MODEL OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY IN THE CONTEXT OF MEMORY POLITICS: STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES

The article substantiates the need for a working model of collective memory applicable to Ukraine’s public and academic contexts, particularly in the sphere of historical policy and related memory practices. It demonstrates that the variable use of terms associated with collective memory conflates levels of analysis and complicates the coordination of commemorative processes and practices. The novelty of the study lies in the introduction of an operational framework in which collective memory is conceptualized as a super-category of socially shared knowledge about the past. The division of collective memory into cultural, political, and communicative forms (Jan and Aleida Assmann) is supplemented by the analytical concept of collective remembering as a procedural link of selection and stabilization of meanings. Communicative memory is conceptualized as a living, non-institutionalized form of oral memory, limited to a horizon of three to four generations. Cultural memory is interpreted as a form of objectified memory sustained through media, mnemonic techniques, and institutional practices. National memory is defined as a specific case of political memory, associated with the symbolic organization and legitimation of the nation as a political community. Structurally, both cultural and political memory consist of a canon and an archive. Under the conditions of the Russo-Ukrainian war, processes of remembering accelerate and the range of actors expands; therefore, clear definitions and a visible scheme of transitions between levels of memory can serve as an analytical tool for the interpretation and coordination of memory policies. The proposed model clarifies the boundaries between levels and provides a procedural map of transitions, enabling the initial mapping of actors, stages of selection, and forms of public consolidation of collective memory. In this way, it enables the identification of zones of potential conflict and the diagnosis of declining legitimacy in institutional memory initiatives.