Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference. G. Mitchell Reyes Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(3):222–252, 2010. ![Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex [first paragraph] Research on the relationship between public memory and collective identity is varied and extensive, but one fairly prominent scholarly perspective coalesces around Hannah Arendt's idea that the practices of remembrance are the lifeblood of the polis. 1 Th e stakes here are high, for it seems that without remembrance, the very possibility of collective identity and his- torical responsibility literally “disappear.” 2 Scholars as diverse as Maurice Halbwachs (1992), Benedict Anderson (1991), and Peter Novick (1999) (to name a few) have emphasized this connection between public memory and collective identity (see also Kattago 2001; Kammen 1991; Gillis 1994a; and Bodnar 1992). Although these scholars' projects diverge in other ways, they hold in common an interest in public memory's capacity to constitute transnational, national, and local identities. For these scholars, remembrance is not simply a vehicle for tradition; it is also an activity that brings collective identity into being. Collective identity emerges through the other, whose call to remember constitutes collectivity. Th e ontological space remembrance creates might thus be considered intersubjective, or between subjects.
@article{Reyes2010,
abstract = {[first paragraph] Research on the relationship between public memory and collective identity is varied and extensive, but one fairly prominent scholarly perspective coalesces around Hannah Arendt's idea that the practices of remembrance are the lifeblood of the polis. 1 Th e stakes here are high, for it seems that without remembrance, the very possibility of collective identity and his- torical responsibility literally “disappear.” 2 Scholars as diverse as Maurice Halbwachs (1992), Benedict Anderson (1991), and Peter Novick (1999) (to name a few) have emphasized this connection between public memory and collective identity (see also Kattago 2001; Kammen 1991; Gillis 1994a; and Bodnar 1992). Although these scholars' projects diverge in other ways, they hold in common an interest in public memory's capacity to constitute transnational, national, and local identities. For these scholars, remembrance is not simply a vehicle for tradition; it is also an activity that brings collective identity into being. Collective identity emerges through the other, whose call to remember constitutes collectivity. Th e ontological space remembrance creates might thus be considered intersubjective, or between subjects.},
author = {{G. Mitchell Reyes}},
doi = {10.1353/par.0.0060},
file = {:Users/michaelk/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/G. Mitchell Reyes - 2010 - Memory and alterity The case for an analytic of difference.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1527-2079},
journal = {Philosophy and Rhetoric},
number = {3},
pages = {222--252},
title = {{Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0060https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389523 http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/philosophy{\_}and{\_}rhetoric/v043/43.3.reyes.html},
volume = {43},
year = {2010}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"6645XXT7QFqHw9KKw","bibbaseid":"gmitchellreyes-memoryandalteritythecaseforananalyticofdifference-2010","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2019-04-01T06:57:21.559Z","title":"Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference","author_short":["G. Mitchell Reyes"],"year":2010,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://phil-mem.org/phil-mem.bib/","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","abstract":"[first paragraph] Research on the relationship between public memory and collective identity is varied and extensive, but one fairly prominent scholarly perspective coalesces around Hannah Arendt's idea that the practices of remembrance are the lifeblood of the polis. 1 Th e stakes here are high, for it seems that without remembrance, the very possibility of collective identity and his- torical responsibility literally “disappear.” 2 Scholars as diverse as Maurice Halbwachs (1992), Benedict Anderson (1991), and Peter Novick (1999) (to name a few) have emphasized this connection between public memory and collective identity (see also Kattago 2001; Kammen 1991; Gillis 1994a; and Bodnar 1992). Although these scholars' projects diverge in other ways, they hold in common an interest in public memory's capacity to constitute transnational, national, and local identities. For these scholars, remembrance is not simply a vehicle for tradition; it is also an activity that brings collective identity into being. Collective identity emerges through the other, whose call to remember constitutes collectivity. Th e ontological space remembrance creates might thus be considered intersubjective, or between subjects.","author":[{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["G. Mitchell Reyes"],"suffixes":[]}],"doi":"10.1353/par.0.0060","file":":Users/michaelk/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/G. Mitchell Reyes - 2010 - Memory and alterity The case for an analytic of difference.pdf:pdf","issn":"1527-2079","journal":"Philosophy and Rhetoric","number":"3","pages":"222–252","title":"Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference","url":"https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0060https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389523 http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v043/43.3.reyes.html","volume":"43","year":"2010","bibtex":"@article{Reyes2010,\nabstract = {[first paragraph] Research on the relationship between public memory and collective identity is varied and extensive, but one fairly prominent scholarly perspective coalesces around Hannah Arendt's idea that the practices of remembrance are the lifeblood of the polis. 1 Th e stakes here are high, for it seems that without remembrance, the very possibility of collective identity and his- torical responsibility literally “disappear.” 2 Scholars as diverse as Maurice Halbwachs (1992), Benedict Anderson (1991), and Peter Novick (1999) (to name a few) have emphasized this connection between public memory and collective identity (see also Kattago 2001; Kammen 1991; Gillis 1994a; and Bodnar 1992). Although these scholars' projects diverge in other ways, they hold in common an interest in public memory's capacity to constitute transnational, national, and local identities. For these scholars, remembrance is not simply a vehicle for tradition; it is also an activity that brings collective identity into being. Collective identity emerges through the other, whose call to remember constitutes collectivity. Th e ontological space remembrance creates might thus be considered intersubjective, or between subjects.},\nauthor = {{G. Mitchell Reyes}},\ndoi = {10.1353/par.0.0060},\nfile = {:Users/michaelk/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/G. Mitchell Reyes - 2010 - Memory and alterity The case for an analytic of difference.pdf:pdf},\nissn = {1527-2079},\njournal = {Philosophy and Rhetoric},\nnumber = {3},\npages = {222--252},\ntitle = {{Memory and alterity: The case for an analytic of difference}},\nurl = {https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0060https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389523 http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/philosophy{\\_}and{\\_}rhetoric/v043/43.3.reyes.html},\nvolume = {43},\nyear = {2010}\n}\n","author_short":["G. Mitchell Reyes"],"key":"Reyes2010","id":"Reyes2010","bibbaseid":"gmitchellreyes-memoryandalteritythecaseforananalyticofdifference-2010","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0060https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389523 http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v043/43.3.reyes.html"},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["memory","alterity","case","analytic","difference","g. mitchell reyes"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["xpm4HPGis5kQeHY7z"]}