Looking through the hourglass: top-down approaches

Top-down approaches are generally interested in the content of collective memories shared across members of broad groups – the most studied one being the nation (Liu and Khan Reference Liu and Khan2021) – but also in the way these memories impact society and its individuals. They focus on what is common to the community depending on a group's characteristics and its cultural and historical context. The transmission of these collective memories generally occurs through traditional media, where the press can widely broadcast prevailing public opinions. Furthermore, collective memories can be reactivated or given more prominence depending on their presence in the media, for example, during times of commemoration (Kligler-Vilenchik et al Reference Kligler-Vilenchik, Tsfati and Meyers2014). This approach has been used extensively within history and political science, but also within social psychology.

Historians have argued that memory differs from history, but the former should not be viewed in direct opposition to the latter. In principle, history attempts to maintain an objective distance from its subject matter to explain past events through the scholarly analysis of mentalities and contexts. Memory, on the other hand, is inherently associated with social perceptions and beliefs within a group (Nora Reference Nora1984). Its objective is not to recount events as they happened, but to create or maintain an identity (Bedarida Reference Bedarida2003; Roekens Reference Roekens and van Ypersele2006). This does not mean, however, that historical scholarship is not informed by memory and vice versa (Noiriel Reference Noiriel2004). The selective and fluctuating character of memory should not be considered a negative attribute. It is, on the contrary, inherent to any situation in which a person resorts to memory: narratives of the past are constantly updated and adapted to present circumstances. Thus, following Pierre Nora's pioneering work, historians have interrogated the history of ‘collective memories’ as social representations of the past that have been maintained by communities of varying sizes. Using top-down approaches, they have endeavoured to identify the actors or social mechanisms responsible for shaping collective memories. For example, historians tracing ‘the history of representations’ or those working on ‘new cultural history’ examine how groups understand the world and events at a given time, and how their collective memories then impact the emotions and attitudes of group members. They analyse the power relations by reviewing how groups’ representations, practices, and discourses influence the identities of the ‘dominant’ and the ‘dominated’. In other words, they investigate how representations can be imposed from the top and also how individuals can modify and reclaim them (Chartier Reference Chartier2003; Veyne Reference Veyne2010). They do so through the analysis of a broad range of sources, including written, iconographic and artistic sources, and, more recently, online sources, such as social media.

Other scholars prefer to focus on official memory agents. In their seminal book The Invention of Tradition, Hobsbawm and Ranger (Reference Hobsbawm and Ranger1983) discussed how the elites of the nation actively manipulate collective narratives for their own purposes. Political authorities can attempt to structure memory transmitted privately through textbooks, monuments, or commemorations (Citron Reference Citron1987; Namer Reference Namer1983; Warland Reference Warland2019).

This instrumentalist approach to collective memory finds a similar resonance within the field of political sciences. Officials, including foreign policy actors, constantly reshape the meaning given to past events according to varying national and international circumstances (Rosoux Reference Rosoux2001, Reference Rosoux and Butler2019). Of course, the facts of the past cannot be altered. No one can undo or alter what has been done. But the meaning of what happened is never completely set in stone (Ricoeur Reference Ricoeur2000). A key concern in political science approaches has been the role of memory in conflict resolution. Most authors working in this field consider that only a change in the meaning given to the past can ultimately alleviate the emotional burden of painful past events (Bracka Reference Bracka, Belavusau and Gliszczynska-Grabias2017; Krondorfer Reference Krondorfer2018). In the absence of such changes, some groups appear to be characterised by ‘unfinished grief’ (Baussant Reference Baussant2006; Tison Reference Tison2011), reliving past events without end. What matters then is not to establish the truth with a capital ‘T’, but to elaborate narratives that have the potential to bring different groups closer together. The objective is to tell the story in another way, in other words, to tell it from the other's point of view (Ricoeur Reference Ricoeur2000). In this way, a plurality of memories can be established, turning the work of memory into the work of memories (see Irwin-Zarecka Reference Irwin-Zarecka2017; Olick Reference Olick2003; Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel, Olick, Adams and Steinmetz2003). This effort to open the past up to a plurality of representations appears to be the only way to elaborate a narrative that may not be shared by all but is ultimately ‘shareable’ (Passerini Reference Passerini2014).

Indeed, political scientists and, more broadly, experts in transitional justice often stress the importance of forms of recognition for past crimes, either through requests for forgiveness, official apologies or truth, and reconciliation commissions (Brooks Reference Brooks1999; Brophy Reference Brophy2006; Daase et al Reference Daase, Engert, Horelt, Renner and Strassner2016; Lind Reference Lind2008). Some argue in favour of a ‘reconstructive approach’ between representatives of various national groups in order to bring former adversaries together (Ferry Reference Ferry1996). This approach is based on actors assuming historical responsibility for past crimes in a critically measured manner. The official representatives of formerly war-torn communities are called upon to describe the wrongs suffered and committed, so that future generations can turn over the bloody pages of the past and work towards a shared future. From this perspective, the different types of media that reach and influence people widely (such as radio, television, and social media) are often seen as critical forms of communication that can help gradually develop a vision of the past which is acceptable to all sides (Gilboa Reference Gilboa2009).

Although much research has been carried on the subjects of transitional justice and reparation politics (e.g., Butt Reference Butt2008; de Greiff Reference De Greiff2006; Kritz Reference Kritz1995; Thompson Reference Thompson2002; Torpey Reference Torpey2006), one particular element remains under-analysed: the long-term effects of a critical assessment of the past. The negotiation processes that lead to the recognition or non-recognition of historical responsibility have been the subject of numerous analyses. But little in-depth research has been devoted to the impact of such gestures across not only one, but two or even three generations, even though all case studies demonstrate that the transformation of relationships between former enemies has to be understood in terms of generations, and not of years (Rosoux and Anstey Reference Rosoux and Anstey2017).

Finally, psychologists – and more specifically social psychologists – have also applied top-down approaches to their studies of collective memory mostly through the application of the social representation theory developed by Liu and Hilton (Reference Liu and Hilton2005). According to these authors, large groups – such as nations, political, cultural, and religious communities – define themselves through shared representations of their history. Collective memory not only provides a strong social identity for groups, but also influences their beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours (Pennebaker et al Reference Pennebaker, Rimé and Paez2013; Tajfel and Turner Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986). In order to investigate these relationships, researchers using top-down approaches map out the social representations of history of specific groups by surveying a large sample of their members and then correlate these representations with the behaviours or attitudes expressed by the participants. For example, researchers have examined how the perceived victimisation of a group in history may still encourage its members to act in certain ways or hold negative attitudes towards other groups (e.g., Bar-Tal and Antebi Reference Bar-Tal and Antebi1992; Bouchat et al Reference Bouchat, Licata, Rosoux, Allesch, Ammerer, Bovina, Bruckmüller, Cabecinhas, Chryssochoou, Cohrs, Csertő, Delouvée, Durante, Ernst-Vintila, Flassbeck, Hilton, Kesteloot, Kislioglu, Krenn, Macovei, Mari, Petrovic, Pólya, Sá, Sakki, Turjacanin, van Ypersele, Volpato, Bilewicz and Klein2017).

Studies on social representations of history assert that collective memory serves three principal functions (Hirst et al Reference Hirst, Yamashiro and Coman2018; Liu and Hilton Reference Liu and Hilton2005). First, as already mentioned, sharing similar interpretations of the past helps create and maintain a feeling of belonging to the same group by providing examples of what the group is and how it should act. It thus serves the essential function of building social identity. The second function is social at its core. Through their shared representations of history, groups keep track of other groups they interact with and define these relationships: Are they friends or foes? What are the intergroup politics? The last function of collective memory is not only to provide frames of the interpretation of the world but also to help us make ‘better’ decisions in the future by learning from past mistakes.

Overall, communities draw on their histories to elaborate narratives that can unify them and guide their behaviour. In order to thrive, these narratives should have memorable characteristics, such as the presence of narrative patterns or distinctive protagonists (heroes, villains, or victims), and they also should be plausible, although factual accuracy is less important (László Reference László2008; Olick Reference Olick1999). They need to be widely broadcast through traditional media, while social and digital media have also become increasingly significant in allowing for the rapid and wide-ranging transmission of narratives. Some important events, such as foundational myths, can even become ‘historical charters’ that account for a group's historical mission but can be negotiated and amended over time often by the elites (Liu and Hilton Reference Liu and Hilton2005). It is, thus, through these top-down studies that we can perceive, evaluate, and investigate how the choice of the past weighs on the members of the group.

Looking through the hourglass: bottom-up approaches

Bottom-up approaches start with the individual and tend to focus on the processes that influence the creation, distribution, and the evolution of collective memories, as well as on the consequences of such memories have for the person. They question how the small, the insignificant, the discrete manages the weight of the past but also, at their own level, influences it. Especially since the rise of social media, individuals have found new platforms to counter dominant memories broadcast by mainstream media and foster new perceptions of the past (Birkner and Donk Reference Birkner and Donk2020).

Political scientists and historians have observed and analysed these discrepancies between official interpretations and individuals’ perceptions of an event (Margry and Sanchez-Carretero Reference Margry and Sanchez-Carretero2011). In this regard, the plurality of representations of the Algerian War of Independence is an emblematic example. This war led to the definitive secession of an integral part of the French territory and the exodus of an estimated one million refugees of European descent alongside pro-French Muslims to the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. From 1954 to 1962, more than two million French soldiers served in Algeria. Approximately 20,000 of them died, while hundreds of thousands of Algerians were killed during the war (Pervillé Reference Pervillé, Harbi and Stora2004). These figures show the tragic impact of the war on individuals from both sides of the Mediterranean. However, in the French strategic narrative, this devastating conflict remained a war without a name for almost four decades (Gacon Reference Gacon and Nicolaïdis1994). In refusing categorically to recognise the fighting in Algerian as a war, the French government caused a gap to develop between the sanitised narrative that was emphasised officially and public awareness of the violence that characterised the conflict. This example reminds us that, even if institutional actors can attempt to modify narratives of the past to fit their own objectives, the dissemination of a sole, monolithic historical interpretation cannot simply be imposed from above. Citizens exposed to official discourses are not merely empty vessels waiting to imbibe state-sponsored narratives without hesitation. Rather, they co-construct the messages conveyed to them.

In order to bring these alternative narratives of the past to light, oral historians have focused on what Assmann and Czaplicka (Reference Assmann and Czaplicka1995) termed ‘communicative memory’, which are collective memories based on everyday communications. These memories are neither formal nor stable, and they evolve and exist within individuals and their idiosyncrasies. Collections of oral testimonies can provide fascinating insights into how topics are represented and discussed within the broader population, as well as the specific emotions associated with them. According to Descamps, oral history is a useful tool to deal with the tension between memory and history, as it provides ‘a vivid, psychologically and affectively sensitive memory’ of an event alongside clear and rationalised historical knowledge of that same event (Descamps Reference Descamps2019, 85). This approach is clearly inspired by the pioneering work of scholars such as Thompson (Reference Thompson1963) and his concept of ‘History from Below’ and Ginzburg (Reference Ginzburg, Bentley, Subrahmanyam and Wiesner-Hanks2015), who advocated for historians to reduce their scale of observation and to favour ‘individual appropriations’ and ‘microstoria’. And now that these stories can be easily shared through social media, historians increasingly refer to the digital sphere to include these new sources in their analyses (Clavert Reference Clavert2021).

Experiences of trauma and tragedy have been a particularly fertile ground for the research of both historians (Audoin-Rouzeau Reference Audoin-Rouzeau2013; Conan and Rousso Reference Conan and Rousso2013; Tison Reference Tison2011; van Ypersele Reference van Ypersele and Horne2010) and political scientists (Cobb Reference Cobb2013; Cobban Reference Cobban2007; Hayner Reference Hayner2001; Pouligny et al Reference Pouligny, Chesterman and Schnabel2007). In public debate, issues related to the legacies of war are often described in a binary way, i.e. remembrance versus oblivion. Nevertheless, one of the most fundamental interrogations common to this topic is not whether to remember or forget, but how to remember and forget in order to move forward. From this perspective, the critical question is not only ‘what happened?’, but also – and above all – ‘what shall we do with the past?’. The challenge is immense. Despite the rich literature devoted to the topic, there is no standard list of specific techniques and ingredients for processing problematic past events and correcting historical injustices. However, there is a list of constraints that inevitably limit the room for manoeuvre. The most challenging obstacle is the irreversible nature of the crimes that were committed in the past. From this vantage point, it is worth questioning the notion of ‘post-conflict’. This concept is widely used in handbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopaedias, yet the duration of so-called ‘post-conflict’ contexts remains uncertain. What are the basic criteria that determine when a conflict is over? How long do the notions of victim and perpetrator make sense? When does the victors/vanquished dichotomy lose its meaning? Until when are the labels ‘occupiers/occupied’ relevant? All these questions intersect with individual and collective levels of memory. Case studies indicate that the answers given to this series of interrogations determine, to some extent, individual perceptions (in terms of self-esteem – or lack of self-esteem – and otherness), as well as political positions (in terms of national interest).

Beyond these important questions, cognitive psychologists have focused their research on understanding the processes that explain how individuals can influence and construct collective memories. In order to do so, they have applied methodologies previously used to evaluate interpersonal communication (generally at the dyadic level) to bigger groups of people. They postulate that psychological processes which occur at the micro level can have repercussions all the way to the macro level. Four main processes are generally studied from a bottom-up perspective: how memories are reinforced (usually through repetition across time, e.g., Roediger et al Reference Roediger, Zaromb, Butler, Boyer and Wertsch2009); how they are shared across networks (Coman et al Reference Coman, Momennejad, Drach and Geana2016); how they are manipulated (consciously or not) by other people or contaminated by information from other sources (Maswood and Rajaram Reference Maswood and Rajaram2019); and how they are forgotten (Abel and Bäuml Reference Abel and Bäuml2015; Cuc et al Reference Cuc, Koppel and Hirst2007). For example, researchers have applied a well-known psychological method used to evaluate how particular silences in individual recall can promote forgetting (the method is called retrieval-induced forgetting) in socially shared contexts (Coman et al Reference Coman, Manier and Hirst2009). Stone et al (Reference Stone, Luminet, Jay, Klein, Licata and Hirst2020) even tested this theory in a real-life situation by examining how the omission of particular topics from the speeches of public figures (in this case, the Belgian king) can actively promote collective forgetting.

One field of research that has been well developed in psychology using a bottom-up approach is that of flashbulb memories. Flashbulb memories are detailed memories of the reception context where one learns about an important, surprising and consequential public event (Brown and Kulik Reference Brown and Kulik1977; Luminet and Curci Reference Luminet and Curci2018). One of the main reasons why we form these flashbulb memories is essentially to be part of the collective. They allow us to align our lives with that of other members of the group and share memories even though we were not present at the event (Hirst and Meksin Reference Hirst, Meksin, Luminet and Curci2018). Social identity thus influences the formation and the retention of these particular memories (Cordonnier and Luminet Reference Cordonnier and Luminet2021), which, when shared, foster bonding across members of the groups. However, flashbulb memories can also be modified by the collective and the media. One famous example is that of George W. Bush's memory of when he first learnt about the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Greenberg Reference Greenberg2004). On separate occasions, he described watching the footage of the first plane hitting the tower on television before walking into a classroom, yet this memory cannot be true as there was no such footage available at the time. A likely explanation is that he integrated the vivid and memorable images of the first plane crash, which were widely broadcast in the media in the days following the attack, into his own memory. This example shows how suggestible our memory can be, but also how the media can influence it (Schacter Reference Schacter2022).

Looking through the hourglass: families and generations

One strength of the hourglass metaphor is to suggest an additional – yet important – layer to the study of collective memory: families and generations. Although families were central to Halbwachs’ model of collective memory (Reference Halbwachs1994 [1925]) and the Assmanns’ notion of communicative memory (Assmann Reference Assmann, Goodin and Tilly2009, Reference Assmann, Meusburger, Heffernan and Wunder2011), they have received far less attention than groups such as nations. Yet, they are important hubs of information and representations. Notably, through the sharing of family memories, parents, and grandparents convey to their (grand)children important moral and social values that are essential for the formation and maintenance of a cohesive family identity (Green Reference Green2019; Merrill et al Reference Merrill, Booker and Fivush2019; Pratt and Fiese Reference Pratt and Fiese2004). These values can act as filters for family members, which may lead them to question, reinterpret or reject information they receive. However, this filtering capacity of families depends on the perceived importance of their role in establishing values. Thus, they will differ depending on the culture of the family (Wang et al Reference Wang, Song and Kim Koh2017) as well as on the evolution of the role of family through time (Radica Reference Radica2013).

The notion of ‘generation’ has been studied by several sociologists (Mannheim Reference Mannheim and Kecskemeti1952; Pichler Reference Pichler1994). These sociologists generally focused on the concept of ‘social generations’ (also called cohorts), which included groups people born around the same time on the premise that because of their common historical–biographical past, they would have a shared world view and a generational consciousness (Scherger as cited in Timonen and Conlon Reference Timonen and Conlon2015). Yet, the concept of ‘family generations’ has been the subject of far less scrutiny in the field of collective memory, except for the large body of literature focusing on the multigenerational transmission of memories of the Holocaust. According to Hirsch (Reference Hirsch2012) – to take only one example – the notion of ‘postmemory’ describes ‘the relationship that the “generation after” bears to the personal, collective, and cultural trauma of those who came before’ (Hirsch Reference Hirsch2012, p. 5). So far, however, work on postmemory has mainly focused on literary accounts of intergenerational transmission rather than systematic assessments of the processes and mechanisms underlying such transmission. In recent years, scholars have begun to look beyond the Holocaust as an area of study of intergenerational mnemonic transmission and undertake more systematic studies of other events that may be less emotionally charged. Some of this work has included personal events from times of conflict which are clearly historically relevant. For instance, Svob and Brown (Reference Svob and Brown2012) found that, in Croatia, transmission of memories between generations was more likely to occur if the events described took place during a war. In his study of ‘third’ generation Germans, Welzer (Reference Welzer2005) found that grandchildren knew personal events from their grandfather's Second World War experiences, but they often misremembered them. This handful of studies demonstrates the originality and considerable potential of multi-disciplinary approaches to the intergenerational transmission of memories, especially given the current dearth of literature in this particular field.

In psychology, research on intergenerational transmission has thus far been restricted principally to values and trauma (Albert and Ferring Reference Albert and Ferring2012; Nauck Reference Nauck2001), with a few exceptions. Robyn Fivush and her team have closely examined family reminiscing and how it influences the way autobiographical memories are transformed into narratives of the self (Fivush Reference Fivush2008). They argue that ‘children are born into storied worlds’ (Fivush and Merrill Reference Fivush and Merrill2016, 308) and that family stories, informed by cultural master narratives, influence the way children and adolescents come to construct their view of themselves and the world (Fivush and Merrill Reference Fivush and Merrill2016; Fivush et al Reference Fivush, Habermas, Waters and Zaman2011). Similar to our perspective, this approach is interscalar. They propose that family stories can be divided into three ecological systems: micro (co-constructed narratives of shared events), exo (communicative family narratives) and macro (master narratives and cultural history). These different systems constantly interact and influence the construction of autobiographical memories. Yet, few other researchers in cognitive sciences have included family narratives within their studies of memory.

Finally, a few recent psychological studies have examined the intergenerational transmission of historical memories (Cordonnier et al Reference Cordonnier, Bouchat, Hirst and Luminet2021; Stone et al Reference Stone, van der Haegen, Luminet and Hirst2014). They found that overall, the transmission of family historical memories of Second World War-related events was very limited and that, by the third generation, most family memories were lost or stripped back to the general gist without many specific details. Yet, even if detail-rich memories are not transmitted easily, feelings of victimisation can seep from one generation to the next (Bouchat et al Reference Bouchat, Licata, Rosoux, Allesch, Ammerer, Bovina, Bruckmüller, Cabecinhas, Chryssochoou, Cohrs, Csertő, Delouvée, Durante, Ernst-Vintila, Flassbeck, Hilton, Kesteloot, Kislioglu, Krenn, Macovei, Mari, Petrovic, Pólya, Sá, Sakki, Turjacanin, van Ypersele, Volpato, Bilewicz and Klein2017).