Paper short abstract:

Comparing Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, we explore how the collective memory of shared (post-colonial suffering has differently contributed to a strong national identity that can stabilizing the respective countries even in the face of “defunct” states and other factors hampering national integration.

Paper long abstract:

Neighbouring Guinea and Guinea-Bissau have experienced different de-colonisation processes and post-colonial histories and governance practices. Despite the obvious differences, the populations in both countries have developed similar popular memories of shared suffering at the hands of governments or states. The paper investigates how the (in-)official historicisation of suffering has been discursively constructed by the respective populations and has become a key factor to post-colonial national identity and integration "from below" in both countries.

Our comparative approach examines both similarities and differences in both cases and allows for the theorisation of nationalisms that manage to unite a heterogeneous population even in the face of contemporary governments that fail to provide new visions for a national project. Empirical data shows how everyday-practices of national identity or citizenship in these countries have lead to the memory and contemporary experience of suffering "in the name of the nation" or "under the nation" to be more important and more constructive for everyday purposes than the official versions produced in the post-colonial era - which otherwise carries many countries through (identity) struggle on the state- or governance-level.