Nombre de usuario o dirección de correo

Contraseña

Recuérdame

Jordi Canal (1964) is a member of the Center for Historical Research at the Institute of Higher Studies in Paris. As an expert on the history of Spain and his native region of Catalonia, he has published numerous specialized works and made public appearances on the controversial topic of nationalism in Spain. His most recent books, not translated to english, include: Historia mínima de Cataluña (2015); Con permiso de Kafka. El proceso independentista en Cataluña (2018); Dios, Patria, Rey. Carlismo y guerras civiles en España (2023); y Contar España. Una historia contemporánea en doce novelas ( 2024).

Are we living in an age where memory prevails over history, even in the world of universities?

I wouldn’t say that it has prevailed definitively, because that would be too pessimistic, but it is clear that it has displaced history as the main reference point. Until not long ago, history—in its various interpretations—was the framework from which we understood the past. However, since the end of the 20th century, and even more clearly in the 21st, memory has taken its place. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we know how to distinguish between memory and history. Many sectors—some out of ignorance, others out of a lack of reflection, and some deliberately—tend to confuse the two. But they are different things. Memory starts from the present to look at the past; it interprets it from current concerns, values, and sensibilities. History, on the other hand, seeks to understand the past from its own perspective, avoiding anachronisms. From this perspective, we can speak of an abuse of memory. This abuse is transforming the way we see the past. We see it in the controversy over monuments, in public celebrations, in the removal of certain content from textbooks. Anything that does not fit in with present-day values tends to be erased, and memory becomes the instrument used to justify this elimination. And that is dangerous. It is dangerous because whoever controls memory ultimately also controls the narrative of the past. And this control can extend to any sphere. Obviously, this is useful for nationalists, but also for certain populist left-wing movements. In my view, this poses a serious problem for the work of historians. As historians, we must warn that, although memory can be valuable and interesting, its uses can be dangerous.

An example?

Throughout history, every new regime or government —and more frequently in dictatorial contexts— has carried out a “symbolic cleansing”: changing the names of streets and squares, removing monuments. We already knew that. What is worrying today is that this process goes beyond a simple change of regime or government. We are facing a paradigm shift.

The idea has taken hold that we can intervene in history, adding or removing elements according to the values of the present. Thus, the aim is to construct a national history—of Mexico, of any country—without figures such as Christopher Columbus or Hernán Cortés, simply because they are uncomfortable today. We saw this coming: in Mexico, for example, Cortés and Iturbide have no place in the official narrative, displaced by other figures who fit better into the dominant narrative. We have reached a point where certain progressive sectors are seeking to rewrite the past based on an anachronistic memory. Anything that does not fit current values is expelled from history. Another worrying case is........

© Letras Libres