在歐洲，創傷經歷作為集體記憶的一部分體現為紀念碑和儀式這種公共形式。以儀式來回憶集體創傷經歷是為了讓人們悼念死者，表達他們與喪失親友的那些人之間的團結，珍惜他們自己倖存的生命，甚至向那些為共同目的而犧牲生命的人致敬。創傷事件也寫入了歷史敘事，好讓未曾經歷過該事件的人自己有機會回憶這些事件的細節。最後一點至關重要，紀念碑和儀式以及視像化或文字類的敘事不僅用來教育民眾，也在集體承認過去罪行的基礎上重新定義身分。在官方歷史和中共黨史中，我們在整個中國二十世紀中都很難找到帶有創傷特徵的歷史經歷記錄。直到最近，中國學生基本上都受到了如此一種引導，以驕傲與樂觀的態度來看待二十世紀的中國歷史，尤其要向前看，期待一個美好的未來。儘管官方歷史敘述顯得枯燥乏味，沒有「真實的」英雄和受難者，更沒有具體描述事件「真相」，但這種宏大敘事－或讀作中國共產黨的成功奪權史，或讀作國族受辱歷史－看似都是強有力並凝聚人心的。在我的論文中，我將研究兩種不盡相同的處理二十世紀中國創傷歷史的文學構思。第一種主要是檢驗歷史，在官方歷史之外補充「真實故事」的迫切努力。第二種卻脫離了一手經驗或特殊的歷史創傷經驗。不論如何，兩者都被視為交流型記憶的一部份，它們旨在將創傷經驗轉化為「飽含意味的過去」。

In Europe traumatic experiences as part of collective memories find a public form in monuments and rituals. The remembrance of collective traumatic experiences is ritualized in order to provide people to mourn the dead, to express their solidarity with those who lost their relatives or friends, to cherish their own survival or to show respect to those who sacrificed their lives for a common cause. Traumatic events are also written into narratives, so that those who did not experience the trauma themselves have the chance to remember the concreteness of the events. Most important, monuments and rituals as well as visual and written narratives are used not only to educate people but to re/define an identity on the basis of the collective acknowledgement of the misdoings in the past. In China official historiography gives us no account of any traumatic experience in Chinese history. Up until recently Chinese students were basically instructed to look at 20th century's China with pride and optimism but above all to look ahead into a promising future. Despite the fact that official historiography is however dull and boring, without ＂real＂ heroes or victims, with no details for what ＂really＂ happend, this master narrative-which reads either as a success story for the CCP's claim for power or as a story of national humiliation-seems to be powerful and integrative. In my paper I investigate two different literary concepts of dealing with a traumatic past in 20th century China. The first concept is basically driven by the urge to testify, to add the true story of the people to official history. The second concept is detached from first-hand experience or a specific historical traumatic experience. However, both approaches are perceived of as part of communicative memory that aims at turning a traumatic experience into a ＂meaningful past.＂