E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies
Jun YAMANAThe University of Tokyo
Abstract
Today, the development of digital technology is bringing about major cultural changes in society. Thishas brought us back to the question: What is “culture”? It has also affected the discussion of Memory
Studies. Traditionally, “culture” in this field has tended to mean a state in which human memory
capacity is augmented by the use of writing tools, from wax tablets to computers. In contrast, thecultural situation is now imagined as a network and archive of information supported by digitaltechnology; the human is connected to the network as one of its nodes. Here, I discuss the shifting
metaphors of memory on the basis of Aleida and Jan Assmann’s theory of “cultural memory” andAndrew Hoskins’s theory of “memory ecology.” My findings suggest that these contemporary
discussions of memory theory have prompted a reconsideration of the theory of Bildung that has
examined the relationship between human beings and culture. I also offer future perspectives inrelation to the issue of education.
Key words: memory studies, metaphor, collective memory, cultural memory, Bildung.

Introduction: “Culture” as viewed through the metaphors of memory
Memory is not like a personal possession. The meaning of the past is influenced by
the environment and the persons around us. In this sense, one aspect of memory can beseen as the product of an interaction between individuals and their environment.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a complete individual memory. Famously, Maurice
Halbwachs explains this phenomenon by using the notion of “collective memory.” The
field of interdisciplinary-oriented research that considers memory and recollection in a
broad sense, taking into account the interaction between individuals and their
Correspondence:
Jun YAMANA, The University of Tokyo. Email: jyamana6s@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp

38

J. YAMANA

environment, is now commonly referred to as “Memory Studies” (Erll 2017: 8). This
paper is based on Memory Studies and seeks to discuss education by examining themetaphors used to talk about “culture” in relation to the topic of “memory” and how they
have changed.
First, I will examine how “culture” is discussed in the theory of collective memory.
Here, especially the theory of “cultural memory (Kulturelles Gedächtnis)” proposed byAleida Assmann and Jan Assmann is regarded as a framework for the consideration
below, because it prefers “culture” as the most crucial concept for discussing collective
memory. As will be mentioned in detail later, Aleida and Jan Assmann refer to the term
“memory” as almost synonymous with “culture” in the cultural memory theory. It istherefore necessary to clarify what memory is in this context (Section 1). I then consider
metaphors for memory.1 Many theorists have dealt with these metaphors (Weinrich 1976,
Roediger III 1980, Draaisma 1999, Assmann, A. 1999, Sutton 2005, Hoskins 2011, Erll2017). Harald Weinrich emphasizes that it is impossible to think of an object such as
memory without resorting to metaphors (Weinrich 1976: 294). Moreover, metaphors canbe expected to serve as (hypothetical) models of thinking (ibid.) and “generate newtheoretical ideas” (Draaisma 1999: 29) of memory. The theory of collective memory
regards metaphors for memory as a sensitizing record of each era, reflecting its historicaland social context. Here, I note that it is important that Aleida and Jan Assmann discusscollective memories while viewing “culture” as an extension of humans (section 2). I
then mention that the durability of the abovementioned metaphors is being questioned in
the digital technological age (Section 3). Put simply, there is a struggle between “culture
as an extension of humans” and “culture as a network” in today’s society. Here, I refer tothe argument of Andrew Hoskins, who leads the discussion on such metaphorical shifts.
Next, I explore what the memory metaphors described above mean for the topic of“Bildung” (Section 4). The change in memory metaphors indicates a change in the mutual
generating of self and culture, i.e., a change of Bildung in the German philosophical sense.
I end with some comments on memory metaphors and Bildung in the future in light of
the above considerations (Section 5).

1

The basic framework of the issue of memory metaphors is presented in detail by Yamana (2022). My paper aims
further to connect it to the issues of a digital and technological society.
Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies

39

1. What is “culture” in Memory Studies? An example of cultural memory theory
Aleida Assmann (1947–) and Jan Assmann (1938–) are two of the most important
representatives of the contemporary theory of collective memory (see Erll 2017: 24–31).
They place “cultural memory” as a key concept in their theoretical construction. Cultural
memory is built up over the long term in texts and images, ideas, and practices as cultural
heritage (Assmann, A. 2017: 181).2 On the basis of such objectivities, various specialists(e.g., clerics, conjurors, archivists) mediate interpretations of the past. Thereby, eachsociety stabilizes its own self-image and, in particular, conveys collectively sharedknowledge . . . about the past (Assmann, J. 1988: 15). The Assmanns’ concept of cultural
memory is broad and can include all anthropogenic objects, institutions, facilities, andbehaviors. Moreover, cultural memory implies not only the activated parts that give us
meaning, value, a sense of belonging, and identity in the present. Objects that lie in the
background but have the potential to be activated at any time (e.g., literary works thatnow sit at the back of library shelves and are no longer read) are also counted as cultural
memory. Aleida and Jan Assmann distinguish between the activated part, which they callthe functional memory (Funktionsgedächtnis), and the inactive part, called the storage
memory (Speichergedächtnis), whereby the boundary between storage memory andfunctional memory constantly changes (Assmann, J. 2001: 23). Their concept of culture
has an almost unrestricted breadth and depth, as shown by the explanation that cultural
memory in the broadest sense is the memory of human beings (Jan Assmann 2001). Suchan expanded theory of memory already includes a theory of Bildung, which will be
discussed later.
According to Aleida and Jan Assmann, collective memory is generated partly by
everyday discourses and community experiences. They distinguish it from cultural
memory by calling it communicative memory (Kommunikatives Gedächtnis) (Assmann,
J. 1992: 56; see also Assmann, A. 2017). Communicative memory can be preserved forthree generations (about 80 to 100 years), at most. Halbwachs assumed that the temporal
limit of collective memory could exist in this approximate time span. In reality, however,collective memory is a much longer-term phenomenon. Cultural memory is introduced
by Aleida and Jan Assmann as a concept to explain the mechanism by which this
temporal boundary of communicative memory is crossed.
As recognized by Aleida and Jan Assmann, cultural memory theory is positioned
within the German term Kulturwissenschaften, which is similar to Cultural Studies in the2

All text in the original German has been paraphrased into English by the author.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

40

J. YAMANA

English-speaking world. 3 “Culture” is the most important concept in
Kulturwissenschaften in general, as the genre’s German name includes this word. Aleida
Assmann, for example, emphasizes the difference between Kulturwissenschaften andtraditional Geisteswissenschaften, which is very close to the concept of Humanities inEnglish. She writes that the transformation of traditional Geisteswissenschaften into
Kulturwissenschaften is reflected in the achievement that the key concept of “Geist” [=spirit] has been replaced by new leading concepts, such as “symbol,” “media,” and“culture” (Assmann, A. 2017: 24, bold letters are the original author’s). According to her,the paradigm of Geisteswissenschaften relied on certain axial counter-concepts, such as
spirit and material, subject and object, history and nature, explanation and understanding(ibid.). However, the strategic implications of the concept of “culture” at the core ofKulturwissenschaften lie in undercutting the abovementioned leading concepts of the
19th century, which were decisive until the 1970s (ibid.: 25). Aleida Assmann continues
on to say that whereas the concept of Geist was aimed at identifying, isolating, andaffirming an emphatic human factor in the cultural process, Kulturwissenschaften shifts
its attention to structures, processes, and practices in an environment that is thought of as
technomorphic from the outset (ibid.).

2. Culture as an extension of humans
There is no rebuttal to Aleida Assmann’s emphasis of the differences between
Kulturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenschaften. At the same time, however, it should
be pointed out that these two terms have some kind of continuity between them, as far as
the concept of “culture” is concerned. Whereas Kulturwissenschaften regards “culture”
as one of its keywords, the same concept is also considered to be a main term inGeisteswissenschaften. There are some similar features between the two. In particular,
Kulturphilosophie (Cultural Philosophy) and Kulturpädagogik (Cultural Pedagogy) in
the field of Geisteswissenschaften positioned “culture” as an externalization of the Geistof humans. In other words, Geisteswissenschaften and Kulturwissenschaften seem toview “culture” as an extension of humans.
From our point of view, it is first important to turn our attention to
According to Aleida Assmann, Kulturwissenschaften in Germany emerged at the beginning of the 20th century
with Georg Simmel, Abi Warburg, and Walter Benjamin. After an interruption during the Nazi era and subsequent
stagnation, it was developed again in the 1970s and 1980s and ensured its status in the academic fields in the 1990s(Assmann, A. 2017: 24).
3

Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies

41

Kulturwissenschaften and, in particular, to the theory of cultural memory. Aleida and Jan
Assmann’s concept of “culture” is obviously captured through metaphor-based thinking
about individual memory. This is most evident in their account of functional and storage
memory. According to Aleida Assmann, storage memory is partly unaware and partly
unconscious memory [in the sense of Freud] (Assmann, A. 1999: 136), which can supply
meaning to functional memory, depending on the situation. Also, conversely, functional
memory can be transformed into storage memory.
It is Sigmund Freud’s concept of human consciousness that underlies such a twolayered account of cultural memory. As is well known, in his essay Notiz über den‘Wunderblock’ (A Note upon the “Mystic Pad”) (1925/1948), Freud describes thefunctioning of the human mind as similar to that of a magic tablet. This is a writing boardof dark resin or wax on which sits a translucent sheet of waxed paper covered by atransparent protective sheet of celluloid. On the board, one can write some letters with astylus and then erase them by lifting up the waxed paper. According to Freud, the humansystem of perception and consciousness receives new stimuli from outside, like thetranslucent waxed paper of the magic tablet. However, the letters that disappear do not
return to nothingness but leave slight traces on the wax plate. Similarly, Freud believed
that, behind the system of perception and consciousness, the mind has another system inwhich permanent tracks of records (Freud 1948: 3) are preserved. In his theory, the objectof human memory is captured by the metaphor of the magic tablet. This in turn meansthat the magic tablet as a cultural product is imagined as the extension of human memory.
This Freudian view of the human inside world and culture inspired Aleida Assmann’s
theory of functional and storage memory.
Jan Assmann also states that the concept of storage memory opens up possibilities
in the direction of the cultural form of unconsciousness, and that culture . . . is similar topersonal memory [at this point] (Assmann, J. 2001: 23). In extending Freud’s theory ofpsychological repression to the theory of cultural memory, he discusses the formation of“crypts” in culture (Assmann, J. 2001: 24)—that is, the formation of background-likememory spaces similar to the stone chambers beneath churches. According to Jan
Assmann, what is hidden in these cultural crypts does not return to nothingness, but ispreserved as counter-memory.
This way of thinking, which extends the inner memory of humans to the memoryof culture, is not strange for Geisteswissenschaften and for German idealism, as it is theirfoundation, in which the “inner Geist” is thought to be externally expressed as the “outer
Geist” and to form culture. It seems, rather, that Kulturwissenschaften, despite theaforementioned attempts to distinguish itself from Geisteswissenschaften, carries the
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

42

J. YAMANA

tradition of the latter within it. At least with respect to cultural memory theory, it can be
hypothetically stated that the interior (“spirit” and “memory”) and the exterior (“culture”)
of humans are understood as continuous through the metaphor of the extension ofhumans, in both Geisteswissenschaften and Kulturwissenschaften.

3. Memory and culture as a network in the age of media technology
The assumption of culture as the extension of humans in cultural memory theory
clearly began to falter at about the turn the 21st century. Jan Assmann states that, with therevolutionary development of electronics and the Internet as new storage media andcommunicative media, profound changes in the architecture of cultural memory began
to happen (Assmann, J. 2001: 25). These changes have brought new phenomena in which
the boundaries between communicative and cultural memory, between functional andstorage memory, and between archive and crypt (Assmann, J. 2001: 25) are shifted andblurred.
Aleida Assmann also explains in her main work, Erinnerungsräume (Memory
Spaces) that the metaphorical way of remembering reaches a limit with the network(Assmann, A. 1999: 178). As already shown by Freud’s example, understanding culture
as an extension of humans is coupled with explaining humans as instruments that areparts of culture. Human memory has been portrayed through the metaphor of writing
tools, from the wax tablet in ancient times to the modern computer. However, the lastparadigm shift of our guiding metaphors leads to the network, which is a desensualized,
hollowed-out metaphor (Assmann, A. 1999: 178).
Aleida and Jan Assmann have not actively mentioned the future of memory
metaphors since the beginning of the 21st century. At the intersection of media theory andcollective memory theory, hybrid research in both fields has been launched anddeveloped as media technology has evolved (see Erll 2017, particularly Chapter 5,“Media and Memory”). It is Andrew Hoskins who seems to extend the Assmanns’
concern with memory metaphors in this context. He focuses on the condition in which
the influences of media as “the holistic mix of techniques, technologies and practices
through which social and cultural life is mediated” (Hoskins 2011: 20) permeate all of
our life situations.4 We are living under conditions of information networks and artificial
Hoskins describes reality after the “connective turn” by quoting the sentence by Roger Silverstone that “just as
water is a prerequisite for fish, so is media for humans” (Hoskins 2011: 20). This does not mean that the real worldis already completely modeled after such a worldview. In school education, it has been common to measure4

Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies

43

storage media. Here, “the glut of media is also a glut of memory” (ibid.: 19). Hoskins
calls the changing the situation a “connective turn” that has brought “the radical
networking and diffusion of memory ushered in with the advent of digital technologies”(ibid.: 23) at the beginning of the 21st century.
What will the metaphor of culture as the extension of humans become beyond the“connective turn”? According to Hoskins, this radical change “undermines the biological,
social and cultural divisions and distinctions of memory” (ibid.: 21). In fact, thedistinction between human memory and artificial memory becomes blurred, because “weconnect to our web memory” and “our web memory connects to us” (ibid.: 24). Hoskins’s
consideration style is characterized as a kind of posthumanistic way of thinking, which
breaks with the tradition of capturing culture through human metaphors. His emphasis is
not on reducing culture to the level of humans and limited writing tools, but on grasping
the dynamics of the interrelationships between humans and the various digital and nondigital elements that make up culture in the present.
Hoskins’s interpretation of the new culture is inspired by the concept of “media
ecology” in media theory.5 In his understanding, media ecology is “the idea that media
technologies can be understood and studied like organic life-forms, as existing in acomplex set of interrelationships within a specific balanced environment.” (ibid.). Hereis an observational stance that “steps back for a view of the whole, to make claims about
the sum of the parts.” Hoskins applies such an observational gaze to the topic of memory
as well. He continues: “So, rather than hiving ‘memory’ off into distinct and separate
zones or even ‘containers’—the body, the brain, the social, the cultural etcetera—an
ecological approach is interested in how these together work or don’t work in producing
memory.”Hoskins, along with Stephen D. Brown (Brown and Hoskins 2010), calls theconsideration of memory from such a perspective a new “memory ecology” andemphasizes the relevance of this thinking style today. He emphasizes that media life isalso memory life. Today, “[m]emory is lived through a media ecology whereinabundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication networks, nodes, anddigital media content, scale pasts anew. An ecological modeling is therefore needed tocompetencies by testing in “unnatural” situations where the connection to the digital network is prohibited—at least
until the present.
5
Hoskins names George Orwell, Neil Postman, Harold Innis, Marshall McLuhan, and Neil Postman as key figuresin “media ecology” (Hoskins 2011: 24). In their time, however, culture was still perceived under the image of“extensions of man,” as McLuhan formulated it in the title of his major work (1964). From Hoskins’s perspective,
it seems that today’s reality can no longer be captured by this way of thinking, which worked until the eve of thedigital revolution (Hoskins 2011: 23).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

44

J. YAMANA

illuminate a holistic, dynamic and connected set of memory’s potential itineraries.” (ibid.:29).

4. Transformation of the theory of Bildung in relation to the metaphorof memory
Instead of the consideration of culture as the extension of humans, Hoskins proposes
a way of thinking that regards culture as a network of elements and a storehouse of
information, with the human as an element or node of that network. In the eras of new
media (big cities, new means of transportation, cinema, television, and the Internet),
people have had a mixture of expectation and anxiety (see Rosa 2005). When discussing
the “connective turn,” Hoskins seems to be aware of the complicated situation of thosetimes. He states: “The shifts in media memory cultures reflect a tension between those
who accept a vision of memory as always already transformed—medialized—and those
who resist and condemn the metaphorical and medial expansion of the memory.” (ibid.:29).6
It is not the purpose of this essay to comprehensively consider the situation of new
media and to diagnose memory culture. From the viewpoint of educational philosophy,
however, we cannot overlook the fact that the shift in memory metaphors is related to thetheory of mutual formation between self and culture, which is called the theory of Bildung(see Dörpinghaus et al. 2013). Here, I return to the discussion by Aleida and Jan Assmann
to confirm the relevance of cultural memory theory to the theory of Bildung and toconnect it to the question of memory metaphor.
The most important point in the context of this discussion is that memory theory intoday’s Kulturwissenschaften maintains the idea of Bildung by connecting withtraditional Geisteswissenschaften by using the concept of culture as a clamp. This is
typically confirmed in Aleida Assmann’s own mention of the concept of Bildung. For her,
Bildung is nothing more than participation in cultural memory. It has a bindingness(Verbindlichkeit) that connects people both diachronically and synchronically, allowing
them to participate in a common identity (Assmann, A. 2002: 25). In another text, Aleida

As an example of the negative influences of the expansion of memory through media, Hoskins mentions concerns
about the fragmentation of attention and the loss of memory ability through “outsourcing” to the Internet (Hoskins
2011: 26–27). As a positive example of digital technology, he presents the extensive “monumentalization” ofmemory through reconstruction of the past in “hyper-narratives” (e.g., the “timeline” of the circumstances of thebombing incident in London 2005 in a multimodal archive) (ibid.: 28).
6

Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies

45

Assmann mentions that knowledge based on cultural memory can be constantly repeatedlearned, memorized and subjectively appropriated, and embodied (Assmann, A. 2017:
187). She notes that an important part of cultural knowledge that is materialized in sucha way and that concerns the way of identity is called Bildung. It is supported by theinstitution of canonization (ibid.: 188).7 By inheriting a “canonized” culture, people arelinked to memories separated in time and space and are given a cognitive framework ofself and group identity and communality. Education is positioned as a catalyst for thisprocess.
The way of thinking about culture as the extension of humans is also the basis forthe scenario of Bildung. This can mean an upheaval in the hitherto familiar image of
Bildung. Media technologies, with their dramatically increased storage, retrieval, andtransmission capacities, enable the availability of even the most seemingly remote
information at any time (Assmann, J. 2001: 26), so that center and periphery are no longer
determined by socially and culturally predefined criteria and filters, but by the curiosity,interest, and taste of the respective “user” (Assmann, J. 2001: 26). With the realization ofsuch networks, which are also high-performance archives characterized by immediacy
and penetration,8 the image of Bildung will have to change. The process of Bildung
underpinned by transmission of the cultural canon will have to be significantly disrupted
as individuals become increasingly able to form functional memories freely from the
myriad of storage memories in the network of cultural memories. The space oftransmission will be wider. The number of representations and the speed of theirgeneration will increase. All of this can affect the culture of remembering and canstrengthen a group’s identity. At the same time, such changes in cultural memory canpromote the definition of boundaries of the group to the outside world. Conversely,
however, these changes can create experiences that shake and transcend boundaries. We
are living in the midst of such a difficult perspective in terms of the theme of Bildung.

Aleida Assmann explains the term “canonization” in the following way: The institution of canonization, theformerly religious enhancement form of selection, extends to artistic artifacts as well. Works that acquire the statusof a classic through canonization are books, pictures, films or pieces of music, which differ from the abundance ofwhat is preserved in libraries and archives by the claim to be read, seen, heard, recognized, appropriated, or learned
by heart repeatedly—in short, re-embodied (Assmann, A. 2017: 188).
8
The following statement by Hoskins may suggest the unity of the Internet and digital archives today. “Theseemingly obsessive immediacy of instant or real-time connection/publication/dissemination on the Internet(including the sending of texts, emails, or other messaging services) creates a digital archive that is unimaginableboth in its scope and in its accessibility and searchability.” (Hoskins 2011: 26).
7

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

46

J. YAMANA

5. Some comments on the struggle of memory metaphors and Bildung
in the future
What should be done based on such observations about the contemporary? There
are two main options that immediately come to mind. One is to capture culture througha network metaphor, and the other is to stay in the human metaphor. Depending on which
we choose, the picture of Bildung will be very different. However, a two-party answer
does not seem appropriate for this issue.
It is inevitable and important to continue the search for appropriate metaphors formemory. Hoskins, as mentioned earlier, clearly recommends a network metaphor. Evenin this position, he introduces arguments that point to the dangers of contemporary mediaderived metaphors for memory. According to such arguments, the characteristics ofmodern media (permanence, precision, and immortality) can create the illusion that theyalso apply to finite human memory. Hoskins then affirms today’s digitally enhanced
human capacity and argues that media-derived metaphors are necessary to comprehend
this situation (ibid.: 22).
The human metaphor of memory has not yet been fully replaced by the network
metaphor. The two exist in the same place without fully getting along. The network
metaphor does not limit the subject to humans, but rather suggests the possibility of
breaking free from the human subject and going beyond anthropocentric theories ofmemory and culture. When Hoskins indicates his position by using the concept of the“ecology of memory,” he is clearly trying to give a positive nuance to the term “ecology.”
At the same time, however, there is a (currently unavoidable) gulf between the network
metaphor and the finite human being, who cannot always be on standby. In short, thisgulf is the individual’s fear of being reduced to a node in the vast information world of
the network. Metaphors are strongly involved in shaping reality, as they introduce newtheoretical ideas and establish coherence in hypothetical processes (Draaisma 1999: 29).
Such a reality would, of course, include the field of education. We need an effective
metaphor to mediate between the principle of not privileging humans and the principleof not neglecting humans.

Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the manuscript of my presentation for the symposium “Oral
Tradition, Images, Memory and Bildung: An Attempt at Pedagogy of
Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft

Culture as Human, Culture as Network:
On the Theory of Bildung based on Memory Studies

47

Kulturwissenschaften” at the 65th Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan held at Keio University on October 22, 2022. It is part of the results ofresearch funded by JSPS (Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science) KAKENHI
Grant-in-Aid Numbers JP19K02498 and JP21K18530.

References
Assmann, Aleida (1999) Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen
Gedächtnisses, München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
———— (2002) Drei Formen von Gedächtnis. In: P. Rautmann/ N. Schalz (Hrsg.):
Zukunft und Erinnerung. Perspektiven von Kunst und Musik an der
Jahrtausendwende. Bremen: Hauschild, S. 14–26.
———— (2017) Einführung in die Kulturwissenschaften: Grundbegriffe, Themen,
Fragestellungen. 4., durchgesehene Auflage, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Assmann, Jan (1988) Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität, Jan Assmann &Tonio Hölscher (Hrsg.), Kultur und Gedächtnis, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S. 9–19.
———— (1992) Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität
in früheren Hochkulturen, München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
———— (2001) Das kulturelle Gedächtnis, Kolliquien des Max Weber-Kollegs XV–XXIII V, S. 9–27. (Archiv- und Publikationsserver der Universität Erfurt,
extension://dnkjinhmoohpidjdgehjbglmgbngnknl/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dbthueringen.de%2Fservlets%2FMCRFileNodeServlet%2Fdbt_derivate_00001345%2Fassmann.pdf———— (2002) »Zum Geleit«, Gerald Echterhoff & Martin Saar (Hrsg.), Kontexte undKulturen des Erinnerns. Maurice Halbwachs und das Paradigma des kollektiven
Gedächtnisses, Konstanz: UVK, S. 7–11.
Brown, Steven D. & Hoskins, Andrew (2010) Terrorism in the new memory ecology:
mediating and remembering the 2005 London bombings, Behavioral Sciences ofTerrorism and Political Aggression, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87–107.
Dörpinghaus, Andreas, Poenitsch, Andreas, & Wigger, Lothar (2013), Einführung in die
Theorie der Bildung. Darmstadt: wbg.
Draasima, Dowe (1999) Metaphernmashine: Eine Geschichte des Gedächtnisses,übersetzt von Verena Kiefer, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (1995).
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 2023

48

J. YAMANA

Erll, Astrid (2017) Kollektives Gedächtnis und Erinnerungskulturen. Eine Einführung (3.,aktualisierte und erweiterte Aufl.), Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag.
Freud, Sigmund (1948) Notiz über den “Wunderblock”, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 14,
London: Imago Publishing, S. 3–7 (1925).
———— (1950) Konstruktionen in der Analyse, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 16, S. 43–56(1937).
Hoskins, Andrew (2011) Media, memory, metaphor: Remembering and the connective
turn, Parallax, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 19–31.
Rosa, Hartmut (2005) Beschleunigung: Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne,Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Roediger Ⅲ, Henry L. (1980) Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology, Memory &Cognition, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 231–246.
Sutton, John (2005) Memory and the extended mind: embodiment, cognition, and culture,
Cognitive Processing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 223–226.
Weinrich, Harald (1976) Sprache in Texten, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Yamana, Jun (ed.) (2022), kioku to sōki no kyōikugaku (Pedagogy of Memory andRemembrance), Tokyo: Keiso Shobō.

Symposium: Orality, Image, Memory and Bildung: Toward the Possibility of Educational Study Based on
Kulturwissenschaft