Contested memories and identities: transformations of mnemonic landscape in post-Soviet Riga, Latvia.

Two prominent themes within the literature on Latvian memory politics can be identified: 'memory wars' with neighbouring Russia (Berg and Ehin 2016), and internal ethno-mnemonic split between Latvians and Russian-speakers. In the wake of Ukrainian Crisis numerous observers equally noted such ethnic divide within Latvia and its major cities as a potential source of ethnic or international conflict (e.g. Miller 16 Nov. 2016). This research project seeks to broaden academic debate through the focus on memory and space within this strategically important part of the world. To capture this kinship, this research project proposes to study the transformation of the mnemonic landscape of Riga - 'a multiethnic and bilingual postsocialist, post-Soviet, and postindustrial city' (Nawratek 2012:1). While not attempting to disregard any of the dimensions of the city, this PhD project will try to find synthesis that helps us understand Riga in its multifaceted configuration through the focus on post- Soviet memory dynamics. Thus, the potential of this project is twofold. Firstly, this project seeks to conceptualise new ways of thinking about memory in space. Riga provides a fruitful case study to further conceptualise links between space and memory, building upon previous scholarly output (Nora 1989);(Ochman 2013). Secondly, this project has the potential to provide empirical grounds for understanding the complexities of remembering in post-communist urban settings, that might help to bring different 'communities of memory' in Latvia and Riga a little bit closer.

As such this project is conceived at the intersection of memory studies, cultural geography and everyday life studies. Main research question becomes that of dynamics of post-Soviet memory and space. To explore these dynamics, the following questions will be addressed:

1. What national/urban identity and memory is captured within this landscape (top-down)? How is it understood within a context of changing meanings of Soviet, post-Soviet and Latvian?

1.1. What are residents' perceptions of this mnemonic space? Is there an interaction of different scales (e.g. local, national, European) in vernacular narratives?

2. How successful has post-Soviet Latvia been in coming to terms with its (urban) communist past?

2.1 Does empty-space left by Lenin's monument itself become Lieux de Mémoire or a liminal space (see Appendix C)?

3. What does the museum's permanent exhibition tell us about interaction between national/urban identity and memory? How do dynamics of commodification and place branding foster these?

3.1 What is residents' mnemonic-temporal understanding of this place?