How to Cite
Abstract
This article explores the application of the concept of the frontier to the study of the spatial dynamics of cultural memory. The author traces the evolution of spatial methodology within memory studies, identifying three successive stages: spatial, network-based, and flow-oriented. The spatial stage is marked by the homogeneity of collective memory; the network stage reveals the discreteness and heterogeneity of mnemonic configurations; and the flow stage enables an analysis of the interweaving of memorial practices linked to diverse cultural contexts. The conceptual shift from memory as a static condition to memory as a nonlinear, multilayered process necessitates a rethinking of the frontier category. This shift entails a rejection of geographic determinism, allowing border zones to be understood not only as specific territories but also as symbolic constructs—images of cultural memory that become sites of both encounter and confrontation between competing strategies of relating to the past. Within a flow-oriented methodological framework, the frontier is characterized by mobility and relationality, as its contours are defined by the claims of particular collective subjects to specific mnemonic representations. This property becomes especially salient in the context of a contemporary mobile society, marked by the interpenetration of various communities, such as migrants and indigenous populations.
References
Anikin, D. A. (2015). Frontier and border: Spatial methodology in contemporary memory studies. In Philosophy and Methodology of History. Collection of scientific articles from the VI All‑Russian Scientific Conference. 2015 (pp. 8–15). State Social and Humanitarian University. (In Russian).
Anikin, D. A. (2020). Transfer of the Past: Cultural Memory in the Conditions of Migration Flows. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal, 452, 66‑72. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/452/7 (In Russian).
Brubaker, R. (2012). Ethnicity without groups. Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. (In Russian).
Etzioni, A. (2004). From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations. Ladomir. (In Russian).
Etzioni, A. (2012). On Communitarian and Global Sources of Legitimacy. Political management: Scientific Information and Education Web Journal, 2, 100–117. (In Russian).
Halbwachs, M. (2007). The Social Frameworks of Memory. New publishing house. (In Russian).
Law, J. (2015). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Gaidar Institute Publishing House. (In Russian).
Nora, P. (1999). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. In France-Memory (pp. 17‑50). St. Petersburg University Press. (In Russian).
Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social Memory Studies: From “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 105–140. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.105
Safronova, Ju. A. (2018). The Third Wave of Memory Studies: Going against the Grain for Twenty-Three Years. Political Science (RU), 3, 12–31. (In Russian).
Turner, F. J. (1921). The Frontier in American History. Holt.
Vakhstein, V. S.* (2006). John Law: sociology between semiotics and topology. Russian Sociological Review, 5(1), 24–29. (In Russian).
Victory Day. (2019, April 30). Levada Center*. https://www.levada.ru/2019/04/30/den-pobedy-3/ (In Russian).
Victory in Europe Day. Time of Celebration, Reflection. (2020). https://www.defense.gov/Experience/VE-Day/
Wertsch, Ja. V. (2018). Narrative Tools, Truth, and Fast Thinking in National Memory: a Mnemonic Standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine. Historical Expertise, 2, 15–32. (In Russian).
* Recognized as a foreign agent in Russia.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.