Towards a transcultural construction of memory

Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafias Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies nemo-Graphien s Interculturais Mnemo-Grafias Intercult tural Mnemo-Graphies Intercul tural Mnemo elle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafias Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Interkulturelle Mnem Mnemo-Gr MÁRIO MATOS ORLANDO GROSSEGESSE ORGANIZAÇÃO Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafi as Interculturais Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafi as Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Universidade do Minho Centro de Investigação em Ciências Sociais UNIÃO EUROPEIA Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional DAADDeutcher Akademischer Austausch Dienst German Academic Exchange Service Towards a TransculTural consTrucTion of memory Mário Matos TOWARDS A TRANSCULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY Mário Matos 1. “THE CURRENT UPSURGE IN MEMORY” Since the 1980s there has been a notorious intensifi cation of transdisciplinary research on cultural memories that still persists. What Aleida Assmann (2009: 17) wrote in 1999, in the fi rst edition of her famous book Erinnerungsräume [Spaces of Memory], about the manifold “forms and transformations of cultural memory”, is still valid in its fourth edition, published ten years later: there is a “new dominance and ongoing fascination of the memory-paradigm”. Th is massive and persistent – academic and nonacademic – interest in all kinds of cultural memory, critically considered by some scholars as a “memory boom” (Winter, 2000)[1] or in an even more radical view as a “fetishistic ‘memorialism’” (Nora, 2011: 437), is corroborated, on the one hand, by several recent editions of academic handbooks, companions and readers specifi cally dedicated to the vast and diversifi ed fi eld of memory studies[2], and, on the other hand, by an intense proliferation of popular cultural forms and modes of capturing, narrating and disseminating the most diverse types of individual and collective memories. 1 See also Benjamin Inal in this volume. 2 For example, Erll / Nünning (2010), Olick et al. (2011) or Pethes (2008). Mnemografias_20130526.indb 29Mnemografias_20130526.indb 29 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 30 MÁRIO MATOS Th ere is a wide and complex range of diff erent elements that explain what Pierre Nora (ibidem), in an article written in 2002, designates as “the current upsurge in memory“. While it is beyond the scope of this article to expose this complexity in an appropriate way, let us briefl y outline only some of the reasons behind it. Th e most obvious reason for this worldwide positive conjuncture in the production and studies of cultural memories has to do with what might be called the second media revolution. It is evident that the profound transformations induced by the diff erent types of visual, audiovisual and digital media during the last century provide an enormous potential to record, remember and represent lived and living History. It started with photography in the last decades of the nineteenth century, then with the moving sound waves and images, fi rst in the radio and later in the cinema and TV, until home video came along and the internet, which actually gives us the possibility to integrate and fuse in a simple way all those – historically speaking – previous media in one superor hyper-medium. Th is increasing technical readiness in recording, preserving and transmitting private or collective memories amounts to an immense archive that undoubtedly provides substantial material and makes room for diff erent approaches, not only in what concerns the social construction and / or cultural production of stories and histories, but also the analytical and refl exive research about that huge sum of memory-narratives. Another reason for this contemporary “emergence of a ‘new wave’ of cultural memory studies” (Erll / Nünning, 2010: 7f) is less material and tangible. It is grounded in a more epistemological as well as political level. To put it shortly, we can consider the growing consciousness of the end of Lyotard’s master narratives as the main reason for the signifi cant increased interest in every kind of memory. Th at means that the failure of a teleological way of thinking that conceived history as a (positive) linear evolution where the present was directly linked to the past and the future, on the one hand, and the collapse of authoritarian regimes with their inherent instrumentalization of history in order to create ideological and national discourses of identity, on the other hand, demanded and still demand the search for new ways to construct alternative identities which apparently do not obey the orders of hierarchical structures of political power. Since the discourse of traditional historiography was denounced by Eric Hobsbawm as a powerful construction for the invention of tradition and considered by Benedict Anderson as essential for the constitution of imagined communities serving nationalism, we conceive cultural memory as something that is shared by a Mnemografias_20130526.indb 30Mnemografias_20130526.indb 30 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 31 TOWARDS A TRANSCULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY group (that might be national or not), but is not externally imposed. Hence it seems to be an acceptable solution for producing identity. Unfortunately, that alternative is not so straightforward, because history and memory are not at all separable spheres but are, in reality, inextricably linked together. In fact, this complex interconnection represents the crux of an interesting discussion and negotiation that actually takes place between the various research perspectives inside the manifold fi eld of memory studies. But this is not the place to elaborate on this matter. In order to achieve the goal of briefl y explaining the reasons for the current memory boom, it will suffi ce to mention the increasing doubts about the ‘trueness’ and ‘authenticity’ of offi cial historiography and offi cial narratives of national memory, which could be observed during the last decades. Th is growing suspicion towards the traditional master narratives of the national(ist) and / or imperial(ist) historiographies is not merely speculative. Even if we focus only on the history of the twentieth century, we can identify at least two major transnational catastrophic events that nourish and legitimize the mentioned mistrust: the horrors of the Second World War and the oppression carried out by the so-called socialist regimes during the Cold War. If the breakdown of the ‘socialist world’ is an obvious cause for a kind of new Spring of Nations and the respective (re)construction of narratives of collective identity in Eastern and South-eastern Europe, where the claims for democracy and independence of formerly oppressed people and ethnicities unfortunately also led to the Balkan War in the last decade of the twentieth century, the darkest cloud of the past which still overshadows the transnational views and perceptions of present memory studies continues to be the Second World War. In particular, the extremely diffi cult reminiscences and remembrances of the Shoah that fi ll entire libraries on their own still haven’t ceased the intensive work of recovering and mediating a memory that largely transposes all national borders and occupies individual and collective victims, off enders, witnesses and researchers from several diff erent generations. Considering the specifi c collective trauma caused by the horrifi c regime of the Th ird Reich and due to the fact that the generations who lived and experienced that period are gradually disappearing, it obviously doesn’t surprise us that this increasing interest in the ways a (trans)national memory – in this case a (trans)national trauma – can be preserved for and transmitted to the post-holocaust generations fi nds a strong expression especially in the German Kulturwissenschaft en. Th is research area about the Nazi period and the Shoah as “traumatic sites of memory”, as “topograMnemografias_20130526.indb 31Mnemografias_20130526.indb 31 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 32 MÁRIO MATOS phy of terror”, is notoriously represented by the works of Aleida Assmann (2009: 328-339), among many other prominent senior researchers, but also by many younger German scholars from diff erent areas or German Studies researchers of various nationalities, as clearly shown by several contributions included in this book. To complete this unavoidably simplifi ed and schematized summary of the diverse reasons for our contemporary awareness of the high signifi cance of collective memories in the complex question of identity, we also have to mention the global process of political decolonialization which lasted at least a whole century. Beginning in the late nineteenth century with the implosion of the colonial system in South and Middle America, continuing aft er the First and Second World War with the breakdown in several phases of the British Empire in Asia, and ending in the 1970s with the last European Empire – namely Portugal – in the African continent, this long and extremely complex process of collapsing imperial narratives and emerging of various diff erent national discourses, which entails very delicate questions of ethnical identities far from being resolved, provided the ground for another very important, wide-ranging research fi eld called Post-Colonial Studies. It is evident that this paradigm, which can be branched into several sub-areas related to Subaltern Studies and which expresses itself in the research work on ethnic minorities as well as on very diff erent kinds of subor countercultures, has very close connections to Cultural Memory Studies as well. All those collective entities claim for the right of their diff erence, or, in other words, demand their own legitimizing narrative of identity which obviously includes the (re)construction of diversifi ed, nearly uncountable sorts of cultural memories. Th is worldwide intense circulation and negotiation of symbols and narratives of identity is certainly one of the main characteristics of our contemporary world that may help us to understand the current memory boom. 2. CONCEPTS OF CULTURAL MEMORIES But let us take a step back and briefl y trace the germination of the modern notion of cultural memory. Like Cultural Studies, understood in the sense of the German Kulturwissenschaft en that emerged as a research fi eld in the beginning of the twentieth century, the various theoretical concepts of a collective or cultural memory came up about one hundred years ago. In a wider sense, memory studies have a long history that can be traced back to at least the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who coined durable Mnemografias_20130526.indb 32Mnemografias_20130526.indb 32 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 33 TOWARDS A TRANSCULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY metaphors and techniques for handling the complex phenomena of individual and collective remembrance. But if we refer to memory studies as a fi eld of more or less systematic refl ections on the mechanisms and functions of supra-individual memories (cultural memories), we can pinpoint the emergence of its modern confi guration as a research area in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It was in that era of a notoriously epistemological crisis that a certain critical view on the offi cial national historiographies, built upon teleological and heroic master narratives, emerged, opening up spaces for other collective memories of certain social classes or ethnical groups that didn’t fi t in those national stories / histories. One of the most eminent and controversial thinkers of that time was Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen [Untimely Meditations] of 1874 critically refl ected “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” [Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Geschichte für das Leben].[3] Even if we can’t consider him the founding father of modern research on cultural memory, it was Nietzsche who gave a very important – and thus very controversial – input to the refl exive interest in this phenomenon.[4] His assumption of a “surfeit of memory” that, according to him, functioned as a barrier for creativity and novelty, or, in other words, blocked the free evolution and ‘real’ progress of life and humanity, can eff ectively be seen as a starting point of a certain kind of vicious circle in which we still fi nd ourselves today. By pointing out the need to forget, Nietzsche directed our attention to the fact that in order to live our individual and collective lives one has not only to remember but also to elude remembrance. But the problem is much more complex than it seems at fi rst glance and opens up a wide range of questions that are still being discussed. Considering the catastrophic experiences of the twentieth century mentioned above, it is impossible to know how to deal with the dialectical aporia between the duty to remember and the right to forget. But it is also impossible to fi nd answers to unsolvable questions like: What can or should we forget? Who has the legitimacy to decide what to remember and what to forget? How much do we need to remember and to forget to still feel ourselves as personal and collective identities? How can we select the meaningful information from an apparently never-ending archive, especially in the digital era? How to deal with our increasing multiplicity of diff erent and simultaneous identi3 For an English version of an excerpt from this programmatic essay by Nietzsche, see Olick et al. (2011:73-79). 4 About Nietzsche’s contribution to the development of the memory-paradigm see, for example, Pethes (2008: 32-38). Mnemografias_20130526.indb 33Mnemografias_20130526.indb 33 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 34 MÁRIO MATOS ties in a globalized and glocalized world at the same time? Th ese are the problems and questions that currently dominate the intricate discussions in the wide fi eld of cultural memory studies. Coming back to our intended short historical overview of the emergence of modern theoretical concepts of cultural memory, we will focus our attention on two thinkers, Maurice Halbwachs and Aby Warburg, who, according to Astrid Erll (2003: 158), were “the fi rst ones to name and systematically refl ect this phenomenon [of collective or cultural memories] within the frame of a modern theory of culture.” In this sense, they can be considered the “inventors” of the “two main traditions” upon which “the contemporary research about cultural memory” is based. When, in 1925, the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs published his study Les Cadres Sociaux de la Mémoire, he provoked a rather polemic reception by his contemporaries.[5] Th is work about the ‘social frames of memory’ deconstructed the common theories of famous thinkers of that time, such as Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud, who conceived the memory process as a strictly psychologist and individual one. Halbwachs argued that each personal way of reminding has an intrinsic, indissoluble relation to the social milieu. Th is means that the collective conditions of a certain group, like a family, a religious community, a professional or social class, inevitably determine a personal remembrance as something that is simultaneously shared and framed by a ‘collective memory’. Th is notion is also the title of his second book Mémoire Collective, on which he worked for over 15 years and was only published in 1950, fi ve years aft er his death. Even if Halbwachs’ dichotomous concept of a collective memory as a social construction, which in his view should be strictly separated from history / historiography, has been exposed to several critiques over the times, it undoubtedly represents one of the fundamental studies for a research area he originally divided in three diff erent levels: the theory of the social preconditions in which every individual act of memory is contextualized; the research on the forms and functions of specifi c generational memories; and the transposition of the sociologist concept of collective memory to the area of cultural heritage and the formation of traditions. To sum up Maurice Halbwachs’ indispensable contribution to current research on cultural memories, we can say that he had the clear notion that a collective identity doesn’t only function in a limited space and time but can also be mediated to further generations by human interaction and communication, as well as 5 See for instance Marc Bloch’s harsh critique in Olick et al. (2011: 150-155). Mnemografias_20130526.indb 34Mnemografias_20130526.indb 34 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 35 TOWARDS A TRANSCULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY by diff erent kinds of cultural and material artefacts, such as books, images, buildings, instituted knowledge, facts, etc. that create a common symbolic order. Related to this concept of collective memory as a transposable symbolic order between diff erent historical time frames, we have to mention at least another very important contribution that is oft en overseen in international research. In the 1920s, the German Historian of Arts and Culture Aby Warburg developed a theory of culture and memory – in fact it was quite a diff use, fragmented concept, and not a “theory as such in an ordered form” (Gombrich, 2010: 104) – founded upon the idea that “social memory” [soziales Gedächtnis] basically consists of a procedural, collective construction and reconstruction of symbols. For him, and so diff ering from other cultural theorists of his time who focused mainly on oral and written narratives, those collective symbols are especially constituted by art, which he regarded as an “organ of social memory”, by images and other iconic artefacts, as well as by popular rituals and handcraft . In what concerns Aby Warburg’s works, it is also important to mention that his ideas are mainly based on a visual concept of cultural memory which he doesn’t conceive as a dead archive, but as a kind of repository of “mnemonic energy” [mnemische Energie]. In his understanding, this “savings bank” of icons, as he called it, can always be updated due to the media-like and especially pictorial anchorage of memory. In other words, visual art and artefacts understood as material traces of memory, as “engrams”, which “may, under suitable conditions, be reactivated and discharged” (idem: 106), permit fruitful exchanges and migrations between diff erent places and times. In order to conclude this brief overview of the important contributions by Maurice Halbwachs and Aby Warburg to memory studies, both dating back to the fi rst decades of the twentieth century, we have to consider that they are absolutely fundamental to our contemporary concepts of cultural memories. Th ere is no doubt that they anticipate more recent key notions in the current fi eld of memory studies. Th ey emphasize the possibility that a cultural memory can or should always be transformed and updated as well as the notion that culture and memory are constructive processes that always depend on their social conditions and media environment and that their uses can change according to the diff erent times and spaces of cultural production and reception. Th is is quite revolutionary, especially if we put Warburg’s and Halbwachs’ theories into their own historical context, and later we will further consider their work in our refl ections on the transcultural construction of memory. Mnemografias_20130526.indb 35Mnemografias_20130526.indb 35 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 36 MÁRIO MATOS 3. NATIONAL “SITES OF MEMORY” Another very infl uent concept of cultural memory is that of “lieux de mémoire”. In a monumental work, fi rst published in seven volumes, between 1984 and 1992, the French Historian Pierre Nora registered and exploited nearly two hundred “sites of memory” he considered specifi cally symbolic for the French nation. Nora shares with Halbwachs the idea that memory and history are not the same thing, as clearly demonstrated by the following quotation from the opening essay in the fi rst volume of Les lieux de mémoire: “Memory, history: far from being synonyms, we become aware that they are in all ways opposites.” [Mémoire, histoire: loin d’être synonymes, nous prenons conscience que tout les oppose.] (Nora, 1984: XIX). But he doesn’t totally share Halbwachs’ belief in the existence of collective memories. Nora’s sceptical – or perhaps even apocalyptical – vision can be summarized in the following sentence from the same foreword: “We speak so much of memory because there is so little of it left ” [On ne parle tant de mémoire que parce qu’il n’y en a plus.] (idem: XVII). Pierre Nora’s project can therefore be seen as a last attempt to save or re-construct not a linear collective memory of a Nation whose society has allegedly lost the traditional relation to its History that used to function as the provider of a certain ‘natural’ group or national identity, but only emblematic pieces, symbolic fragments of a historically built identity. Th e sites of memory catalogued by Nora are therefore conceived as a kind of an open archive with a non-hierarchical collection of a myriad of elements that are in any way linked to the past of the French Nation and that every citoyen can now use in order to (re-)construct or (re-)activate his or her national memory that, in the author’s view, was in danger of disappearing. It’s also important to point out that Nora’s “lieux de mémoire” shouldn’t be understood as places or sites in a strict topographical sense. It’s true that they can be geographical or topographical places of memory, such as towns, rivers, landscapes, but also material artefacts, such as buildings, like the Eiff el Tower, fl ags, sculptures, images, artworks, etc., or even non-material, such as intangible and symbolical ones, like the philosophical texts of Descartes or Hugo, literary and legendary fi gures like Jeanne d’Arc, historical personalities or dates, the Marseillaise and so on. Th is heterogeneous and multifaceted collection of sites of memory shows that Nora no longer off ers a coherent and linear narrative of French History, but a long inventory or archive of signs, symbolic marks or traces Mnemografias_20130526.indb 36Mnemografias_20130526.indb 36 30-07-2013 20:10:0730-07-2013 20:10:07 43 TOWARDS A TRANSCULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY Erll, Astrid / Nünning, Ansgar (eds.) (2010), A Companion to Cultural Memory, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. [fi rst published 2008 as: Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook] Expresso / Atual (2011), “O Fado já não é só nosso”, published 26/11/2011, p. 12. François, Etienne / Schulze, Hagen (2009), Deutsche Erinnerungsorte I, München: C. H. Beck. Gombrich, Ernst (2011), “Aby Warburg: An Intellectual Biography”. In Jeff rey K. Olick et al., Th e Collective Memory Reader, pp. 104-109. [excerpt from the original publication in 1997] Halbwachs, Maurice (1994), Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire, Paris: Albin Michel. [First published in 1925] Halbwachs, Maurice (1997), La mémoire collective, Paris: Albin Michel. [fi rst published in 1950] Halbwachs, Maurice (1972), La Topographie légendaire des Évangiles en Terre Sainte. Étude de mémoire collective, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [fi rst published in 1941] Lipovetsky, Gilles / Serroy, Jean (2008), La Culture-Monde. Réponse à une Société Desorientée, Paris: Odile Jacob. Nora, Pierre (1984), Les lieux de mémoire. I: La République, Paris: Gallimard. Nora, Pierre (2011), “Reasons for Current Upsurge in Memory”. In Jeff rey K. Olick et al., Th e Collective Memory Reader, pp. 437-441. [originally published in German with the title “Gedächtniskonjunktur”, in Transit – Europäische Revue, Nr. 22, 2002, pp. 18-31] Olick, Jeff rey K. et al. (eds.) (2011), Th e Collective Memory Reader, Oxford: University Press. Pethes, Nicolas (2008), Kulturwissenschaft liche Gedächtnistheorien zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius. Ritzer, George (1998), Th e McDonaldization Th esis: Explorations and Extensions, London / Th ousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage. Robertson, Roland (1995), “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity”. In Mike Featherstone / Scott Lash / Roland Robertson (eds.), Global Modernities, London / Th ousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage, pp. 25-44. Winter, Jay (2000), “Th e Generation of Memory: Refl ections on the ‘Memory Boom’ in Contemporary Historical Studies”, Bulletin of the GHI, Issue 27 (Fall 2000), Washington D.C. Webliography http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/mnemosyne/ Mnemografias_20130526.indb 43Mnemografias_20130526.indb 43 30-07-2013 20:10:0830-07-2013 20:10:08 ÍNDICE 9 Introdução 17 Einführung 23 Introduction 29 Towards a transcultural construction of memory Mário Matos 45 Erinnerungsorte: Orte der Annäherung oder Orte der Abgrenzung? Zur Frage der Europäisierung und Transnationalisierung von Erinnerungskulturen Benjamin Inal 61 Das Schreiben in und zwischen zwei Sprachen als Möglichkeit, mit der Welt im Dialog zu stehen: José F. A. Oliver, Y. Tawada, E. S. Özdamar und W. Kaminer Maria E. Brunner 79 Serial Heroes Multimediale Aspekte in Mnemographien des 19. Jahrhunderts Alfred Opitz 93 Stereotypical Representations of the Other in Nineteenth-Century Satirical Journals: John Bull versus Zé Povinho Joanne Paisana 113 Alfredo Guisado e a imagologia dos galegos em Portugal Carlos Pazos Justo 123 Vom „stattlichen Hause“ zum „Orte der Erniedrigung“: Handlungsschauplätze und / oder Erinnerungsräume in Karl Gutzkows Der Sadducäer von Amsterdam Rogério Paulo Madeira 137 Großstadt als Mnemo-Kartographie: Robert Müllers Manhattan Catarina Martins 153 Eine Reise nach Madeira (1928). Entwurf eines interdisziplinären und interkulturellen Forschungsprojektes Anne Martina Emonts Mnemografias_20130526.indb 7Mnemografias_20130526.indb 7 30-07-2013 20:10:0630-07-2013 20:10:06 169 Schriftliche und fotografi sche Erinnerungsorte während des Zweiten Weltkriegs bei Annemarie Schwarzenbach Maria de Lurdes das Neves Godinho 185 An intangible heimat: Ernesto Volkening’s return to Antwerp Kathrin Seidl-Gómez 201 Mnemographie des Lauschens und Zuschauens: NS-Judenverfolgung in Texten von Joaquim Paço d’Arcos Orlando Grossegesse 225 Der Schatten der Vergangenheit: Erinnerung und Erlösung in Jan Koneffkes Roman Eine Liebe am Tiber Anabela Valente Simões 235 Verschwiegene Erinnerung und vergiftete Generativität: Darstellungen des traumatischen Erbes der zweiten Generation nach dem Holocaust in den Filmen Meschugge und Gebürtig Lea Wohl 251 Digital Memories: The Remediation of National Socialism and the Holocaust Between Popular Culture and the Web Public Thomas Nachreiner 273 Mártires cristãs do Bolchevismo: As violações de alemãs na Segunda Guerra Mundial sob um olhar católico Júlia Garraio 291 Interkultureller Vergleich von Geschichtsschulbüchern Das Bild der Muslime in einem deutschen und einem bulgarischen Schulgeschichtsbuch Elena Dimitrova 305 Bom dia, weißer Bruder Encenações discursivas das relações entre a RDA e Moçambique após a descolonização Sérgio Lorré 319 Restaurar ‘sentidos’ na ruína: Construções da viagem em Lisbon Story e Palermo Shooting de Wim Wenders Sofi a Unkart 335 Abstracts & Contributors 00-Introducao_Mnemografias.indd 800-Introducao_Mnemografias.indd 8 31-07-2013 11:06:4231-07-2013 11:06:42 MNEMO-GRAFIAS INTERCULTURAIS INTERKULTURELLE MNEMO-GRAPHIEN INTERCULTURAL MNEMO-GRAPHIES Organização: Mário Matos & Orlando Grossegesse Direcção gráfi ca: António Pedro Capa: Pedro Castro Edição do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho © EDIÇÕES HÚMUS, 2012 End. Postal: Apartado 7081 – 4764 -908 Ribeirão – V.N. Famalicão Tel. 252 301 382 / Fax 252 317 555 E -mail: [email protected] Impressão: Papelmunde, SMG, Lda. – V. N. Famalicão 1.ª edição: Dezembro de 2012 Depósito legal: 321063 ISBN 978 -989 -8139-69-6 20_Abstracts&Contributors_Mnemografias.indd 35520_Abstracts&Contributors_Mnemografias.indd 355 07-09-2013 07:58:0507-09-2013 07:58:05 Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafias Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies nemo-Graphien s Interculturais Mnemo-Grafias Intercult tural Mnemo-Graphies Intercul tural Mnemo elle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafias Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Interkulturelle Mnem Mnemo-Gr MÁRIO MATOS ORLANDO GROSSEGESSE ORGANIZAÇÃO Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafi as Interculturais Interkulturelle Mnemo-Graphien Mnemo-Grafi as Interculturais Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Intercultural Mnemo-Graphies Universidade do Minho Centro de Investigação em Ciências Sociais UNIÃO EUROPEIA Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional DAADDeutcher Akademischer Austausch Dienst German Academic Exchange Service