh pervobytnykh formakh klassifikatsii. K issledovaniyu kollektivnykh predstavlenii. M. Moss. Obshchestva. Obmen. Lichnost’. Trudy po sotsial’noi antropologii. Moscow, 1996. P. 55–124 (in Russ.).
  21. Khumarian D. G. Place of the political in Emile Durheim’s social epistemology: transgression, affect, subjectivation. Sotsiologiya vlasti. No. 28 (4). P. 35–56 (in Russ.).
  22. Rawls A. W. Durkheim’s treatment of practice: concrete practice vs. representations as the foundation of reason. J. Class. Sociol. 2001. Vol. 1, issue 1. P. 33–86.
  23. Durkheim E. The elementary forms of religious life. London, 1976.
  24. Assman A. Transformations of the Modern Time Regime. Novoe literaturnoe obozr. 2012. No. 4. P. 16–31 (in Russ.).
  25. Kurakin D. Towards late-Durkheim program in cultural sociology: the elementary forms perception in sociological thought. Sotsiologicheskii zhurn. 2009. No. 3. P. 5–21 (in Russ.).
  26. Bourdieu P. Sotsiologiia sotsial’nogo prostranstva. Moscow ; Saint Petersburg, 2007 (in Russ.).
  27. Durkheim E. Predstavleniia individual’nye i predstavleniia kollektivnye. In Durkheim E. Sotsiologiia. Ee predmet, metod, prednaznachenie. Moscow, 1995 (in Russ.).
  28. Durkheim E., Yudin G. The dualism of human nature and social conditions. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2013. Vol. 12, No. 2. P. 133–144 (in Russ.).
  29. Kurakin D. Eluding sacred: ambiquality of the sacred and its importance for the «strong program» cultural sociology. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2011. No. 3. P. 41–70 (in Russ.).
  30. Caillois R. Mif i chelovek. Chelovek i sakral’noe. Moscow, 2003 (in Russ.).
  31. Duglas M. Chistota i opasnost’. Analiz predstavlenii ob oskvernenii i tabu. Moscow, 2000 (in Russ.).
  32. Bataille G. Prokliataia chast’. Sakral’naia sotsiologiia. Moscow, 2006 (in Russ.).
  33. Alexander J., Smith F., Dzhakurova S. Strong program in cultural sociology. Sotsiologicheskoe obozr. 2010. Vol. 9, No. 2. P. 11–30 (in Russ.).
  34. Duglas M. How institutions think. Sotsiologiya vlasti. 2012. No. 4–5 (1). P. 188–217 (in Russ.).

Downloads

Published

2019-03-06

Issue

No. 1 (2017): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology

Section

Articles and Reports

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Sulzhytski, I.S. 2019. On the justification of Durkheimian program in contemporary memory studies: commemorative ritual and the ambiguity of the memory. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 1 (Mar. 2019), 64–72.