Lessons from the past? Cultural memory in Dutch integration policy

This article explores the contribution that cultural memory studies can make to the debate about the role of ideas and the dynamics of ideational change in policy making. Cultural memory studies engage with the cultural dimensions of remembering, and analyse how shared images of the past are mediated and transferred across distance and time. Such research shows how the past may continue to influence the present by informing the frameworks through which groups and individuals interpret and give meaning to events and phenomena. Since policy makers operate within a cultural context, shared memories are likely also to affect the way they think about the nature and roots of policy issues and the appropriateness and feasibility of policy options. In this article, policy memory (the memory shared by policy makers about earlier policies) is identified as a subcategory of cultural memory. The role of cultural memory among policy makers is studied with reference to Dutch integration policies in two periods: the mid‐1990s and the early 2000s. On the basis of an in‐depth analysis of policy reports and parliamentary debates, references to the past and the role they play in the policy debate are identified. Different modes of dealing with the past are found in the two periods studied, reflecting the different political contexts in which the debates took place. In the 1990s, the memory of earlier policy was invoked in the mode of continuity – that is, policy change was legitimised (conceived) as part of a positive tradition. In the 2000s, memory was invoked in the mode of discontinuity. The same policies were reinterpreted in more negative terms and policy change legitimised by the perceived need to break with the past. Arguably, this reinterpretation of the past was a precondition for the shift in policy beliefs that took place around that time.     

CONGRESS AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: An Exercise in Symbolic Politics

Even when federal authorities were legally empowered to impose a death sentence, the sanction was rarely carried out. Between 1930 and 1976, there were only 33 such executions. During the past decade, bills, both imposing and abolishing capital punishment, have been introduced repeatedly in the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, certain members of Congress have demonstrated intense interest in such efforts. The continued debate and interest is better explained by the symbolic rather than tangible components of such legislation. This article examines four aspects of the symbolic component of federal death penalty legislation: reassurance function, moral-educative function, model for the states, and the deterrence debate.