This special issue examines the ‘difficult heritage’ of Fascism in postwar and contemporary Italy. Borrowing from Sharon Macdonald (2009), we use the term (the twin of ‘undesirable heritage’ [Macdonald 2006]) to refer to a historically significant past that remains materially visible through sites, buildings, artworks, monuments and other artefacts, but which is difficult to reconcile with ‘a positive, self-affirming contemporary identity’ (Macdonald 2009, 1). Difficult heritage is also a form of ‘dissonant heritage’ (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996) in that, as ‘history that hurts’, it inevitably involves ‘a contrast of meaning and value systems between past and present’ (Nauret 2017, 16). Our preference for ‘difficult’ over ‘dissonant’ heritage lies in its specificity – all difficult heritage is ‘dissonant’ but not all dissonant heritage is ‘difficult’ – and in its broader relevance.While dissonant heritage focuses on disputes over how the past is presented and commodified for public consumption (for example, in museums, exhibitions, and heritage sites), ‘difficult heritage’ is more concernedwith questions of legacy and reception: how a society deals with the physical reminders of a discredited – and often very recent – past; and how (and why) that relationship changes over time. As we have argued in the case of Italy – and as events in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 vividly and tragically demonstrated – how a society deals with its difficult heritage can tell us a great deal about how that society has internalised, understood, or attempted to ‘come to terms’ with the past that heritage represents (Carter and Martin 2017, 340). Historians of Fascism and memory in Italy, however, have been surprisingly slow to examine how and why Italians have ignored, confronted or negotiated the country’s difficult Fascist heritage, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the material remains of Fascism are to be found virtually everywhere in Italy: their very ubiquitousness has seemingly rendered them almost invisible to the historian’s eye. This has begun to change in the last few years – a historiographical shift that the contributors to this special issue have all played their part in – but there is still much work to be done: for example, there is as yet no Italian equivalent to Gavriel Rosenfeld’s ground-breaking study of the

中文翻译：

---

处理困难的遗产：意大利和法西斯主义的物质遗产

本期特刊探讨了战后和当代意大利法西斯主义的“困难遗产”。借用 Sharon Macdonald (2009)，我们使用术语（“不良遗产”的孪生兄弟 [Macdonald 2006]）来指代一个具有历史意义的过去，它通过遗址、建筑物、艺术品、纪念碑和其他手工艺品仍然在物质上可见，但很难与“积极、自我肯定的当代身份”相协调（Macdonald 2009, 1）。困难遗产也是“不和谐遗产”的一种形式（Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996），因为作为“伤害的历史”，它不可避免地涉及“过去与现在之间意义和价值体系的对比”（Nauret 2017, 16）。我们偏爱“困难”而非“不协调”的遗产在于其特殊性——所有困难的遗产都是“不协调的”，但并非所有不协调的遗产都是“困难的”——以及其更广泛的相关性。而不协调的遗产关注的是关于过去如何的争论为公共消费而呈现和商品化（例如，在博物馆、展览和遗产地），“困难遗产”更关注遗产和接受问题：社会如何处理名誉扫地的——通常是最近的——的物理提醒过去的; 以及这种关系如何（以及为什么）随时间变化。正如我们在意大利的案例中所争论的那样——正如 2017 年在弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔发生的事件生动而悲惨地展示的那样——一个社会如何处理其艰难的遗产可以告诉我们很多关于该社会如何内化、理解、或试图“接受”遗产所代表的过去（Carter and Martin 2017, 340）。然而，意大利法西斯主义和记忆的历史学家却出人意料地缓慢地研究意大利人如何以及为什么忽视、面对或谈判该国艰难的法西斯遗产，尽管（或可能是因为）法西斯主义的物质遗骸将被几乎在意大利随处可见：它们无处不在，似乎使历史学家几乎看不到它们。这种情况在过去几年开始发生变化——这一特刊的撰稿人都参与了历史编纂的转变——但仍有许多工作要做：例如，目前还没有意大利语相当于 Gavriel罗森菲尔德开创性的研究