This panel examines the diverse ways in which memory is mobilized, instrumentalized, and securitized in post socialist and post-Soviet societies. Building on the concept of the politics of memory, it brings together contributions that explore how state institutions, political actors, and cultural practices shape collective remembrance. Particular attention is given to the tension between top down attempts to impose official historical narratives and the more fragmented, bottom up practices of remembering that emerge in societies marked by complex and contested pasts. Petra Hudek investigates how political elites and activist movements in Slovakia use historical references in digital media to influence opinion and shape collective identities. Her discourse analysis highlights how emotionally charged narratives intensify ideological polarization. Georgiy Kasianov examines the securitization of memory in Eastern Europe and Russia, showing how institutional mechanisms frame memory as a security issue, enabling state intervention and control over historical narratives. Andreea Elle Vas analyzes post-socialist Romania, where nostalgia for Ceaușescu’s “Golden Age” reflects both gaps in public documentation and the rise of romanticized cultural narratives. She examines how artistic, literary, and museological practices challenge and complicate these memories. Together, these papers offer a multi-layered view of memory politics in post-socialist societies. They trace continuities from Soviet propaganda to present-day political communication, reveal cultural and affective dynamics of remembrance, and show how institutions transform memory into a tool of power. The panel contributes to debates on memory regimes, the political use of the past, and the role of collective remembrance in democratic transformation.
Melinda Harlov-Csortán, Institute of History of Slovak Academy of Sciences & Apor Vilmos Catholic College, Vác, Hungary - "Valuing the built heritage of which past? Transformation of the monument protection state institution and projects in Post Socialist Hungary" Built surrounding can define knowledge of the past and collective identity (Lambert & Ochsnert, 2009; Benton, 2010). What is protected from the past, demolished or adapted to contemporary circumstances are defined by the leading power and the experts (Todorov, 2001, 11-39; Ricoeur, 2004). In case of Hungary, during the Cold War period, after the defeated revolution and freedom fight of 1956, the leading power aimed to regain the Western (democratic) powers' trust through the different fields of culture (Caute, 2003). Hence relative freedom and cooperation could be realized for the monument protection experts through the Iron or according to György Péteri Nylon Curtain (2004, 113-123; Takács, 2022). Such closed to ideal role and influence has drastically changed after the political change of the country. The former centralized nation-wide institution and inspectorate system was transformed many times than dissolved to smaller units within the public administration system. Instead of the Soviet message the goal became to express a glorified historic past with nationalistic aims (Rabow-Edling, 2006; Troebst & Jilge, 2006, 1-81). While significant budget was ensured for the protection of the pre-World War II period, the Socialist past got systematically erased from the urban surfaces (Pók, 2017; Vukov & Kazalarska, 2018; Czarneska, 2021). On the other hand, similar to the Socialist time, minorities and social complexity of the country is not expressed or even acknowledged with the modern architectural projects. The proposed presentation is based on document analysis and interviews with the representative of the profession. It looks at both the de-institutionalisation and the still existed political influence although with different message regarding the historical narrative creation role of the built heritage
Petra Hudek, Vilnius University & Institute of History SAS - "Memory Politics and the Instrumentalization of Historical Events in Contemporary Slovakia": This paper investigates how historical events are selectively instrumentalized by political elites and activist movements in Slovakia’s digital and media landscape to shape political agendas and public opinion. The central research question asks how and why specific historical references are mobilized to support competing ideological narratives in the contemporary political discourse. The paper employs qualitative discourse analysis, focusing on how history is invoked and reframed in political communication. The primary corpus consists of social media posts by politicians and influential public figures, complemented by news media articles, television interviews, and statements. Posts and discourses are examined through thematic and framing analysis to identify recurring patterns, narratives, and ideological alignments. Social media platforms serve as a key amplifier of these mnemonic strategies. They facilitate rapid circulation of simplified and emotionally charged historical references, which strengthens their mobilizing capacity and intensifies polarization. The analysis shows that the use of history in this context is not a peripheral rhetorical practice but a central mechanism through which competing actors attempt to shape collective memory, legitimate political power, and influence public opinion in contemporary Slovakia.
Georgiy Kasianov, Marie Curie - Sklodowska University - "Securitization of memory in the post-Communist space: an institutional dimension":
The paper observes institutional mechanisms of securitization of memory in Easter Europe and Russia, analyzing roles and activities of specialized various mnemonic institutions (state and non-governmental) in pursuing mnemonic security. The paper shifts the focus from broad institutional descriptions to an in-depth analysis of internal structures, discourse production, and decision- and strategy-making processes. It explores the mechanisms through which these institutions construct and disseminate historical narratives, shape public memory, and national identity. The paper analyzes internal mechanisms and modes of action, including motivations and institutional interests, goal-setting, discourse production, strategy planning, implementation policies and mechanisms, impact assessment. The paper demonstrates how states and NGOs employ institutional mechanisms to conceptualize memory as a security concern, thereby legitimizing intervention in the public sphere and consolidating political control over historical narratives.
20260729T140020260729T1530America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires2.16. The Uses and Abuses of Memory Remembrance and Political Instrumentalization in Post Socialist ContextSV103MSA Buenos Aires 2026buenosairesconference@memorystudiesassociation.org
Making History: Genocide Discourse in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia
Individual paperMemory Politics and Policies02:00 PM - 03:30 PM (America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires) 2026/07/29 17:00:00 UTC - 2026/07/29 18:30:00 UTC
This paper examines the genocide discourse in Soviet and post Soviet Russia. The long duration analysis reveals a pattern in the Russian policymaking to interpret genocide instrumentally as a quintessential Nazi crime. Ever since the crime of genocide entered international legal discourse, the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation have been intent on linking it to the Second World War. During the debates on the draft genocide convention on the UN floor in 1947–1948, Soviet representatives took a high moral ground by declaring genocide as the ultimate crime of the Nazis. The Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, who reviewed and edited the draft Soviet proposal, removed all references to genocide as an international crime that could have a political form. Contrary to common belief, Stalin did not oppose references to political genocide to avoid responsibility for prosecuting political opponents in 1936–38. His true concern was the elimination of opposition during the Sovietization of Eastern Europe. After ratifying the Genocide Convention in 1954, Moscow utilized it as a rhetorical weapon against the West, particularly the United States, which only submitted the instrument of ratification in 1988. The glaring lack of impartial legal studies on genocide in the Soviet Union continued into post Soviet Russia. References to genocide resurfaced concurrently with Russia’s aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, as an ex post facto justification for military intervention. The tired Soviet interpretation of genocide as primarily a Nazi crime has been reimagined in light of the full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Russian Federation has belatedly embraced a victim ethos. The new legal concept of “genocide of the Soviet people” conveniently blends the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II with the alleged offenses of Ukrainian "fascists" since 2014.
