Introduction
We live in the era of the memory of the multitude (Hoskins Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018). New communication technologies now enable the creation of digital archives that host various stories and memories of past events. In this era, memory work, the active practice of remembering that constructs and shapes the past (Kuhn Reference Kuhn2010), changes, and so do the agents involved in its construction (Yasseri et al. Reference Yasseri, Gildersleve, David and O’Mara2022). Memory work in the era of the memory of the multitude is at the centre of this study, which focuses on a Facebook group titled ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’, whose members are primarily Jewish refugees who were encamped in Cyprus in the late 1940s and their descendants.
Following World War II and the Holocaust, many Jewish refugees wished to begin a new life in the British-controlled colony of Palestine, which Jews have historically referred to as the Land of Israel, and which in 1948 became the State of Israel. However, the monthly immigration quota set by the United Kingdom at 1,500 people could not satisfy the demand created by the need for tens of thousands of refugees to make a permanent home for themselves (Bogner Reference Bogner1993; Arrivé Reference Arrivé2019). The result was a sharp increase in unauthorised immigration activity, mainly by sea, which became organised and institutionalised over time. Many of those trying to enter were caught before completing their journey. Deportation of the refugees to Cyprus began in August 1946. In total, approximately 50,000 people were incarcerated in Cyprus until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 (Naor Reference Naor2007). Interestingly, this is a relatively obscure chapter in the Israeli collective memory. The ‘Cyprus exile’, the term used by the refugees themselves to describe the period spent in the detention camps, receives relatively little research attention and is also not central in the official memory arenas (education system, monuments, etc.) of contemporary Israel. Other aspects of this immigration, such as the turning back of refugee ships to Europe and even their sinking, have gained much more attention (mention should be made of the award-winning book Exodus, and the award-winning movie based on its plot, the former written by Leon Uris and the latter directed by Otto Preminger).
Driven by a desire to engage with the memory of the Cyprus exile, process memories, and fill gaps in their knowledge, the exiles and their descendants participate in a Facebook group dedicated to this chapter of history. Through their engagement, they contribute to the shaping of the narrative of the exile. This phenomenon forms the basis of the present research, which emerges from an inquiry into the nature of memory work facilitated by a multi-generational Facebook group. Unlike retrospective groups, this group’s members do not share a common location or period, as the second and third generations were not in the Cyprus camps. Instead, they share a difficult chapter in their or their family’s past that is both personal and collective.
Our research question is: How does the Facebook group ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’ enable, produce, and promote narratives of cultural memory of the Cyprus exile? By analysing the group’s content, we seek to understand how collective memory is constructed and narratives of a decades-old past are formed. We also examine what digital media, particularly Facebook groups, enable for individuals engaged in memory work, both through interactive tools and through community formation. Beyond that, we seek to explore how the combination of three generations contributes to the community members’ memory work. In doing so, we aim to understand how these interactions shape collective narratives of the past.
The study begins by outlining the theoretical framework of intergenerational collective and cultural memory, focusing on the intersection of memory, media, and technology, and on the sub-discipline of media memory, particularly digital memory work and the role of Facebook groups as mnemonic communities. Next, it provides relevant background on media, memory, diaspora, and migration. Following this, we introduce the ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’ Facebook group and describe the methodology employed to analyse the mnemonic activities facilitated by the group. We then explore the primary types of memory work identified within the Facebook group, concluding with a discussion on how Facebook groups enable continuous and wide-ranging memory work among a large, multi-generational community. Ultimately, this study reveals intergenerational digital memory work practices and processes, addressing a gap in the existing literature.
Intergenerational cultural memory
The term ‘collective memory’ was first coined by Hofmannsthal (Olick Reference Olick, Erll and Nünning2008; Assmann Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2008a). He claimed that the past resonates in the shared present of a group of people. It was further elaborated by Halbwachs (Reference Halbwachs and Coser[1925] 1992), considered among the founders of memory studies. Halbwachs claimed that individual and collective memories are tools social groups use to establish their centrality in individuals’ lives. As Halbwachs wrote, collective memory is organised around a specific time and place and is shared by a social group. Social groups create and outline images of the world by constantly shaping versions of the past (Neiger et al. Reference Neiger, Meyers, Zandberg, Neiger, Meyers and Zandberg2011). Both individual and collective memories are not identical to the event one experienced but are rather shaped by current perceptions, selecting parts of the past, omitting others, and organising the details associated with the events. This process is essential for groups because it defines and consolidates their identity, creating boundaries that identify them from other groups that share different memories or versions of the same events (Halbwachs Reference Halbwachs and Coser[1925] 1992).
This process is also addressed by Fischer (Reference Fischer2015), who states that memory does not appear by itself, but rather it is the product of processes and actions, as well as questioning and investigating the past as it is reshaped, a process that different generations tend to engage in. A related key concept is ‘cultural memory’, which focuses on specific aspects of the past and the need to pass the memory from generation to generation to preserve it, even when those who experienced the events are no longer alive (Assmann Reference Assmann2008b). Cultural memory is organised around texts relating to the past and is shared by group members who interpret and sometimes critique them (Assmann Reference Assmann2011). According to Assmann (Reference Assmann2008b), since a social group, unlike an individual, does not have a neurological component responsible for preserving memory, culture fills its place by making myths, rituals, and texts accessible. Social groups, or ‘mnemonic communities’ (Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel1996), form around a common theme while forgetting others, shaping their collective memory (Olick Reference Olick2007). Within this framework, collective and cultural memory provide the conceptual lens through which this study examines a mnemonic community and the practices of cultural memory within it.
It can be argued that Facebook groups, like other groups communicating shared or similar memories, act as mnemonic communities (Jones Reference Jones2012). Individuals belonging to a social group need to interact with one another to form their own perceptions (Couldry Reference Couldry2010). The same is true for individuals who are members of a digital group dedicated to exploring a shared past. Members of these groups shape their memories through discussions, information, stories, and perspectives that emerge within the group, a process known as ‘memory work’ (Kuhn Reference Kuhn2010). ‘Memory work’ is the active practice of remembering that constructs and shapes the past. Any interpretation of the past done by memory work is necessarily shaped by the medium in which it takes place and the texts involved (Kuhn Reference Kuhn2010). Memory work is of great value to communities, as discussing aspects of their past, some of which are painful, enables them to process and cope with these experiences and sometimes choose to forget some of them (Nandy Reference Nandy2015).
The literature pays much attention to the transition from the memories of first-generation members, who personally experienced past events, to those of subsequent generations, as memory work is passed across different generations (Assmann Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2010; Fischer Reference Fischer2015). The second generation possesses a ‘post-memory’ (Hirsch Reference Hirsch2012), based on passed-down memories and the descendants’ imagination. Members of the third generation, however, have ‘after-post-memory’, which connects past and current events, creating a renewed relevance of past events through a sense of commitment to future generations (Bayer Reference Bayer2010; Kook Reference Kook2021). This type of memory is also referred to as ‘post-witness memory’ (Kook Reference Kook2021) or ‘generational memory’, which is distinct from the events themselves and is mediated by memory agents (Assmann Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2008a).
Memory work can be done through various means, including art, tourism, museums, and the media (Nandy Reference Nandy2015; Rhodes Reference Rhodes2021). Alongside the memory work done within traditional media, such as newspapers, digital media platforms also play an essential role for users engaged in digital memory work. Digital technologies enable platforms such as Facebook pages to function as commemorative platforms for collecting, storing, and distributing mnemonic content (Van de Bildt Reference Van de Bildt, Bond, Craps and Vermeulen2016). There is a difference between memory work conducted in non-participatory media (such as newspaper articles) and memory created in collaborative platforms, where multiple voices respond to each other. The distinction between personal and collective memory is blurred in digital media, which becomes an arena for negotiation between different approaches and voices regarding the memory of the past (Neiger et al. Reference Neiger, Meyers and Ben-David2023). This negotiation is part of the process in which memory work is done, and narratives are constructed.
Memory, media, and technology
Contemporary digital culture is hybrid, blending online and offline, as well as real and virtual domains. This hybridity is spatial, seen in the use of social networks and digital platforms in social contexts, with spaces, activities, behaviours, and objects coexisting across digital and non-digital domains, which Merrill and Lindgren (Reference Merrill and Lindgren2021) term ‘more or less digital’. Hybridity is also temporal, shaped by accelerated time merging past, present, and future, and is agentic, distributed across human and non-human actors, including algorithms and AI (Merrill Reference Merrill, Hoskins and Wang2025). Memory practices manifest in multiple ways: human-to-human agency, such as creating memes or editing Wikipedia, human-to-robot agency, like search engines, and robot-to-robot agency, for example, when ChatGPT uses search engines (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2024).
Algorithms and AI tools enable efficient navigation of abundant digital content and provide quick access to information, but they also raise several concerns (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2023). They shape memory practices as they influence how we remember, reflect on, and reinterpret the past (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2023; Mandolessi Reference Mandolessi2023), affecting content visibility, user interaction, circulation, and public perceptions (Bucher Reference Bucher2018). Search engines and AI tools may struggle to distinguish authentic from staged material (Mandolessi Reference Mandolessi2023), and narratives generated by robots can serve as a basis for future repetitions, potentially resulting in the denial of past events or recurring biases (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2024). Other issues involve privacy concerns and homogeneous narratives that fail to represent diverse memories (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2024).
Building on users’ emotional engagement, digital platforms present user-generated content as suggested memories, such as ‘On This Day’, highlighting past activity. These digital prompts personalise recollection through algorithms that select which memories to highlight, based on patterns, interactions, and content type (Prey and Smit Reference Prey, Smit and Papacharissi2018; Jacobsen and Beer Reference Jacobsen and Beer2021b), thus reinforcing emotional connection to the platform. As a result, users become dependent on platforms for remembering (Smit Reference Smit, Hoskins and Wang2024; Hoskins Reference Hoskins, Hoskins and Wang2025), which weakens voluntary memory (Hoskins Reference Hoskins, Hoskins and Wang2025). By creating a new encounter of the user, the social network, and the past (Jacobsen and Beer Reference Jacobsen and Beer2021b), digital platforms shape not only what we remember but also how we remember it (Jacobsen and Beer Reference Jacobsen and Beer2021a).
Digital memory work and Facebook groups as mnemonic communities
Digital memory work is the mnemonic activity conducted by individuals or groups in the digital sphere, utilising digital communication technologies and platforms. People share old photos, stories, and memories to shape their sense of identity, with the past forming a key part of who they are (Annabell Reference Annabell2024). This content is preserved and can be revisited later, since digital media serve as a contemporary archive of the past (Pentzold et al. Reference Pentzold, Lohmeier and Birkner2024). In some cases, individuals engage in communal digital activities involving collective efforts by group members coming together around a shared identity shaped by a common past, including social media platforms (Smit et al. Reference Smit, Heinrich and Broersma2017). One kind of mnemonic-oriented online community is Facebook retrospective groups dedicated to memories of a particular place or time (MacDonald Reference MacDonald2015; Ekelund Reference Ekelund2024).
Memory work done within digital mnemonic communities has much to do with one of the current foci of research on memory and media: the democratisation of memory. Due to the connectivity of digital communication technologies, that is, their ability to enable interaction among people, users can express themselves by sharing memories (Assmann Reference Assmann, Bond, Craps and Vermeulen2016). Hoskins (Reference Hoskins2011a, Reference Hoskins2011b) refers to the ‘connective turn’ in memory studies, a shift in understanding memory, its functions, and its production through human connection and interaction in digital arenas. Hoskins (Reference Hoskins2011a) describes the moment of human connection via digital media as ‘the moment of memory’ (p. 272), the point at which memory is actively constructed. Digital media, as such, expand the range of mnemonic narratives that can be heard, providing room for many people to offer their own versions of the past, unlike ‘professional mediators’ such as journalists, and without having an ‘editor’ choosing among stories (Garde-Hansen et al. Reference Garde-Hansen, Hoskins, Reading, Garde-Hansen, Hoskins and Reading2009; Neiger Reference Neiger2020; Yasseri et al. Reference Yasseri, Gildersleve, David and O’Mara2022). In other words, memory work in the digital age is a result of changes in both content (i.e., narratives of the past that are now widely available) and agency (the identity of actors actively involved in memory work) (Yasseri et al. Reference Yasseri, Gildersleve, David and O’Mara2022). Hoskins (Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018) proposes a new perspective on memory, suggesting that the term ‘collective memory’ be replaced with ‘the memory of the multitude’. This shift is prompted by communication between individuals through networks and digital devices, creating diverse human archives of various stories and memories.
However, mnemonic groups often struggle to assign equal value to different stories and narratives (MacDonald Reference MacDonald2015). This multiplicity of voices, articulated by human memory agents, is challenged by non-human agents that act within digital platforms, such as the algorithms mentioned before. Facebook communities are managed by humans, including founders, administrators, and moderators, while also being influenced by content-promoting algorithms (Malinen Reference Malinen2021). Each community develops norms and values that algorithms cannot fully detect, yet AI decisions may sometimes disrupt these norms (Malinen Reference Malinen2021), drawing on Gillespie (2018) and Myers-West (2017, 2018). Administrators and moderators play a central role in shaping participation, guiding content sharing, and maintaining the community’s character (Gazit and Bronstein Reference Gazit and Bronstein2021; Eitan and Gazit Reference Eitan and Gazit2024). Taken together, these dynamics show that while certain features of digital media promote the democratisation of memory, others may foster contradictory, exclusionary processes.
These structural and algorithmic dynamics shape how members experience and engage with the community. Images that evoke emotional connections receive more attention, and general or undetailed posts allow many members to relate and contribute (Ekelund Reference Ekelund2022), which in turn gives them greater visibility in the algorithm. Ekelund (Reference Ekelund2022), drawing on Boler and Davis (2018) and Grainge (2000), who discuss the concept of ‘nostalgic mood’, builds on this idea to describe ‘emotional feedback loops’, where reading many people’s memories of the same place, object, or experience fosters belonging and togetherness. The fragmentary and general nature of these memories further enhances these loops.
Individuals engage in cultural memory practices as a way to foster community and achieve ‘existential security’, encompassing meaning, connection, belonging, and fellowship both offline and in digital spaces (Lagerkvist Reference Lagerkvist2014). Facebook groups and their interactions often reflect offline dynamics (Herdağdelen et al. Reference Herdağdelen, Adamic and State2023). Offline relations can appear in digital activity, and participation in mnemonic groups can influence offline memory practices (Ekelund Reference Ekelund2024). Drawing on Hoskins’s ‘greying of memory’ (2017, 2021), Ekelund shows how members use libraries, archives, and museums to upload and share materials, as the platform’s logic encourages constant participation. Yet, the platform also enables interactions distinct from offline dynamics, and the digital sphere is not merely an extension of offline relationships, but a space where new forms of community engagement emerge.
Media memory, diaspora, and migration
The digital community at the centre of this paper is a Facebook group called ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’, which comprises members from three generations: Jewish refugees exiled to Cyprus after World War II and two generations of their descendants. These refugees, primarily from Europe but not exclusively, attempted to reach what was then the British colony of Palestine, were captured, and sent to displaced persons camps in Cyprus for periods ranging from a few months to approximately 2 years. The group members engage in diverse memory work concerning the immigration of the Jewish diaspora, their capture, and life in the DP camps, as this shared past is a key component of their collective identity.
Indeed, memory plays an essential role in shaping individual and social identities regarding migration and diaspora (Creet Reference Creet, Creet and Kitzmann2011). The definition of ‘diaspora’ evolves in response to political, social, cultural, geographical, and ecological processes. As a concept, diaspora is not limited to a single category. It encompasses various groups, including immigrants, expellees, political refugees, alien residents, guest workers, ethnic and racial minorities, and overseas communities. What unites these diverse groups is their status as ‘displaced persons who feel, maintain, invent, or revive a connection with a prior home’ (Shuval Reference Shuval2002, p. 41). The nature of these ties to ‘home’ varies across diasporic migrations. For the Jewish diaspora, ‘home’ has a dual meaning: it refers both to the country of origin and to the community’s collective historical, spiritual, and cultural homeland, the Land of Israel. Diasporic migration is often driven by a perceived natural right of return to this homeland (Shuval Reference Shuval2002). However, as illustrated by the unauthorised immigration of Jewish refugees to the Land of Israel between 1945 and 1948, migration was not solely motivated by this ideological claim but also by the urgent need to find refuge after surviving persecution and genocide in their countries of origin.
There is a connection between cultural studies, diaspora and migration studies, and memory studies. This is evident, for instance, in Tran’s (Reference Tran2024) work on Vietnamese memory politics, which highlights the multiplicity of memories, including diasporic and exilic memories. In this paper, however, we aim to emphasise the connection between diasporic migration, memory studies, and participatory digital media. Migration studies recognise the various roles of digital platforms and social media in migrants’ lives. As Cruze-Piñeiro et al. (Reference Cruze-Piñeiro, Hernández-Hernández and Ibarra2024) note, migrants use social media to negotiate their identities and construct a sense of belonging, maintaining connections to their country of origin through ‘virtual diasporas’. Social media have ‘transformed from mere communication channels into vital resources that support, guide, and sometimes even save the lives of migrants in transit’ (p. 7). The relationship between diaspora and media has also been explored within media studies, with research focusing on the creation and production of diasporic media content in newspapers, television, and websites; patterns of diasporic media consumption; and diasporic activism facilitated by new media platforms (Smets Reference Smets, Retis and Tsagarousianou2019).
Digital media enable diasporic communities to bridge geographical distances and maintain communication (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Parish, Winfield and Lecrivain2022). Additionally, digital platforms play an important role in individuals’ lives as they navigate their complex identities, shaped by their country of origin, their new home, and their belonging to the diasporic community (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Parish, Winfield and Lecrivain2022), drawing on Safran (1991). Clarke et al. explore the relationship between the digital sphere and memory practices. Their study identifies key practices, including information sharing, interactions related to tracing family histories, and digitisation of photographs and documents. They also highlight the importance of interactivity in digital memory platforms. While some platforms, like Facebook groups, facilitate communication among individuals with a shared past, others, such as online archives or digital databases, may serve purposes related to personal or family history searches but not address the emotional or social needs tied to a sense of community belonging. This connects to the idea that a virtual interactive environment can create a sense of place where individuals can engage with one another (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Parish, Winfield and Lecrivain2022).
Rodriguez-Castro (Reference Rodriguez-Castro2023) argues that how individuals narrate difficult pasts, such as forced migration, is closely tied to their motivations for remembering and forgetting. Moreover, she emphasises that everyone has the right to choose what to speak about and what to keep forgotten. However, we should acknowledge that the second and third generations of refugees come to know their family’s past through how it is narrated by family members, other people, and institutions, alongside specific values, beliefs, and emotional baggage (Ray Reference Ray2023). Although not experiencing the trauma themselves, the third generation, as Ray (Reference Ray2023) says, grew up hearing about it (some more than others), having this as part of their identities, and inheriting traumatic post-memory. One of the key arenas where these narratives unfold is the digital sphere. Neiger and Neiger-Fleischmann (Reference Neiger, Neiger-Fleischmann, Baumel-Schwartz and Shrira2024) highlight that online groups, including Facebook groups, offer spaces where inherited traumas are processed collectively through shared experiences and discussions of identity and belonging. This dynamic of trauma-related memory shaping is evident in the case of the Cyprus exile, where narratives of displacement continue to shape identity and belonging across generations.
The Cyprus exile: Historical background
In 1917, the British army occupied the territories east and west of the Jordan River, and in 1920, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over the area. By 1922, Britain withdrew from the East Bank, forming the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, while its rule over the western side continued until Israel’s establishment in 1948. British officials faced the challenge of governing a contested region inhabited by both Jews and Arabs (Auerbach Reference Auerbach2021), while also advancing imperial interests (Mathew Reference Mathew2013). The administration struggled to balance Jewish aspirations for a national homeland, reinforced by the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Auerbach Reference Auerbach2021), while facing growing Arab opposition to Jewish immigration. Britain’s interest in limiting tensions culminated in the 1939 White Paper, which restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases (Cohen Reference Cohen1973). However, after World War II and the Holocaust, the number of Jewish refugees surged. Britain’s monthly immigration quota of 1,500 was insufficient for the tens of thousands seeking entry (Arrivé Reference Arrivé2019), prompting a dramatic rise in unauthorised, largely sea-based immigration.
While the earliest ships in this effort landed successfully, later ones were intercepted by British forces. Immigrants were initially detained at Atlit, near Haifa, and gradually released under the quota system. On 12 August 1946, Britain began deporting immigrants to Cyprus due to overcrowding at Atlit, fears of violence, and diplomatic concerns regarding Arab reactions (Naor Reference Naor2007). Between 1946 and April 1948, about 50,000 people, nearly half of all unauthorised immigrants, were deported. Conditions in the Cyprus camps were harsh: overcrowding, poor hygiene, food shortages, and isolation were common (Naor Reference Naor2007). Around 2,200 children were born there. On 15 May 1948, Britain completed its withdrawal from the Mandate territory following UN Resolution 181, which called for the establishment of both Jewish and Arab states. Despite expectations of immediate release, Britain refused to shut the Cyprus camps, fearing that doing so would disrupt the demographic balance in the region (Naor Reference Naor2007). Only on 11 February 1949, 9 months after the State of Israel was established, were the last detainees released from the Cyprus camps (Arrivé Reference Arrivé2019).
The Cyprus exile in academic research, local cultural memory, and the media
The Cyprus exile has attracted relatively little attention in academic literature, memory arenas such as museums and textbooks, and the Israeli media. Other aspects of the Ha’apalah (the Hebrew name for the unauthorised immigration movement), such as the struggle between the refugees and the British soldiers on the captured ships and the success of some of the ships in reaching the shore safely, received much more extensive attention (Bogner Reference Bogner1994). ‘The case of the Cyprus deportation’, states Bogner, one of the historians most associated with this immigration, ‘was omitted as if it were by an invisible hand… In what was published, a clear priority was given to the heroic episodes at sea, and there were such’ (p. 395). As Bogner noted, national memory tended to emphasise heroism, courage, and resourcefulness. Although these qualities also apply to the Cyprus exiles, their encampment, echoing the Holocaust experiences of recent years, undermined national morale and conflicted with the overarching narrative of national revival. This study demonstrates how online memory communities, and the analysis presented here, can contribute to our understanding of collective memory processes in cases where no widely recognised narrative exists.
Most research published on the Cyprus camps has been conducted from a historical perspective. One of the main issues that preoccupies the historians who have studied life in the Cyprus camps is the social and political structure of the migrant population in the camps. Cyprus exiles arrived in organised frameworks of movements or parties, and friction arose on political and ideological grounds (Artzi Reference Artzi1984). Another central issue is the refugees’ self-management and establishing institutions essential for life in the camps. Sha’ari (Reference Sha’ari1997) and Artzi (Reference Artzi1984) claim that thanks to the relative freedom given to the exiles by the British in many aspects concerning the organisation of their lives in the camps, there was orderly and organised self-management: councils, assemblies, committees, division of duties, and work arrangement (Artzi Reference Artzi1984). To some extent, these organisations bridged gaps and disputes between various social and political groups.
Among the relatively recent historical studies of the Cyprus exile, of which there are still only a handful, it is worth mentioning Bar-Eli Bitton’s (Reference Bar-Eli Bitton2021) study on the exiles from North Africa. Bar-Eli Bitton devotes an extensive reference to the stories of the immigrants from the Maghreb, whom he claims were excluded from Zionist-Israeli history. However, no early or late studies have dealt with the intergenerational memory work of these events, focusing on memory work done by the exiles and their descendants. Furthermore, no previous studies discuss the media’s role in the processes that are part of this memory work. This study aims to fill this gap.
Methodology
The study analyses a Facebook group named ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’ (translated from Hebrew; in Hebrew: ‘Irgun Ma’apiley Kafrisin’), which is dedicated to the story of the Cyprus exile. Members of the group include the refugees themselves and primarily their descendants, meaning children and grandchildren. This digital mnemonic community serves as a platform for collaborative memory work. We ask what types of memory work are taking place within the group that enable, produce, and promote the construction of the Cyprus exile’s cultural memory. The group, founded in 2017, is public and managed by an administrator who, like most members, has a personal connection to the topic of the Cyprus exile. To answer this research question, we conducted a content analysis of all 687 posts and their comments published in 2022, a complete year, as the study was conducted in 2023. A post informed members about the study, and analysis was conducted with the administrator’s permission. To protect contributors’ privacy, no names or identifying details are used in this article. On 1 January 2022, the group had 2,847 members, increasing to 3,212 by 31 December 2022. Key rules require relevance to the topic and refraining from political opinions, which the posts adhered to, likely due to member compliance and the administrator’s oversight.
The posts and comments focus on the events surrounding the incarceration in Cyprus, including written texts, photographs, documents, video clips, audio files, and links to external online resources. We used thematic analysis to identify, analyse, report, interpret, and discuss content themes related to memory work within the Facebook group (Braun and Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). Thematic analysis is suitable for examining the perspectives expressed by participants in a large data set of posts and comments, highlighting similarities and differences, pointing to key features, and reaching unanticipated insights (Nowell et al. Reference Nowell, Norris, White and Moules2017). This research aims to identify, uncover, and highlight the types of memory work conducted within the Facebook group. The three themes explored in this paper: shaping a coherent narrative, discussing and engaging in commemoration practices, and placing individuals in the collective narratives, are all directly related to memory work. The content in the group is primarily written in Hebrew, and its members are predominantly believed to be Israeli. All citations and examples in this paper have been translated from Hebrew.
Findings
We found that three distinct memory work activities describe the mnemonic effort of the group members. The first activity involved attempts to shape coherent narratives of the Cyprus exile and tell its story in various ways. The second activity was members’ engagement in commemoration practices and their discussions on the proper ways to do so. The third activity was the members’ efforts to strengthen their personal connection to the social group and the stories it tells by posting photographs, art, and documents that position them at the heart of the story. The Facebook group we analysed is a space where memory work is carried out. However, by observing this group, we can also learn about the memory work done outside this digital platform, as members share information about ceremonies, conferences, and other events and discuss them.
Activity 1: Shaping a narrative out of multiple fragments
The Cyprus exile is generally not considered one of the central narratives of Israeli collective memory. This does not mean that it is absent from public discourse. It appears, for example, in educational or museum-related contexts, occasionally in the press, and in some non-academic literature, yet no clear, widely shared, and consistent narrative has been established. Within the Facebook community, a variety of narratives can be observed, reflecting multiple ways in which members recall and interpret the Cyprus exile. Rather than mirroring or challenging a dominant discourse, the community generates a plurality of narratives that illuminate how members remember, interpret, and engage with this past.
As part of such memory work, group members phrase and structure their content to frame these events. They do not capture the entire story of the immigrants, but they highlight a particular perspective on it. The telling of various stories, the sharing of different memories of similar events, and the highlighting of diverse representations and reflections on the shared past offer a multitude of perspectives, which may change the way group members perceive the narrative of the Cyprus exile. Some members described the daily routine in the camps in a way that emphasises the bad conditions: ‘The irregular opening and closing times of the water often forced us to wheel full barrels from distant camps’. At the same time, other members shared photos and stories of weddings and holiday celebrations, showing that some aspects of life in the camps were not so terrible. For example, a group member posted a photo from a Jewish holiday celebration: ‘We made a basket out of grass and marked a path on the ground using white milk powder, of which we had a lot’.
A detailed story is not always necessary to convey aspects of the Cyprus exile and life in the camps. Short statements and expressions of feelings can also tell a story and shape a narrative. For instance, one post about a member’s grandparents’ wedding notes: ‘My grandmother told me that the flowers were made out of toilet paper and that friends gathered food for a week for the party’, illustrating the resourcefulness and active involvement required in camp life.
This process of assembling a narrative from fragments is not limited to collective understandings of the Cyprus exile but also operates at the personal and familial level. One manifestation of this process is the search for family-related information. Group members seek to use the ‘power of the group’ to construct not only the collective narrative of the Cyprus exile but also their personal and familial stories. They seek help from other members to solve family mysteries and uncover information about the family’s past, often by relying on fragments of information held by other members of the community. For example, a group member asked: ‘This is a photo of my parents. Their names are… They were in Camp 64. Does anyone know them and can tell me about their lives there?’ In response to such inquiries, members share information that may help others construct their personal memories and assemble missing parts of their family stories. For example, a group member shared a list of people who were together with his parents on a ship and invited fellow members to explore the list, saying, ‘Perhaps you’ll find the names of your relatives’. Some members learn new details about their family through others’ sharing. One second-generation member posted: ‘I just learnt a new fact about my father: not only was he guiding Holocaust youth survivors, he was also part of the camp administration’.
Through these practices, group members work together to assemble personal and familial narratives from dispersed fragments of information and memories. The Facebook group enables this type of collaborative process and fosters cooperation among its members, which depends on a large, relevant, and engaged audience. Through contemporary technology, members can share photos, documents, videos, and links while searching for familial information and filling in gaps in their stories. In addition, the Facebook group’s archival feature (Hoskins Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018; Mandolessi Reference Mandolessi2023) enables members to locate information, photos, documents, and narratives relevant to their personal or family histories, allowing them to reconstruct a fuller picture from fragments. Memory work is not carried out by the first generation alone, as members of all three generations contribute by sharing personal or family stories, information, photos, and documents to this ‘archive’. As Ray (Reference Ray2023) notes, second- and third-generation refugees learn about their family’s past through both family stories and other sources. In this context, the Facebook group functions as one such source, enabling fragments of memory to circulate beyond individual families and be integrated into both personal and collective narratives.
It can be seen that members acknowledge the differences between narratives, both collective and familial, and suggest a more holistic perception of life in the camps, one that is not limited to a single aspect. For example, a group member wrote: ‘My parents spent a year and a half in the camp and were among the last to be released. There were very bad conditions. Still, they tried to turn the bitter into sweet as much as possible’. This post was followed by photos showing a well-dressed couple and a group of friends bathing in the sea. Some members acknowledge that their perceptions of the same past events may differ: ‘I was a child when we stayed in the camp, and I do not remember it as a difficult time. I think that to older people, the camp’s fences reminded them of other fences in other camps’. One of the members wrote: ‘It is moving to tears to see the photos from the camps and know that there was joy in life, even though they went through hell’. Indeed, the multiplicity of perceptions and narratives is evident in the unique memory work taking place in this group, making the narrative more complex and diverse, as it combines a range of aspects.
In an attempt to shape narratives of the Cyprus exile, group members expressed their thoughts and feelings about the centrality of different aspects in these narratives, aiming to shift aspects from the margins to the centre. This can be seen, for example, in a discussion regarding immigrants who were not European Jews but Jews originating from African or Asian countries. ‘The story of the ‘Mizrahi’ Jews must be told as well, as part of this migrant story’, commented a group member on a post announcing a new website dedicated to Jewish immigrants from North Africa and Libya. Some agreed, stating: ‘The European Jews tell the narrative since they were dominant in the Zionist movement’, whereas others disagreed, arguing: ‘Their story is told in the right proportion, in my view, since the immigration of ‘Mizrahi’ Jews was quite in the margins of this big immigration operation’. It is important to note that, while certainly relevant to the broader context of unauthorised immigration, the immigration of Mizrahi Jews and the construction of their narrative were not raised as a main theme in the Facebook group during 2022. A similar tension emerges in discussions surrounding other aspects of the past, such as the prominence of the Exodus ship. One member noted: ‘It is 75 years since Exodus now, and although it gets lots of attention, the bigger story of the immigration is hardly mentioned. I suggest we focus on other aspects this year’. Another member disagreed, stating: ‘Exodus symbolises this immigration operation. Every major operation has its symbol, and it does not detract from the significance of immigration as part of the broader story’, followed by a third who supported the original position: ‘Some of the stories of the other ships are forgotten, with all due respect to Exodus’.
The discussion about narratives of the Cyprus exile, including different positions regarding what should be at the centre of attention, proposals to include certain aspects within the narrative, and reactions to these proposals, forms part of the memory work done within this group, focused on shaping narratives of past events. Based on the multiplicity of stories and means of telling them in the group, this memory work enriches the memory of the Cyprus camps experience. While there are attempts to create coherent narratives, most posts in the group remain fragmented, comprising memories, stories, questions, and bits of information, which together form a collection of diverse voices and perspectives (Mandolessi Reference Mandolessi2023). These efforts do not lead to a single, unified narrative but rather form an ongoing collection of fragments, perspectives, and partial stories. This is how Hoskins’ (Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018) concept of ‘the memory of the multitude’ is illustrated in a mnemonic community. While each member may aspire to capture and narrate the story of the Cyprus exile, the narrative that emerges remains open and fragmented.
Activity 2: Discussing and engaging in practices of commemoration
A second type of memory work activity that took place in this mnemonic community focused on acts of commemoration. Group members took on the responsibility of commemorating the Cyprus exile, initiating commemoration practices, and sharing their opinions on existing formal and institutional commemoration. The aspects and examples described below illustrate characteristics attributed to third-generation members, such as future orientation and a sense of responsibility and obligation to transmit memory to subsequent generations (Bayer Reference Bayer2010; Hirsch Reference Hirsch2012; Kook Reference Kook2021), which are also expressed in this group by some second-generation members (Bayer Reference Bayer2010; Hirsch Reference Hirsch2012; Kook Reference Kook2021). One of the members, for example, claimed that ‘the Cyprus exile should be part of the teaching programme in schools’. Another member invited his fellow group members to participate in a new monument-building initiative: ‘We are asking for your help to support the construction of a monument for immigrants in the city of Haifa’. These examples highlight that group members feel that more could be done by the authorities to maintain the memory of their families’ stories and that they are willing to mobilise other group members to achieve this goal.
Tangible aspects of memorialisation, such as collecting objects from the camps and taking tours of the remains of the camps, are also discussed as means of commemoration in the Facebook group. According to group members, exile-related objects are significant to the community of the Cyprus exiles. Objects, documents, and photographs may carry different meanings and be perceived differently across generations. For first-generation members, they may serve as mementos of a period in life, supporting personal stories and memories and symbolising resilience. For second- and third-generation members, these items may serve as mementos of the first-generation members, carrying emotional significance and symbolising the first generation’s endurance and coping. They may also help complete the puzzle of the past, allowing later generations, through the tangibility of these objects, to feel part of the family story and connect to both the community and its history. The passage of time since the events themselves requires, for second- and third-generation members and sometimes for first-generation members who were children during the Cyprus exile, a mediation of the events, and these tangible aspects of memorialisation serve as such mediators (Assmann Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2008a, Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2010).
‘It is a shame that people who have meaningful objects from the Cyprus camps sell them instead of having them kept in a proper place’, a member expressed her disappointment after finding out that an embossed metal pin and a stone plaque that had been created in the camps, engraved with texts and symbols, were auctioned instead of being kept in a museum. Members also share their reflections on their tours to the remains of the camps, followed by expressions of excitement, but sometimes also of disappointment, that ‘there is almost nothing left from the camps, not much to see’. One of the members said: ‘It’s as if they wanted history to be erased’. This sentiment reflects a broader concern shared by group members. Some second-generation members expressed a moral obligation to commemorate the stories of the Cyprus exiles and pass the memory from one generation to another. For example, one member stated: ‘We must commemorate the legacy of our immigrant parents and our siblings who were born in the Cyprus camps, and be worthy of walking the path that they laid out for us’. It can be seen that members of this group, at least some of them, are deeply emotionally invested in commemorating the Cyprus exile and feel strongly about the do’s and don’ts of what they believe constitutes proper commemoration.
Such involvement of group members can also be seen in personal initiatives of commemorative activities that members took part in and shared with others in the group. Often, they invite fellow members to initiatives: ‘There is an ‘open house’ initiative in my town, and I invite visitors to see my art, dealing with the Holocaust and the Cyprus camps’, posted a member, thereby highlighting one kind of commemoration through art and exhibition. Others lecture about the Cyprus exile in schools and community centres: ‘My grandkids asked me to come to their school and tell their classes about my journey to Israel’, another member posted.
Members who initiate commemorative acts tend to describe this as a fulfilling, significant activity: ‘The level of interest among children and youth was high […] this highlights the need to reach the younger generation and guide the transmission of heritage to them’, posted a group member who lectured on the topic to an audience of mixed ages. These acts are met with great sympathy and appreciation by group members from all three generations, such as: ‘This is a great initiative’; ‘Thank you for sharing this story’. The Facebook group platform enables its members to discuss commemoration activities, share photos and videos of their initiatives, and reach a relevant audience when needed to engage people in a related goal and cause. These commemorative actions highlight the way two types of acts are carried out side by side for remembrance: one is the call for commemoration at the institutional, municipal, or state level, and support for such initiatives, while the other is active participation in more localised acts of commemoration on a personal level.
The engagement of group members in both online and offline commemoration of the Cyprus exile can contribute to the ongoing discussion of the shift outlined by Hogervorst (Reference Hogervorst2020) from ‘the era of the witness’, as coined by Wieviorka (Reference Wieviorka2006), to ‘the era of the user’. Hogervorst argues that digital testimony portals place the user, rather than the witness, at the heart of commemoration practices. In these digital arenas, the presence of an audience is recognised, with each user choosing which testimonies to engage with. Users are then responsible for processing these testimonies, selecting which aspects to integrate into the narratives they construct for themselves and others, which they later pass on. We suggest that this shift may be evolving from the era of the user to the era of the users (plural). The essence of a multi-generational, broad digital memory community lies in the human network it encompasses, the communication within it, and the participatory nature that the platform fosters and cultivates. In addition, this type of memory work reflects spatial hybridity, appearing in online discussions of offline commemoration such as volunteer lectures, monuments, and proposals for new initiatives engaging group members. The online and offline spaces merge, shaping commemoration and its discourse across both spaces (Merrill and Lindgren Reference Merrill and Lindgren2021; Herdağdelen et al. Reference Herdağdelen, Adamic and State2023; Ekelund Reference Ekelund2024; Merrill Reference Merrill, Hoskins and Wang2025).
Activity 3: Placing individuals in the collective narratives
A third type of memory work is evident when group members strive to position themselves within the grand narrative and become an integral part of it. This kind of memory work takes place, for example, as members share photos of themselves on a tour taken in Cyprus, standing near a monument. Sharing the story of being near the place where it all happened and taking their pictures there connects them with past events and places them within the story. A second-generation member, for example, posted: ‘I was excited to walk there and stand on the beach where my mother bathed as a young bride’ (following the Jewish tradition of the mikveh, a ritual bath before the wedding). Other members share photos of objects their parents or grandparents created in the camps. For example, one of the members wrote: ‘As you can see in the photo, my father created candle holders while he was in the camp and also built a model of the camp’. Another member posted: ‘You can see in the photo that my family made bags out of blankets in the camp’. It appears that group members utilise physical, tangible objects they have access to in order to accompany their personal stories and thus affirm that they are part of the collective narrative the group aims to tell.
Some members share their art, including paintings and poems inspired by their experiences of exile. One member wrote, ‘I was in the camp as a baby, and later drew this camp painting from my imagination, based on the stories I heard’. Another posted: ‘There is a Mezuzah that I made in a museum in Larnaca’ (The text is accompanied by a photo of a wooden Mezuzah designed to be shaped like Israel’s contours on the map, with a watch tower carved on it, as well as a barbed wire fence and the word: ‘Habayta’, which means ‘going home’). When they share their art, they symbolise their interpretation of past events and envision their unique role in the ‘bigger picture’. These artifacts are not only meaningful souvenirs (if made by the first generation) or products of expression and interpretation, but also important means of remembrance and transmission of memories from one generation to another (Assmann Reference Assmann, Erll and Nünning2010), thereby adding a physical aspect to stories.
Group members also share documents of emotional and symbolic value to establish their affinity to the group’s narrative and shared history. Documents such as birth certificates, if born in the camps, or a certificate named ‘Ot Ha’ma’apil’, which declares them or their parents as belonging to this specific and unique immigration operation, hold symbolic capital. Some members share the process of obtaining such certificates, along with photos of these certificates, or ask for communal advice on how to acquire them from the relevant authorities. Others share their sentiments regarding these documents with the group: ‘Five years after my father, whose legacy is always in my heart every day, passed away, I received an “Ot Ha’ma’apil” certificate for him… It is a very exciting day for me’. The members’ personal connection to past events is emphasised and reassured not only by the heritage trips to the camps’ remains, the photos taken there, the ownership of related objects, the documents they obtained, or the creation of exile-related art, but also by sharing all this with their fellow group members. By doing so, they establish and strengthen their connection to the social group of the Cyprus exiles and subsequent generations, as well as to this component of their identity.
Discussion
Our study reveals that members are simultaneously engaged in three types of memory work within the ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’ group: shaping a narrative out of multiple fragments, discussing and engaging in practices of commemoration, and placing individuals in collective narratives. However, these mnemonic activities are much more than expressions of memory work. The group provides its members with the ‘existential security’ that Lagerkvist (Reference Lagerkvist2014) describes, meaning a deeper sense of meaning, purpose, and continuity in life. Participating in the collective completion of individual stories appears meaningful to group participants, and this participation enhances their sense of identity, belonging, community, and shared fate.
These three types of memory work are evident in the group and are enabled by the fact that a Facebook group can accommodate many individuals while being organised around a specific, well-defined topic. This combination supports both a broad participant base and thematic focus. The large number of members diversifies perspectives, while the shared focus on past events attracts individuals for whom the subject is meaningful and who may contribute to collaborative memory work. As Kuhn (Reference Kuhn2010) argues, any interpretation of the past through memory work is shaped by the medium in which it takes place, and in this case, a continuous and diverse memory work maintained by thousands of people from different generations who share a personal or familial past cannot operate on such a scale outside the digital sphere, or even outside a Facebook group. Another key feature of Facebook groups that facilitates memory work is the ability to upload written text, images, documents, videos, and links, which shape collective memory work and allow members to draw on a wide variety of tools and sources while engaging in ongoing interaction. Together, these platform features and members’ practices create a digital mnemonic community, within which processes of memory democratisation emerge through enabling members to tell their own stories rather than rely solely on professional storytellers such as journalists or historians (Garde-Hansen et al. Reference Garde-Hansen, Hoskins, Reading, Garde-Hansen, Hoskins and Reading2009). At the same time, these characteristics prevent the formation of a single, coherent narrative and instead demonstrate what Hoskins (Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018) describes as the ‘memory of the multitude’, in which remembering is shaped by the multiplicity of voices, stories, and fragments.
Beyond these platform-related characteristics, Facebook groups also bring together people from different generations and ages, whose life experiences and the social and political changes of their times add diverse interpretations and contexts to the shared past. Unlike conferences and ceremonies, which may bring together multiple generations in limited numbers and for a small number of selected events, Facebook group activities are continuous and sustained over time. Thus, although the group is organised around a specific topic and its members share a personal or familial connection to that past, the structure of the group and the ways in which members participate in it encourage multiple ways of narrating the past, rather than a single coherent narrative (Hoskins Reference Hoskins and Hoskins2018). The group thus provides members with a place to share feelings and thoughts regarding a difficult past and to discuss issues related to identity and belonging, in line with the findings of Neiger and Neiger-Fleischmann (Reference Neiger, Neiger-Fleischmann, Baumel-Schwartz and Shrira2024).
This is not to suggest that the Facebook group constitutes a fully democratic space. Participation and visibility within the group are shaped by several structural constraints, including the role of administrators as gatekeepers, informal norms that guide interaction, and algorithmic processes that may affect the circulation and prominence of certain posts (Bucher Reference Bucher2018; Malinen Reference Malinen2021). These dynamics mean that not all voices are equally visible at all times, and that memory work unfolds within certain boundaries rather than in an entirely open space.
Beyond these internal constraints, memory work within the group, engagement with its content, and interactions among members are also dependent on the platform’s continued existence and activity (Smit Reference Smit, Hoskins and Wang2024; Hoskins Reference Hoskins, Hoskins and Wang2025). As argued by Jacobsen and Beer (Reference Jacobsen and Beer2021a, Reference Jacobsen and Beer2021b), this dependence becomes evident in the way remembering emerges through an ongoing encounter between users, the platform, and the past, in which the platform shapes not only what is remembered but also how remembering unfolds. Although digital media may function as a contemporary archive of the past, this archival function does not guarantee permanence or continued accessibility (Makhortykh Reference Makhortykh2023; Pentzold et al. Reference Pentzold, Lohmeier and Birkner2024). The analysed Facebook group, its content, and interactions belong to Meta, not to the administrators or members. Meta may at any time deactivate or remove the group and its content, thereby underscoring the group’s ephemeral nature and reinforcing its dependence on the platform.
Meta hosts and controls these activities and holds ownership, yet the memories, stories, experiences, documents, images, and memory work within the group are generated by its members. Rather than marking a clear distinction between ownership and agency, this case demonstrates how memory work unfolds through their entanglement. Members’ ability to tell stories, upload content, and interact with one another depends on how the platform shapes what they see and how content remains available over time. In this sense, memory work here is neither purely human nor merely dependent on the platform, but takes shape through the close connection between what members do and the way the platform operates. This highlights how remembering in social media takes place in a space where agency and ownership are not clearly separable. The group enables the circulation of multiple narratives, allowing members to contribute their own perspectives on the past without relying on professional editors (Garde-Hansen et al. Reference Garde-Hansen, Hoskins, Reading, Garde-Hansen, Hoskins and Reading2009; Neiger Reference Neiger2020; Yasseri et al. Reference Yasseri, Gildersleve, David and O’Mara2022). The group’s role in shaping memory lies not only in the information available but also in the ongoing interactions among members, through which memory work continues over time.
This study advances digital memory studies by showing how memory work unfolds within a social media group as a continuous, multi-generational process that would be difficult to sustain outside such an environment. The findings show that collective remembering in this context is shaped not only by the content shared by members but by the ongoing interactions through which fragmented personal stories gradually become part of broader narratives. The case also shows how this relationship between members’ actions and the platform shapes the very conditions under which remembering becomes possible. Together, these insights highlight social media not only as a place where memory is expressed, but as a setting in which memory is formed.
Several limitations of the study should be noted. We acknowledge that analysing this Facebook group throughout its first year of establishment could have provided additional insights. However, this was not possible. Furthermore, this study focuses solely on content, whereas a digital mnemonic community is more than its content, and there is much to discover by analysing group dynamics. In addition, our ability to determine the generational affiliation of each post or comment’s author is limited, as it depends on whether the authors choose to indicate this in their writing or whether their generational identity is implicitly conveyed within the text. Consequently, it was not possible to conduct an analysis of the group’s content based on generational affiliation to identify generational similarities and differences in memory work. At the same time, this study can, and indeed does, reveal the overall picture resulting from the composition of the group across generations. Future studies may also closely examine the memory work conducted within Facebook groups regarding current events, which helps shape the memory of recent events as they unfold. It would be interesting to explore whether the three activities of memory work outlined in this study are also evident in present-oriented mnemonic Facebook groups.
Data availability statement
The data supporting this study’s findings consist of Facebook posts and comments published in the public Facebook group ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’. Although the group is publicly accessible, its content was used for research with the explicit permission of the group administrator. Due to these conditions, the data are unavailable for reuse or redistribution.
Acknowledgements
The authors have no acknowledgements to declare.
Funding statement
This work received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Ayelet Klein Cohen is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her PhD research focuses on the role of traditional and digital media in shaping narratives of cultural memory among three generations of Jewish immigrants and the Cyprus exile. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7939-6156.
Noam Tirosh (Ph.D.) heads the Department of Communication Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His research explores the intersection of memory and media, focusing on justice and human rights. He has published widely on topics including the right to be forgotten and the memory rights of marginalised communities. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9930-6661.
Amit Schejter is a professor of communication studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and a visiting professor and co-director of the Institute for Information Policy at the Bellisario College of Communication of the Pennsylvania State University. His research focuses on communication and social justice and on the right to communicate. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3670-2165.
Open access
