Abstract

Historical memory and historical science, with a certain similarity, are different in content, origin, purpose. It is oriented ethnic, national, class, group interests. Memory includes a certain system of values, emotionally loaded phenomena, sacred objects, forms and ways of grief, veneration, exaltation. It contains myths and narratives. Objects of historical memory become a way of self-esteem, special pride, and often the focus of identity search. Memory is always selective and correlates with oblivion. The function of memory correction is performed by ideologists and politicians, but based on certain political and ideological doctrines which are neither stable, universal, nor scientific. Science, for example history, is guided by the concepts of truth or intersubjectivity, historical reality and historical fact, historical method and theory. Understanding of the latter can differ, which is an important subject of methodological analysis and requires the connection of philosophers, culturologists, historians, ethnographers. In historical science there are two fundamental paradigms. The first relates historical knowledge to educational goals, which are conditioned by ideological and political guidelines. In this case, even when striving for impartiality, subjectivity of interpretations and departure from objectivity often prevail. It is this paradigm that requires the historian to store and replenish historical memory. The second scientific paradigm characterizes genuine science and presupposes conscious and comprehensive rejection of ideological, political, nationalist, party bias. Historical memory is not adequate to historical reality due to the determining influence of ideology. It is necessary to increase the role of science among the factors that form the historical memory.