下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Some observers would attribute this turn of events in the revision of official Russian collective memory to transparent and defensive self-interest. But the process involved is more subtle and deep-seated than a conscious effort to avoid facing new evidence，and recognizing this will be key to transcending the endless disputes over the past that emerge in such cases.
The process of revision in this instance reflects underlying forces connected with a “schematic narrative template”（Wertsch，2002） that is an essential part the national identity and worldview of Russia. The narrative in this case is schematic in the sense that it exists at an abstract level involving few details about specific actors，times，places，and so forth；it is a template in the sense that this abstract form provides a pattern for interpreting multiple episodes from the past. Schematic narrative templates stand in contrast to “specific narratives”（Wertsch，2002） that name concrete dates，actors，locations，and so forth. The textbook passages cited above are examples of specific narratives.
The notion of a schematic narrative template stems from writings in folklore（Propp，1968），psychology（Bartlett，1932/1995；Ross，1989），and other disciplines. Interpretations of the past are heavily shaped by the abstract meaning of structures and schemas associated with cultural tools used by members of a collective. This means that detailed information，especially that which contradicts a general perspective，is distorted，simplified，and ignored，something that stands in contrast to formal history，or at least its aspirations（Wertsch，2002）.
Arguing in the tradition of Vygotsky（1981，1987），Bakhtin（1986），and others，I take schematic narrative templates to be structures that emerge out of the repeated use of a standard set of specific narratives in history instruction，the popular media，and so forth. The narrative templates that take shape in this process are especially effective in organizing what we can say and think，both because they are largely unnoticed by，or “transparent” to，those employing them and because they are a fundamental part of the identity claims of a group. The result is that these templates act as powerful “coauthors” when we attempt to tell what “really happened” in the past（Wertsch，2002）.
Narrative templates that take shape in this process are especially effective in organizing what we can say and think，both because they are largely unnoticed by，or “transparent” to，those employing them and because they are a fundamental part of the identity claims of a group.
The schematic narrative template at work in the case of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is one that occupies a central place in Russians’ understanding of crucial historical episodes. It can be titled the “Expulsion of Foreign Enemies” narrative template，and it imposes a basic plot structure on a range of specific characters，events，and circumstances. This narrative template includes the following elements：
1. An initial situation in which Russia is peaceful and not interfering with others.
2. The initiation of trouble in which a foreign enemy treacherously and viciously attacks Russia without provocation.
3. Russia almost loses everything in total defeat as it suffers from the enemy’s attempts to destroy it as a civilization.
4. Through heroism，and against all odds，Russia triumphs and succeeds in expelling the foreign enemy，thus justifying its claims of exceptionalism and its status as a great nation.
At first glance it may appear that there is nothing peculiarly Russian about this narrative template. For example，by replacing “Russian” with “American，” at least the first two elements would seem to be consistent with American collective memory of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The claim is not that this narrative template is used only by members of the Russian mnemonic community or that it is the only one available to them. However，there are several indications that it plays a particularly important role and takes on a particular form in this case.
The first of these concerns its ubiquity. Whereas the United States and many other societies have accounts of past events that are compatible with this narrative template，it seems to be employed more widely in the Russian tradition than elsewhere. In this connection，consider the comments of Musatova（2002） about the cultural history of Russia. In a passing remark about the fate of having to learn “the lessons of conquests and enslavement by foreigners”（p.139），she lists several groups who are viewed as having perpetrated similar events in Russia’s history：“Tatars，Germans，Swedes，Poles，Turks，Germans again”（p.139）. This comment suggests that while the particular actors，dates，and setting may change，the same basic plot applies to all these episodes. They are all stamped out of the same basic template.
Some observers would go so far as to say that the “Expulsion of Foreign Enemies” narrative template is the underlying story of Russian collective remembering，and this provides a basic point of contrast with other groups. For example，it is strikingly different from American items such as the “Mystique of Manifest Destiny”（Lowenthal 1994，53） or a “Reluctant Hegemon” story（Kagan，2006）. The “Expulsion of Foreign Enemies” narrative template plays a central role in Russian collective memory，even in instances where it would not seem relevant，at least to those who are not native speakers（Lotman and Uspenskii，1985） of this tradition. For example，in post-Soviet Russia communism has often been portrayed as a foreign enemy that invaded Russia and had to be expelled after nearly destroying the nation.
All this is not to say that this narrative template has no grounding in actual his-torical experience. It clearly does reflect traumatic events and experiences from Russia’s past. At the same time，however，it is important to recognize that this is a cultural and cognitive construction，a particular way of pursuing what Bartlett（1932/1995） called the “effort after meaning，” and hence not the only possible way to interpret events such as signing the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As already noted，people from places like Estonia，Latvia，and Lithuania have quite different interpretations of this event，and the basic tenets of these alternative interpretations directly contradict many of those in the Russian version.
This Russian effort after meaning appears to have had a powerful hand in shaping narrative repair in the case of the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The acknowledgement of these protocols initially was an embarrassment to official narrative，but this did not lead to the kind of fundamental and permanent transformation that had long been envisioned by people in the Baltic countries. Instead，after an initial period of confusion and prevarication，characterized by narrative rift，this schematic narrative template reasserted its power and gave rise to “The Difficult Choice” story，an account that among other things seems to be aimed at precluding alternative interpretations of events such as those based on Russian expansionism.