Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026)

Research Article

From Spatial Production to Memory Production: The Inscription Mechanism as an Analytical Model in Heritage Contexts

Published 2026-01-31

  • Zhen Liu

Abstract

Heritage spaces are commonly treated as stable containers of historical meaning, yet their significance is continuously produced, mediated, and reactivated through spatial arrangements, visual representations, and social practices. Although theories of spatial production and collective memory have each addressed aspects of this process, the mechanisms connecting spatial production to memory production remain insufficiently articulated.

This article introduces the inscription mechanism as an analytical model for understanding how collective memory is produced in heritage contexts. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur’s concept of inscription and the medial turn in spatial theory, inscription is conceptualized as a mediating process operating across temporal, spatial, visual, and practical dimensions. The article develops a four-dimensional model that highlights the governing role of temporal organization in coordinating memory activation. By reframing heritage spaces as memory-producing systems, this study offers a theoretical and methodological framework for future research on spatial narratives and public memory.

Keywords

inscription mechanism, spatial production, collective memory, heritage space

PDF

Author Biography

Zhen Liu

Liu Zhen, Lecturer, School of Literature and Media,Nanfang College Guangzhou

References

  1. [1]Abbott, A. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–882.
  2. [2]Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2007). Pluralising pasts: Heritage, identity and place in multicultural societies. Pluto Press.
  3. [3]Assmann, A. (2011). Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives. Cambridge University Press.
  4. [4]Derrida, J. (1996). Archive fever: A Freudian impression (E. Prenowitz, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
  5. [5]Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
  6. [6]Jones, A. (2011). Prehistoric materialities: Becoming material in prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press.
  7. [7]Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective memory studies. History and Theory, 41(2), 179–197.
  8. [8]Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell.
  9. [9]Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7–24.
  10. [10]Olick, J. K. (1999). Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory, 17(3), 333–348.
  11. [11]Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From “collective memory” to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105–140.
  12. [12]Ricoeur, P. (2004). Memory, history, forgetting (K. Blamey & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
  13. [13]Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell.
  14. [14]Stoler, A. L. (2002). Colonial archives and the arts of governance. Archival Science, 2(1–2), 87–109.
  15. [15]Tolia-Kelly, D. P. (2010). Landscape, race and memory: Material ecologies of citizenship. Routledge.