FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2888045696> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2888045696 endingPage "626" @default.
• W2888045696 startingPage "599" @default.
• W2888045696 abstract "Stalinist Crimes and the Ethics of Memory Antony Kalashnikov (bio) Scholarship on the collective memory of Stalinism in contemporary Russia has been remarkably fruitful since taking off in the early 2000s. Memory studies theory, in all its diversity, has been applied to the Russian context to generate both broad assessments of cultural-political dynamics and analyses of discrete texts and artifacts. Moreover, memory of Stalinism in post-Soviet Russia has served as a fertile ground for extending and developing new concepts and theories. Western scholarship has generated an impressive array of studies directly engaged with the problem. Nanci Adler and Nina Ferretti provided early interventions pointing to the specificities of the post-Soviet memory-scape, in which memory of the Stalin era played a crucial role. These were followed up in the late 2000s by detailed analyses of official memory policy toward Stalin by Michael Kramer, Thomas Sherlock, and others. Alongside these, Dina Khapaeva and Alexander Etkind worked in a sustained fashion on a parallel, culture-centered critique of post-Soviet memory of Stalinism (for the latter, this culminated in the publication of his magisterial Warped Mourning in 2013, the only monograph devoted entirely to this problem).1 Russian scholarship, while voluminous, has focused largely on the memory of the Great Patriotic War rather than on the memory of Stalinism proper. Notable exceptions have been the work of Boris Dubin and Lev Gudkov with opinion polls, and Nikolai Koposov's detailed studies of state memory policy. For the most part, however, scholarly discussion has lagged in comparison to a much livelier debate in the Russian press (spearheaded by journalists and pundits associated with various groups, from the Memorial nongovernmental organization [NGO] to the Communist Party). Nonetheless, in both Western and Russian scholarship, a wide range of historians, sociologists, literary critics, and others traditionally unconcerned with the memory studies [End Page 599] problematic have also fielded contributions to the discussion. Perhaps this wide interest testifies to the cultural and political significance that memory of Stalinism has attained in contemporary Russia. Despite this output, to my knowledge no systematic review of the literature has been attempted to date. As the volume and diversity of the field precludes an exhaustive examination, this article attempts to fill this lacuna only in one specific dimension: the normative element that is present in at least half of the literature. Specifically, this scholarship, implicitly or explicitly, condemns the current state of Russian memory. Thus from the very outset Ferretti referred to a memory disorder engulfing Russia, an attitude consistently reproduced in scholarship over the next decade and a half.2 Khapaeva speaks of a distorted and deformed memory of Stalinism, Etkind of warped memory, Catherine Merridale of a false memory, Maria Tumarkin of something [gone] awry, Sergey Toymentsev of the grotesqueness in the current state of the collective memory.3 My analysis demonstrates that such condemnations arise out of two dominant normative frameworks. One takes the victims of Stalinism as its key reference group. This framework holds that honoring the memory of the deceased is perhaps the only way toward atoning for their murder. For survivors, it emphasizes psychological and social rehabilitation. The other framework takes contemporaries as its reference point: here the goal of memory should be to heal the collective trauma of post-Soviet society and to promote an antiauthoritarian, democratic politics. Memory of Stalinism in contemporary Russia appears to fail on all these counts. However, as this article demonstrates, the ethics of memory are not dealt with systematically in the literature. As a result, there are some internal tensions and unresolved issues. The article points to two sets of issues in scholarship's normative vision—the problem of narrative, and the problem of efficacy—and suggests some correctives. I argue that scholars' concern with the dominant discourse on Stalinism inadvertently encourages maximalist judgments, which fail to recognize the value of plural narratives and a dynamic collective memory. Furthermore, I demonstrate that the models of [End Page 600] efficacy espoused by the two normative frameworks are derived largely from other contexts: especially from Holocaust studies, and the late 20th-century democratization cases forming the bedrock of transitional justice scholarship. However, scholarship uses these models in..." @default.
• W2888045696 created "2018-08-31" @default.
• W2888045696 creator A5016467679 @default.
• W2888045696 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2888045696 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2888045696 title "Stalinist Crimes and the Ethics of Memory" @default.
• W2888045696 cites W113345069 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W137128685 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1488765666 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1489978551 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1505524344 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1559187811 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1563163019 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1563815815 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1565011308 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1593977915 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1600019194 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1725001981 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W175395917 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1837240488 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1976795817 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1989264187 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1991139295 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W1998533312 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2000317225 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2002816036 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2004383496 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2013314624 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2022171937 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2023119741 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2030493939 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2034065579 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2035305245 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2048570939 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2057247250 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2065137348 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2065346229 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2079361863 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2081872924 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2094428589 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2116513802 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2127982258 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2152642979 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2284472800 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2320651585 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2323163770 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2336819635 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2339931872 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2486063591 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2499224110 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2546499379 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2557939691 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2614080200 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2624485968 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2749700142 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2772256746 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W2899818212 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W292172274 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W3146513474 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W315601638 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W3676941 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W41040184 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W562224921 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W591556106 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W616719258 @default.
• W2888045696 cites W630590902 @default.
• W2888045696 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2018.0031" @default.
• W2888045696 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2888045696 type Work @default.
• W2888045696 sameAs 2888045696 @default.
• W2888045696 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2888045696 countsByYear W28880456962021 @default.
• W2888045696 countsByYear W28880456962023 @default.
• W2888045696 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2888045696 hasAuthorship W2888045696A5016467679 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C67448173 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C11413529 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C144024400 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C166957645 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C17744445 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C199539241 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C2778061430 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C2779343474 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C41008148 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C48103436 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C67448173 @default.
• W2888045696 hasConceptScore W2888045696C94625758 @default.

• next