before examining the official steps to commemorate the Mirabal sisters in a chronological order starting in 1960. I.
Politics and Memory In neuropsychology, memory is a complex biochemical process. In the social sciences,
it is a challenging concept due to its subjectivity. Every brain processes information in a different way so that one person’s remembered version of an event may be similar to or different from another’s, but rarely identical. Memory is, however, not only limited to our own experiences. We also recall events that we did not directly observe, but were told about by others. Zerubaveli refers to these shared memories within society as mnemonic communities. In such mnemonic communities, individuals learn about a specific interpretation of an incident or person, which has certainly been shaped by external factors to some extent. Memory in mnemonic communities, mainly referred to as collective memory, is, in consequence, a social construction. Besides our membership in a social group, institutions are another important influence in shaping collective memoryii. The formation of collective memory through institutions is closely linked to politics. Politics decide what and who is remembered, such as through an official acknowledgement or the absence of such. It also shapes how the event or person is remembered. The means of remembrance are diverse, ranging from history classes at school to museums. However, the purpose is the same: to educate the public about a certain aspect of history and preserve the cultural heritage. The same applies to public memorials or commemoration days. Such institutionalized forms of remembrance reinforce a socially created collective memory. However, politics do more than encouraging or rejecting memory through an official narrative. It actively shapes not only memory through memorial sites and objects, but also language. As French historian Pierre Noraiii points out, memory sites, be it an actual memorial, object or symbol, tie the past to the present. Paper money, for example, often commemorates influential national personalities. Another instance occurred in 2016, when the German government decided to refer to the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I as genocide. Turkish leaders were outraged and firmly opposed the term, because it reframed what is referred to as the Events of 1915 in Turkey. This exemplifies how politics of memory follow a political purposeiv wherein politics hold agency over memory.
79