Identity protection and collective (non-)remembrance

Abstract

To understand who we are, we must look at our past. To understand who we would like to be, we must look at how we remember our past. A long-standing assumption in collective memory literature is that identity interests guide selective (non-)remembrance among social group members. Through four empirical projects, this dissertation critically addresses that assumption, examining how identity protection plays out in four key processes relevant to understanding collective remembrance: communicating about how to deal with the past, representing past ingroup roles, processing information about the past, and the willingness to remember the past. Chapter 2 shows that group members can convey identity-protective desires for closing discussion of their perpetrator past in seemingly victim-oriented, reconciliatory ways, while – ironically – devaluing the victims (communication). Chapter 3 elaborates on identity-protective intergroup responses, demonstrating that acknowledging the ingroup’s negative historical role, rather than emphasizing positive roles, can come along with increased negativity toward the victim group (role representation). This finding challenges some prominent theoretical accounts. Also contrary to prevailing assumptions, Chapter 4 reveals that individuals’ short-term recall and recognition performance shows no identity-protective bias that disfavors threatening information about ingroup perpetration (information processing). Finally, Chapter 5 fully reopens the question of whether the identity-protective potential of historical events is linked to group members’ readiness to remember them. The results partly support the relevance of identity concerns for collective remembrance desires, but also reveal substantial contextual variations in and notable deviations from an identity-protective pattern (willingness to remember). In an integrative discussion, I reflect on how these findings show that identity-protective interests play an important role in collective remembrance, but that this role is more complex than previous literature suggests. Against this background, I outline directions for further developing the field of collective memory.