Rediscovering the Past: On the Importance of Collective Memory Work

Abstract Are we as members of a group obliged to remember the past? Are there certain historical events that we as members of a group must not forget? These questions are particularly pertinent for the conception of collective memory. I will argue that we must distinguish between the duty to remember and memory work. The distinction plays a role as to prevent misuses of collective memory. Avishai Margalit’s idea that we are obliged to remember certain historical events and people quickly leads to memory-conservatism and traditionalism, which as a paradigm for collective memory is problematic. Conversely, if we delink the embedded valorization and the inherent affectivity tied to cultural heritage from the process of collective remembering, we end up with an instrumental view of the ethical role of memory, as can be found in Jonathan Lear’s idea of collective mourning. In the attempt to find a middle ground between these two positions, I consider Bernard Williams’s discussion of valuing what is simply important with regards to the transmission of values for future generations. Williams’ idea offers a constructive antidote to both traditionalism and instrumentalism with regards to collective memory.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Ethics
Published
2026-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-026-09565-9
Primary Topic
Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rediscovering the Past: On the Importance of Collective Memory Work

Line Ryberg Ingerslev
The Journal of Ethics
Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
article

Rediscovering the Past: On the Importance of Collective Memory Work

Line Ryberg Ingerslev
article en

Abstract

Abstract Are we as members of a group obliged to remember the past? Are there certain historical events that we as members of a group must not forget? These questions are particularly pertinent for the conception of collective memory. I will argue that we must distinguish between the duty to remember and memory work. The distinction plays a role as to prevent misuses of collective memory. Avishai Margalit’s idea that we are obliged to remember certain historical events and people quickly leads to memory-conservatism and traditionalism, which as a paradigm for collective memory is problematic. Conversely, if we delink the embedded valorization and the inherent affectivity tied to cultural heritage from the process of collective remembering, we end up with an instrumental view of the ethical role of memory, as can be found in Jonathan Lear’s idea of collective mourning. In the attempt to find a middle ground between these two positions, I consider Bernard Williams’s discussion of valuing what is simply important with regards to the transmission of values for future generations. Williams’ idea offers a constructive antidote to both traditionalism and instrumentalism with regards to collective memory.

The Journal of Ethics
Københavns Universitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.