The Policy of Memory as the Tool of a Sustainable Development of Multi-Ethnic Community : the Experience of the Republic of Tatarstan

The urgency of the problem under investigation is caused by the scientific and theoretical value and praxiological significance of studying and understanding the positive experience of a multi-ethnic region, associated with sustainable development based on the regulation of interethnic and interconfessional relations. The article aims at defining the place and the role of a large-scale museumification of sacral mnemonic places and the accented scientific and educational activity in the system of a regional policy of the heritage in the conditions of formation of a new political device and cardinal changes in the system of spiritual values in Russia between the late XIX and the early XX centuries. The leading approach used in the research is a systemic and functional method, realized in the "case study method" format by means of mobilization of the concepts "historical memory", "places of memory", "the policy of memory". The large-scale museumification and the scientific and educational activity corresponding to it are defined in the article as systemically important factors in the policy of memory and reconciliation. The main signs of an institutional commemoration connected with aspiration of the counterparty of the policy of memory to adapt opposite traumatic memories within new identity are designated. The research presents the stages and features of the museumification. It is confirmed by the idea of scientific narratives and the use of their results in educational and pedagogical activities as an essential condition of the semantic content of the places of memory. The materials of the article can be used for further development of problems of historical memory, in the process of teaching the humanities, and also formation of the policy in the sphere of the interfaith and interethnic relations.


Historical policy in Eastern Europe and Russia
History in all forms of its existence has always used political forces as a valuable resource for building and strengthening the system and justification of desirable scenarios of further development.Last two decades are marked by non-trivial features of the original marriage of history and politics.It is connected with a radical restructuring of the modern historical science, the profound changes in the structure, content and methodology of social and humanitarian knowledge (Repin, 2011), and with a new stage in designing a collective memory and its instrumentalization, accepted as a special state policy (Scherrer, 2009;Miller & Lipman, 2012).
Against the background of the transformation of the theme of memory into the point of crystallization of scientific knowledge, to the extent that the meaning of the word "memory" transits into the original meaning of the word "history" and memory is involved in the conflicts of different level and degree of severity (Vasil'ev, 2012;Ankersmit, 2001;Khmelevskaya, 2004) there are new approaches to the development of the past: the preservation of the national heritage, the formation of the policy of heritage on the basis of the national and regional levels, the hegemony of memory as opposed to history, the desire to influence the history (Rousso, 1998;Esh, 2001).
Having approached the research to the institutional сommemoration, it can be seen that the use of the policy of memory is most characteristic of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Rousso, 1999), as the political processes unfolding there demanded the creation of a new identity, a new collective memory of the recent past (Bibikov & Bibikova, 2001).According to A.I. Miller, who at the decline of the "zero" years made the term "historical policy" popular in Russian literature in his article "Russia: Power and History", and at the same time it was widely disseminated in the media, including the Internet (Molodyakov 2013).The historical policy was developing less intensively in Russia in the first decade of the XXI century than in the neighboring Eastern European countries, but by the middle of this decade it has shown signs of its activation (Miller, 2009).

Heritage Policy Vector in Tatarstan
If this is true for the whole country, in its national regions, to which the Republic of Tatarstan belongs, the specific historical policy began to be formed earlier, in the 90th of the XX century.It should be mentioned that the crisis of identity and authenticity was more severe in these regions.It was caused by the departure of «ancien règime» and its megastate form -the Soviet Union-from the historical scene, the increase of conflicts in the interethnic and interfaith relations and acts of extremism on the ethnic ground.Then the main vector of the heritage policy in Tatarstan was designated.It was mainly done by means of a certain repertoire of stories, legends, cultural frames of such image of the general past of the two main ethnic groups of the region as the Tatars, the carriers of the Muslim culture, and the Russians, the representatives of the Christianity, that was urged to promote stability and a sustainable development, neutralizing negative energy of the possible conflicts.
Certainly, the international orientation of the process of institutionalization of memory was implemented differently, and the public's recognition of the legality of the political order in Tatarstan couldn't be achieved through the relationship between the authorities and the society, as it happened in the post-Soviet period.In the conditions of the formation of the new Russian state, weakening the traditional vertical of power, local elites achieved signing of the bilateral agreement "On Differentiation of Areas of Jurisdiction and Mutual Delegation of Authority between the Government authorities of the Russian Federation and the Government authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan" on February 15, 1994, which fixed the position of the former autonomous republic as a "united" with the Russian Federation state and provided the division of the property.

The Value of the Study of the Heritage Policy in the Republic of Tatarstan
For the last two decades, the amount of authority and preferences of Tatarstan in a single legal field of the Russian state considerably decreased, moreover it becomes apparent that over political calculations and environments, the cultural and civilizational value of modeling and reopening of the past in the present, is directed towards the integration and stability of the community for the sake of the general future.It is indicative that in the report of the commissioner of the Council of Europe on human rights in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tatarstan was called a real laboratory, "in which everything is defined by the spirit of cooperation and dialogue" (Nabiev, 2006).Therefore, the unique experience of the heritage policy in Tatarstan which in no small measure contributed to the preservation of the civil peace and harmony deserves scientific studying for its possible extrapolation on multiethnic regions of Russia, other countries, and for a deeper explanation of characteristic features and features of the policy of memory and reconciliation.It is especially an actual task that with rare exception (Bukharaev, 2013;Nabiev, 2014) a heritage policy phenomenon in Tatarstan is neglected by the researchers.

A Research Discourse
In this article such components of the regional heritage policy as a museumification, from separate monuments to the whole territories, and transdisciplinary, scientific, and also pedagogical and educational activities, confederated with designing of the complementary integrative memory of the main ethnic groups, are analyzed.

The "Historiographical Experiment" in the Modern History
The study of the recent past volens-nolens is in the format of modern history, which as a new scientific discipline appeared on the threshold of 1970 -1980s, in the conditions of postmodernism boom and under the direct influence of the concepts of "memory", "national heritage" against the background of the "national history» decline (Rousso & Varinois, 2004), it should be noted that the nonmodernist historiography with its "singularity philosophy" was also involved in the process (Bukharaev & Myagkov, 2005).The history of the recent past inevitably raises a question of the historical prospect of its perception (Vzhosek, 2012) as "the modern history personifies those moods, political likes and dislikes which are peculiar to the historian learning the past not only "indirectly" through a prism of sources, but also directly, on the basis of this personal experience" (Pikhoya, 2007).This fully applies to the authors of this text because one of the objects they describe is a scientific and educational project "Culture, religion and society" in the implementation of which they actively participated.
Therefore -according to the unwritten rule of "scientific vigilance" -the authors tried to maintain some distance, eliminating the possibility of their subjectivity and bias.From the point of view of the technology of history knowledge it is about the original "historiographical experiment" -an attempt to reflect on a scientific product, placing it in the context of the heritage policy, which combines formal and informal modes of functioning of the institutional memory.

The Organic Nature of the Interface of the Structural and Functional Approach to the Strategy of Case Study
Playing a leading role in the study, the structural and functional approach, which allows you to submit the heritage policy as the structurally dissected integrity, where each element has its own structure and functionality correlates with other elements in a certain way, is implemented in the case study research strategy, making it possible to single out the units of collective memory.Museumification and scientific and educational activities are in the center of this strategy as elements of the policy of memory.

The Heuristic Value of the concept of "Places of Memory"
Memorable places and monumental sites are memory signs which express our cultural memory (the system-forming factor of the historical memory) as the symbolic form of communication and updating of collective cultural meanings.Questions of restoration and updating of places and symbols of the collective memory were theoretically interpreted in the concept of "places of memory" -a derivative of the "memory" as one of the keywords of our time called by P. Nora "an era of a commemoration" which in the early 1990-s took the position of one of the main concepts of a new paradigm of the history knowledge.
The heuristic value of "places of memory" ("mnemonic places") well matched to a "maternal" concept: the idea of localization of memory put forward by M. Khalbvaks in the early ХХ century, and later, in the 1980s, developed in the works of Pierre Nora becomes more and more popular and relevant in terms of explaining the influence of «lieux de mémoire» on the historical memory of the people (Putilova 2012).Therefore, it is very much in demand among that part of the scientific community -historians, authors of sociological and cultural studies -which refers to the study of the historical consciousness and collective (social) memory (Rutsinskaya, 2011).

Narratives -The Condition of Semantics of Places of Memory
The importance of studying the texts of scientific and educational character in the heritage policy analysis determined that all other carriers of collective memory, including memorials, monuments, ceremonies, can function as such only in case they are supported by the corresponding narratives circulating in this community.This idea, shown in the Sh.Linde's monograph (Linde, 2009), drew A.G. Vasilyev's attention (Vasiliev, 2012).

"The Pain of Prometheus" -The Core of the Collective Memory
It is possible to consider the conventional opinion in science according to which all main functions of the policy of memory can be pulled together to two projects: the use of the past which passed in the interests of the present, that is identifications and legitimizations.As a general rule, the basis of the identity is "the heroic narrative" of the foundation and the founder, that is the moment of origin, because more ancient sources possess special prestigiousness.In this sense, the creation of a national narrative memory in Tatarstan faces many difficulties and obstacles due to the lack of consensus on the question of the origin of the Tatar ethnic group.The"Bulgarists" and the "Golden Horders" have been quarrelling for nearly 100 years.According to the Bulgarian concept the Bulgarian ethnic group was the ethnic foundation of the Tatars, formed in the Middle Volga and Urals by the VIII century A.D., who created their own state -the Volga-Kama Bulgaria in the Хth century, three centuries later, this state became a part of the Golden Horde (Ulus Jochi) -PAX Mongolica, the Western inheritance of the Chingisid Empire.According to the Bulgarists, the ethnonym "Tatars" was imposed on the descendants of the Bulgars firstly by the Tatar bourgeois nationalists, and then, in the 1920th of the XX century, -by the Soviet government.
According to the theory of the Mongolian origin of the Tatars, the nomadic Tatar-Mongol (Central Asian) ethnic groups, the representatives of one of which initially called themselves the Tatars, came to Europe, formed the Ulus Jochi, accepted Islam and, as the supporters of this opinion, they think that on this basis the culture of modern Tatar people appeared.This dispute of the human sciences community often turned into a political issue.So, the "Golden Hord" version was supported by representatives of the Tatar commerce and industry class at the end of the XIX -the beginning of the XX centuries, using it as a valuable resource for justification of the expansion of their powers and privileges in the Russian Empire or even for getting autonomous quasi-public education -the "Idel-Urals" state (Bordyugov & Bukharaev, 2011).
The synthesized Turkic-Tatar theory which notes an important role in the ethnogenesis of the Tatars of Turkic and Khazar khaganates, the Volga Bulgaria, the Kipchak peoples and the Tatar-Mongol ethnic groups of the steppes of Eurasia, and some other ethnic groups, couldn't resolve the cognitive conflict in the question about the origin of the Tatars.Therefore the historical ethnic glory, -and, generally an emergent process, -was shifted from the point of "the beginning of history" to the reduit of the traumatic identity of the Tatar ethnic group, namely the conquest of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible's troops in 1552, and in a broader sense -elimination of the Kazan Khanate and inclusion of its territory into the Moscow state.
Rationalization of "The pain of Prometheus" as the central position of the national memory is the world's trend nowadays.As a result of the conversion of the "national novel" into the criminal chronicle, especially "after Auschwitz", and the victimization of the past, the reflection on the suffering and sacrifice of the peoples proved to be the most popular one.Revolutionary terror and civil wars, colonial conquests and slave trade, world wars, the totalitarian modes and cooperation with them -it is not a complete list of topics highlighted by the democratic criticism of the national history (Koposov 2011).
And the reason is not only in the devaluation of the heroic narratives of memory in the latest time.Traumatic experience is the constant companion of historical changes and gaining a new identity as "our collective identity generally has a set of scars in our collective soul, the scars left by the forced abandonment of the previous identity, scars that can never be blotted out completely and that will always cause a long and never-ending pain.The past will follow us as love which has dissapeared: there is none of it in our heart and soul, but precisely because of it, it painfully lives in us " (Ankersmit, 2007).

1552 -The "Eternal Present" of the National Consciousness
Such a "long and never-ending pain" is caused by the conquest of Kazan.The assault -this picture is quite typical for the Middle Ages -was followed by numerous victims among the inhabitants of the city, its destruction as a center of Muslim culture, the destruction of numerous mosques and madrasas, which were considered probable centers of Tatar separatism.The tsarist authorities, to strengthen its dominance in the region, implemented a range of measures, including the eviction of local people on the outskirts of the city and ousting them from the banks of big rivers, the alienation of the land belonging to the Khan's top, as well as some part of the lands of indigenous people in favor of the state, the church and the servitors, forced Christianization of the population both the Muslims and pagans.
These events are systemically important factors of the national memory.The legend about the Tsarina Suyumbike who jumped from the tower after the conquest of Kazan by Russian troops, which is named after her, remains high in it.Hermeneutic circle of the mythology is impervious for historical facts, and they are as follows.Suyumbike 1516 (?) -1557 (?), was the ruler (the regent) of the Kazan Khanate in 1549-1551 for her minor son Utyamysh-Girey, she had several dynastic marriages, focusing on the Crimean group among the crown bureaucracy.The Moscow-backed Party, which won at that time, sent the tsarina to Russia in so called "honorable captivity", where she was made to become Kasimovian Khan Shah -Ali's wife, the supporter of Moscow (Izhbulatov, 2011).The historical echo of real events and mythological images are actively used to popularize ethnically radical groups with a marginal position.Marking October 12, when Kazan fell, as the day of the national tragedy and grief, they characterize 1552 as "the Tatars Holocaust", etc.
But not only this.The intellectuals -supporters of the Russian great-power version of the history of the community, recognize the historical progressive expansion of the Moscow Kingdom at the expense of the territorial legacy of the Golden Horde, and those who present the Tatar national consciousness, including scientific and pedagogical spheres, bring historical claims against Muscovy with its aggressive foreign policy.

Memory Policy Configuration in Tatarstan
The idea of a sacrificial nationalism as the raison d'êtr of the cultural and national identity is irrelevant in the situation of the "divided memory", as this may result in "memory wars" and at the same time it threatens to destabilize the multi-ethnic community.At the same time, the "hot" option of the collective memory of the Tatar ethnic group complicates the decrease of its "degree" by moving to the "silence zone" or "structural oblivion" as its task isn't in an undesirable effect of "disarmament" of the national consciousness.
In this ambiguous social and cultural situation the choice was made in favor of the construction of the integrated memory the Tatar and Russian populations, based on the recognition of the intrinsic value of their cultures and religions.

Two "Verticals" of the Kazan Kremlin as the Representation of the Construction of a New Identity
The principal role in the transformation of collective memories was assigned to the places of memory, among which the Kazan Kremlin is an anchor object which is a medieval fortress, a complex of unique architectural and historical monuments, beginning with the archaeological remains of the first settlement (XII -XIII centuries).From 1922 to 1992 the Kremlin has been the administrative center of the Tatar Autonomous Republic, since 1997 it is a state center of the Republic of Tatarstan of the Russian Federation, here is the residence of the President of Tatarstan located.During the siege of Kazan by the Red Army in September 1918, and then as a result of the anti-religious policy, a lot of places of worship of the Kremlin were seriously damaged.The Annunciation Cathedral of the XVI century, which was "miraculously" preserved, was partially restored at the end of the 70 -80th of the XX century.
The first step in the formation of a new policy of memory was the President's Decree dated January 22, 1994, "On the establishment of the State Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve called "Kazan Kremlin"".The basic idea of the development of the Kremlin complex was expressed by two "verticals" -the Annunciation Cathedral (it is completely restored in 1995-2005) and the main Juma Mosque of the republic and the city Kul Sharif Mosque which was built in 1996-2005 as the reconstruction of the legendary mosque of the capital of the Kazan Khanate.As the government of the Republic of Tatarstan adopted a decree in October 2006 about the concept of museumification and development of the museum-reserve, a special place is given to the Museum of Islam in the Kul-Sharif Mosque and the Museum of Orthodox of the Volga region in the Annunciation Cathedral, as well as to the Museum of History of statehood of the Republic of Tatarstan and Tatar people in the former Palace Church.

The "Bolgar-Sviyazhsk" Project -The Monogram of Adaptation of Opposite Memoirs
The next stage of the institutional commemoration, as well as the previous stage was created for a complementary interpretation of the "images -memoirs" resisting each other.We are talking about a large-scale project of a historical reconstruction and museumification of the ancient Bolgar's historical monuments (the symbol of adoption of Islam in Volga Bulgaria) and the island-town Sviyazhsk (namely the military engineering stronghold during the siege and conquest of Kazan in 1552).This project became the main activity of the National fund of revival of monuments of history and culture of the Republic of Tatarstan, formed in 2010 on the initiative of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan Mintimer Shaimiev, who soon left this post, having become the state counselor of the Republic of Tatarstan and beginning an active work as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fund "Revival".
Bolgar's and Sviyazhsk's historical objects were initially positioned by the leading republic's circles as "shrines" and the "monuments of Islam and Orthodox cultures".The ideology of the project "Cultural Heritage of Tatarstan: the ancient city Bolgar and the island-town Sviyazhsk" was clearly designated by the President of the Republic of Tatarstan R.N. Minnikhanov at the solemn meeting devoted to the fifth anniversary of the fund "Revival".He said: " The Republic of Tatarstan is the region with a special mission.It contains centuries-old experiences of interethnic and interreligious peace, which is the basis of stability, prosperity and the key factor in the prosperity of the country.The strength of the Republic of Tatarstan is in the preservation of traditions and culture with the constant forward movement and "the revival of Muslim and Orthodox historical gems of the Republic of Tatarstan makes it more recognizable not only in Russia but also outside the country" (Minnikhanov, 2015).
It is necessary to point out that strengthening legitimation of power orders in the Republic of Tatarstan achieved by "binary" policy of memory hardly exceeds the value of its results such as social cohesion and consolidation of multi-ethnic community in the historical perspective.There is no doubt that connection of museumification of places of memory with a distinct interest is aimed at providing commemoration with the property of stability and integration which was taken into account in the process of decision-making for inclusion of the Kazan Kremlin (2000) and the ancient city Bolgar (2014) in the UNESCO World Heritage list, with reassuring prospects for the island-town Sviyazhsk.

Scientific and Educational Component in the Policy of Memory
Also there is no doubt that scientific "arrangement" for the return of places of memory to the public space and their international positioning is of great importance.The historical science as a part of the spiritual culture is closely connected with the time that is clearly shown in the transitive periods.In the 90th of the last century Russia and its national regions suffered from identity crisis, strengthening of the conflict in the sphere of the ethno-confessional relations, growth of separatism and national extremism.In these conditions the group of historians of the Kazan university, including the authors of this article, addressed to the complex studying of the political and cultural interaction of the peoples of the Republic of Tatarstan with the purpose to reveal conditions of a sustainable development of the region and achievement of interethnic and interfaith consent as the important factor capable to resist the threats of radicalism.
In this regard, the project "Culture, Religion and Society" was developed, the important tasks of which were to prepare recommendations for the management and organizational sphere and educational activity, as well as the systemic effects on the religious situation in the republic bearing in mind the tragic events of the past, having already branded in the collective memory of the representatives of the Tatar and Russian ethnic groups.An additional impetus to the implementation of the project was the appointment of R.A. Nabiyev as Chair of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan in June 1997 (since 2010 -it is called the Office of the President on Cooperation with Religious Associations), who in the post tried to give the Council and the function of a focal point of scientific and educational activities.
"A kick-off" event of the project is an international scientific and practical conference "Religion in the modern society: history, problems and trends" (Kazan, October 1997), organized by the Council for Religious Affairs in cooperation with the Kazan University, the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and the State Committee on Children and Youth Affairs.The religious question was discussed on one platform by scientists, theologians, representatives of the state and religious cultures for the first time in the republic.The final document of the conference outlined the "nodes" of understanding of the parties which contributed to a number of important practical steps (such as the adoption of the Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations") in 1999, as well as it outlined the directions and prospects of research and educational activities (Final document, 1997).In the course of working on the project (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) 25 books were published, which compiled a series of "Culture, religion and society" consisting of monographs, analytical materials, scientific reference and encyclopedic dictionaries, conference and seminars proceedings, educational and methodological manuals.A special attention was paid to the experience of understanding the interaction of Islam and Orthodoxy, the culture of coexistence of traditional religions, the study of the formation of the traditions of Russian Muslims in their relations with the Russian society and the state, as well as disclosing the potential of teaching the humanities as a way to harmonize inter-confessional relations A kind of generalized results of the project can be considered a way of folding intercivilization / intercultural interaction in multiethnic ecumene: through the struggle and cooperation, fights and cultural borrowings the "adjustment" of neighboring peoples of the Volga Slavs, Turkic-Tatar and Finno-Ugric ethnic groups was passing in the Volga and Ural regions.Caught in the middle of the last millennium in the same political space, the peoples of the region avoided religious wars, they did not disappear in the "melting pot" of history, they developed together, preserving their traditions and identity.
The authors of the project have reason to consider it as a prolonged narrative that fits into the policy of memory and reconciliation in the Republic of Tatarstan.The authors are sure that they did not violate basic principles and approaches of the objective scientific knowledge from historiographical point of view.

Discussions
In numerous publications, extending the category of memory studies, and on the problems of historical memory, cultural and collective memory, historical policy, the policy of memory, heritage and reconciliation, the theoretical and methodological positions are presented, some of which became the property of the modern humanities, in particular, about the past as a process, rather than some kind of stable construct, about memory as an important agent of changes, the inextricable link between memory and oblivion, their selectivity, etc.Of particular importance is the idea according to which the term "historical memory" is of high demand and it is largely due to its own "lack of rigor" and the presence of many definitions and the flow of the phenomenon conceptualized in the original concept of "memory" (Repina, 2011) The newest stage in the development of the question of memory is characterized by the publication of compendiums in which the policy of memory and reconciliation is considered in relation to the certain countries and regions which population is the carrier of the strong traumatic memories.It is in the situation of "the shared memory" and it is involved in the "memory wars": the Holocaust as the basis of global memory of the modern world, Bosnia and Herzegovina, overcoming traumatic memory of violence of military dictatorships in the countries of Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay), comparison of cases of North and South Korea, Japan, Israel, Poland and Germany (Assman A., Conrad S., 2010); Germany and the Holocaust after 1945, the fight of the states for domination over the memory on the example of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine (Muller, J. -W., 2002); comparison of the situation in Spain after civil war and post-war Germany, the Georgian national narrative and search of identity (Assman & Shortt, 2012).In terms of our theme these studies create a definite basis for the comparative researches, they also open new perspectives of judgment of the general and special in the realization of the policy of memory in modern Tatarstan.

Conclusion
On the basis of the conducted research the results are summarized as follows: 1) heuristic opportunities of a combination of structural and functional approach with the "case study method" and basic concepts of "memory studies" for studying of the policy of memory at the regional level are shown; 2) the large-scale museumification and scientific and educational activity which is an important condition of the meaning of the memorized objects are characterized as backbone factors in the policy of heritage and reconciliation; 3) the features of an institutional commemoration in the Republic of Tatarstan connected with aspiration of contractors of the policy of memory to adapt opposite traumatic memories on the basis of the recognition of the value of cultures and religions of the Tatar and Russian ethnic groups, and also restructuring of the "divided" historical memory within a new identity of the consolidated multiethnic community are revealed; 4) two main stages of a museumification of the places of memory are designated: a) the formation of an image of the Kazan Kremlin as the representation of the place of coexistence and dialogue of Orthodox Christianity and Muslim culture; b) the revival and restoration of the objects of the ancient city Bolgar and the island-town Sviyazhsk giving them the functions of sacred memorable places equally and they are estimated as some kind of cultural and political "know-how" of an institutional commemoration; 5) the project "Culture, Religion and Society" realized with the assistance of the authors of the article according to its characteristic features is the narration developed in time which is the component of the policy of memory in the Republic of Tatarstan.

Recommendations
The materials of this article are of great value for further theoretical and subject and substantive development of the problems of historical memory, historical policy, especially in the question of the policy of memory and reconciliation.The material containing in article can be used while teaching various social and humanitarian sciences in those parts of the training programs which concern the questions of formation of historical consciousness and the phenomenon of collective memory.The conclusions and the authors' assessments are of great interest for the political structures realizing a state policy of memory.