HomeDivided memories and political-cultural imaginaries in post–Cold War Europe

HomeDivided memories and political-cultural imaginaries in post–Cold War Europe

Divided memories and political-cultural imaginaries in post–Cold War Europe

Mémoires divisées et imaginaires politico-culturels en Europe après la guerre froide

"Europe: cultures, memories, identities" Journal, no. 1 / 2025 (first issue)

Revue « Europe : cultures, mémoires, identités » no. 1 / 2025 (premier numéro)

*  *  *

Published on Friday, May 17, 2024


This journal is especially devoted to the study of the dynamics of memories and of cultural identity representations which have shaped the spaces of experience, the horizons of expectation, and the sociocultural imaginaries in “Europe’s Europes” in the 20th and 21st centuries. It provides a special outlet to the analysis grounded in cultural memory studies, and particularly in contemporary theories of “agonistic memory”, considered as a “third way”, that of the research of an equilibrium between the contraries embodied in the two competitive paradigms which have disputed their hegemony in the European area, particularly since the end of the Cold War: the cosmopolitan/ transnational one, and the national(ist)/ antagonistic one.



The partisan politicization of national histories, as key areas of cultural memory (Assmann, 2008), mobilized in the construction of narratives marked by the “mnemonic selectivity”, “the deliberate fabrication, distortion, or omission of actual facts”, and the disregard of coexisting narratives, has often prompted “memory wars”, during which the representations of the past have been drawn on distinct, commonly conflicting, “time maps” (Zerubavel, 2003). Nowadays, the political and cultural aims of these “historicizing strategies” (Mink, 2008; Mink & Neumayer, 2013) have become increasingly complex, against the background of the political cultures shaped by the rise of new varieties of nationalism, incorporated in the conspiratorial populism and in “the politics of misinformation” (Bergmann, 2018), of the transnational memory of fascism (Levi & Rothberg, 2018), and of “the politics of fear” in tandem with “the shameless normalization of far-right discourses” (Wodak, 2021). As for the latter, they integrate nativist and authoritarian elements into the neo-populist way of “identity bricolage” and “thematic heterogeneity” (Mișcoiu, 2011), which play an important part in configuring new master narratives (Alexander, 2004) based on both the abusive instrumentalization of historical memories and the mobilization of the “restorative nostalgia” (Boym, 2001).

The negative consequences of these practices, including the adjustment of the frames of political and cultural memories, and the spread of counterfactual histories shaped by divisive interpretations of the pasts (Erll, 2020), are visible at both national and European level: “If the dominant paradigm, grounded in the remembrance of the Holocaust, sees memory as fostering an inclusive political culture and a cosmopolitan morality, far-right-wing populist political forces have turned this model upside down in the service of altogether different political agendas […].” (Kaya & De Cesari, 2020)

Given the diversity and the complexity of populist-extremist movements, whose transformations have determined – starting by the eighties in the West, and, after the collapse of Eastern communist regimes, on both sides of the former Iron Curtain – the heterogeneity of political landscapes, which is also shaped by different historical experiences, political cultures, and democratic traditions, all generalizations are risky. However, in all cases, the role of historical legacies in the asymmetrical evolutions of these phenomena remains determining, as it is revealed by both the “mental maps” (Trimçev et al., 2020) shaped by the “competitive” memories (Rothberg, 2009) of an Europe divided on the East–West fault, according to the bipolar conception of the Cold War, and the charts of the “memory regions” (Lewis, Wawrzyniak et al., 2022) configured after its end.

In the case of Eastern societies – except for the former Yugoslavia, whose break with the USSR in 1948, followed by the rapprochement with the West, had as consequences not only its transformation into “the most prosperous state in socialist Eastern Europe”, but also the advance of a form of “Communism with a human face” (Hayden, 2020) –, the painful “double experience” of Nazism and of leninist-stalinist Communism was crucial for the subsequent trajectories. In these circumstances, it was normal that the process of “reinvention” of both nations-states and national identities, in the aftermath of seismic shifts of 1989/ 1991, to encompass the integration of “at least two histories into collective memories” (Wodak, 2021). Besides the “contested histories” (Pakier, Stråth et al., 2010) and the conflicting “entangled memories”, in spite of the existence of some “islands of consensus” (Trimçev et al., 2020), there were different approaches, often contentious, of the transitional processes, including those of the transitional justice (Pettai & Pettai, 2018). In fact, starting with the 2000s, the “postsocialist transformations have become a realm of mnemonic conflict”, to be instrumentalized in the legitimizing narratives of some actors in the field of authoritarian populism, illiberalism, and the far-right (Wawrzyniak & Pehe, 2023).

Moreover, particularly during the last decade, transitions have turned from a subject of ‘cold’ to a matter of ‘hot memory,’ to use the terms with which Charles Maier (2002) described the dynamics of memories of communism and fascism in Europe two decades ago. The mnemonic instrumentalization of transitions in political discourse takes diverging forms and directions, and it is propelled by different political actors, even within a single region of East-Central Europe […]. (Robbe, 2023)

The divergent mnemohistories of recent or remote past – the latter being represented, in both Western and Eastern Europe, by the World War II as the central “memory vein” (Mink & Neumayer, 2013) or lieu de mémoire (Nora, 1989) – which shape the contemporary dynamics of the political memory are reflected in the tensions between the two competing paradigms: the cosmopolitan/ transnational one, based on both the “foundational” narrative of the Holocaust, and the “utopias of reconciliation”, and the antagonist/ national(ist) one (Berger & Kansteiner, 2021), indebted to the indigenous imageries of the “painful pasts” (Keightley & Pickering, 2012). On this ground, that of political “memory games” (Mink & Neumayer, 2013), the populist actors which instrumentalize the (neo)nationalist paradigm in extremist ways, more and more aggressive and receptive to ideological hybridizations – be they positioned in the mainstream area of the political scenes, or in their fringes – are exploiting the crises of EUrope by means of the actions which indicate the transgressing of the previously known frames of Euroscepticism.

The present Eurosceptics are no longer satisfied with contesting the European integration, as they spawn their own antagonist narratives within the framework of both a permanent competition and the “complex interaction” with those favorable to the integration: “In this narrative ju-jitsu, they turn pro-integration narrative themes such as peace and democracy against the EU.” (McMahon & Kaiser, 2022) This state of affairs is all the more difficult as the European project is today not only (again) “at the crossroads” (Mouffe, 2013), but also in one of the most significant “moments of danger” (Levi & Rothberg, 2018), since the end of “the age of extremes” (Hobsbawm, 1995). More than a decade ago, Chantal Mouffe – the theorist of a “agonistic model of [liberal] democracy” (2013), understood already at that time as an alternative to the problematic versions shaped by both hegemonic neoliberal and neo-nationalist outlooks, and later used in structuring the rebalancing new paradigm of “agonistic memory” (Berger, Kansteiner et al., 2021) – was raising awareness on a civilizational crisis, which reminds us of the anxieties expressed by Hannah Arendt (1950) at the beginning of the Cold War. At the same time, the Belgian political theorist was proposing the outline of “an Agonistic Approach to the Future of Europe”, warning about the vulnerabilities of the communitarian architecture:   

The EU is currently composed of consumers, not of citizens. It has been mainly constructed around a common market, and it has never really created an European common will. No wonder that, in times of economic crisis and austerity policies, some people begin to question its utility, forgetting what has been its important achievement in bringing peace to the continent. (Mouffe, 2013)

Shortly after the publication of the book cited above, in which Mouffe was pleading for “an agonistic Europe”, reminding the configuration of the first communitarian project, established by Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, which was meant to preserve an equilibrium between the contraries embodied, at that moment, in France and Germany –, a model which provided the geopolitical, economic, and cultural foundations for the architecture of future European Union –, the ideal of the peace based on a common will was revealing, once more, its fragility.

In the aftermath of the shocks triggered by the democratic transitions within the former Eastern bloc – contemporary with the tragedies in the former Yugoslavia –, and after the crises provoked, everywhere inside “Europe’s Europes”, by the Great Recession in 2008 – the year of the war in Georgia –, the shockwaves are succeeding rapidly: the annexation of Crimea, in 2014, is followed by “Europe’s annus horribilis”, marked by the crisis in Greece, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the “crisis of refugees” etc. (Mudde, 2018), and, soon after the pandemic troubles, by the invasion of Ukraine.

As well as the economic, social, and political interconnected phenomena mentioned above, the military confrontations and the subsequent tragedies are arising against the background of deeply conflicting mnemonic dynamics, whose manifestations are already visible in the last quart of the previous century. Starting in the West in the context of the memory boom of the 80s, in the aftermath of the decline of both the welfare states and nations-states (Hartog, 2015), “the memory wars” (Veyrat-Masson et al., 2008) are spreading after 1989 all over Europe manifesting with maximum strength in the first decade of our century, a trend which is obvious in the former socialist bloc especially after the integration of the Baltic states in NATO (2005) and after the two waves of EU enlargement (in 2004 and 2007).

These processes are intensifying beginning with the 90s, in the circumstances of the competition between “Europe’s divided memor[ies]” (Assmann, 2013) and of “renationalizing memory” (Mink, 2008) on both sides of the former Iron Curtain. In the same period, the Yugoslav wars seemed to illustrate, as Tony Judt observed in 1999, a certain inability of Europe “to escape its past”. From this point of view, the memory wars, also triggered in the 80s and perpetuated long after the end of the armed conflicts that had devastated the former federative republic, have fully confirmed the dangers involved by the “nationalization of history” (Karlsson, 2010).

The mnemonic landscapes configured in the decade following the effervescence of “the end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992) are growing more complex and more dynamic in the 2000s. In the European environment dominated by uncertainty, both the amplification of shocks triggered by the geopolitical seismic shifts at the end of Cold War, and the reemergence of neo-nationalism mobilized in mnemonic battles through the instrumentalization of “retrotopias” (Bauman, 2017) attached to “restorative nostalgia”, are determining factors in transforming the memory practices in the key mode of anchoring in a “time which lasts” (Hartog, 2015). Being incorporated in “the never-ending present” (Cercel, 2020), the latter appears as a time of both trauma and nostalgia. This all-inclusive present is, at the same time, an age of “the end of the end of the end of ideology”, but also one of “the end of [progressive] utopia” (Jacoby, 1999). In the given context, the uncertainty bred at “the end of the tyranny of the future” is reflected in the reconstructions of the recent past, which became the object of revisions, most frequently less concerned with nuances. Nevertheless, the history to be recovered was far from a narrative shaped by a “linear or unambiguous” time: “…it was construed as a field crisscrossed by pasts that had for a time been possible futures, including those which had begun to exist and which had been prevented from doing so.” (Hartog, 2015) In the “archipelago of vulnerable historical territories” (Judt, 2004) of the “new Europe”, the reinterpretation, from the 90s onwards, of this “multidirectional and multiple” past (Hartog, 2015) proved to be a much more problematic process than the one initiated in the West nearly two decades earlier. Having started against the background of the “geopolitical asymmetry” (Mink & Neumayer, 2013) echoed by the tensions between the memories of the Holocaust and the Gulag, the mnemonic conflicts which steered in both European institutional arenas and the national political and cultural scenes have created room for the construction, in the first decade of transitions, all over the East, of the official histories cast within the framework of totalitarian paradigm, with significant effects in the sphere of collective memories. The latter are becoming the subject of a process of “dislocation” (Karge, 2010) that deepens the remaining fragmentation of the Communist era, and which is adding itself to the other factors favorable to the emergence of “red nostalgia” (Velikonja, 2009).

Leaving away the national contexts of transition, the period marked by “a climactic moment of the memory wars” (Kasianov, 2022) on the continent – from the second stage of integration (2007) until the adoption of the resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism (2009) in the European Parliament – is also the one in which we assist to the spread of the Eurosceptic manifestations, sometimes detectable in the very institutional arenas of the Union. During the same period it becomes visible not only a schism within European memories – “a memorial divide”, in Claus Leggewie’s terms, who ascertained in the same year 2009 that, “for the nationally-minded, Europe is essentially a free-trade zone that acts collectively only in the case of attack from outside” –, but also a tendency towards dissolution of social cohesion. In a study dedicated to Eastern postcommunism, published in 2005 – the year, on the one hand, of the sixtieth commemoration of “The Great Fatherland War” in Moscow, when the president of Russian Federation was reiterating the “spectacle”/ “memory game” he has initiated in 2000, focused on both the revitalization of Stalin’s cult and the restoration of the “greatness” of the Soviet Union (Wolfe, 2006), the latter being painted as “the heroic liberator of Europe from the Nazi curse” (Mälksoo, 2010), but also, on the other hand, the year of the adoption of the “Yalta Resolution” in the European Parliament (Neumayer, 2019) –, William Outhwaite and Larry Ray described two negative scenarios that would explain the vanishing of the social solidarity. These are anomie and schism: 

One is where consensus and moral regulation are lacking – the Hobbesian scenario (anomie). But there is also the (unacknowledged) possibility of polarization of society around two competing and internally solidaristic value and belief systems (schism). The first is the termination of society; the second requires that some social force other than morals disunite common value systems. (Outhwaite & Ray, 2009)

Having been transformed, once again, in a “battlefield”, the Europe of polarized Europes seems today, more than ever, threatened by both anomie (Țăranu & Pîrvulescu, 2022) and the schisms prefigured by the memorial conflicts. In this context, the symbolic politics focused on painful pasts, in accordance with the demands of an absolutely legitimate “ethics of memory” (Margalit, 2004), reveal, given the distortion of the representations of traumatic memory within the sphere of social-cultural imaginaries, a significant destabilizing potential: “Even if drawing on different, criss-crossing and partially conflicting memories is in principle possible, it has to be remembered that European memories are not just divided – they are also divisive.” (Müller, 2010)

This potential was activated when the narratives that served as media for those politics – including those incorporated in cultural texts (Erll, 2011) – were abusively annexed, distorted by means of de-contextualization or over-contextualization (Lim, 2010), and incorporated in the legitimizing strategies mobilized by illiberal or extremists actors, transformed in “mnemonic wariors” (Kubik & Bernhard, 2014). These strategies are shaped either by “victimhood nationalism” (Lim, 2010), or by “national cosmopolitanism”, “politically dubious” (Kansteiner & Berger, 2022). The dramatic consequences of these mobilizations which do not stop feeding the memory wars are obvious – if we remain in the European epicenter of “disputed memories” (Sindbæk Andersen & Törnquist-Plewa, 2016) – in the present experience of Ukraine, as they were in the 90s in the tragedies of the former Yugoslavia. One should not forget that the double experience, the “radiant” one and the painful one, of the former multinational state, erstwhile appreciated as “the shining star of Eastern Europe by its Western supporters” (Todorova, 2009), is often evoked as a “structural [counter-]example for today’s European Union” (Mayr, 2020; cf. Hayden, 2013, 2020), as the historical experiences of the three Yugoslavias (Velikonja, 2017) are seen as a “metonymy, or even, [a] synecdoche” of the “short twentieth century” (Hobsbawm, 1995):

From the anti-imperialist assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, the communist-led resistance during WW2, the anti-Stalinist socialist state and its prominent role in the Non-Aligned Movement, to the war-ridden, postcommunist transition, the Yugoslav century is not only co-extensive with the dreams and disasters of the “short twentieth century” (1914-1991), but can be seen as this century’s metonymy, or even, synecdoche. […] The engagement of contemporary artists, scholars and curators with the aesthetic and political legacies of the Yugoslav century […] opens up the possibility to read Yugoslavia both as a proper name, designating a particular history, and as a universally valid signifier for a number of unresolved and persisting questions of the past that continue to inform the globalized horizon of the present: the quest for social equality, ongoing forms of colonialism and decolonization, the return(s) of nationalism, and the crises of capitalism and democracy.  (Bago, 2018)

At the same time, the experience of Yugoslavia is significant also with respect to the resilience of the other pole of divided memories within Eastern Europe, the nostalgic one, which coexists in conflict (Velikonja, 2021) with the memory of collective traumas. In this case, it is the dynamics of non-instrumental fragmented social memory, that we are taking into account, and which is counterbalancing the dynamics of political memory, as it is revealed by the Yugonostalgic counter-memory, emerged during the Yugoslav wars. Like the other “existential” or “vernacular” versions of postsocialist nostalgia (Koleva, 2022), Yugonostalgia – whose present-day practices and representations were assimilated to an emancipatory cultural “strategy”, “multivocal, multi-layered, multi-sited and multi-directional” (Popović, 2021), being associated to the “politics of future” (Petrović, 2013) – remains deeply connected with the radical transformations of the 90s, which have manifested in catastrophic forms on the territory of “the country that is no longer exists”. As matter of fact, the essential condition of its appearance is “the awareness that going back is no longer possible”: “… Yugonostalgia has emerged only after the civil wars in former Yugoslavia, most quickly and most noticeably in Slovenia, where the irreversibility of these processes became evident much sooner than in other post-Yugoslav countries.” (Koleva, 2022) Meanwhile, in all the other postsocialist societies from the East that are confronting with economic crises, memory wars, and persistent political conflicts powered by the neo-nationalist and populist-extremists mobilizations, soon after the exhaustion of the emotional energies released in 1989 as the “five E syndrome” (“enthusiasm, elation, excitement, exhilaration, and effervescence”), it is a “postrevolutionary malaise” that appears, as it usually happens in such transitional contexts (Sztompka, 2003).

Against the background of “a decisive shift in the Zeitgeist”, “a seismic shift in political and cultural realities” (Jacoby, 1999), the fragmentation of social memory, which is observable particularly in the case of the former proletariat, the worst affected by the economic crises, turn out to be a determining factor in the quasi-generalization of this “historical emotion” (Boym, 2001), seen as a form of the “interplay between hegemonic and oppositional memories” (Berdahl, 1999). Against the climate marked by defensive and negative emotions (Jacobsen, 2021), such as “anxiety, insecurity, and uncertainty, […] disorientation concerning collective identity, […] apathy, passivism, and helplessness”, all added to the widespread “pessimism concerning the future, matched with nostalgic images of the past” (Sztompka, 2004), the crises of the European social-cultural imaginary have associated – in the postsocialist East, as it had happened in the West of the ’70–’80, affected by the decay of welfare states – with the attempts to recover the “faces of utopianism” (Sargent, 1994). These latter are complementary to the “robust ideologies”, being deeply connected to the history of big ideas, which Francis Fukuyama had revisited in 1989, not long before the publication of its best seller about “the end of history”, in a moment when the anxieties concerning the “death of utopia” were already appearing. “The key to understanding” the “red nostalgia”, in its non-instrumental and prospective forms – y compris Yugonostalgia, Ostalgie, some varieties of vernacular post-Soviet nostalgia –, all of them totally different from the restorative nostalgia mobilized on the ground of neo-nationalist and authoritarian populism, is in fact this critical/ criticizable present, “not the past”: “By insisting that everything was better before, homo nostalgicus implicitly criticizes what is wrong now. But not completely: it is not just an automatic reflex to deterioration of conditions of living because it also appears in comparatively successful transitional societies.” (Velikonja, 2009)

Without developing the reflection on such vast and complex subjects, we invite scholars based in multiple disciplinary domains – cultural memory studies, the political sociology of memory, cultural and literary studies, comparative political studies, geopolitics, historiography, mnemohistory, European studies, international relations etc. – to contribute with articles to the first issue of the journal Europe: cultures, mémoires, identités, in approaching, for example, the following topics (without limiting at them):

  • Legacies of Cold War and “regions of memory” in Central and Eastern Europe
  • Political memory games in the Central- and Eastern-European space after the end of Cold War
  • The Revolutions of 1989 and the fragmented memories (political, cultural, social, and autobiographical) of the former Eastern bloc
  • Lieux de mémoire, politics of history and cultural texts in the memory cultures of Central and Eastern Europe in the aftermath of 1989/ 1991
  • “Painful pasts”, contested histories, and nostalgic memories in Central and Eastern Europe during the democratic transitions
  • Competing traumatic memories in the context of European integration: Holocaust vs. Gulag
  • “Faces” and metamorphoses of nostalgia in the Europe of divided memories: from the 90s to the present days
  • Fragmented memories and mnemohistories of democratic transitions in the Central- and Eastern-European space
  • Nationalism and transnationalism in the political and cultural memories of “Europe’s Europes” in the aftermath of 1989/ 1991
  • Populism, neo-nationalism, and fragmented memories in the context of the enlargement of European Union
  • Conflicting cultural memories, “time maps”, and symbolic geographies in “Europe’s Europes” in the aftermath of 1989/ 1991
  • Memory wars after 1989/ 1991: national(ist) and transnational mobilizations
  • The memory wars in the post-Yugoslav space: from the 90s to present contexts. Competitive memory vs. multidirectional memory. The Yugonostalgic counter-memory. Damnatio memoriae Yugonostalgia. Restorative nostalgia vs. Yugonostalgia. Retrotopias vs. retrospective utopias.
  • “From EUphoria to EU-goslavia”
  • Fragmented memories, forms of Euroscepticism, and perspectives on the European common heritage
  • The European integration and the geopolitics of memory
  • Instances of the “memory diplomacy” in “Europe’s Europes” after the end of Cold War
  • Fragmented memories and social cohesion in national, regional, and European contexts etc.

Submission guidelines

Submission of abstracts (max. 150 words, in French and in English), followed by 5 keywords (in French and in English), and a short bio (max. 150 words, in French or in English), including the institutional affiliation and the scientific title of the author:

June 18th, 2024.

Acceptance letters for the abstracts and communication of submission guidelines: July 14th, 2024.

Submission of the articles in extenso (35000–50000 characters, including the references cited, the abstract, the keywords, and the footnotes, if the case), in French or in English: September 26th, 2024.

Acceptance letters for the articles (after peer review) and communication of the recommendations for revision (if the case): December 23th, 2024.

Submission of the final versions of the articles: February 24th, 2025.

The publication of the first issue of the journal is planned for March 2025.

Contact: Alina Iorga (editor-in-chief of the journal) – Alina.Iorga@ugal.ro

Scientific committee

  • Dr. Valentin BEHR, Centre européen de sociologie et de science politique (CESSP), Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Chargé de recherches CNRS
  • Dr. Antonela CAPELLE-POGACEAN, FNSP/ CERI – Sciences Po Paris
  • Dr. Anemona CONSTANTIN, Université libre de Bruxelles, Institut d’études européennes – Centre pour l’étude de la vie politique (ULB / IEE – CEVIPOL) / Université Paris Nanterre, Institut des Sciences Sociales du Politique
  • Conf. dr. Emanuel COPILAȘ, Universitatea de Vest din Timișoara, Facultatea de Științe Politice, Filosofie și Științe ale Comunicării
  • Dr. Hans Lauge HANSEN, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, School of Communication and Culture
  • Prof. dr. Ayhan KAYA, Istanbul Bilgi University, Director of the European Institute/ Jean Monnet Chair of European Politics of Interculturalism/ Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence
  • Dr. Roman KRAKOVSKY, Assistant professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Arts
  • Prof. dr. em. DHC Henning KRAUSS, Universität Augsburg, Philologisch-Historische Fakultät
  • Prof. dr. em. Hans Peter LUND, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters / Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab
  • Prof. dr. Alain MILON, Université Paris Nanterre / Institut Universitaire de France (IUF)
  • Prof. dr. Zoran MILUTINOVIĆ, University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, Faculty of Arts & Humanities / Academia Europaea
  • Prof. dr. Diana MISHKOVA, Academic Director of the Centre for Advanced Study Sofia / Austrian Academy of Sciences
  • Prof. dr. Sergiu MIȘCOIU, Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca, Facultatea de Studii Europene / Université Paris-Est
  • Prof. dr. Laure NEUMAYER, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens / International Council for Central and East European Studies (ICCEES)
  • Mag. Dr. Monika PALMBERGER, Universität Wien, Institut für Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie / University of Leuven
  • Prof. dr. Vjeran PAVLAKOVIĆ, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
  • Dr. Milica POPOVIC, Docteure associée, Sciences Po Paris
  • Dr. Ksenia ROBBE, Assistant professor, University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts
  • Prof. dr. Cornelia RUHE, Universität Mannheim, Philosophische Facultät, Romanisches Seminar / Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
  • Prof. dr. Marek TAMM, Tallinn University, School of Humanities, TLU Centre of Excellence in Intercultural Studies / The Estonian Academy of Sciences / Academia Europea
  • Prof. dr. Mitja VELIKONJA, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Cultural and Religious Studies/ Center za proučevanje kulture in religije
  • Dr. Stijn VERVAET, Associate Professor, University of Oslo, Faculty of Humanities
  • Dr. hab. Joanna WAWRZYNIAK, Associate Professor, Director of the Center for Research on Social Memory, Faculty of Sociology, University of Warsaw
  • Prof. dr. Jenny WÜSTENBERG, Nottingham Trent University, School of Arts & Humanities
  • Dr. Frédéric ZALEWSKI, maître de conférences, Université Paris Nanterre, Institut des Sciences Sociales du Politique


Presentation of the Journal

EUrope : cultures, mémoires, identités is a Semiannual multidisciplinary journal of “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galați, Romania

This peer-reviewed journal is especially devoted to the study of the dynamics of memories and of cultural identity representations which have shaped the spaces of experience, the horizons of expectation, and the sociocultural imaginaries in “Europe’s Europes” in the 20th and 21st centuries. EUrope… provides a special outlet to the analysis grounded in cultural memory studies, and particularly in contemporary theories of “agonistic memory”, considered as a “third way”, that of the research of an equilibrium between the contraries embodied in the two competitive paradigms which have disputed their hegemony in the European area, particularly since the end of the Cold War: the cosmopolitan/ transnational one, and the national(ist)/ antagonistic one. Though, the journal encourages submissions, if possible transdisciplinary, from a wide range of disciplines based in social sciences and humanities, concerning the general issues mentioned above: memory studies, nostalgia studies, historiography, philosophy of history and mnemohistory, social and political sciences, diaspora & migration studies, media studies, anthropology, cultural studies, literary studies, film, theater and performance studies, gender studies etc. Structured around thematic dossiers, but also including sections dedicated to varia and reviews, the two issues published per year will host original contributions in French and English, whose relevance and scientific accuracy will be evaluated by at least two independent anonymous referees, experts in the respective domains (double blind peer review).


Alexander, Jeffrey C. “Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma.” In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander et al., 1-30. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2004.

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New edition with added prefaces. San Diego, New York, and London: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973 [1950].

Assmann, Aleida. “Canon and Archive.” In Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, edited by Astrid Erll, Ansgar Nünning, and Sara B. Young, 97-107. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Assmann, Aleida. “Europe’s Divided Memory”. In Memory and Theory in Eastern Europe, edited by Uilleam Blacker, Alexander Etkind, and Julie Fedor, 25-41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Bago, Ivana. Inheriting the Yugoslav Century: Art, History, and Generation, PhD Thesis. Duke University, 2018.

Bauman, Zygmunt. Retrotopia. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017.

Berdahl, Daphne. “‘(N)Ostalgie’ for the present: Memory, longing, and East German things” Ethnos, no. 64 (2) (1999): 192-211.

Berger, Stefan and Kansteiner, Wulf. “Agonistic Perspectives on the Memory of War: An Introduction.” In Agonistic Memory and the Legacy of 20th Century Wars in Europe, edited by Stefan Berger and Wulf Kansteiner, 1-11. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Bergmann, Eirikur. Conspiracy & Populism: The Politics of Misinformation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Bernhard, Michael and Kubik, Jan. “Introduction.” In Twenty Years after Communism. The Politics of Memory and Commemoration, edited by Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik, 1-6. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 (a).

Bernhard, Michael and Kubik, Jan. “The Politics and Culture of Memory Regimes: A Comparative Analysis.” In Twenty Years after Communism. The Politics of Memory and Commemoration, edited by Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik, 261-296. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 (b).

Boym, Svetlana. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Cercel, Cristian. “Towards a Disentanglement of the Links between the Memory Boom and the Neoliberal Turn.” Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics. Beyond Recognition: Crises of Politics and Representation, no. 6 (1) (2020): 27-42.

Erll, Astrid. “Afterword: Against populism: memory for an age of transformation.” In European Memory in Populism : Representations of Self and Other, edited by Chiara De Cesari and Ayhan Kaya, 294-298. New York: Routledge, 2020.

Erll, Astrid. Memory in Culture. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Fukuyama, Francis. Have We Reached the End of History?. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1989.

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Hartog, François. Regimes of Historicity: Presentism and Experiences of Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.

Hayden, Robert M. From Yugoslavia to the Western Balkans. Studies of a European Disunion 1991–2011. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Hayden, Robert M. “Exititis in Europe?: Yugoslavia as the First European Disunion.” Ethnologia Europaea, no. 50 (2) (2020): 49-61.

Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1995.

Hoskins, Andrew and Shchelin, Pavel. The War Feed: Digital War in Plain Sight. American Behavioral Scientist, no. 67 (3) (2022).

Huyssen, Andreas. “Present pasts: media, politics, amnesia.” Public Culture, no. 12 (2000): 21-38.

Jacobsen, Michael Hviid. “Fear and retrotopia – Critical reflections on the rise of defensive emotions in liquid modernity” Zoon Politikon, no. 12 (2021b): 94-124.

Jacoby, Russell. The End of Utopia. Politics and Culture in an Age of Apathy. New York : Basic Books, 1999.

Judt, Tony. “Nineteen Eighty-Nine: The End of which European Era?” In The Revolutions of 1989, edited by Vladimir Tismăneanu, 161-175. London: Routledge, 1999 [1994].

Judt, Tony. “The past is another country: myth and memory in post-war Europe.” In Memory and Power in Post-War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past, edited by Jan-Werner Müller, 157-183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 [2002].

Kansteiner, Wulf and Berger, Stefan. “Agonism and Memory.” In Agonistic Memory and the Legacy of 20th Century Wars in Europe, edited by Stefan Berger and Wulf Kansteiner, 203-245. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Karge, Heike. “Practices and Politics of Second World War Remembrance. (Trans-)National Perspectives from Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.” In A European Memory? Contested Histories and Politics of Remembrance, edited by Małgorzata Pakier and Bo Stråth, 137-146. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Karlsson, Klas-Göran. “The Uses of History and the Third Wave of Europeanisation.” In A European Memory? Contested Histories and Politics of Remembrance, edited by Małgorzata Pakier and Bo Stråth, 38-55. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Kasianov, Georgiy. Memory Crash. Politics of History in and around Ukraine, 1980s–2010s. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2022.

Kaya, Ayhan and De Cesari, Chiara. “Introduction.” In European Memory in Populism: Representations of Self and Other, edited by Chiara De Cesari and Ayhan Kaya, 1-25. New York: Routledge, 2020.

Keightley, Emily and Pickering, Michael. The Mnemonic Imagination. Remembering as Creative Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Koleva, Daniela. Memory Archipelago of the Communist Past. Public Narratives and Personal Recollections. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Leggewie, Claus. “Battlefield Europe. Transnational memory and European identity.” Eurozine, 28 April, 2009.

Levi, Neil and Rothberg, Michael. “Memory studies in a moment of danger: Fascism, postfascism, and the contemporary political imaginary.” Memory Studies, no. 11 (3) (2018): 355-367. 

Lewis, Simon and Wawrzyniak, Joanna. “Introduction: Regions of Memory in Theory.” In Regions of Memory. Transnational Formations, edited by Simon Lewis, Jeffrey Olick, Joanna Wawrzyniak, and Małgorzata Pakier, 1-16. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Lim, Jie-Hyun. “Victimhood Nationalism in Contested Memories: National Mourning and Global Accountability.” In Memory in a Global Age. Discourses, Practices and Trajectories, edited by Aleida Assmann and Sebastian Conrad, 138-162. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Lowe, David and Joel, Tony. “The Cold War and Regions of Memory.” In Regions of Memory. Transnational Formations, edited by Simon Lewis, Jeffrey Olick, Joanna Wawrzyniak, and Małgorzata Pakier, 19-47. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Maier, Charles S. “Hot Memory … Cold Memory. On the Political Half-Life of Fascist and Communist Memory.” Transit – Europäische Revue. Tr@nsit online, no.  22 (2002).

Mälksoo, Maria. The politics of becoming European: A study of Polish and Baltic post-Cold War security imaginaries. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.

Margalit, Avishai. The ethics of memory. Cambridge MA & London: Harvard University Press, 2004 [2002].

Mayr, Maria, “The European Future of Postsocialist Nostalgia in German-Language Literature about Former Yugoslavia.” Colloquia Germanica. Europe in Contemporary German-Language Literature, no. 51 (3/4) (2020): 325-344.

McMahon, Richard and Kaiser, Wolfram. “Narrative Ju-jitsu: counter-narratives to European Union.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Counter-Narratives of Europe, no. 30 (1) (2022): 1-9.

Mink, Georges and Neumayer, Laure. “Introduction.” In History, Memory and Politics in Central and Eastern Europe. Memory Games, edited by Georges Mink and Laure Neumayer, 1-20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Mink, Georges. “Between Reconciliation and the Reactivation of Past Conflicts in Europe: Rethinking Social Memory Paradigms.” Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, no. 44 (3) (2008): 469-490.

Mişcoiu, Sergiu. Au pouvoir par le ‘Peuple’. Le populisme saisi par la théorie du discours [To the power by means of “People”. Populism explored by discourse theory]. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2011.

Mouffe, Chantal. Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London and New York: Verso, 2013.

Mudde, Cass. “Eastern Europe’s Populists, Racists, and Extremists.” In The Routledge Handbook of East European Politics, edited by Adam Fagan and Petr Kopecký, 254–263. London and New York: Routledge, 2018.

Mudde, Cass. On Extremism and Democracy in Europe. London and New York: Routledge, 2016.

Müller, Jan-Werner. “On “European Memory”: Some Conceptual and Normative Remarks.” In A European Memory? Contested Histories and Politics of Remembrance, edited by Małgorzata Pakier and Bo Stråth, 25-37. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Neumayer, Laure. The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. London and New York: Routledge, 2019.

Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire” Représentations, no. 26 (1989): 7-24.

Olick, Jeffrey K. The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Outhwaite, William and Ray, Larry. Social Theory and Postcommunism. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Pakier, Małgorzata and Stråth, Bo. “Introduction. A European Memory?.” In A European Memory? Contested Histories and Politics of Remembrance, edited by Małgorzata Pakier and Bo Stråth, 1-20. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Petrović, Tanja. “The Past that Binds Us: Yugonostalgia as the Politics of Future”. In Transcending Fratricide: Political Mythologies, Reconciliations, and the Uncertain Future in the Former Yugoslavia. Southeast European Integration Perspectives, no. 9, edited by Srda Pavlovic and Marko Zivkovic, 129-147. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013.

Pettai, Vello and Pettai, Eva-Clarita. “Transitional Justice and Memory.” In Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane Leftwich Curry, 145−170. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018.

Popović, Milica. Post-Yugoslav memories as a resistance strategy and the political significance of Yugonostalgia. PhD Tesis. Institut d’études politiques de Paris – Sciences Po, Univerza v Ljubljani, 2021.

Robbe, Ksenia. “Introduction. Remembering Transitions: Approaching Memories in/of Crisis.” In Remembering Transitions. Local Revisions and Global Crossings in Culture and Media, edited by Ksenia Robbe, 1-29. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, 2023.

Rothberg, Michael. Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.

Sargent, Lyman Tower. “The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited”. Utopian Studies, no. 5 (1) (1994): 1-37.

Sindbæk Andersen, Tea and Törnquist-Plewa, Barbara. “Introduction: Disputed Memories in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.” In Disputed Memory. Emotions and Memory Politics in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, edited by Tea Sindbæk Andersen and Barbara Törnquist-Plewa, 1-17. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2016.

Sztompka, Piotr. Trust. A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 [1999].

Sztompka, Piotr. “The Trauma of Social Change: A Case of Postcommunist Societies”. In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander et al., 155-195. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2004.

Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans (Updated edition). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Trimçev, Rieke, Feindt, Gregor, Krawatzek, Félix, and Friedemann, Pestel. “Europe’s Europes: mapping the conflicts of European memory.” Journal of Political Ideologies, no. 25 (1) (2020): 51-77.

Țăranu, Andrei and Pîrvulescu, Romulus Cristian. “The Crisis of Liberal Democracy between Populism and Technocracy.” Civil Revue. Civil Society – Romanian Diagnoses, no. 3 (2022): 43-60.

Velikonja, Mitja. “Lost in transition: Nostalgia for socialism in post-socialist countries” East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures, no. 23 (4) (2009): 535–551.

Velikonja, Mitja. “Ways of Remembering Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav rear-view mirror”. In Yugoslavia from a Historical Perspective, edited by Latinka Perović, Drago Roksandić, Mitja Velikonja, Wolfgang Hoepken, and Florian Bieber, 515-547. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, 2017.

 Velikonja, Mitja. “Poetry after Srebrenica? Cultural Reflection of the Yugoslav Eighties.” In Yugoslavia: Chapter 1980-1991, edited by Latinka Perović, Husnija Kamberović, Božo Repe et al., 947-981. Belgrade: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, 2021.

Veyrat-Masson, Isabelle, Ferro, Marc, and Blanchard, Pascal (éd.), Hermès, no. 52 (2008), Les guerres de mémoires dans le monde.

Wawrzyniak, Joanna, and Pehe, Veronika. “Neoliberalism, Eastern Europe and collective memory. Setting the framework.” In Remembering the Neoliberal Turn. Economic Change and Collective Memory in Eastern Europe after 1989, edited by Veronika Pehe, and Joanna Wawrzyniak, 1-18. London, Routledge, 2023.

Wodak, Ruth. “Final Commentary: Learning form the past(s)? Contesting hegemonic memories.” In European Memory in Populism: Representations of Self and Other, edited by Chiara De Cesari and Ayhan Kaya, 276-293. New York: Routledge, 2020.

Wodak, Ruth. The Politics of Fear. The Shameless Normalization of Far-right Discourse. Second edition. London: Sage, 2021.

Wolfe, Thomas C. “Past as Present, Myth, or History? Discourses of time and The Great Fatherland War.” In The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe, edited by Richard Lebow, Wulf Kansteiner, and Claudio Fogu, 249-283. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. Time maps: collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.


  • Tuesday, June 18, 2024


  • fragmented memories, memory games, memory wars, Central and Eastern Europe, European integration


  • Alina Iorga
    courriel : Alina [dot] Iorga [at] ugal [dot] ro

Information source

  • Alina Iorga
    courriel : Alina [dot] Iorga [at] ugal [dot] ro


CC0-1.0 This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.

To cite this announcement

« Divided memories and political-cultural imaginaries in post–Cold War Europe », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Friday, May 17, 2024, https://doi.org/10.58079/11olu

Archive this announcement

  • Google Agenda
  • iCal
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search