Українознавство і комеморативні студії: термінологічна спорідненість та методологічна специфіка

The relevance of the research. Ukraine is an illustration of how important memory is to a nation's ability to survive and the preserve its own identity. Despite the fact that memory studies and Ukrainian studies are institutionalized, the constant progress of Ukrainian society requires periodic revision or agreement of certain fundamental issues in these fields of study. The situation of using the terms of memory synonymously is quite common in the mass media, while the scientific literature tends towards meaningful “purity”. Under these conditions, there is a need for socio-philosophical reflection of the existing conceptual apparatus. The purpose of the article is to establish the methodological affinity of research in the field of Ukrainian studies and commemorative studies. Conclusions. A common point in the methodology of Ukrainian studies and memory studies is their functional focus on the formation of national identity. It is noted that, on the one hand, Ukrainian studies reconsider the content of the historical memory of Ukrainians through the prism of the national view of world history, and on the other hand, memory studies are an immanent means of Ukrainian studies. General sociocultural turn, postmodernist instructions to abandon grand narratives, reorientation from “history of events” to “history of people” with an emphasis on “history of everyday life” and “history of mentalities”; increasing the role of the subject of knowledge, who turns from a witness of historical events into a co-author of history; taking into account the possibilities of deconstruction of historical meanings, the use of achronological modeling – all this allows us to draw a conclusion about the methodological affinity of Ukrainian studies and memory studies. Furthermore, most of the analyzed definitions show that everyone agrees that historical memory is a socially constructed phenomenon. Definitions given in various mass media, dictionaries, scientific studies and even in Wikipedia were considered. The main objections to the legitimacy of the term historical memory are also analyzed. They boil down to two remarks: the tautology of the term and internal contradiction. The peculiarities of historical memory covering both individual and collective levels are analyzed.