The article analyzes the academic experiences of memory pedagogy based on published bibliographic documents, identifying the different issuing agents, the theoretical affiliations and their central concepts. Through content analysis, a sample of 33 documents was integrated to understand the anamnestic-narrative horizon in education, finding that there is a greater number of experiences in historical memory, with a high level of integration in methodologies, perspectives and techniques for the academic reading of reality, but without a cognitive ontological purpose built from the rigor of history as a social science, for itsovercome the epistemological problems in the subject-object relationship that mixed teaching methods produce.

Keywords: pedagogy, memory, education, hybridity, historical consciousness

Research in memory and pedagogy have taken on an important value, due to the fact that the psychological, social and political effects of the conflict have begun to be analyzed in greater detail. This fact, in Colombia, has been promoted through a series of academic, institutional and investigative works, with the purpose of complying with the missionary frameworks of the Law and reflecting on the facts and actions of the war.

In this way, the pedagogy of memory arises, as a discipline in charge of investigating and relating the themes of war with history and the commitment to non-repetition. This pedagogy does not have a specific disciplinary foundation, on the contrary, it is elaborated from different perspectives and through the use of different methodological, conceptual and evaluative resources. Teachers explore in a flexible way the perception of the facts of war, using these actions as an element of compression of violence, of the traumatic effects caused and as a resource for training in human rights, citizenship and non-repetition.

Additionally, different methodological and technical perspectives are used for the reconstruction of the facts, among them, the documentary, testimonial, historical, artistic and expressive type. Likewise, educational material produced by the CMH that includes the official version and resources such as news, photographs and oral reports. With this, a multiplicity of perspectives, voices and ideas are generated that help to remember and reconstruct the cruelest phenomena of the conflict such as the massacres and the lives of victims who narrate the events from their perspective.

This plurality of voices, images and experiences should be an important effort in the search to remember, systematize and record history, and not so that it becomes a bricolage that shows many referents, but does not leave a deep and clear mark, for the On the contrary, its effect can produce a loosely defined atmosphere that encourages forgetfulness. Some educational experiences are used to reflect on the atrocities of the events, but the true purpose of such education is the learning of human rights, training for citizenship and raising awareness about war.

With this, the academic, social and political function of the pedagogy of memory is questioned, being important to highlight that the historical events that occurred within the framework of the war and the internal conflict must be systematized and rigorously registered so that it can be an objective interpretation that contributes to the understanding and overcoming of the phenomenon. Fact that requires a lot of ethical responsibility in the classroom, on the part of the different educational actors, so that the construction of knowledge is carried out while maintaining fidelity to the truth of the facts and not as a process of innovation. The pedagogy of memory has to recover a deeper epistemological principle, to give a historical leitmotif and a political guide to its work,

The pedagogy of memory must have an ontological, epistemological and deontological foundation, beyond remembering to forget, on the contrary, these biopolitical practices of resistance to war imply the development of alternative social actions Ghilarducci.¹ From phenomenology, it would imply acquiring a historical awareness of the country, understood as a self-mediated evolution of knowledge, in an ordered succession of temporal events, to the goal of an understanding in a timeline within a certain period of years, which clarifies the dynamics of the antagonistic poles and actants, to understand the tension of society, the forces in struggle and the role of the State. From the philosophy of Hegel, in his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, it is understood that studying the past must serve to achieve human freedom, this being the goal that must guide all historical processes and that must be fulfilled as a constant that does not vary over time.

For this reason, the pedagogy of memory must have a much clearer claim in comprehensive terms and in constructivist terms. It is not the same, carrying out a pedagogical process to make memory, understood as an action based on the duty to remember, which can be inscribed from the plurality of stories and in which, during the process of reconstructing memories, it is more important the identification of the meanings, that is to say the representations that the students make around the fact, and not the reconstruction of the fact in itself to form the political subject and the historical conscience of the student. By not reaching the construction of a historical memory, it is not possible to establish an objective knowledge of the past, nor unify the phenomenological sense of the becoming State.

The beginning of memory studies

Memory studies began in Europe in the 1960s through the formation of an academic field of research and study on the memory of the war and the concentration and extermination camps of Jews. In Latin America, studies began after the 1980s with the intention of recording the atrocious acts committed during the military dictatorships in the Southern Cone. Its incidence is given from the creation of legal mechanisms such as: truth commissions and truth courts, being an institutional effort of the States, to legitimize the democratic political systems that have been affected by State and para-state violence. The duty of memory becomes a task, to remember the victims of atrocious and violent events, with the intention of correcting the mistakes of the past and guaranteeing their non-repetition.

For Nora² all this effort becomes a politics of memory that comes to mark the conscious work of rediscovering their past, to understand it and seek that it does not repeat itself. Halbwachs³ establishes that these events are not lived directly but are remembered through other means, such as records, documentaries, schematizations of the historical discipline or conceptual cartographies and the narratives of the victims and witnesses. This being the most important characteristic of the pedagogy of memory, by accepting that there is not a single memory, it makes room for pluralism and the different, contradictory and diverse perspectives that can be elaborated around conflict, violence and war, to give voice to the years of silence. From this aspect, memory is understood as an open process of reinterpretation, which produces new meanings, new understandings, which question the existence of a historical truth. In this way, the possibility is opened for various memories, narratives, testimonies and perspectives to break through, which are fragments, pieces of reality, even antagonistic and contradictory, for Orozco,⁴ there is an open and marked struggle of political and social, which have given rise to the battles for memory, those that are structuring stories of the past, associated with the symbolic inscription of memory as a territorial mark that evidences the conflicting interests that subsist in the process of how, where, why, and which memory to preserve.

Today the field of memory is broader and more varied, encompassing research that investigates social or collective memory,⁵ personal memory and time⁶ and historical memory.⁷ Likewise, the Colombia Never Again Project^8s is an institutional effort to commemorate the victims of the genocide in order to request compliance and guarantee of human rights against crimes against humanity; In this regard, Defez,⁹ covers topics on the identity of the nation, its implications at the social and political level, while the National Center for Historical Memory¹⁰ investigates the massacres and oblivion to guarantee non-repetition.

For their part, universities and colleges also follow the guidelines of the memory policy and implement chairs in order to comply with Law 975 of 2005, known as the Justice and Peace Law. This fact generated an increase in educational material on the issues of the conflict, likewise, led to the implementation of processes, experiences, workshops and memory laboratories, with different purposes, purposes, methodologies and tools, which require critical analysis, to determine its effects, its handling and its uses.

This same phenomenon was experienced in Argentina, according to Mendoza,¹¹ the policies of memory and generational transmission of traumatic pasts experienced growth due to the impulses given by the Law and then began to disappear. The fear is that the pedagogy of memory will become a class to be forgotten, built solely from figurative and literal language, due to the effects produced by any figurative characterization of real events and the concepts with which they are used. define and interpret 'morally extreme' events.

For Lang, historical events such as genocide have an important particularity, due to the magnitude of the phenomenon and its impact on society, also because they are real situations elaborated by public institutions based on the official version, serving as an official paradigm for the literal reconstruction of historical memory, therefore, its reconstruction made with a figurative language not only diverts or avoids the literal expression of events, but also diverts attention from the circumstances about which it intends to speak.

The handling of historical events of such magnitude, affects in different ways the historical configuration of time, in the first instance through suppression, followed by adding fictitious events to retell what was lived, also introduces the stylization of the story, which, directs attention to an author or creative, who shapes the character from his perspective of the facts, influencing the story by personalizing and/or generalizing the agents and their social causes, González and García.¹² From this approach, there is a threat to the configuration of history itself as a social science, to the understanding and reconfiguration of the historical sense of social action, historical consciousness and the concept of time that war and conflict broke. Thus, for Haye, Herraz, Cáceres and others,¹³ Herrera and Pertuz¹⁴ warn about the phenomenon that causes the management of kaleidoscopic subjectivities, a factor that activates the debate around the rules for the construction of time and historical events in educational institutions, by proposing oblivion as a mechanism to guarantee non-repetition, this being an ambiguous figure of speech impossible to achieve, since the causes of the war are related to social inequality, inequity in the countryside and the city, and the use of weapons to combat violence, exclusion in power and, not to remember the history of the country.

The importance of the meaning that is built in the cognitive references of the students, through the subjects that deal with the conflict, cannot be approached from an individual point of view, due to the breadth and depth of the topics and the high moral load and politics that this entails Herrera and Vélez.¹⁵ So, its approach must be governed by rules of construction of historical discourse such as: status of truth, objectivity, academic neutrality and an axiology of communication Mainer.¹⁶ Although Law 1148 has promoted the development of these activities for forgiveness and forgetting, but given its high impact on the configuration of the citizen ethos, historical consciousness and the sense of the future of the reality of the country, the purpose cannot be lost. to remember, nor openly and deliberately leave its discursive reconstruction in the classroom.¹⁷

Legislation, justice and pedagogy of memory

The issuance of Law 975 of 2005 has an important impact on the social and institutional assessment of memory and the historical record of the events that occurred during the war and armed conflict in Colombia. The transitional justice period used memory as a political instrument to mobilize in the construction of democratic and academic scenarios in order to address issues of truth, justice and reparation. Reason why the testimonies about the massacres and violent actions carried out by the Self-Defense Units of Colombia were stored.

In particular, art. 7 corresponding to the creation of satisfaction measures for the reparation process, art. 8, which advocates the conservation, systematization and registration of paramilitary confessions about war crimes and art. 32 with the measures of symbolic reparation and preservation of the collective memory. Through art. 50 creates the National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation, and art. 56 established the duty of preservation of historical memory at the head of the State. Likewise, the Historical Memory Group was created, in charge of preparing a version of the armed conflict.

Such impulse gave rise to the appearance of Law 1408 of 2010 as a measure of protection and reparation for victims of the crime of forced disappearance, being important to gather institutional efforts in the identification of their bodies and in the opening of investigation processes and family support. With the appearance of Law 1448 of 2011, new regulations referring to historical memory are incorporated, through the creation of different tools and instruments for its systematization, conservation and protection. It is known as the Victims' Law and seeks to comply with a moral imperative called the duty of memory, in which they advocate involving civil society, private and public organizations and academies to carry out memory reconstruction exercises.

The research used content analysis as a methodology for the study of the semantic units of analysis of the sample, which was made up of 33 documents whose central category was: Pedagogy of memory, which were identified in the scanning and systematization made by through scientific pages and the web. The sample was coded, quantified and analyzed based on the internal communication patterns found in its thematic structures. The use of the procedures sought to objectify and triangulate the selected textual information to convert it into quantitative data. The analysis that was carried out was of a structural and social symbolic type, through an extensive and intertextual strategy.

The selection of the sample was carried out through random sampling with the intention of classifying the titles according to their area of ​​interest. In this way, it was evident that there were 6 fields that guided the work of pedagogy in education, these were: historical memory, memory and conflict, historical time, memory and territory, memory for peace, and other memories. Likewise, 5 agents were identified that work on the subject frequently: Public University, Private University, Historical Memory Center, the IDEP Institute and International Organizations, which disseminate the contents of their proposals in the classroom or other training scenarios. The following graph shows the classification of the documents according to the category of study and the types of agents that address the subject (Table 1).

The analysis that was carried out was of a structural and social symbolic type, the first has the function of discovering the implicit logic of the discourse and the second has the purpose of understanding the symbolic structures of those who issue the documents. For this, statistical tests were used, in which the results of the coding of the text units of the sample were analyzed from an extensive strategy where the number and quality of the text units are reduced to focus on some few central categories, then through an intertextual strategy, are grouped through analytical domains to make deductions from the internal communicative patterns found in the documents.

Graph 1 Conceptual agent and central category shows the relationship between these two variables. His study reveals that the Public University has 0.6% publications with the study of the Historical Memory category; followed by the Private University with 0.3% publications with the category of historical memory, 0.1% with historical time and 0.1% with memory for peace; while the CMH has 0.2% publications with the central category of historical memory, 0.1% memory and territory, 0.1% with the category of Historical Time. While the Inst. IDEP has 0.2% with the memory and conflict category and international organizations with other memories.

Figure 1 Conceptual agent and central category.

It can be evidenced that the experiences cover different theoretical concepts, in particular, it denotes that public universities have a greater interest in historical memory and private universities in second proportion. This produces that there is a restricted and particularistic character in the study of memory, thereby causing the interpretation regarding the variation of social behavior patterns to reach conclusions that are not valid due to their subjectivist perspective, consequently, making it impossible to identify of social laws that allow the precise understanding of the future to make decisions.

Graph 2 Central category and alternative position reveals that the central category of Historical Memory has 0.5% documents whose alternative position is related to the analysis of the difference between history and memory, followed by 0.3% of the category Multiculturalism and national pluralism, 0.2% Phenomenology of war and violence, 0.2% the tensions of the role of memories, 0.2% reconstruction and re-signification of historical memory, 0.1% awareness and exploration of the dynamics, 0.1% Discursive matrix for the official construction of memory narratives. The category of memory of the conflict, has as an alternative position 0.4% Official history, 0.4% thought incomplete information, 0.3% the notion of dignity, 0.2% Collective constructions of meaning and 0.1% materials. of the memory.

Figure 2 Central category and alternative position.

The category of Historical Time has as an alternative position 0.2% critical historiography, 0.2% learning historical time, 0.1% Resignifying the role of history from another perspective; while the Category Memory and territory, has 0.3% establish the criteria to challenge falsifying memories, 0.3% the history of the territory, 0.2% lack of interest in national history. The central category Memory for peace, has as an alternative position 0.2% the duty of memory, 0.2% ethics of teaching history, 0.2% agency and awareness for peace. Finally, in the central category Other memories, there are 0.5% Actions of oppression, 0.3% Reconstruction of resistance, 0.3% Construction of human rights archives, 0.1% Ethics of teaching history.

The importance of finding an alternative category in the studies allows maintaining a high degree of conceptual dialectic, which must be handled so that an epistemological synthesis is produced that helps to overcome the level of skepticism, falsehood and subjectivism that appear in the proposals. These must be consistent with the central category, so that it can contribute to its understanding, being reasonable that the duty of memory and critical historiography are present in the experiences as fundamental aspects.

Graph 3 Conceptual Agent and Pedagogy Tools reveals that the memory documents of the Public U. 0.2% use the testimonial narrative, 0.1% the testimonial Atlas, 0.1% Chair of Memory and Peace ¡Basta ya!, 0.1% the virtual observatory, 0.1% oral expression, 0.1% the orality of memory and the literary register, 0.1% the centrality of the witness, 0.1% multimodal material. While the memory documents of the Private University reveal that 0.1% use personal reflective work, 0.1% interviews with local actors, 0.1% the CMH toolbox, 0.1% Orality and writing, 0.1% historical periodization in a mural, 0.1% mourning process, 0.1% documentary review, 0.1% interviews.

Figure 3 Conceptual agent and pedagogy tolos.

The documents of the CMH use as tools 0.1% construction of the school museum, 0.1% stories, primers and teaching material, 0.1% timeline, 0.1% personal memories and testimonies, 0.1% analysis of data, 0.1% cartography. While the IDEP Institute uses 0.1% collective memory construction scenarios and international organizations use 0.1% dialogical diagnosis, 0.1%, the didactic sequence with testimonies.

Graph 4 Agent and use of methodologies, shows that the Public University presents 0.2% in the use of biography and autobiography as a methodological tool, 0.1% historiography, 0.1% action-research, 0.1% memory portfolios, 0.1% literal memory, 0.1% Narratives of the armed conflict, 0.1% technical analysis of textual sources. The Private University presents 0.3% in the use of research-participant as a methodological tool, 0.2% action research, 0.1% hermeneutics-phenomenology, 0.1% hermeneutic theory, 0.1% transforming agencies, 0.1% biography and autobiography.

Figure 4 Agent and methodologies.

The CMH has 0.2% in the use of Historiography as a methodological tool, 0.2% in participating research, 0.1% in phenomenology. The IDEP Institute 0.1% Didactics of history, 0.1% tics; Finally, international organizations use 0.1% action research and 0.1% participant research.

Graph 5 Conceptual Synthesis reveals the highest percentages of interest reached by the documents as a conclusion of the process in the classroom, with 0.5% being the highest percentage, related to the idea that memory pedagogy processes: “ It leads to an awareness of the harsh reality of the Colombian armed conflict”, 0.5% consider that the pedagogy of memory leads to: “The permanence of tensions between the official memory and the construction of the present”, 0.5% affirm that the pedagogy of the memory presents: "different perspectives of the historical sources", and 0.4% affirms that it contributes to: "Placing the inhabitants in their role as citizens and settlers, creating a sense of belonging", 0.4% propose that it is necessary: ​​"Des - fatalize memory and assume it as object and mediation,to review it as a collective and national project”.

Figure 5 Conceptual synthesis.

The pedagogy of memory is an academic space for reflection on war, conflict and its victimizing events, its teaching being essential in educational institutions to prevent phenomena such as Auschwitz from recurring today.¹⁸ With this, a great load of responsibility is attributed to this pedagogy, since war is a destructive phenomenon of life and human social relations, in addition, because it profoundly modifies subjectivity and human consciousness, leading to the loss of all the ethical, moral and axiological references with which the models of a dignified, fair and sustainable life are based. Therefore, education plays a fundamental role, by forming subjects who are aware of the horrors committed in the past Legarralde and Brugaletta.

This current comes from the so-called sociocultural studies of memory initiated in Europe after the Second World War as a conscious reaction against the abuses of power, totalitarianism, dictatorships and State crimes.

In Latin America, these initiatives have been very well received, especially in the countries that have most experienced state and para-state violence. In Colombia, its implementation was driven by the legal framework of the Victims' Law, which led to its scientific interest in the face of the acts committed by the different armed groups. Thus, the pedagogy of memory makes room for the rescue of the voices of the vanquished, the circulation and elaboration of practices, knowledge and discourses that occurred in the past, which are characterized by being traumatic and violent. For its study, it uses different methods and tools that range from texts, documentaries, to living sources, testimonies and the official version.

This pedagogy is a challenge for education and implies the multiple grouping of disciplines and epistemologies, in this regard Ortega, Castro, Sánchez, and others,¹⁹ argue that a very special process must be carried out to teach the history of recent pasts, make visible the voice of the victims, promote new readings on history, contribute to the macrosocial and structural understanding of the country from ethical, social and political spheres, as well as the circulation of transmission practices of recent traumatic pasts, to educate for citizenship and human rights Ortega.²⁰

But due to the way in which experiences, knowledge and knowledge are approached, the purpose and management of the pedagogy of memory is called into question, as it becomes a phenomenon that alternates three perspectives that are irreconcilable in the production of knowledge, the gaze subjective/objective external gaze, the objective/formal external gaze, the subjective/psychological internal gaze, the subjective/narrative gaze, and the subjective/experiential gaze, all of which circulate in the classroom, conditioned by very strong epistemological factors that determine their learning Valdes.²¹

As memory in education is a very important knowledge device, it is debated in the midst of an epistemological conjuncture that is at the same time fundamental political and ideological: that produced by the official story or to question that story and allow other stories to emerge and different memories not taken into account by history as a scientific discipline. Additionally, this exercise in the classroom implies altering the scientific principles and postulates by not respecting the subject-object relationship, when at the same time, it is intended to collect the testimonies and documents, to understand the problem, but also to build an alternate history becoming the protagonist of the object, that it intends to analyze, in order to transform it, to build a new one or simply forget it once the memory experiment in the classroom has passed.

Addressing historical memory in the classroom, as a symbolic system reconstructed with pieces of individual memory and social memory, implies assuming that this information will be transmitted through speeches, images, contents, testimonies, news and facts, in order to understand the past or to be assumed as a phenomenon of the present with the intention of changing the future. Pagés and Marolla²² state that the teaching of memory is fundamental for history, and that all these elements must be considered when conceiving this pedagogy, which, in order not to enter into contradiction, must have guiding principles that allow solve the ontological problem in the subject-object relationship in a scientific way that arose in the classroom through the use of diverse methods, techniques and tools, Finding in the results the use of rational, sensual and mixed assumptions in this pedagogy, this means that the ontological interests outlined are not so clear compared to the object of learning itself. For the vast majority of experiences, it is essential to learn to train in citizenship skills and not to understand the object of study. We start from the fact that the main objective of the pedagogy of memory, due to its metatheoretical claim, is to educate for non-repetition, which, from knowledge, implies establishing general laws to serve as instruments in the systematic explanation of the phenomenon and for the reliable prediction of future events.

For this reason, if the pedagogy of memory aspires to have reliable knowledge, it must use a procedure that complies with the essential logical functions of the research experiment, to channel it in at least four aspects that cause the phenomenon of war and the armed conflict, among them:

1. the need to recover historical temporality for the formation of situated subjects,
2. reconstruct the meaning and historical character of human experience in its projection of time,
3. formation of historical consciousness and of historical being for action, and iv) recovering historical knowledge as a social scientific discipline Rüsen,²³ Gadame,^24,25

Here, the ontological and epistemological link that is elaborated in the classroom, between pedagogy, history and memory, acquires special relevance, since the need to analyze, interpret and reflect on human life in the midst of the conditions of conflict and the war, which implies uniting memory, history, politics and society in a comprehensive argument that allows us to coherently reconstruct the violent past Sánchez.²⁶ This implies understanding that the pedagogy of memory gives rise to subjective, individual and collective experience, but requires history to link its particular gaze with the evolution of larger phenomena. By building memory we do not make history, on the contrary, all social construction of memory is collective memory and remains in the field of local meanings, which, This fact affects the famous crisis of history, a silent process that began in the 90s with a distance from its study and production, thereby losing the possibility of actively experiencing history, it cannot be part of it, much less transform it, if he does not know it and worse still, if he does not understand it, Quintero.²⁷ So it is not surprising, this concealment of historical knowledge, revealing the totality of a situation in which students are less and less capable of building representations of their own present experience Sánchez.²⁸

It is, then, about a pedagogy that reproduces the economic order, the logics of power and shows the pain, the testimonies and the traumas of the war as elements of a rhizome, but without connection with macrostructural aspects, with which, a return to the past, but in an ahistorical process, to the extent that the student is deprived of the referents to project a critical understanding of the phenomenon and study it to arrive at the construction of verifiable scientific knowledge.

This education is a reproduction of culture that does not question or change by modifying the contents, but rather its practical condition, leading to compressing historical time and dilating the space of time, in epistemic processes that do not resolve the need to recover the historical temporality for the formation of situated subjects, on the contrary, the photographs, the films, the harrowing testimonies, lead to a diffusion of the temporal referents in the form of a simulacrum, in such a way that the trace is eliminated or it is edited according to the interests created in the class, leading to all the objects of study grouped from different perspectives: objective, subjective and for action-research, are stacked on a horizontal plane,which leads to an intellective experience of spatialization instead of producing a historical logic of temporalization.

According to Valencia,²⁹ greater importance should be given to the reflections of the past; thus, the student has at his disposal many episodes of the past, the possibility of opening new archives, more, however, it is increasingly difficult to achieve the production of a historical consciousness, in terms of Aron³⁰ through his different dimensions, so that it is dialectical and manages to capture the reality and truth of the past. Achieving the formation of historical consciousness is not simply providing dates and data so that the student is oriented in time, it requires a historiographical operation, understanding the past from a transforming action, only in this way, the historical subject will be able to emerge and not another generation of oblivion.

Here, the historiographical operation is essential, since the past retains its representational value, embodied in the objective material, with the aim of transcending collective memory by being a support limited to a specific group in space and time, which leads to making the external look of the groups that is only achieved through history; additional because the collective memory is not able to have a retrospective look of itself to understand the identities that are being transformed as the space-time have been altered, while history, when examining the reality of the groups from outside and cover a fairly long period of time, if Wills³¹ can do it.

The vision of history accounts for a view of the national society, as it is built from different factors, in which the fragmented, the lost, the denied, the official and the divergent are present, without due intertwining, this great loom pedagogical process leads to the construction of a completely fabled memory, which leads to estrangement, to collective anamnesis, to the formation of ahistorical subjects instead of political subjects designed for action Castaño and Jurado.³² It is about the effects associated with an exhibition of contents, narratives, arts and policies that are based on the culture of the image, in the culture of the simulacrum, causing a profound weakening of the historical sense of time, related to the official history of the country, and with private temporality.

By failing to superimpose the links of the past with the present in a macrostructural logic, it is not possible to have a clear conception of time in motion, the lack of rearticulation leads to the crystallization of national and collective history in individual memory, due to the existence of different representations of time, given in specific time frames, as well as spatial frames and gazes of subjects where individual memory and local/collective identity are interposed Velasco.³³ But every learning process needs to have an objectivity in the understanding and construction of the knowledge it generates, this does not imply that objectivity has to be achieved with a universal validity of the postulates, here the construction of the object plays a determining role, the selection you make. Thus, one of the purposes of the pedagogy of memory has to be to build history, each society and generation has to write history and make history, so that the function of rethinking and renewing it, serves as the basis for tomorrow Carretero and Castorina.³⁴ From the epistemological point of view, the value of understanding and intervention in the generation of meaning and present value is realized through the production and cultural heritage that society itself creates. Its mishandling produces paradigmatic dispersion, manifested in the appearance of the various branches of research, which, in turn, involve different problems, themes and research methods.

In cognitive terms, by not delimiting the disciplines from a methodological unit, there is a risk that the knowledge it produces is diluted, more imprecise and can even be thought of as lost, to the point of compromising the very usefulness of the discipline. The development of microhistory has implications of an epistemological order, since it substitutes the concept of classes for that of individuals, trying to be the protagonists, replacing the great facts and historical events, which do not allow the recovery of the historical subject, but of simple narratives of personal stories, which tends to dehistoricize the lived experience.

With this, the individual and subjective memory of history is being overvalued, leading to the loss of the meaning of science as a systematization and analysis of events, as an external computer of historical events and adapted to objective guidelines that go beyond the reductionist view of the facts, in order to clarify the reality studied. The pedagogy of memory cannot do without history or it would renounce the global understanding of the events of the past, nor could it give explanations about the course and dynamics of society, which puts its social function in between said and remains as a simple exercise of class to meet the objectives of the Law.

The experiences of Pedagogy of memory analyzed show that there is a greater interest in studying the relationship between History and Memory, as well ashe Public University has 0.6% publications with the study of the Historical Memory category; the Private University has 0.3% publications with the category of historical memory, the CMH has 0.2% publications with the central category of historical memory, the Inst. IDEP has 0.2% with the category of memory and conflict and, International Organizations 0.1% with other reports.

It is established that the experiences analyzed must give greater scientific rigor to said learning process, given its importance and impact on the training of students. This implies solving the ontological problem in the subject-object relationship in a scientific way caused in the classroom by the use of diverse methods, techniques and tools, which involve both the internal and external perspective, as well as social action, in order to establish the fact of who determines whom in the relationship of knowledge, whether the knowing subject to the object to be known or the object to be known to the knowing subject. It requires assuming the positivist perspective that investigates to find the causality, regularities, laws and determinisms present in the sense of history and not encourage perspectives that do not conform to said rigor.

This requires mainstreaming the Pedagogy of memory from 5 axes: the ontological, the anthropo-gnoseo-epistemological, the teleological, the axiological and the methodological, in order to recover the historical temporality for the formation of situated subjects, the formation of historical consciousness and historical being for action, thus contributing to reconstruct the meaning and historical character of human experience in its projection of time and recover historical knowledge as a social scientific discipline.

None.

There are no conflicting interests declared by the authors.

This article is the result of the research project on Imagination, Symbolic Reparation and Victims' Law Second Phase and was financed by the Andean Area University Foundation.

1. Ghilarducci D. Victims and historical memory. The mothers of Plaza de Mayo and the Movement of Victims of State Crimes in Colombia. Political Analysis. 2018;93:189–207.
2. Nora Pierre. The adventure of Les lieux de memoire. Yesterday Magazine. No. 32. Barcelona: Association of Contemporary history. 1998.
3. Halbwachs M. 1925: The social frameworks of memory, Barcelona: Anthropos Editorial. 2004.
4. Orozco C. “Memory and truth became political loot”: Gonzalo Sánchez. The viewer. Colombia 2020: Building Country. 2019.
5. Halbwachs Maurice. Social frameworks on memory. Barcelona. Anthropos. 2004.
6. Ricoeur P. The automation of the action. In From text to action. Buenos Aires: FCE. 2006.
7. Navarrete Alonso R. History, memory, exodus. About Jan Assmann / Jan Assmann on History, Memory and Exodus. Under Word. 2017;17.
8. Project Colombia Never Again. Crimes against humanity. Bogota. 2000.
9. Defez A. Memory, identity and nation. Valencia: Torrevejan M & Faerna, AM. 2003.
10. National Center for Historical Memory. The justice that demands memory. The victims of the Calima Bloc in southwestern Colombia; 2016.
11. Mendoza C. Politics of memory and generational transmission of recent pasts. The experience of "Sons and daughters for Identity and Justice against Oblivion and Silence" in Argentina and "Sons and daughters for memory and against impunity" Colombia. Mexico: UNAM; 2015.
12. Gonzalez F, Garcia N. Art and literature in the construction of historical memory: a commemoration experience at the National Pedagogical Institute. Thought, Word and Work. 2019;21:60–77.
13. Haye A, Herraz, P, Caceres E, et al. Time and memory: on the narrative mediation of historical subjectivity. Journal of Social Studies. 2018;65:22–35.
14. Herrera M, Pertuz C. Kaleidoscopic subjectivities, stories and shattered mirrors. Bogotá: National Pedagogical University. 2018.
15. Herrera M, Velez G. Political formation in the present time: Violent ecologies and pedagogy of memory. Nomads Magazine. 2014;41:131–123.
16. Mainer J. Memory, history and critical didactics. The duties of historical education; for a story with memory. Paper presented at the XV Colombian Congress of History, Bogotá. 2010.
17. Adorno Theodor. Education for emancipation, Madrid, Spain, Morata; 1998.
18. Ministry of Interior. Law 1148 of June 10, 2011. Victims and Land Restitution Law. Bogotá: National Printing Office of Colombia.
19. Ortega P, Castro C, Sánchez Merchán J, et al. Pedagogy of memory for an amnesiac country. Bogotá: National Pedagogical University Publications Fund. 2016.
20. Ortega P. testimonial narratives. memory workshops. In Doctoral Chair Forms of Construction of Knowledge: the Method in Discussion. Interinstitutional Doctorate in Education. 2017.
21. Valdes Maria Eugenia. The subject-object relationship in empirical research on politics. Cops. 2006;2(1):43–47.
22. Pages J, Marolla J. The role of memory in the teaching of history in America. History and Memory. 2018;17:153–184.
23. Rüsen Jörn. The development of narrative competence in historical learning. An ontogenetic hypothesis regarding moral conscience. Educational Proposal. 1992;7:27–36.
24. Gadamer Hans Georg. The problem of historical consciousness. Madrid: Tecnos. 1993.
25. Kocka Jurgen. Social History and Historical Consciousness. Madrid: Marcial Pons Classical History Library. 2002.
26. Sanchez A. War, education and memory: Notes on the transmission of the armed conflict in Colombia. Journal of Colombian Studies. 2017;50:70–80.
27. Quintero F. Field of history teaching in Colombia (Master's Thesis, National Pedagogical University). 2018. 128 p.
28. Sanchez A. The knowledge of war. Memory and intergenerational knowledge of the conflict in Colombia. Bogotá: Century of Man and National University of Colombia. 2017.
29. Valencia G. The memories of the future and the future of memories. Brief reflections on the uses of the past. Journal of Social Studies. 2000;65:2–11.
30. Aaron Raymond. Dimensions of historical consciousness, Mexico: Economic Culture Fund. 2004;103–104.
31. Wills ME. A new pedagogy to understand war and peace. Interview conducted by Verdad Abierta. 2016.
32. Castaño Zapata Daniel, Pedro Alejandro Jurado. What memory? The political effects and the symbolic order of official memory works. Colombia International. 2019;(97):147–171.
33. Velasco C. History and memory: the same combat. Epistemological contributions of History to Debate to the controversies about the historical memory. Memories: Digital Magazine of Archeology and History from the Caribbean. 2017;120–141.
34. Carter, JA Castorina. The construction of historical knowledge: teaching, narration and identities. 2010;29–54.