No abstract

Abstract:Organizational memory studies (OMS) frame memory in a managerial mode, treating it as a data storage, limiting the scope from wider field of social memory studies. There is a lack of understanding about how the process of institutional forgetting works and how some memories stay a part of oral narratives and communicative social memory while they are omitted from the official memory represented by the official documents and events of remembering. Inspired by Paul Connerton's article on the typology of forgetting we explore his typology in selected case studies of three public theaters located in Belgrade, focusing on remembering policy and practices investigating if a type of forgetting typical for a state/society/nation level is possible to be applied in the context of a cultural organization. We agree with Wessel and Moulds that developing common language and terminology would be important and beneficial for cross disciplinary dialogue. In this sense, the study shows how the typology of forgetting in societies can be applied and developed in the organizational memory studies and cultural management. The focus of the research is the dynamics of remembering and forgetting explored through analysis of the interaction between changing context, official institutional memories, and social communicative memories.

The pandemic showed that theatres are able to adapt, re-position and re-focus their work, through digital means and by using diverse social media tools, in order to stay present and active during periods in which their models of traditional production and existence are limited. The research explores the rationale behind so called “pandemic production,” digital narratives and main approaches of managers and leaders in the public theatres during the pandemic phase, while noting the lack of cultural policy leadership. The roles of theatre managers was of the most importance and the pace of adaptation depended on their skills and talent. For all stakeholders, the new reality caused by the pandemic opened the horizons of ethics and aesthetics of solidarity, empathy, care, and critical reflections (within theatres and among independent theatre practitioners), while cultural policymakers chose to act as bureaucrats, missing the opportunity to step in with more vision and leadership, which lad to the downgrading of their role to pure administration.