Within and beyond South Africa’s borders, memory is studied across a wide range of disciplines in what has been dubbed the “memory boom” (e.g. Blight 2009: 238; Simine 2013). Ethics, too, has spilled out from traditional theological and philosophical discourses. The “ethical turn” (Davis and Womack 2001; Fassin 2014) is apparent in disciplines as diverse as literary studies and anthropology. Ethics, which is broadly defined as involving moral principles of right and wrong conduct, as well as concepts of good, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, choice (Fieser n.d.; Blackburn 2016), may seem to have little to do with memory. A great deal of what we as individuals remember or forget is likely to be involuntary; how can principles of right and wrong, duty and choice, be relevant? Remembering and forgetting are independent of ethics when they are beyond conscious control such as in individuals who have extraordinary recall (hyperthymesia) or those who cannot retain memories (due to dementia or amnesia or trauma); this is true, too, for those who, like most of us, fall between these two extremes and are, for much of the time, simply unable to retain or rid ourselves of certain memories. Surely, absent-mindedness or forgetting cannot be held to be a moral failing? But remembering and forgetting are imbricated in ethics when we are conscious of an obligation to remember, or to remember accurately, or when we select, on the basis of ethical principles, particular items (events or people) which will be actively and intentionally prevented from slipping into oblivion. As individuals we celebrate anniversaries and the birthdays of people who matter to us; as communities, we adopt commemorative public holidays, we erect statues and fund museums, and we promote versions of history to be passed on to youth. What should we remember in the present and into the future? What are the ethical principles which shape such obligations? This special issue contributes to debates around memory and ethics, in particular as these inflect South African writing practices, in memoirs, fiction and memory work. In “Re-signing History and Opening up an Ethical Space of Disclosure: Yvette Christiansë’s Wyschogrodian Ethics in Unconfessed”, Alexandra Negri examines the ethical implications of Christaansë’s ratification of Edith Wyschogrod’s contention in An Ethics of Remembering that the “heterological historian” has a responsibility to give a voice to the dead. Negri appraises Christaansë’s use of the archival records of the trial of the slave Sila van den Kaap to spur the crafting of “an elliptical, fragmented novel” which explores Sila’s experiences and thoughts before and after she murdered her son. Negri shows how Christaansë employs court records – by definition, the records of the dominant power – to attend to the story of one of history’s most disempowered and also to shed light on the broader historical context and profoundly unethical practices of the Cape slave society. The next essay, by Aghogho Akpome, focuses on two texts which critique hegemonic South African memory practices. The ruling party, the ANC, has actively supported efforts to record and remind South Africans of the apartheid past. In “Memory, Ethics and the Re-temporalisation of

中文翻译：

---

介绍

在南非边界内外，人们对被称为“记忆热潮”的学科进行了广泛的研究（例如，Blight 2009：238； Simine 2013）。伦理学也从传统的神学和哲学话语中溢出来。“伦理转向”（Davis和Womack，2001； Fassin，2014）在文学研究和人类学等众多学科中显而易见。伦理学被广泛定义为涉及对与错行为的道德原则，以及善良，义务，美德，自由，理性，选择的概念（Fieser nd； Blackburn，2016年），似乎与记忆力无关。作为个人，我们记忆或遗忘的很多事情可能都是非自愿的。是非原则，责任与选择原则，有关系吗？当回忆和遗忘超出意识控制范围时，例如具有异常回忆（胸腺功能亢进）或无法保留记忆（由于痴呆，健忘症或创伤）的人，记住和遗忘与道德无关。对于像我们大多数人一样处于这两个极端之间并且在大部分时间里根本无法保留或摆脱某些记忆的人们来说，这也是正确的。当然，心不在or或遗忘不能被认为是道德上的失败吗？但是，当我们意识到有义务记住或准确记住的时候，或者当我们根据道德原则进行选择时，会主动而有意地阻止其发生的特定项目（事件或人），则将记住和遗忘与道德联系在一起溜入遗忘。作为个人，我们庆祝周年纪念日以及与我们息息相关的人们的生日；作为社区，我们采用纪念性的公共假期，我们建立雕像和为博物馆提供资金，并推广将历史传承给年轻人。我们现在和将来应该记住什么？构成此类义务的道德原则是什么？本期特刊有助于围绕记忆和伦理的辩论，尤其是在回忆录，小说和记忆工作中，这些改变了南非的写作习惯。在“重签历史并开放伦理披露空间：伊薇特·克里斯蒂安斯（YvetteChristiansë）的《未认罪的维斯哥罗德伦理学》中，亚历山德拉·尼格里（Alexandra Negri）考察了克里斯塔安斯（Christaan​​së）批准伊迪丝·怀斯格格罗德（Edith Wyschogrod）的论点在伦理学中的伦理意义，其中《记忆的伦理学》有责任向死者表达自己的意见。内格里（Nagri）评估克里斯坦（Christaan​​së）利用奴隶西拉（Sila van den Kaap）受审的档案记录来刺激制作“椭圆形，零散的小说”，该小说探讨了西拉（Sila）谋杀儿子前后的经历和思想。内格里（Negri）展示了克里斯塔安斯（Christaan​​së）如何利用法庭记录-顾名思义，就是统治力的记录-来讲述历史上最无权的人之一的故事，并阐明开普奴隶社会的更广泛的历史背景和极不道德的做法。下一篇文章，Aghogho Akpome，侧重于两个批评南非霸权主义记忆实践的文本。执政党非国大（ANC）积极支持记录和提醒南非人种族隔离过去的努力。在“记忆，伦理与道德的再临时化”中