Abstract
The ambiguity of the definition of the term "collective memory" and its overuse in the contemporary social scientific sphere leads not only to doubts surrounding the analytical value of the term but also to protracted disputes and discussions that frequently stem from diverse understandings of what is actually meant by collective memory. In my paper, I outline in essence two different ways of understanding ollective memory that can, along with J.K.
Olick, be labelled individualistic and holistic approaches. In the first case, the individual, whose memory works in a social context and is shaped by social influences, is the subject and bearer of memory.
In the second, society itself is understood as the subject and bearer of memory and the term memory becomes a metaphor - we also perceive "something like individual memory" in groups and collectives. In my view, it is possible to link both of these perspectives and, to a certain degree, to overcome their antithetical reductionism when we comprehend the collective memory in its linguistic dimension as a result of social communication processes (in media, educational and political discourses, as well as in everyday linguistic interaction).
In this light, the collective memory proves to be, on the basis of a clear definition, not a misleading term but rather a useful concept for the analysis of the mnemonic aspects of social agency - the ways that people share, construct and negotiate ideas of the past for the purposes of the present and future.