Collective memory has been studied from a variety of perspectives, namely psychological, cultural, literary, political, and social, inviting interdisciplinary endeavors that have however struggled to advance a theoretically generative dialogue. I do not argue that this ambition should be altogether abandoned but that instead we begin treating memory studies as a discipline in its own right, one that unfolds in a number of subdisciplines whose theoretical devel-opment begs for segmented elaboration. In the introduction, Wüstenberg identifi es two fundamental limitations in much of the memory studies lit-erature: an overreliance on structures to explain outcomes and an enclosure within an overdeployed national framework. As a corrective, she suggests focusing on agency as a “useful handle on how memory is made transna-tional,” calling on contributors to “closely examine the evolution of and power dynamics underpinning the practice of interaction . . . between agents and structures” (emphasis in original). My own chapter interprets the above as a call for a relational and sociological approach to memory politics and puts forth four distinct propositions.
Dujisin, Z. (2020). A Field Theoretical Approach to Memory Politics. In Jenny Wüstenberg & Aline Sierp (ed.), Agency in Transnational Memory Politics (p. p. 24-44). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781789206951-004