Constructive and destructive effects of mediatization of family memory

Tselykovskiy Aleksey Andreevich ORCID: 0000-0002-2442-5463 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Philosophy and Social Communications ; Lipetsk State Technical University Senior Researcher ; Educational and Scientific Laboratory 'DIGIT'; Saratov National Research State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky 398055, Russia, Lipetsk region, Lipetsk, Moskovskaya str., 30 alts1085@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The digitalization of traditional media, as well as the emergence of new media, have significantly changed the processes of formation of historical memory. Not only state structures, influential political forces and major media have an impact on historical memory, but also a lot of ordinary individuals have the opportunity to create and broadcast various images of the past. Among the actors determining the relevance and relevance of certain ideas about the past, it is no longer possible to single out an unconditional monopolist. That is, in the process of forming historical memory, family memory begins to acquire increasing importance.

Family memory can be defined as a form of collective memory. At the same time, it should be noted that the phenomenon of collective memory does not have an unambiguous and exhaustive definition. By some researchers, the concept of collective memory comes closer to the concept of historical memory. M. Halbwaks, one of the founders of collective memory research, considered collective memory to be a more capacious concept. Halbwax defined collective memory as a set of knowledge and ideas that society passes on from generation to generation. These are not just individual memories, but common ideas and symbols associated with historical events and culture. Halbwax emphasized that collective memory does not always accurately convey past events, but often represents a distorted or idealized version. It is formed under the influence of current socio-cultural contexts and the needs of society (according to the author's terminology, the social framework of memory). That is, according to M. Halbwax, individual memory, like collective memory, is a social construct ^[1].

However, this raises the question of the boundaries of collective memory. What are the limits of social groups that construct images of the past and form ideas about their own identity? J. Assman, exploring the relationship between memory and cultural identity, distinguished two types of collective memory: cultural and communicative. The carriers of communicative memory are individuals as direct participants in events, their social circle. It arises and functions on an everyday level, and in its content includes the memories of three or four generations. Communicative memory arises and functions on an everyday level. It is not institutionalized, so it gradually disappears along with its bearers.

A distinctive feature of cultural memory is institutionalization and formalization. According to J. Assman: "Cultural memory is always surrounded by more or less strictly guarded borders" ^{[2, p. 53]}. Cultural memory, fixed in the form of social institutions, norms and traditions, becomes a factor forming cultural identity. Within the framework of cultural memory, an official narrative about the past is formed.

Thus, we can say that collective memory as a system includes several levels. Individual memory develops within the social framework of communicative (family) and cultural memory. In turn, the content of family memory is determined by the generally significant narratives of cultural memory.

At the same time, historical memory can be considered as one of the forms of collective memory aimed at constructing and broadcasting an image of the past. However, as already mentioned, the synonymy of the concepts of collective and historical memory is questioned by many researchers. For example, L.Y. Logunova interprets collective (social) memory as broadly as possible: "Social (collective) memory is a field of experience in people's daily lives. Its functional purpose is to preserve and transfer the positive experience of ancestors for the well–being of descendants" ^{[3, p. 228]}. The cited definition focuses on the positive meaning of collective memory. Moreover, according to the author, collective memory: "It is the memory of the people, pure in its political independence" ^{[3, p. 228]}. Historical memory, in the author's understanding, on the contrary, is politicized, depending on the existing conjuncture. As L.Y. Loginova writes: "Historical memory is a product of the activities of representatives of the state and the sphere of historical science. It becomes politically biased when it is used to protect the "correct" meanings of mnemic images and historical facts" ^{[3, pp. 228-229]}. In other words, collective memory is the "living" memory of the people, reflecting its best features. Historical memory is an artificial ideological construct, a tool for solving practical problems. Therefore, in times of crisis, collective and historical memory come into conflict, and their functionality turns from complementary to contradictory.

Some Russian researchers combine the concepts of collective and historical memory into one theoretical concept. For example, N.S. Kornushchenko-Ermolaeva understands collective historical memory as "the fundamental ability of social groups and the nation as a whole to preserve and reconstruct memories of joint historical experience" ^{[4, p. 49]}.

In our opinion, the juxtaposition of collective and historical memory does not carry any tangible theoretical or methodological advantages. M. Halbwaks also understood historical memory as one of the components of collective memory. M. Halbwaks emphasized that history is always perceived in the context of socio-cultural experience, and collective representations and memories, in turn, form the optics of perception of history. In turn, the process of forming collective memory under the influence of official political and ideological narratives and informal group representations is revealed through the concepts of cultural and communicative memory proposed by Ya. Assman.

Therefore, collective and historical memory are more productively considered from a methodological point of view as close complementary concepts. Based on the above, collective memory can be defined as a set of ideas about the past shared by any social group. Collective memory acts as a repository of collective experience expressed in traditions, normative and value orientations, symbols and meanings. It can be said that the main functions of collective memory are: the creation of a semantic basis for society, the construction of identity, the accumulation and translation of socio-cultural experience. The content of collective memory is determined by the content of individual and family memory.

Family memory is a form of collective memory, a collection of memories within a family or a close circle of relatives, covering, as a rule, several generations and defining the context of an individual's memories (individual memory). Just as individual memory cannot exist outside the context of collective memory, family memory is embedded in national narratives. The main functions of family memory include: the preservation and transfer of experience through personal memories between generations, the formation of identity at the family level as a microsocial group, the formation of certain traditions. All this contributes to a more complete experience of one's identity.

In fact, family memory performs the same basic functions as collective memory: it constructs personal and social identity, strengthens and consolidates family members, actualizes their sense of belonging, solidarity, inclusion in the family context, protects and translates significant family values.

At the same time, family memory differs from collective memory in that the position of its subject is characterized by a different ratio of elements of historical experience and is not uniquely decisive. This means that it is not so important whether the narrator was a member of the family, an eyewitness or a contemporary of certain events, how fully, holistically and reliably he describes the events of the past.

In this regard, it is appropriate to mention the concept of post-memory, proposed by M. Hirsch. The term "post-memory" is used by M. Hirsch to describe the process of formation and transmission of cultural trauma associated with the events of the Holocaust. Although M. Hirsch uses the concept of post-memory to study cultural trauma, it is quite applicable in the study of collective (and family) memory as such. In her research, M. Hirsch drew attention to the fact that deep traumatic experiences are peculiar not only to people who directly survived the Holocaust, but also to subsequent generations. The process of transmission of trauma occurs on an emotional level, when children and grandchildren of Holocaust victims began to form their own traumatic memories. M. Hirsch noted that "the connection of post-memory with the past is actually mediated not by memories, but by the work of imagination, projection and creativity" ^{[5, p. 22]}. At the same time, according to the researcher, mediators are necessary for the post-memory mechanisms to work. The role of mediators can be played by material evidence: diaries, letters, photographs, personal belongings. Mediators also include media media: cinema, literature, various TV projects, etc. It is safe to say that new media are a vivid example of such mediators.

In the modern world, new media are beginning to have a decisive influence on the formation of a picture of reality, leading to the emergence of a special media culture that transforms familiar social phenomena. For example, V.L. Primakov, exploring the processes of mediatization, writes: "Mass media have firmly entered the content of social life; in this symbiosis, a special media culture, sustainable social practices and technologies have been formed, media in their essence and methods of implementation" ^{[6, p. 222]}. Mediatization thus forms a new cultural environment, which, in turn, transforms collective memory. In particular, A.N. Gureeva writes about this: "under the strong influence of rapidly developing technologies and media, an absolutely new society is being formed – dependent on media consumption, providing the necessary information and consuming all possible communication channels" ^{[7, p. 203]}.

In such conditions, the line between cultural and communicative memory is gradually blurred. The number of subjects participating in the construction of ideas about the past and focusing not only on their own memories, but also on information gleaned from media sources is significantly increasing. The transition of collective memory to the media memory format is taking place.

One of the first studies devoted to media memory (digital memory) was the 2009 collection "Save as... Digital Memories" edited by J. GardeHansen, E. Hoskins, A. Reding. According to the authors, the emergence of media memory is due not only to changes in the processes of storing and broadcasting information in the digital environment, but also to the penetration of new media into almost all spheres of society. O. M. Moroz, analyzing the above work, highlights such features of media memory as digital deterritorialization of memory (the ability to create their own versions of memory) and changes in memory formats (new ways and forms of storing, broadcasting, erasing and restoring information) ^[8].

The analysis of the properties of media memory (cyber memory) is carried out in the works of the Polish researcher K. Shtop-Rutkowska. The researcher defines cyber memory "as content representing the theme of the past: events, places, objects and people (both heroes and antiheroes), as well as ways to preserve this past in memory and specific cultural practices associated with the process of communication through new media" ^{[9, pp. 132-133]}. Signs of new media K. Shtop-Rutkowska believes: the ability to access media at any time, anywhere and on any digital device; as well as the possibility of interactive creative participation of users in the creation of multimedia content. In addition, K. Shtop-Rutkowska notes that "the second important element of new media is the 'democratization' of the creation, publication, distribution and consumption of media content" ^{[9, p. 133]}. That is, by cyber memory, the researcher understands a new way of constructing, reproducing and broadcasting images of the past, characteristic of the digital media environment, assuming the presence of many actors. In this regard, media memory is "democratic" because it is created based on the opinions of various individuals and social groups.

The concept of media memory is analyzed in detail in the works of researchers D.S. Artamonov and S.V. Tikhonova ^[10,11]. According to the researchers: "The decisive influence of digital media, which also incorporated traditional media, on culture, communication, and social relations allows us to talk about the formation of a special mechanism for creating, reproducing, storing and forgetting collectively shared ideas about the past – media memory" ^{[12, p. 19]}.

Thus, media memory can be defined as a system of formation, storage and translation of knowledge and ideas about the past, which forms the basis of collective (family) memory. The mediatization of collective (family) memory is a process of subordination of memory to the internal laws of the existence and functioning of new media. According to D.S. Artamonov and S.V. Tikhonova: "Media memory as a form of collective memory fits into the concept of post-truth, when personal history and personal experience of perception of reality based on emotions replace objective data for a person" ^{[13, p. 23]}. Media, defining the context of memory reproduction, change the vectors of family memory formation. Thus, the concept of media memory demonstrates the totality of the process of mediatization of collective memory in general and family memory in particular.

The Internet is becoming the most influential mediator of family memory due to its accessibility and interactivity. The World Wide Web allows various social groups to create their own version of history, contributing to the reassessment of established ideas about certain historical events. Social media platforms are turning into a space for the exchange of opinions and memories, contributing to the formation of common experiences and collective memory. At the same time, the Internet is becoming a platform for various conflicts, transforming into an arena for memorial wars.

Over the past decades, clear trends in the interpretation of Russia's past have taken shape in official political practice and memory policy. The leading trend was an active appeal to the Soviet period of history, especially to the period of the Great Patriotic War. For the Russian memory policy, the Great Patriotic War has become a central narrative, constructing an image of the past and demonstrating the special historical role of Russia. The Immortal Regiment movement has become one of the most striking examples of how the national narrative of the Great Victory includes private family narratives.

Numerous Internet projects dedicated to the theme of the Great Patriotic War can serve as an example of the mediatization of family memory. At the beginning of 2023, the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs announced the All-Russian competition "Family Memory". The participants of the competition were invited to try on the role of a researcher, study family archives and write a work dedicated to the exploits of their relatives during the Great Patriotic War. The aim of the competition, therefore, is to form a common space of media memory through family memory. The social framework in this case is the official narrative of the Great Patriotic War.

The Internet project "Faces of Victory" is similar in its orientation. The aim of the project is to preserve the family memory of loved ones who participated in the Great Patriotic War or worked in the rear. By uploading family photos, the project participants visualize family stories, transferring them from the format of communicative memory to the format of media memory.

Another example is the state information system "Memory of the People". This is an electronic bank of documents from the period of the Great Patriotic War, compiled from the materials of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense. The project provides an opportunity to document information about the participants of the war. In addition, the project allows visitors to post family stories about their relatives on the portal.

These are just some examples of the digitalization of family memory within the framework of the state narrative of the Great Victory. There are a huge number of Internet resources devoted to this topic, and judging by political trends, their number will grow.

In the space of media memory, stable images of mass culture and official political discourse are mixed with images of personal memories and family memory, forming new forms of interpretation of the past. What are the main effects of mediatization of memory: constructive or destructive?

On the one hand, mediatization has a number of obvious positive consequences. It helps to preserve personal experience and family knowledge about the past. If the communicative (family) memory, which was carried out as a direct transfer of experience "by word of mouth", was preserved for only a few generations, then thanks to digitalization (digitization of personal memories and archives, the presence of numerous thematic Internet resources, etc.), personal memories and experiences are preserved for almost unlimited time. In addition, access to a variety of sources helps to form a more complete picture of the past. For example, on various Internet resources you can find historical documents, archival photos and video materials that were previously unavailable.

The Great Patriotic War is the most striking example demonstrating how the official social framework of mediatization can set the vectors of family memory. Not only heroic narratives related to the Great Victory can be broadcast in the media space. For example, the study of the historical memory of Russians about the Great Patriotic War, formed by the Internet environment, is devoted to the study of O. V. Golovashina, A. A. Linchenko, D. A. Anikin. According to the authors' conclusions, the Internet space as a mediator of memory demonstrates a complex picture, including "selectivity, sharpness of assessments; the dominance of Soviet ideological cliches; the relationship of discussion with modern foreign and domestic political problems; the actualization of family memory, as well as the use of the theme of Victory in The Second World War as a platform for criticism of the current government" ^{[14, p. 130]}. That is, even this topic is endowed with various connotations by the Internet environment. Nevertheless, the researchers note that "the theme of Victory remains in the Internet environment and the mass historical consciousness as one of the most important symbols of patriotism, family historical identity. For Russians, May 9 is an occasion, albeit with some caution (“are we worthy?”) to remember their loved ones who fought. Communicative memory is manifested in the most successful actions dedicated to Victory Day (for example, the “Immortal Regiment”), it is she who is the resource that the state uses to legitimize the present. "Battles of memory" are a common component of information support for Victory Day, and are rather related to civic identity" ^{[14, p. 130]}. Thus, the constructive aspects of the mediatization of family memory include the formation of a national identity by including the most significant events and national symbols in the narratives of family memory. Thus, the consolidation of society takes place.

Digitalization creates a single space of media memory, blurring the line between cultural memory (official state narrative) and communicative memory (family narrative). In these conditions, family memory becomes vulnerable to various kinds of manipulations. In fact, the mythologization of family memory is taking place. In this case, we are talking about the deformation of family ideas about the past under the influence of official ideological discourse, reinforced by the media environment. Family memory is easily distorted (and not only by external influences). On the one hand, new media create additional channels for broadcasting images of the family past, on the other hand, they contribute to the dissemination of distorted historical knowledge. Distortions of the historical picture may be associated with traumatic historical events (political repression, the war in Afghanistan, etc.).

For example, A.G. Ivanov, exploring the process of mythologizing family memory, focuses on the figures of the "hero" and "victim" around which family mythology develops ^[15]. The construction of heroic family myths takes place in relation to the theme of the Great Patriotic War. As mentioned earlier, the inclusion of family memory through various media projects in the official political discourse on the Great Victory contributes to the formation of a common identity and the strengthening of national unity.

Family mythology, built around the figure of the victim, is usually associated with the theme of political repression. There are quite a lot of Internet resources dedicated to the seminal memory of the Great Terror ("Open List", "Immortal Barracks", etc.). On the one hand, such media projects contribute to the construction of group identity. But, on the other hand, the basis of this identity is the tragic narrative of the victim, which in the media space can take destructive forms.

For example, building a family identity as descendants of victims can lead to the emergence of a category of "descendants of executioners." In particular, Yu.V. Zevako writes about this in his research on the Internet project "Investigation of Karagodin". Denis Karagodin's project is dedicated to finding those responsible for the death of his repressed great-grandfather. At the same time, the discussions that unfolded in the Internet space affected not only the NKVD officers themselves who participated in the repression, but also their descendants.

As noted by Y.V. Zevako: "The discourse around the "descendants of the executioners" in the memory space of the era of political repression has a high level of emotional charge. The moral community that has developed around the victims and "descendants of victims" of repression is not always ready to perceive and accept a complex range of feelings and experiences of the "descendants of lamentation" in relation to their ancestors, prescribing them rather harsh and limited scenarios of acceptable and unacceptable reactions" ^{[16, p. 60]}.

Thus, the mediatization of family memory can have both constructive and destructive effects. The mediatization of family memory contributes to the formation of a national identity through the inclusion of significant national events and symbols in the images of the past transmitted by family memory. However, family memory, being integrated into the official cultural memory, becomes "vulnerable" to various manipulations. This increases the risk of purposefully distorting the image of the past. Eventually, the media blurs the boundaries of family memory, replacing images of the past with images constructed by the media space.