| Summary: | The goal of the article is to develop methodological principles and conditions for overcoming the theoretical dichotomy in the study of memory politics in relation to the First World War. The existence of two fundamental paradigms in the study of the problem is shown: "political"/national, going back to the works of E. Hobsbawm and B. Anderson, and, on the other hand, transnational and transcultural, substantiated in the works ofJ.Winter. Heuristic possibilities and limitations of both approaches, advances in the study of memory politics based on them are analyzed; the elements that enable the implementation of methodological synthesis are identified; the prospects for creating a comprehensive theory and tools for researching the topic are shown. The author analyzes first historical works which overcoming the limitations of both approaches, combining the "national"/ political and transnational/anthropological perspectives of the study. The scientific novelty of the article is determined by the statement of the problem and the suggestion of ways to solve it. The key to overcoming the methodological dichotomy in the study of the topic may be identified as revelation and interpretation of the relationship between current sociopolitical processes, the image of the war past and the practice of commemoration. This relationship is embodied in the "struggle for memory" of the state and society, manifested in a change in the ritual policy and the "messages" embodied in it, and in the adjustment of commemorative practices. Involvement in the analysis of factors of an international character, domestic political processes, memorial initiatives of civil society allows us to more deeply understand the continuity and discontinuity in the national traditions of memory; it also helps us to comprehend the ways of their representation, to identify the relationship of national, social and individual forms of memory about the Great War. It is shown that the interaction of the state and society in the process of developing a collective memory of the war is especially active during the preparation and conduct ofthe anniversaries of its events, and, in the first place, jubilees. During these years, memory politics' actors have been making efforts to formulate, correct, modify/preserve the rituals and messages embedded in them, reflecting one or another interpretation of the meaning of human casualties and losses, and, in general, the meaning of war. Acquiring increased social significance, military anniversaries turn into media events, being a space of struggle and interaction of memorial narratives.
|
|---|
