International reconciliation on the Internet? Ontological security, attribution and the construction of war memory narratives in Wikipedia
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Author | Karl Gustafsson |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117819864410 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819864410
International Relations
2020, Vol. 34(1) 3 –24
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117819864410
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
International reconciliation
on the Internet? Ontological
security, attribution and the
construction of war memory
narratives in Wikipedia
Karl Gustafsson
Stockholm University; Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract
This article explores the Internet’s often touted potential for facilitating reconciliation. It
conceptualises Wikipedia as a site for collective memory construction and analyses the Chinese-
and Japanese-language entries on the bilaterally contentious Second Sino-Japanese War. It
addresses the question of how to make sense of the construction of these online collective
memory narratives theoretically. Both historical determinism and instrumentalism – two
influential theoretical approaches to collective memory and reconciliation – have great difficulties
in fully accounting for this case. Instead, it is argued that ontological security theory is better
equipped for understanding collective memory construction in Wikipedia. It is suggested that
ontological security seeking can impede efforts for reconciliation even when, as in Wikipedia,
there exist norms seeking to promote more neutral narratives. It is argued that a subtle bias in
favour of the in-group and against the out-group functions as a mechanism for ontological security
management that protects a positive self-identity.
Keywords
attribution theory, collective memory, Internet, narrative, ontological security, reconciliation
Introduction
Numerous international disputes exist over how to remember past events. In addition,
traditional conflicts over territory and resources are often exacerbated by divergent
collective memories. Against this background, International Relations (IR) research has
Corresponding author:
Karl Gustafsson, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Box 27035, 102 51 Stockholm, Sweden.
Email: karl.gustafsson@ui.se
864410IRE0010.1177/0047117819864410International RelationsGustafsson
research-article2019
Article
4 International Relations 34(1)
become increasingly interested in how collective memory matters in international poli-
tics. Such scholarship has explored, for example, the role of trauma in international poli-
tics1 and how collective memory influences the security policy.2 The key issues being
debated concern how collective memory influences interstate relations and how to
achieve reconciliation between former enemies.3 The fact that the Internet has increas-
ingly come to pervade social life raises questions about how it might affect the possibili-
ties for reconciliation. Some argue that the Internet has the potential to facilitate increased
international understanding in general.4 In addition, research in memory studies has sug-
gested that the Internet could become an arena for the construction and promotion of
more nuanced collective memory narratives without government interference.5 These
suggestions notwithstanding, thus far, scant attention has been paid to how the Internet
might influence reconciliation. This article addresses the conciliatory potential of the
Internet through an analysis of narratives about the bilaterally contentious Second Sino-
Japanese War that took place during the 1930s and 1940s.6 The analysis compares those
narratives appearing in prominent Chinese and Japanese museum exhibitions with those
constructed in the Chinese- and Japanese-language versions of Wikipedia. The article
thus seeks to address the question of whether the online narratives are more conciliatory
than the offline ones. In addition, it asks how we can make sense of these online collec-
tive memory narratives theoretically.
The article’s focus on Wikipedia is grounded in insights from memory studies that
conceptualise Wikipedia as a site for collective memory construction.7 As such, the arti-
cle offers insights into the Internet’s conciliatory potential. Wikipedia’s guiding principle
of striving to construct accounts based on a neutral point of view echoes what historical
determinism – arguably the most influential theoretical approach to collective memory
and reconciliation – suggests should facilitate reconciliation. Historical determinism
assumes that even though political actors may seek to construct collective memory in
accordance with their preferences, such accounts are difficult to sustain over time because
sooner or later the narratives will be confronted with historical facts. Historical determin-
ism has been extremely influential in research on reconciliation and transitional justice
and in the practical measures – such as truth-seeking initiatives – that such research
recommends. If Wikipedia functions according to its principles, it should be expected to
facilitate more conciliatory narratives than those typically found in offline memory sites.
It can thus be regarded as a favourable, indeed a most likely,8 setting both for the con-
struction of more conciliatory memory narratives and for historical determinism.
By contrast, instrumentalism – another major school in the study of collective
memory – holds that political elites construct collective memory to further their present
and future interests. For instrumentalism, reconciliation is likely to occur if, but only if,
it is in the interests of the elites that control the construction of collective memory.
Instrumentalist approaches would expect narratives in Wikipedia to more or less reflect
those that dominate in the offline sphere.
This article argues that the ontological security theory is better equipped for making
sense of collective memory as constructed in Wikipedia. IR research on ontological
security has suggested that, instead of adopting measures that could facilitate reconcili-
ation, many states are more concerned with seeking ontological security by securitising
memory.9 By contrast, through its analysis of Wikipedia, and by incorporating insights
To continue reading
Request your trial