Report on: Interfaces of Heritage and Memory – A Conversation with Sharon Macdonald and Ann Rigney

On May 15th, Utrecht University hosted the event Interfaces of Heritage and Memory: A Conversation with Sharon Macdonald and Ann Rigney, bringing together two of the most prominent figures in their respective fields to reflect on the convergences and tensions between memory studies and critical heritage studies. Moderated by Susanne Knittel and Birgit Meyer, the conversation had a large audience of scholars and students from Utrecht University, the University of Amsterdam, Radboud University, and Leiden University. The gathering signalled the strength of the growing interdisciplinary Memory and Heritage network that has been fostering dialogue and collaboration across institutions.

The conversation moved beyond disciplinary boundaries, not to draw lines between fields, but to uncover productive intersections. Both Macdonald and Rigney emphasized the fluid nature of disciplinary fields, noting that their contours are shaped and re-shaped by scholarly communities and evolving concerns. Memory Studies, as Rigney described, centers on the presentness of the past, how memory mediates identity, culture, and politics across time and media. She stressed the importance of mediation, the agency of aesthetic form, and the afterlives of memory, focussing on the ways by which memory travels, is reshaped, and reactivated in new contexts. Macdonald, coming from a background in anthropology, described how Critical Heritage Studies emerged in part as a response to dominant, often Eurocentric, understandings of heritage. She emphasized the importance of decentering the West and human exceptionalism, calling for a more posthumanist, materially attentive approach to the study of heritage and memory alike. Rather than aiming to compare and contrast heritage and memory studies as discrete areas, the event opened a shared space of reflection to explore how these disciplines can converge and enrich one another. In this spirit, the speakers addressed themes that have preoccupied both fields in recent years: difficult heritage, activism, reconciliation, and the politics of memory.

A central thread throughout the discussion was the shared interest of both fields in disturbing or contested pasts, whether those related to fascism, colonialism, or other forms of historical violence, and how these pasts continue to structure contemporary memory and heritage cultures. Rigney spoke of the asymmetries inherent in reconciliation processes, where victims and perpetrators often bring divergent expectations to the table. Rigney furthermore drew attention to the limitations of trauma-centered paradigms and called for a more future-oriented, activist memory, one that mobilizes remembrance as a resource for social change, not just mourning. She raised questions about how unheard voices become audible and the “unforgetting”of marginalized histories, often through multidirectional memory practices. In this context, Rigney discussed recent scholarship that has begun to emphasize environmental memory and local storytelling as ways of reclaiming agency and imagining alternatives to dominant narratives of decline or inevitability. Macdonald described her interest in what lies “bubbling beneath the surface,” and how institutions can acknowledge difficult histories without seeking closure or preservation. In this vein, Macdonald addressed how heritage institutions like museums are increasingly sites of contestation in recent years, elaborating on her research into German museums’ engagement with its colonial past, and the question of the return of heritage artifacts which became a reality thanks to sustained public attention, activism, and academic critique. She underscored the importance ofunsettling the Western taken-for-grantedness of heritageby resisting preservationism in favor of a more reflexive engagement with disturbing or silenced histories.

Audience questions prompted further reflection on disciplinary boundaries, particularly the place of history within and between these fields. Rigney emphasized that while history remains central, memory studies broadens the frame to include multiple actors and perspectives, particularly through its attention to cultural production and social practices. Macdonald echoed this perspective, noting that heritage studies can be seen as a form of public history, albeit one that is often more reflexive and critical of institutional authority. Nevertheless, Macdonald questioned the utility of terms like “historical culture,” preferring the openness of critical heritage approaches.

This succesful event underscored the richness and liveliness of dialogue between memory and heritage studies and the necessity of continued interdisciplinary dialogue and crossover. The conversation not only deepened understanding of key theoretical issues but also modelled the kind of grounded, reflective, and politically attuned scholarship that the Utrecht network aims to foster.

Report written by Mohana Zwaga.