On the Typology of Social Amnesia

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to clarify the concept of social amnesia, which often does not differ in modern research works from other manifestations of social forgetfulness. The author offers a general typology of this phenomenon, based on the conceptual distinctions introduced by T. Parsons and D. Easton. These refer to the difference between a social system and an actor, on the one hand, and the difference between a social group and grouping, on the other. Accordingly, the author identifies three types of social amnesia: systemic, structural, and actor one. The article draws attention to the difficulties of conceptualizing actor and structural amnesia, since they are often mixed with organized (prescribed) oblivion or the pragmatics of forgetting, complementing the process of memorization. To clarify these points, the author turns to the experience of studying the amnesic effects generated by the totalitarian organization of oblivion. To this end, the article analyzes the understanding of totalitarian amnesia in the artistic images of George Orwell, as well as in the concepts of Hannah Arendt that are consonant with them. The author emphasizes that the totalitarian “neuro-linguistic politics of memory” gives rise to amnesic effects regarding the past primarily in its living witnesses, and not only in future generations. Further, the author clarifies the concept of structural amnesia, which has received a contradictory interpretation in modern social sciences and humanities. In this regard, the article discusses the significant role of structural amnesia in the destruction but also in the formation of social identities. Based on the cases presented in the scientific studies to this topic, the author raises the question of the specifics of structural amnesia as an effect of social modernization and high mobility in the formation of national identities at micro- and macro-level.