If we consider the concept of 'community of memory' developed by Margalit (2002), we see that this latter can both derive from/overlap with the broader 'national community’ - which is the overall beneficiary of governmental policies of memorialization. Alternatively, a ‘community of memory’ can shape national policies of remembrance and it can be at the source of governmental strategies of memorialization. A ‘community of memory’ constructs herself around a given event to be remembered and can be composed of, for instance, a group of victims and their relatives.

Different and opposing 'communities of memory’ may emerge in the same national context: what is meaningful to remember for some groups can be outrageous or considered as to must be forgotten by others. When there is no consensus on the policies of remembrance adopted at the national level, different positions may emerge in relation to the significance and the prioritization to be attributed to the remembrance of an event over another.

Different readings of the history of the past may emerge. When these alternative readings base themselves on dichotomic visions of the past - where “enemies”, “allies”, “heroes" and “evils” are identified and associated with groups or parties to a conflict, for instance -, they may engender radical and rooted societal divisions in the present so to exacerbate political discourses, radicalize feelings and sentiments of belonging to the ’national community’ or to a specific ‘community of memory’. Thus, policies of memorialization can be a driver of further division inside a society.

Considering the delicate and complex nature of remembering, Todorov (2009) suggests to build our remembering efforts on the awareness of the non-automatic character of the attribution of the category of “evil” to a given 'otherness’. Thus, the author argues that it is important to investigate the root causes of contested deeds: this allows to take into account men and women for their actions, which have to be contextualized and understood in a critical way. In this sense, the actors are not to be labeled in relation to the dichotomy “evil” / “good” in an abstract and fixed way. Each human can be “evil” and “hero” in his essence and in relation to the possibilities and choices that he has to deal with.

The awareness of the vulnerable and fragile character of the activity of remembrance requires the readiness to interpret our own stories, belongings, and essence as multiple in their nature. This kind of personal awareness is the unique possible critical and reflexive attitude that can inspire the co-construction of policies of remembrance which may pretend to ‘reconciliate’ opposing visions of the past.

Sources:

Avishai Margalit, The Ethics of Memory, Harvard University Press, 2002

Tzvetan Todorov, Memory as Remedy for Evil, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press, 2009