''Information technologies can enable you to tap into Europe’s collective memory with a click of your mouse', as stated by the Information Society & Media Commissioner Viviane Redding in her speech. Later on, in the European Commission communication on the progress of digitisation, accessibility and digital preservation of cultural heritage in Europe the metaphor 'collective memory with a click of your mouse' transformed into 'Europe’s cultural heritage at the click of a mouse'' (pp. 1-2).
The second article mentioned here refers to a report released in 2008 about the progress on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation across the EU. Some commentators have been critical of this simple equation of access to cultural heritage with digitisation projects. José van Dijck writes about the implications in the case of platforms like Flickr:
'The euphoric claim that cultural heritage is emerging ‘at the click of a mouse’ erroneously suggests that information is ‘out there’ waiting to be collected, and that sites such as Flickr Commons magically turn all uploaded data into knowledge about the past. Such claims ignore the fact that individual uploads only acquire meaning and impact through the connective work of human contributors, networked technologies and institutional protocols (e.g. selection mechanisms) – which are in turn already prefigured by the institution’s and project’s modus operandi for defining what cultural heritage actually is' (p. 11).
Manžuch's article, which is about the communication of memory, considers similar issues but juxtaposes the connotations of memory with cultural heritage in her examination of digitisation projects, suggesting that:
'Cultural heritage may be approached a mnemonic device that connects us to the past. When there are no living witnesses to tell the story of the past, events or experiences transform into remote symbols and rituals that become a part of the identity and history of a particular community. These stories of the past are mediated by cultural heritage.
Cultural heritage is a part of the past selected in accordance with contemporary needs of societies. It is loaded with constantly shifting symbolic meanings. The meanings of heritage are different from memory per se, in that they are explicit: they may be disseminated and comprehended by any person. Memory always means “being” or “belonging”, while heritage may also mean “knowing about”, which is open for rational cognition' (pp. 2-3).
In another essay, called 'Archives, Libraries and Museums as Communicators of Memory in the European Union Projects', Manžuch outlines discusses theories of social memory (influenced by the work of Jan Assmann and Maurice Halbwachs), before undertaking a content analysis of European Union project descriptions to determine perceptions of how memory is communicated in archives, libraries and museums:
'Since the 1990s issues of memory institutions and heritage communication have become particularly visible in European Union programmes (Manžuch and Knoll 2005), which are the major instruments for the implementation of European Union strategic objectives. Significant co-ordination efforts and financial resources have been allocated to finding effective heritage communication solutions. However, despite a significant experience embedded in European Union projects dedicated to memory institutions and cultural heritage, there have not been any attempts to reflect on these institutions as communicators of memory. Although concepts of memory and heritage are currently in fashion, the issues of how memory is communicated are not discussed and the terms are mainly used metaphorically. Given the number of current European Union projects in the field, the critical evaluation of the nature of memory communication in archives, libraries and museums in these initiatives is crucial for evaluating the progress of current activities and projects. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to identify approaches to memory communication in such institutions developed in these European Union projects.'
Again, she draws distinctions between cultural heritage and collective memory, implying that the two can sometimes be conflated in the language of EU projects:
'Unlike memory, heritage is always explicit (it is manifested in certain ways: both tangible, such as monuments and manuscripts, and intangible, such as songs and legends) and open to our cognition [...]'
'Only common life context, values and experiences enable the transformation of heritage into memory. In other cases, heritage may be valued for particular features, used in education, which have nothing in common with memory. Therefore, interpretations of heritage symbolic meanings also allow archives, libraries and museums to communicate knowledge about the past without any reference to the collective memory of communities [...]'
The results of Manžuch's study reveal (in her own terms) that the definitive features of archives, libraries and museums are collections and information management processes. She concludes that meeting the social needs of present communities and developing meaningful stories of the past are not primary aims in the projects under examination. Here are some of her findings described in more detail:
'(The) results have some features in common with the research conducted by Marija Dalbello (Dalbello 2004). She observed that particular concepts of heritage and memory developed by memory institutions pre-conditioned the strategies for constructing stories of the past. She also argued that in digital library initiatives narrative construction was closely related to collection structures. Likewise, these research results revealed that all narrative structures were object or document oriented. The scope of both information and cultural projects was defined by cultural heritage types, adopted by memory institutions for efficient management of growing collections of diverse resources. However, such classifications were fruitless and even harmful for communicating images of the past because they destroyed symbolic links between objects by introducing artificial arrangements [...]'
'Cultural heritage communication was interpreted either as virtual aggregation of cultural heritage objects for access in information projects or as cognition of the past in cultural projects. It had no relation to memory and could not be considered as memory communication, except in few cases in cultural projects where links between contemporary social issues, life of communities and past events were made [...]'
'The results of empirical research allow us to draw the conclusion that European Union projects demonstrated a narrow approach to communication of memory in archives, libraries and museums. The roles of these institutions were identified with the collection, accessibility and preservation of heritage. Their social roles in the communication of memory and the solution of social and cultural issues faced by the European community were not highlighted [...]'
The 2004 study by Marija Dalbello, mentioned by Manžuch, investigates the institutional shaping of cultural memory and its subsequent communication using digital library projects listed by ARL (Association of Research Libraries) as case studies. It has some relevant insights with regard to digital library development. Methodologically, Dalbello describes her approach as follows:
'Borrowing from Anthony Giddens and Christopher Pierson and an application of Giddens’s ideas in the study of institutional change, it is possible to theorize digital library development in terms of structuration theory. In the emerging area of institutional operation, such as digital library development, the movement toward homogenization is driven by dominant paradigms, as hypothesized by Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell in their work on organizational theory and organizational diversity' (p. 266).
'By sounding these developments against a theoretical framework, this article demonstrates that this development is not merely a mass of microlevel activity,but one in which human agency and social structure are related, and in which the repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduces the structure. Therefore, while observing institutional change through an empirical study, using a middle-range theory of structuration, this study also looks at digital libraries as emerging environments for creation of cultural texts and cultural selection, thus engaging also a macrosocial theory of the dynamics of cultural change. On that level, collection building is a form of knowledge creation and interpretation of textual tradition and reflects the transformation of the library as memory institution in the context of modernity; it operates increasingly in representational fields, simulacra rather than physical documents' (p. 267).
In relation to the shaping of cultural memory, the emphasis is on how the the presentation of digital (library) content contributes to knowledge production, and the link between historical narratives and the representation of cultural memory:
'The classic literature on social memory and cultural heritage recognizes the agency of institutions and technologies of reproduction in shaping cultural memory. It also demonstrates the dynamic nature of cultural change in which institutional memory processes are characterized by invention within constraints of legitimacy defined by present concerns of social groups. The shaping of cultural memory corresponds to the emergence of shared narratives from an array of possible historical interpretations. Loci of memory, key events, key texts, or artifacts then become symbolic points of reference for group identities. Digital libraries represent textual environments in which the formation of the emergent memory narratives as collections of representations of memory objects and information arranged according to historiographic principles occurs. In studying digital libraries from a macrosocial theory point of view, we need to take into account the frame-works for analysis provided in the literature on the study of cultural memory and identity and history as cultural invention. In the first wave of digital library development, one primarily finds digitized libraries that provide continuity for existing collections. Thus, they are involved in interpreting the past through historical representation' (p. 267)
'Studying how digital libraries are involved in the production of knowledge is crucial to our understanding of how memory institutions are currently shaping this record in the digital environment. The implications for that understanding are far-reaching because the traditional role of memory institutions in shaping a society’s view of its own identity, of its heritage and its past, has been at the center of the arguments concerning those institutions’ legitimacy. With the changing technology, the institutions are also undergoing transformation in terms of rethinking their collections, users, and access' (p. 267).
Dalbello distinguishes three main organisational contexts within the digital library projects under consideration:
Maintaining continuity: Antiquarian traditionalism - The strong representation of universities (with special collections, rare books, and archives) as homes for emerging digital libraries has an important implication for their current development. This is particularly obvious when we examine more closely what is being digitized. Traditionally, these collections are focused on preserving archival integrity (of provenance), and they are traditional in their approach to collection development. Emerging digital libraries are often an extension of these institutions’ initial purposes (p. 273).
A distributed library: Integration and collaboration - Unlike archival and special collections in the universities, the Library of Congress demonstrates new approaches to collection development. The projects not only integrate materials from different collections at this institution, but some of them are developed in partnership with public libraries and universities, thus creating new uses for the existing resources (p. 274).
The living library: Tapping into community memory - Public libraries, for ex-ample, the New Orleans Public Library, are promising new types of digital libraries because they show a trend of linking digital libraries to communities, thus reestablishing a democratic purpose of the library as tradition-ally conceived in U.S. society.
The study concludes that emerging digital collections are not presenting sustained historical narratives in their presentation of material. All these studies are similar in the concerns they raise about the lack of narrative development within digitised collections. While Dalbello's article is now over 10 years old, this sentiment persists, and was expressed in a recent interview I conducted with Nick Poole (Chair of the Europeana Network) thus:
'From my experience working with digital projects, we are in the process of making an important transition. It was summed up to me by a colleague from Google as 'the next challenge is not mass-digitisation or mass-preservation, but mass-curation of the sheer volume of cultural content'. Most of the next generation of digital cultural channels are focussing much less on aggregating large bodies of undifferentiated content and much more on creating highly targeted niche experiences structured around cultural themes' (see also Key Figures post).
Finally, to put into context some of the theoretical frameworks mentioned here, below is a summary of Jan Assmann's distinctions between communicative and cultural memory:
'The term 'communicative memory' was introduced in order to delineate the difference between Halbwachs's concept of 'collective memory' and our understanding of 'cultural memory' (Jan and Aleida Assmann). Cultural memory is a form of collective memory in the sense that it is shared by a number of people and that it conveys to these people a collective, that is, cultural identity. Halbwachs, however the inventor of the term 'collective memory', was careful to keep his concept of collective memory apart from the realm of traditions, transmissions, and transferences which we propose to subsume under the term 'cultural memory'. We preserve Halbwachs's distinction by breaking up his concept of collective memory into 'communicative' and 'cultural memory', but we insist on including the cultural sphere, which he excluded, in the study of memory' (p. 110) [...]
'Cultural memory is a kind of institution. It is exteriorized, objectified, and stored away in symbolic forms that, unlike the sounds of words, or the sight of gestures, are stable and situation-transcendent' (pp. 110-11) [...]
'Communicative memory is non-institutional; it is not supported by any institutions of learning, transmission and interpretation [...] It lives in everyday interaction and communication and, for this very reason, has only a limited time depth which normally reaches no further back than eighty years' (p. 111) [...]
'The term 'communicative memory' was introduced in order to delineate the difference between Halbwachs's concept of 'collective memory' and our understanding of 'cultural memory' (Jan and Aleida Assmann). Cultural memory is a form of collective memory in the sense that it is shared by a number of people and that it conveys to these people a collective, that is, cultural identity. Halbwachs, however the inventor of the term 'collective memory', was careful to keep his concept of collective memory apart from the realm of traditions, transmissions, and transferences which we propose to subsume under the term 'cultural memory'. We preserve Halbwachs's distinction by breaking up his concept of collective memory into 'communicative' and 'cultural memory', but we insist on including the cultural sphere, which he excluded, in the study of memory' (p. 110) [...]
'Cultural memory is a kind of institution. It is exteriorized, objectified, and stored away in symbolic forms that, unlike the sounds of words, or the sight of gestures, are stable and situation-transcendent' (pp. 110-11) [...]
'Communicative memory is non-institutional; it is not supported by any institutions of learning, transmission and interpretation [...] It lives in everyday interaction and communication and, for this very reason, has only a limited time depth which normally reaches no further back than eighty years' (p. 111) [...]
No comments:
Post a Comment