Stanišić pointed to the biggest challenge faced in his work, which was the “abusing and misusing this history for inflaming fear, hate, nationalism, violence.” He also stressed the importance of including the voices of survivors, especially from different minorities, and creating “a coalition between these minority voices, whoever they are.”
Is there a limit to diversity? Can a society be too diverse to function in a balanced way?
Dr. Cheriet rather disagreed that there could be a limit to diversity but claimed that the first step to a common collective memory is being open to a discussion, “to the reality that there is not only one truth, [but] there are many different [stories].” Dr. Tartakowsky developed the thought, pointing to such crucial points as teaching history with a focus on long-term processes, shifting from national-centric narratives towards connected or multi-directional history, and promoting the effectiveness of respect for human rights. “We have to find our ways how to live and function in this,” noted Stanišić. “In any kind of diversity, I think that we all can agree about the respect of human dignity.”
What about forgiveness when talking about the difficult history? How to deal with the issue of memory competition?
Speaking of the process of overcoming the tragic experience of the past, Stanišić remarked that “bringing communities together, not as perpetrators versus victims, but bringing people together has this healing effect.” Dr. Cheriet dwelled on forgiveness and noted that “when you forgive someone, you don't forget what they did. And when you forgive, it's for you so that you can move a step ahead in the healing process.” Dr. Tartakowsky disagreed that forgiveness was a relevant term, stressing that it was moral and connected to the idea of consensus. “I do not think that we always need to have consensus memories, consensus histories. […] how to have a consensual narrative about the perpetrators’ view and the victims’ point of view?” she pondered.
How to build on collective memory in diverse communities? Is it possible to create a common collective memory in a diverse society or not?
Miško Stanišić emphasized the need for a strategy “of actively creating space, a safe space, for the narratives that are based on local micro-historical experiences, and for these narratives to be heard publicly, shared, not only among different minority communities.” Dr. Cheriet noted that it is important to stop pathologizing the divided memories, but “treat them as really valid expression of identity and experience.” She added that those spaces must include “a part in the process where we show how we rely on the past to imagine a common future,” expressing the concern that building the official narrative under the circumstances can be a challenge. Dr. Tartakowsky draw the attention to the issue of common nationalism, which gets in the way of building an inclusive narrative.
The comments and questions from the audience concerned the difference in country-specific interpretations of historical events, precisely the Polish and the French context; the exclusion of minority voices from the official narratives; the integration or disintegration of memory based on the example of Babyn Yar and how the narrative changed from the universal “Soviet citizens” to particular victim groups; the issues of contested and invisible memories, the functioning of memory in polarized communities, and transmission of memory.∎