Authors
Tadeusz Wojtych1; 1 Western University, Canada Discussion
New museology, critical heritage studies, and the politics of history/memory are three research frameworks guided by similar sensitivities: their adherents acknowledge that the interpretations of the past are subjective, the definition of heritage is shaped by the present more so than by the past, and the writing of history is affected by contemporary political considerations. In spite of these similarities, scholars adopting those three approaches rarely come into dialogue with one another. This paper builds bridges between these three frameworks. I take each framework in turn and use it to analyse three very different ‘memory events’ of the twenty-first century: the conflict around the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk, the debates about the commemoration of the post-war ‘expulsions’ in Germany, and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. By choosing a post-war, post-communist and post-colonial case study, I explore how the three theoretical frameworks can be applied to the study of different memory cultures. I conclude that greater cooperation and dialogue between researchers from new museology, critical heritage studies, and the politics of history could paint a more complete picture of how the past is contested, used, and abused in Central Europe and beyond. At the same time, I advocate in favour of the use of the term ‘politics of history’ – hitherto largely confined to Central and Eastern Europeanists – as an umbrella term that encompasses diverse interventions into memory-making processes. 
