engleski

Toward an Ethics of Memory. Is memory the root cause of violence or a path to violence avoidance?

As we witness a growing popularity of so called memory discourse in the field of historical and cultural studies, there is an apparent lack of systematic insight into the ethical dimension of this subject. This omission of normative weight of memory has been recently mitigated by a few outstanding works in the fields of both philosophy and theology (A. Margalit, J. Blustein, P. Ricoeur, M. Volf).This paper attempts to alleviate the imbalance in the treatment of the subject. It consists of three parts. In the first part the author offers some key insights into a phenomenology of natural memory. By indicating some essential elements of memory such as its volatile, dynamic and hence manipulable nature, the author shortly points to the abuses of memory at different levels (pathological-therapeutic ; practical and ethico-political). Bearing in mind the fact that instead of creating solidarity and reinforcing social cohesion, memory can breed indifference and strengthen cycles of violence, bolster someone’s false self-perceptions and unreasonable demands, this part also scrutinizes the relationship between memory and violence. Given the moral fickleness and indetermination of memory, in the second part the author outlines the ethics of memory with the emphasis on the evaluative inquiry about memory and its relation with the notions of value and responsibility. Taking into account that memory is a good in itself, and therefore a value and an ingredient of a good life, the author establishes a certain criterion of memory and answers how we should remember and transmit memory. By placing memory between the extremes of “too much” and “too little”, this paper also puts emphasis on the interaction between memory and forgetting. Considering the value of memory in our daily lives, the author also tries to define the moral responsibilities associated with memory (why and what individuals and groups have responsibilities to remember). Finally, in the third part the author contrasts the polyvalent nature of memory and its propensity to hurt as well as to heal and the above-mentioned normative account of memory. The paper concludes by suggesting “the saving power of memory” and the ways in which memory, if reined in, can benefit our societies and guards them against further violence and injuries.

memory; abuse; ethics; norms; values

nije evidentirano