As an adjunct to the Madness in the Method post, which focused partly on the field of memory studies, I thought I'd summarise an essay by Jeffrey K. Olick, 'From Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic Practices and Products'. Olick's essay provides a useful excursus of what he initially calls 'a sociology of retrospection'. He draws a contrast between the 'history of mentalities' in France, which takes a 'collective psychology' approach to cultural history and is concerned with the imaginary and collective perceptions of human activities over time, and the German concept of 'historical consciousness', variously pervaded by Hegelian abstractions (cultural essences), the formation of political processes (see Lukacs) and the notion of mnemohistory or 'the past as it is remembered' (see J. Assman) (see p. 151). He then introduces the more general term collective memory, often used by scholars working in this area. Olick is both critical and accepting of the associations of collective memory, writing, 'I agree with the charge that collective memory over-totalizes a variety of retrospective products, practices and processes. Nevertheless, as a sensitizing rather than operational concept, I believe it raises useful questions when taken as a starting point for enquiry rather than as an end point' (p. 152).
Elsewhere, in the intro to the The Collective Memory Reader (2011), Olick has identified alternative names for this phenomenon including 'cultural memory', 'communicative memory' and 'social memory' (see 2011, p. 40), as well as suggesting that the problem of collective memory arises during a particular period, when it is no longer so obvious how it is constituted. Linked to this recognition is Patrick Hutton's theory that a system of memory as habit has now been displaced by one of memory as representation, a form of media literacy distinguished by a high degree of self-reflexivity (see 2011, p. 6).
Returning to the essay, Olick traces the contemporary understanding of collective memory to the sociological work of Halbwachs, largely attributing his influences to Bergson and Durkheim. Bergson's analysis of the experience of time and his theory of memory as a process of fluid and active engagement ('the variable experience of memory' (p. 154)), as opposed to a fixed repository of passive storage was of interest to Halbwachs. Unlike Bergson's subjective account, Durkheim's emphasis was on the variability of perceptual catergories among forms of social organisation (see p. 154), another important development for Halbwachs who wanted to construct a sociological framework for studying memory. Olick writes that 'memory, for Halbwachs, is first of all framed in the present as much as the past, variable rather than constant [...] Memory is a matter of how minds work together in society, how their operations are not simply mediated but are structured by social arrangements' (p. 155). However, he is distinct from Durkheim (who downplayed the role of the individual), in that he characterised collective memory as plural, 'placing most of his emphasis on the multiple social frameworks of individual memories' (p. 157). Halbwach's has sometimes been characterised as being concerned with the materiality of memory.
Olick's conclusion is that there are many different factors at play in the notion of collective memory, 'collective representations (publicly available symbols, meanings, narratives, and rituals), deep cultural structures (generative systems of rules or patterns for producing representations), social frameworks (groups and patterns of interaction), and culturally and socially framed individual memories' (p. 157-8). He characterises these as 'mnemonic products and practices', where products include stories, rituals, books, statues, presentations, speeches, images, pictures, records, historical studies, surveys etc., practices include reminiscence, recall, representation, commemoration, celebration, regret, renunciation, disavowal, denial, rationalisation, excuse and acknowledgement (see p. 158). In light of these different processes, three principles are suggested for the analysis of collective memory:
1. Collective memory is made up of many things and should not be conceived as monolithic; there is not just one collective memory belonging to each society.
2. Collective memory is always a negotiation between present concerns and the legacies of the past; ''Traditionalist' models [...] assimilate collective memory to heritage, patrimony, national character [...] and view collective memory as a bedrock for the continuity of identities [...] On the other hand, 'Presentist' models assimilate collective memory to manipulation and deception, a mere tool in the arsenal of power' (p. 159).
3. 'We must remember that memory is a process and not a thing, a faculty rather than a place' (p. 159). Therefore, we need to develop the right analytical tools to study collective memory in all its complexities and contradictions.
References
Hutton, Patrick H., History as an Art of Memory. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1993.
Olick, Jeffrey K., 'From Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic Practices and Products', in A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, ed. by Astrid Erll, Ansgar Nünning, Sara B Young. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2010, pp. 151-162.
Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy (eds.), 'Introduction' in The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 3-62.
No comments:
Post a Comment