<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Review

Collective memory and social representations

Valérie Haas<fnref n="1" />, Renan Harmes Eskinazi<fnref n="1" /> and Denise Jodelet<fnref n="2" />

This article examines the relationship between collective
memory and social representations, drawing on key theoret-
ical perspectives and research trends. Initiated by Moscovici
in the 1960s, the study of social knowledge explores how in-
dividuals make sense of everyday life through socially and
culturally situated thinking. Within this framework, memory
and social representations are understood as forms of social
thought that shape communication, guide practices, and
construct a shared reality among group members. Memory is
viewed as dynamic and central to shaping collective identity.
Foundational theories by Halbwachs and Bartlett continue to
inform current studies, integrating social representations as
knowledge grounded in shared experiences. Recent research
highlights collective narratives, showing how identity and
cultural factors influence the transmission and transformation
of memories. The article underscores the importance of inter-
and intradisciplinary dialogue to better understand how groups
remember, forget, and interpret their past to confront present
and future societal challenges.

Addresses

Corresponding author: Eskinazi, Renan Harmes (r.harmes-aquino-eskinazi@univ-lyon2.fr)

Keywords

Collective memory, Social representations, Collective iden-
tity, Historicity.

This article explores the links between collective
memory and social representations through theoretical
and empirical perspectives drawn from social psychol-
ogy. Moscovici, the leading author of social representa-
tions theory, defines them as: “a system of values, ideas
and practices with a twofold function; first to establish
an order which will enable individuals to orient

themselves in their material and social world and to
master it; and secondly to enable communication to take
place among the members of a community by providing
them with a code for social exchange and a code for
naming and classifying unambiguously the various as-
pects of their world and their individual and group his-
tory” ([1] p.xiii).

The connection between collective memory and social representations lies, among other factors, in the pre-existing nature of knowledge and the processes by which new information is integrated into shared understanding. Historically, from the memory arts to modern cognitive science, theorists have emphasized the interconnectedness of thought and memory. Knowledge as “déjà-là pensé” ([2] p.⁶⁴) (“already thought”) is closely linked to the notion of memory, revealing deep connections and interrelations between representations and memory phenomena. This integration of new information into familiar frameworks closely mirrors the process of *anchoring*, through which social representations assimilate new ideas by relating them to existing knowledge structures, thus making the unfamiliar more comprehensible and acceptable [3,4].

Together with anchoring, another major cognitive
function of social representations is objectification,
whereby something abstract is made concrete and
communicable within a community—for example, when
complex historical experiences are condensed into
concrete images and shared visual or material symbols,
such as memorials or rituals that make them easier to
share and remember within the group. Furthermore,
collective memory is based on common frameworks
within groups that enable them to share their memories.
These include representations of the past, often rooted
in spontaneous or naive knowledge, commonly referred
to as common sense, that serve personal and collective
identity functions. Finally, social representations and
collective memory are shaped by specific cultural dy-
namics and collectively shared values and systems of
thought, underscoring the importance of understanding
the sociocultural contexts in which they emerge and
acquire meaning.

Moscovici's perspective is notable for integrating his-
toricity into the theory of social representations and for
its conception of common-sense knowledge. This
appeal to history in social psychology during the 1960s

<footnote n="1">¹ GRePS Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Director of Studies (Emeritus), École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris, France</footnote>
was fundamental. In his seminal work on the dissemi-
nation of psychoanalysis in French society, Moscovici
underscored the influence of historical and political
contexts on the development of social representations
[5]. In his psychosociology of knowledge, rooted in so-
ciology and anthropology (Émile Durkheim and Lévy-
Bruhl), as well as in constructivist and cultural traditions
(Piaget and Vygotsky), memory emerges as a form of
knowledge that underpins shared understandings.
Memory enables individuals to interpret and assimilate
new knowledge encountered in their daily lives and
within their material, social, and symbolic environments
[6,7]. Social representations are thus embedded in
processes of continuity and change, shaped by historical
dynamics, insofar as knowledge of the past can give rise
to new interpretations of present realities while also
reinforcing beliefs and values rooted in other historical
periods [8,9]. Jodelet further expanded this approach by
incorporating memory as a central theme in social psy-
chology, giving rise to a trend that reconnected with the
seminal work of Halbwachs and Bartlett [10].

This paper is organized into four main sections. It begins
with a discussion of memory and social representations
as forms of social thought, emphasizing how they
emerge and circulate within collective dynamics. The
second section examines studies on the social repre-
sentations of history, drawing in particular on Maurice
Halbwachs' theoretical framework. The third section
ties in with the previous section and explores Frederic
Bartlett's contributions to understanding the construc-
tive nature of memory. The final section elaborates on a
sociocultural perspective of the study of collective
memory and social representations.

Memory and social representations as
forms of social thought

The interest of social psychology in the study of social
knowledge, initiated by Moscovici in the 1960s, reflects
an effort to explore how social thought operates in
everyday life. This theoretical perspective is concerned
with the content of thought, examining how it is shaped
by social, spatial, and temporal processes. It seeks to
understand how individuals make sense of the world
around them, appropriating everyday events, objects,
and circulating information. In particular, it investigates
how spontaneous or common-sense forms of thinking
are constructed. Within this framework, memory and
social representations are understood as forms of social
thought that guide communication, influence practices,
and contribute to the construction of a shared reality
within a given social group. The theoretical framework
of social representations conceptualizes memory as a
dynamic social process, situated within a specific tem-
porality and anchored in a symbolic space. This
perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of memory
and the interplay among the three temporal dimensions

— past, present, and future — [2], highlighting
memory's role as a mediator of both individual and col-
lective identity. Therefore, individuals embedded
within specific social groups share certain forms of
common knowledge, often anchored in historical narra-
tives available in collective memory, thus contributing to
the construction of a shared reality. This approach
challenges the dichotomy between individual and col-
lective memory, echoing Halbwachs' seminal insight: all
memory is socially framed.

Halbwachs' work plays a foundational role in the theory of social representations. He emphasized that memory is not fixed but is constantly reconstructed within social frameworks. These frameworks consist of a set of ideas and references, linked to values and beliefs, that shape how group memory is updated and maintained [11,12]. This concept closely aligns with how social representations are formed and evolve over time. By highlighting that memory reconstruction is a collective and dynamic process, Halbwachs offers a valuable perspective for viewing social representations as socially shaped and continually reinterpreted phenomena. Similarly to the social frameworks of memory, social representations are structured by shared meanings and practices, reflecting how societies interpret and make sense of both past and present. In this perspective, the following sections outline different modalities through which memory can be understood as a form of social thought.

Representations of history and common
sense

The connection between Halbwachs' work and the
theory of social representations has inspired numerous
studies exploring how memory and social representa-
tions interact. In line with this body of work, numerous
publications since the 2000s have brought together the
contributions of social psychologists working within the
French context [13–18]. From diverse perspectives and
methodological approaches, this research examines how
collective memory represents historical events of na-
tional or mass significance, as well as how these repre-
sentations, shaped by common sense, are influenced by
institutional transmission through education, media,
and public policy. Moreover, it explores the gaps and
distortions that emerge between institutional narratives
and the ways in which social groups reappropriate and
reinterpret these historical events [19–21].

At the same time, research influenced by the social
representations approach in Latin America highlights
how groups' interpretations of the past are shaped by
specific social, cultural, and experiential factors.
Commemorative events, such as those marking the
"discovery" of Brazil [22–25] serve as powerful exam-
ples. These events become symbolic landmarks for
communities, acting as "prisms" through which history
and national interests are interpreted, particularly in
times of crisis. Social representations thus operate as
interpretative frameworks for the past, bringing certain
events or historical figures to the forefront, often those
that are instrumental in shaping national identities or
political cultures [26,27]. They offer symbolic "char-
ters" that help articulate a group's values and norms,
reinforcing communal or national cohesion. Another
important field of research, along the same lines, links
identity, memory, and spatial dimensions, pointing to
the essential role of space and urban places in under-
standing collective mechanisms and memorial con-
tent [28–33].

Finally, some studies within the field of social cognition
focus on how intergroup dynamics shape the construc-
tion and transmission of memory, leading to divergent or
conflicting memories depending on the political, social,
or cultural context. These dynamics are explored by
examining the representational imaginaries of re-
spondents, rather than focusing solely on social repre-
sentations. In doing so, individuals are situated within
narrative frameworks where history is “scripted” spe-
cifically for the purposes of the study. Often, question-
naire methods applied to cohorts of individuals are used
[34–36]. In this approach, the focus is on representa-
tions of a past that subjects have not always directly
experienced, highlighting issues of identity and the role
of emotions [37–39].

From Halbwachs to Bartlett: exploring the
constructive nature of memory

Halbwachs's sociology of memory remains a cornerstone
for analyzing the relationship between collective
memory and social representations. This foundational
framework has enabled the development of subsequent
theoretical approaches that further explore the con-
nections between these phenomena, particularly
building on the work of British psychologist Frederic
Bartlett [40–42]. In his seminal work *Remembering: A
Study in Experimental and Social Psychology* [43], Bartlett
famously rejected the idea of memory as passive repro-
duction. Instead, he proposed the notion of the “effort
after meaning,” in which individuals interpret and
reframe remembered content through familiar cultural
frameworks. Memory, in his view, is an active process of
adaptation and transformation, embedded within so-
ciocultural contexts [44].

Contemporary studies have bridged the perspectives of
Halbwachs and Bartlett to investigate how memory is
socially framed and symbolically reconstructed. Cerisier,
Haas, and Kalampalikis [40], for example, examined the
collective reconstruction of olfactory memory. Drawing
on Bartlett's insights into narrative reconstruction and
Halbwachs's emphasis on the social anchoring of
memory, their work highlights how even sensory

memory is shaped by shared meaning. Similarly, Mercier
and Kalampalikis [41] revisit Bartlett's method of
repeated reproduction, demonstrating how memory
processes are also embedded within specific sociocul-
tural contexts. By replicating these experiments, the
authors further reinforce the articulation between
Bartlett's emphasis on transformation through repeti-
tion and Halbwachs's focus on the collective frameworks
of memory.

Memory and social representations from a
sociocultural psychology perspective

Recent scholarship has also drawn on cultural psychol-
ogy to explore the interplay between memory and rep-
resentation. Rooted in Bartlett's legacy and social
constructionism, this perspective emphasizes the
narrative, symbolic, and dialogical nature of memory
[45–49]. The theoretical resonance between Bartlett
and Moscovici is especially notable [50]. Moscovici
explicitly acknowledged the parallels between his
theory of anchoring and Bartlett's concept of the "effort
after meaning" [51]. Both approaches highlight how
unfamiliar phenomena are integrated into pre-existing
schemas of thought through processes that are inher-
ently social [44].

Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative
methods, researchers in this field focus on the narrative
dimension of collective memory and the plurality of past
representations influenced by identity issues. From this
perspective, narratives serve as concrete models that
help to better understand the time in which they were
created. This understanding emerges through a dialogue
between the narrative and reality. In this process, there
is an articulation of mutual influence: narratives shape
the understanding of the historical past, while they are
also shaped by the social and cultural dynamics of the
present [52,53]. This perspective not only shows the
impact of individuals' social belonging on the content
and structure of individual memories, but also demon-
strates the importance of social processes in the trans-
mission and reconstruction of memories, drawing
attention to the societal challenge involved in any work
on memory.

Conclusion

Over the past century, research on collective memory
and social representations has expanded into a rich and
multifaceted field. The theoretical traditions of Halb-
wachs, Bartlett, and Moscovici—sometimes divergent,
often complementary—have offered powerful tools for
understanding how groups construct, transmit, and use
their shared representations of the past. These fruitful
links contribute to the analysis of interactions between
individuals and groups by understanding memory as a
temporal triad spanning the past, present, and future.
Although research traditions on collective memory and
social representations may appear fragmented, their boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred, creating new opportunities to deepen our understanding of the connections between social thought and the processes of remembering and forgetting. The problems posed by the social manipulation of memory and forgetting [54] cannot be ignored by social psychology, a discipline whose vocation is to study societal issues. It is therefore essential to clearly outline the current risks associated with manipulating the past and to highlight the importance of collective memory, particularly through the lens of social representations, in addressing these challenges.

## Credit author statement

Valérie Haas was responsible for the research article conception and planning; writing and critical review.

Renan Harmes Eskinazi was responsible for the research article conception and planning; writing and critical review.

Denise Jodelet contributed to the review and approval of the final version of the article.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

## References

References of particular interest have been highlighted as:

* of special interest

1. Moscovici S: **Foreword.** In *Health and illness: a social analysis*. Edited by Herzlich C, London: Academic Press; 1973. IX–XIV.

2. Jodelet D, Kalampalikis N: **Représentations sociales et mondes de vie.** Paris: Éditions des Archives contemporaines; 2015.

3. Doise W: **Debating social representations.** In *Empirical approaches to social representations*. Edited by Breakwell GM, Canter D, Oxford: Oxford Science Publications; 1993:157–169.

4. Trindade ZA, Santos MFS, Almeida ÂMO: **Ancoragem: notas sobre consensos e dissensos.** In *Representações sociais: 50 anos*. Edited by Trindade ZA, Santos MFS, Almeida ÂMO. 2nd ed., Brasília: Technopolitik; 2019:101–122.

5. Moscovici S: *La Psychanalyse, son image et son public*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1961.

6. Haas V, Jodelet D. In *Pensée et mémoire sociales*. Edited by Pétard JP, Sociale Psychologie, Paris: Bréal; 2007:117–162.

7. Jodelet D, Haas V: **Mémoires et représentations sociales.** In *Repenser la théorie des représentations sociales*. Edited by Emiliani F, Palmonari A, Paris: Editions des archives contemporaines; 2019:89–104.

8. Jovchelovitch S: **Narrative, memory and social representations: a conversation between history and social psychology.** *Integr Psychol Behav Sci* 2012, 46:440–456.

9. Villas Bôas L: **Social representations and history: theoretical problems.** In *Social representations for the anthropocene: latin American perspectives*. Edited by Prado de Sousa C, Serrano

Oswald SE, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021: 33–51.

10. Jodelet D: **Mémoire de masse : le côté moral et affectif de l'histoire.** *Bull Psychol* 1992, 45:239–256.

11. Halbwachs M: *Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire*. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan; 1925.

12. Halbwachs M: *On collective memory*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.

13. Haas V, Jodelet D: **La mémoire, ses aspects sociaux et collectifs.** In *Psychologie sociale*. Edited by Roussiau N, Paris: InPress; 2000:121–134.

14. Haas V: **Approche psychosociale d'une reconstruction historique. Le cas vichyssois.** *Cah Int Psychol Soc* 2002, 53: 32–45.

15. Laurens S, Roussiau N: *La mémoire sociale: identités et représentations sociales*. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes; 2002.

16. Viaud J: **Mémoire collective, représentations sociales et pratiques sociales.** *Connexions* 2003, 80:13–30.

17. Rateau P: **Mémoire, oubli et identité sociale.** In *La pensée sociale*. Edited by Rouquette ML, Toulouse: Érès; 2009:11–32.

18. Fraïssé C: **La mémoire collective comme outil de légitimation d'une minorité: l'exemple de la minorité homosexuelle.** *Connexions* 2003, 80:79–91.

19. Kalampalikis N: *Les Grecs et le mythe d'Alexandre: étude psychosociale d'un conflit symbolique à propos de la Macédoine*. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan; 2007.

20. Haas V, Vermande C: *Les enjeux mémoriels du passé colonial français: analyse psychosociale du discours de la presse, lors des émeutes urbaines de novembre 2005. Bull Psychol* 2010, 506:109–120.

21. Haas V, Levasseur E: **Rumour as a symptom of collective forgetfulness.** *Cult Psychol* 2013, 19:60–75.

22. Sá CP, Oliveira DC, Prado LA: **As memórias colectivas do descobrimento do Brasil: imagem comum e juízos diferenciados nas populações portuguesa e brasileira. Psicologia** 2004, 17:275–291.

23. Eskinazi RH, Aléssio RL dos S, Danfá L, de F de S Santos M: **Memória Histórica e Representações Sociais: contribuições e Articulações Possíveis.** *Memo Mem E História Em Psicol* 2023, 40:1–19.

24. Oliveira DC, Lewin MC, Sá CP: **A memória primordial descobrimento do Brasil: análise dos manuais brasileiros de história. Psicologia** 2004, 17:301–319.

25. Villas Bôas L: **Representações sociais: a historicidade do psicossocial.** *Rev Diálogo Educ* 2014, 14:585–603.

26. Cabecinhas R, Lima M, Chaves AM: **Identidades nacionais e memória social: hegemonia e polémica nas representações sociais da história. In Identidades nacionais em Debate. Oeiras: Celta Editora.** Edited by Miranda J, João MI; 2006:67–92.

27. Cabecinhas R, Liu JH, Licata L, Klein O, Mendes J, Feijó J, et al.: **Hope in Africa? Social representations of world history and the future in six African countries.** *Int J Psychol* 2011, 46: 354–367.

28. Haas V: **Les cartes cognitives: un outil pour étudier la ville sous ses dimensions socio-historiques et affectives.** *Bull Psychol* 2004, 57:621–633.

29. Arruda A, de Alba M: **Espacios imaginarios y representaciones sociales: aportes desde Latinoamérica. Rubí. Anthropos;** 2007.

30. de Alba M, Dargentas M: **A study on the social representations and social memory of Brest, a French city destroyed during the second world war. Psicol E Saber Soc.** 2015, 4: 195–206.

31. Moliner P, Bovina I: **Public spaces and circumscribed spaces of the collective memory: a research on the location of commemorative monuments. Mem Stud** 2024, 17:676–691.
32. Clementi K, Haas V, Ramadier T, Von Hirschhausen B, Pol E, Authier JY, et al.: Les enjeux sociaux et cognitifs du rapport à la frontière: une étude sur l'agglomération strasbourgoise. *Pour une psychologie du rapport aux objets géographiques: Bull Psychol 2024, 585:87-91.*

33. Haas V, Ramadier T: The social, symbolic and imaginary dimensions of spatial representations. *Pap Soc Representations* 2025, 34:1-18.

34. Liu JH, Hilton DJ: How the past weighs on the present: social representations of history and their role in identity politics. *Br J Soc Psychol* 2005, 44:537-556.

35. Hakim MA, Liu JH, Isler L, Woodward MR: Monarchism, national identity and social representations of history in Indonesia: intersections of the local and national in the sultanates of Yogyakarta and Surakarta: monarchism and national identity. *Asian J Soc Psychol* 2015, 18:259-269.

36. Bouchat P, Cabecinhas R, Licata L, Charton M, Chryssochoou X, Delouvée S, et al.: Social representations of European history by the European youth: a cross-country comparison. *J Soc Polit Psychol* 2023, 11:606-622.

37. Figueiredo A, Valentim J, Doosje B: A shared past and a common future: the Portuguese colonial war and the dynamics of group-based guilt. *Spanish J Psychol* 2011, 14: 163-171.

38. Rimé B, Bouchat P, Klein O, Licata L: When collective memories of victimhood fade: generational evolution of inter-group attitudes and political aspirations in Belgium. *Eur J Soc Psychol* 2015, 45:515-532.

39. Leone G, Sarrica M: The making of a civic discourse on controversial historical past: from denial to parrhesia. *Essachess J Commun Stud* 2017, 10:33-53.

40. Cerisier B, Haas V, Kalampalikis N: Reproduction sérielle d'un matériau odorant : de l'odeur sentie à la reconstruction collective de son souvenir. *Bull Psychol* 2017, 551:323-337.

41. Mercier P, Kalampalikis N: Repeated reproduction: back to Bartlett. *A French replication of narrative and an extension to proverbs*. *Cult Psychol* 2020, 26:500-527.

42. Mercier P, Kalampalikis N: The totemic use of an author in psychology: a century of publications of the work of F. C. Bartlett. *Hist Psychol* 2024, 27:297-316.

43. Bartlett FC: Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1932.

44. Wagoner B: The constructive mind: Bartlett's psychology in reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

45. Phelps JM, Strype J, Brescé De Luna I, Wagoner B: Together in grief? Space and conflict in the establishment of a national July 22 memorial in hole municipality. In Terrorism in memory culture: investigating the aftermath of July 22 in Norway. Edited by Dessingué A, Hamilton P, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025:129-157.

46. Brescé de Luna I, Li Y, Wagoner B: Between war and peace, past and future: experiencing the Hiroshima peace memorial park. *Integr Psychol Behav Sci* 2023, 57:1002-1023.

47. de Saint-Laurent C, Obradović S: Uses of the past: history as a resource for the present. *Integr Psychol Behav Sci* 2019, 53: 1-13.

48. de Saint-Laurent C: *Social thinking and history: a sociocultural psychological perspective on representations of the past.* London: Routledge; 2021.

49. Wagoner B, Brescé I, Awad SH: *Culture and memory: a constructive approach.* In *Handbook of advances in culture and psychology*. Edited by Gelfand MJ, Chiu C-Y, Hong Y-Y, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021:1-61.

50. Wagoner B: Notes on a social psychology of thinking: a comparison of Bartlett and Moscovici. *Pap Soc Representations* 2012, 21:6.1-6.14.

51. Moscovici S, Marková I: Presenting social representations: a conversation. *Cult Psychol* 1998, 4:371-410.

52. Bruner J: Life as narrative. *Soc Res Int Q* 1987, 54:691-710.

53. Bruner J: *Acts of meaning*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1990.

54. Ricœur P: *La mémoire, l'histoire, l'oubli*. Paris: Seuil; 2000.

Further information on references of particular interest

23. This article explores the links between historical memory and social representations from a sociocultural perspective, examining memory themes, processes of anchoring and objectification, and memory disputes. Tensions around historical memory serve as bridges between memory and representational fields, particularly through debates over the legitimation of narratives and symbolic conflicts.

31. This research analyzes the location of commemorative monuments through three studies based on archival documents in France and Russia and covering various periods of conflict (victories or defeats). The results suggest that the location of monuments can be an interesting indicator of the social representation of the events commemorated.

36. This article examines how young people from 11 different countries perceive European history. Through the analysis of questionnaires completed by students, the results reveal the importance of European values such as democracy and humanism, while highlighting the absence of figures linked to decolonization and the underrepresentation of women.

42. This bibliometric study analyzes the dissemination of F. C. Bartlett's work through 731 articles published between 1920 and 2019, revealing an increase in citations, particularly in 1985 and 2019, but often limited to a single, automatic reference. This phenomenon is described as "scientific mystification," indicating a tendency to cite a reference author without knowing them in detail.

45. This article analyses the conflicts linked to collective memory around the creation of a national memorial after the terrorist attack on 22 July 2011 in Denmark on the island of Utøya. Through local public debates (articles, editorials and letters) published between 2011 and 2023, the authors draw on the social and spatial frameworks of Halbwachs' memory by studying the reactions of the various groups involved and the conflicts surrounding a real and symbolic space.

46. Although Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park is universally symbolized as a place of peace, visitors experience it as a space of tension that reveals the contradictions of postwar Japan's memory politics. A study using subjective cameras highlights thêmata (war/peace, past/future, old/new) that fuel a social debate on memory and the reconstruction of Hiroshima.