the abuses of memory

7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory

1/16

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Social Thought & Commentary: The Abuses of Memory: Reflections on the Memory Boom inAnthropology

Author(s): David BerlinerSource: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 197-211Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150896Accessed: 06-08-2015 18:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content

in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/16

SOCIAL HOUGHT

COMMENTARY

he

Abuses o

Memory

eflections o the

Memory

oom

in

Anthropology

David

Berliner

Harvard

niversity

n

recent

years,

studies of

memory

have blossomed in the

humanities.

(Klein

2000,

Radstone

2000,

Zelizer

1995)2

In

anthropology

in

particular,

a

vast number

of

scholars are

currently

occupied

with

research about

memory.

(Candau

1998,

Climoand Cattell

2002,

Olick

and Robbins

1998)

The

list of con-

tributions

in

this

recent field

of

research

is too

voluminous

to

even

begin

to

report.

In

every

new

anthropological

publication,

there is

another

article

about

social,

cultural

or

material

memory.

Anthropology

of

Memory

has

become a respectedcourse of many Americanand EuropeanUniversitypro-

grams,

something

that would have been

unthinkable

20

years

ago.

Also,

con-

ferences and

workshops

are

being

organized

with a

special

focus on

memory

issues,

something

that

would

also have been unthinkable 20

years

ago.3

However,

they

are

many

unsettled areas

in

the field of

memory

studies.

Historians

have

indeed

begun warning

us

against

the

terminologicalprofu-

sion and

the

semanticoverload

of the notion

(Kansteiner

002,

Klein

2000).

Gillis observes that

memory

seems

to be

losing

precise

meaning

in

propor-

tion to its growing rhetoricalpower (Gillis1984: 3). As historianJayWinter

cogently

writes,

197



3/16

The

Abuses

f

Memory:

eflectionsn the

Memory

oom n

Anthropology

The

nly

fixed

point

s the near

ubiquity

f the term

[memory].

ust

s

we use words

ike

love and hate without ever

knowing

heir full or

shared ignificance,o are we bound o go on using he term memo-

ry,

he historical

ignature

f our

generation

Winter

000:

13).

From he

idea that

a

society

or a

culture

an

remember nd

forget Are

ot

only

individuals

apable

of

remembering?)4

o

the

widely

used notion of

vicarious

memory 5'

nd the

questionable

alidity

f

the notionof

memory

in

approaching

ertain rans-cultural

ontexts,6

broad

ange

of fundamental

epistemological

ssuesare still

to

be raised

with

regard

o

memory.

The

point

that

I

would like to

emphasize

here

concerns he

danger

f

overextension f the

concept.

A

concept

osing

precise

meaning,

memory

an

also be

approached

s an

expansive

notion.

For

Gediand

Elam,

'collective

memory'

has

become he

all-pervadingoncept

which n

effectstands or

all

sortsof human

cognitive

products

enerally Gedi

& Elam 996:

40).

In

par-

ticular,

historianshave

already

underscored

he risksof

entanglement

f

memory

and

identity

Gillis

994,

Megill1998).

Some

anthropologists,

oo,

started

expressing

oncernsabout the

dangers

f

overextension

hat

are

inherent

n

the currentboom

of

memory Fabian

999:

51).

For

Fabian,

he

concept f memorymaybecome

indistinguishable

rom either

identity

r

culture

ibid:51).

Jonathan

Boyarin

oncurs,

noting

hat

identity

nd mem-

ory

are

virtually

he same

Boyarin

994:

23).

In

this

essay,

contend

hat he

current

usage

of

the notion

by

anthropologists

an be a

source

of

confusion

as

it

tendsto

encompass

many

eatures f the

notionof

culture tself.

argue

that

this

process

of

conceptual

extension

eading

to the

entanglement

f

memory

nd culturemerits areful

crutiny

s

it

tells us a

great

dealabout he

anthropologicalroject.

Needless

o

say,

I

will

raise

manyquestions

nd

give

very ew answers.Thispieceshouldbetakenasanepistemologicalhallenge

rather han a

pessimistic eproach.

Memory

n

Anthropology:

a

Historical

Perspective

It

is

unfortunatehattherehas

not

been

yet

a

history,

genealogy

f the con-

cept

of

memory

n

anthropology,

hereas

he

ongoing

bsessionwithmemo-

ry

in

the humanities has been

abundantly

documented. In a

powerful

article,

Kleinreminds us that

198



4/16

DAVID ERLINER

Memory

rew ncrediblymarginal,

nd

in 1964 The

Dictionary

f

the

Social Sciences

claimed that

the word

verged

on extinction

[...]

The

1968

Edition

of the International

Encyclopediaof

the Social

Sciences

declined o definememoryat all, despitethe luxuryof stretchingts

contentsout for 7

volumes.

By

1976

[...]

Raymond

Williams'slassic

study, Keywords,

[...]

ignored

memory.

[...]

Little more

than two

decades

separate

memory's

virtual

disappearance

and

triumphal

return

Klein

000:

131).

To

explain

his

triumphal

eturn,

istorian

ay

Winter

as

shown hatthereare

distinctiveourcesof the

contemporary

bsession

with

memory

hat arise

out

of

a

multiplicity

f

social,

cultural,

medical,

and economic rendsand

developments

f an eclecticbut

intersecting

ature

Winter

000:

1).

Many

factors

historical,

ocialand

societal)

havebeen invoked o

explain

he emer-

gence

of the

memory

oncept

n the humanities: bove

all the

Shoah

Lacapra

1998),

but

also the influenceof

identitypolitics

n

the

U.S,

he

marketing

f

memory

and

retro-mania,

he reassessment

f national dentities n

Europe

(Klein2000).

French

anthropologist

oel

Candaudescribes

our

present-day

obsession

with

memory

under he term

mnemotropisme.

ccording

o

him,

this

mnemotropisme

s

a

problem

n

identity

aused

by

our

ncapacity

o mas-

ter theanxiety f loss Candau998:104,mytranslation).nvaded y apro-

fuse

production

f

information,

mages

and

traces

ibid:

105,

my ranslation).

Candau

rgues,

our

society

s less

capable

of

transmitting

memory

han

oth-

ers,

and more obsessed

with

it.

In the same

vein,

Baxter

underlines,

n the

Business

f

Memory,

hat

fetishizingmemory

s

manifesting

tself

in a socie-

ty

wherewe

are

trying

o

cope

with

nformation-glut

hat

David

hrenk alled

the 'data

mog '

Baxter

999:

vii).

Inthe

academic

world,

he

memory

boomstarted

ecently

n

history,

rin-

cipallyncultural istory. ierreNora 1989) ndJanAssman1995) re known

as the

fathers

f the

memory

raze

among

historians.

n

he

wake

of the

post-

modernist urn and the deconstruction

f the

meta-texts,

tudents

of the

humanities ave

produced

a

devastating

ritique

f the

totalizing spects

of

historical iscourse

Klein

000:

128).

A

concept

loser

o

experience

n its con-

notations,

memory

efers o

the

past

as

it

is lived

by

the

social

agents Dosse

1999,

Ricoeur

001).

It

is defined

as morehumanand

subjective,

nd the

his-

torian becomes interested less

in

the

reliability

of

memory

than

in

the memo-

ry work itself. A group of scholars interested n the issue of popular resist-

ance,

(Jing

1996:

16)

and criticalof the oral

history

practice

n the

early

1980s,

199



5/16

TheAbuses f

Memory:

eflectionsn the

Memory

oom n

Anthropology

the

PopularMemory

Group

lso

played

crucial

ole

n

orienting

he attention

of scholarsowards

he nature nd

processes

f

remembering,

s muchas the

contents

of the memories

...]

(Thomson,

risch nd Hamilton 994:

34).

It istemptingo understandhe success f memory monganthropologists

in

the

light

of

the

postmodernist

urnand the

raging

memory/history

ebate

in the

humanities,

s

they

bothaffected

our

discipline.

Recent

nthropologi-

cal studieshave indeedabandoned

he

suspicious

ttitude oward

memory

that

previously

haracterized

any

histories

like

hose

of

Vansina

1980)

or

example)

or

a

more

phenomenological

pproach,

whichconsists

f

capturing

the

way people perceive:

hey

remember,

orget

and

reinterpret

heir

own

pasts.

This ocus

on

history

as it is

lived,

on the

remembranceshared

and

transmitted

y

social

groups

has

shown

hat

peopleexperience

nd

interpret

their

pasts

roma

multiplicity

f

viewpoints.

ucha

perspective,

hichdocu-

ments

the

existence

of

multiple

and

sometimes

antagonistic

isionsof

the

past

within he same

society,

has

been

copiouslydeveloped

n

anthropologi-

cal

studiessince the 1980s.

A

bouquet

of

writings prings

o

mind,

such as

those,

among

many

others,

of

Appadurai1981),

Bloch

1998),

Boyarin

1991),

Cohn

1995),

Cole

2001),

Dakhlia

1990),Hastrup

1992),

Herzfeld

1991),

ing

(1996),

Kilani

1992),

Lapierre2001),

Rappaport

1990),

Rosaldo

1980),

Stoler

and Strassler

2000)

and Tonkin

1992).

Furthermore,

ome of

these

recent

workshave

begun

treatinghe bodyas a vital ite of memory, Strathern

1996:

29)

such as those colonial

memories

xploredby

Bloch n

Madagascar

(1998)

and Stoller

n

Niger 1995).

Another

pate

of

writings

n

memory

nd

its

relationship

o

places Feld

and

Basso

1996)

and

objects Radley 990)

s

also

emerging

hese

days,emphasizing

he

way

both

places

and

objects

on-

tribute o materialize

ndividual

iography

nd shared

history.

The Overextensionof Memory:Memoryand Culture

Today,

most

anthropologists

se the notionof

memory

o refer o the social

remembering

f

precise

istorical

and

ometimes

raumatic)

ventsand

experi-

ences.

They

understand

t as

an

extremely

ocial

activity

y

virtue f whichone

registers,

etains nd revisits ventsand

experiences.

ut,

or

manyanthropolo-

gists,

eaders f

Halbwachs,

ora,

ConnertonndBastide s

well,

memory

salso

understood

oughly

s the

persistence

f

something

rom

he

past

nto

he

pres-

ent

(Halbwachs

994

[1925],

my

translation)

r,

in other

words,

when a

partic-

ular past perseveresbecause it remains relevantfor latercultural ormations

(Olick

& Robbins

1998:129).

Thelabel

memory

imsto

grasp

he

past

we

carry,

200



6/16

DAVID ERLINER

how

we

are

shapedby

t and

how his

past

s

transmitted.

herefore,

very

ittle

trace

of

the

past

n

the

present

s

designated

s

memory.

Here,

here s neither

perception

or

remembering. emory

s not seen as a

set

of

representations

f

eventsandexperienceshatareshared,butas theway astingracesof thepast

persist

within

us,

as

the

transmission

nd

persistence

f

cultural lements

through

he

generations.Memory

s

not theseseries

of

recalled

mental

mages,

but

a

synonym

orcultural

torage

f

the

past:

t is the

reproduction

f the

past

in

the

present,

his

accumulated

ast

whichacts on

us

and makesus

act.

As

PierreNora

put

t,

Collective

emory

s what

remainsrom he

past

n

groups'

life,

or

what

groups

o with

he

past

Nora

972:

398,

my

ranslation).

For

nstance,

his

is

particularly

lear

n

the

powerful

ook

by

Jun

Jing

The

Templef

Memories,

here he

author

mploy

he

word

memory

o refer

o the

meticulousemembrancef

past

eventsand

persons

rom

the

Communist

political

ersecution

ra

(Jing

996:

17)

as

well

as to

describe

he

contemporary

resurgence

f

popular

eligion ibid:173)

n the

Chinese

illage

of Dachuan.

The

notion

of

memory

helpsJing,

nstead f

mourning

he

passing

f tradition-

al

society,

o

think

hrough

he

persistence

f his

object

f

study,

hat s the

repro-

duction

f

Kong

ociety

hrough

ime

despite

dramatic

hanges

n

context:

The

tory

of Dachuan

nd its Confucius

emple,

e

writes,

...]

isone

of proud ndinnovative eople ryingo rebuildheir ifeaftergrievous

assaults

on their cultural

dentity,

ense of

history,

nd

religious

aith

(ibid: 2).

It

is as

if,

after

having

been uncertain

bouthow

practices

ould

be transmit-

ted

in such tormented

modern

worldswhere

savages

ere

supposed

o

vanish,

nthropologists

ealized hat the

past

does

not

evaporate,

but

per-

sists

n

multipleways.

Here,

collective

memory

efers

o

the

memory

f

the

society,tsability o reproducetselfthroughime.

To

the best of

my

knowledge,

he

contemporary

nthropological

se

of

memory

s

hovering

between

history

s

it

is

lived

by people

and those issues

of cultural

persistence.

As

Battaglia

put

it,

the

study

of

social

memory

addresses

problems

n

the

livinghistory

nd

ongoing

ultural

raditions

f

collectivities

f

persons

Battaglia

992:

14,

my

emphasis).

At the same

time

the term stands

n

for

remembrance

f

past

events and

experiences

nd

a

past

ransmittedand stored

(like

in

a

computer,

without

meaning

or

remembering).Indeed, by virtue of its semantic multidimensionality,memo-

ry

is an

expansive

label that seems to

migrate

into different

places.

In

fact,

as

201



7/16

TheAbuses

f

Memory:

eflectionsn the

Memory

oom

n

Anthropology

we

track he

usages

of

the

concept,

t

becomes lear

hatwe

can

observe

dif-

fusion

of the

problem

f

memory

nto the

general

process

f culture.

To

suggest

what I

have

in

mind,

let me

offer

one

illuminating

xample

from he recentbookeditedbyClimo ndCattell, ocialMemoryndHistory:

Anthropological

pproaches.

n

her contributiono the

volume,

Exploring

Venuesof Social

Memory,

arole

Crumley

egins

by

asking

wo

questions:

One earns

culture,

but how?

Which lementsand

events of

everyday

ife

transmit

values, beliefs,

techniques,

strategies? Climo

and

Cattell

2002:

39).She

hen

proposes

definition f social

memory:

Social

memory ,

he

writes,

is the means

by

which

information

s

transmitted

mong

ndividual nd

groups

and

fromone

generation

o

another.

Not

necessarily

ware hat

they

are

doing

so,

individuals

ass

on their

behaviors

nd attitudes o others

n

various ontextsbut

espe-

cially

hrough

motional

and

practical

ies and

in

relationships

mong

generations

...]

To

use

an

analogy

rom

physics,

ocial

memory

acts

like

a carrier

wave,

transmitting

nformation ver

generations egard-

less

of

the

degree

to which

participants

re

aware

of their roles n the

process

ibid:

40).

Accordingly,ocial memorycorrespondso those community ercep-

tions,

attitudes, behaviors,

values and institutions hat are

transmitted

across

generations ibid:40).

The

thing

to

note

about

Crumley's

ext is that

its

definition

of

memory

s so broad hat

it

becomes

ncreasinglympossible

to discern he

boundaries f the notion.

Indeed,

what

is not

memory

hen?

Besides,

f

memory

s howthe

past persists

n

and invests he

present,

being

everything

nd

everywhere,

f it

is defined

as

the

pattern-maintenance

unc-

tion

of

society

or as

social

reproduction er

se

(Olick

&

Robbins 998:

112),

thenisn'tmemory he process f culture tself?Isthat notwhat he concept

of culture

s all about?

But

how

hese collectivememoriesdifferfrom

anything

lse

learned,

asks

cogentlyCrapanzano2004:

156)?

One

might

ndeed be

puzzled

by

the

similarity

f

Crumley's

efinition

with the

initial definition

of

culture

pro-

posed

n

the fifties

by

Kluckhon

nd

Kroeber:

Culture,

hey say,

consistsof

patterns,explicit

and

implicit,

of and for

behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, [...] including their

embodiment

in

artifacts;

he

essential core

of

culture consists of tradi-

202



8/16

DAVID ERLINER

tional

(i.e.

historically

erivedand

selected)

deas and

especially

heir

attached

values;

culture

ystemsmay,

on

the one

hand,

be

considered

as

products

f

action,

on

the

other

hand as

conditioning

lements of

furtheraction Kroeber Kluckholn952:357).

My

mpression

ere

s

that,

by

a

dangerous

ct

of

expansion,memory

radually

becomes

verything

hich s transmittedcross

enerations,verything

tored

in

culture,

almost

ndistinguishable

henfrom he

concept

f

culture

tself.

Continuity

As

many

theorists

have

pointed

out,

the

memory

craze

in

history

and

the

social

ciences an

be

seen as a

consequence

f the

postmodernist

urn.Pierre

Norahimself

observes

hat thecollective

memory

s a recenthistorical

rob-

lem

Nora

1972:

400,

my

translation).

However,

here

has

to be more o

the

story

f

one

is

to understandts success

amonganthropologists.

o

me,

the

memory

boom

in

anthropology

s not a

surprise,

nor is

memoryonly

an

invention f the

postmodernist

urn.

Indeed,

according

o

White,

To

nthropologists,

he

spate

of recent

writing

on

collective

memory

may seem puzzling or its familiarity.Work n the area reinvents

approaches

o

culture nd

identity

ommonlypursued

n

ethnographic

research

n

narrative,

itual

practice,

ife

histories,

nd so forth

White

1996:

495,

my

emphasis).

Without

minimizing

he crucial

mpact

of the

postmodernist

urn since

the

1980s,

I

would

like

to

suggest

that

we

can,

and

perhaps

hould,

also

understand he successof

memoryamong

anthropologists

s

an

avatar

of

the never-endingebateaboutthe continuity ndreproductionf society. n

particular,

find

that

the

conceptual

nterferences

etween

memory

nd cul-

tureteach us

a

great

deal aboutthe

way

anthropologists

onceptualize

oci-

ety

and

culture.

In

anthropology,

wo

oft-ignored

uthors

an be seen

as

pioneers

n the field

of

memory

tudies.Thenameof

Jack

Goody

s

associatedwith he first tudies

of

memory.

nspired

y

research bout

bardic

performances, oody

howed

that there is no idea of a fixed model textto serve as a ritualist

guide.

There

is

no sucha thingas verbatimmemoryin the Bagremyth(Goody 972).Obviously,

Goody

was not

interested

n

popularmemory,

but rather n the exactitude

of

203



9/16

TheAbuses f

Memory:

eflections

n

the

Memory

oom n

Anthropology

remembering

nd memorization.

owever,

y

focusing

n the

successive

epe-

titionsof one

myth

and its

metamorphoses,

is

research ealt

precisely

ith he

processes

nd

conditions

f

learning

nd

the transmissionf culture.

Also,

we

shouldpaya specialattention o theworkof RogerBastidewhois usuallyor-

gotten

n

memory

tudies.8

Analyzing

he

vestiges

f African ulture

n

Brazil,

Bastide

1970)

built

his

whole

work round he

concept

f

collective

memory

o

describe

religious

yncretistic

henomena,

specially hrough

ensory-motor

recollections

f

African

ites n

South-Americanontexts.

Goody

nd Bastidewere

very

muchconcernedwith ssues

of

whathasbeen

called

he

presentist malleability

f

the

past,

andthe

bricolage

imension

of our

relationship

oward t.

However,

he initial

emphasis

n

their

works

as

in the works

f

Halbwachs)

s

on the continuance nd transmissionf

society.

How

practices

e-enact,

modify

and conserve

pastness hrough

ime is the

main

anthropological

ssue hat

they

were

dealing

with.

Insofar

s it is defined

as

a

faculty

hat sustains

continuity,

he notionof

memory

helped

them

to

think

hrough

hose issues

of cultural

onservation

nd social

continuity.

or

Connerton,

whose work

(like Halbwachs')

as been

highly

influential n

anthropology,

memory

s

also

an ideal

entry

point

to

engage

with

issuesof

cultural

ontinuity:

Whereasome dominantcontemporaryrends in socialtheory, he

writes,

areoften criticized n the

ground

hat

they

do not

address,

r

address

nadequately,

he

factof social

change,

shall

seekto

highlight

the

way

in which

such

theoriesare often

defectivebecause

hey

are

unableto

treat

adequately

he fact of social

persistence

Connerton

1989:

39-40).

In

a

revealing

way,memory,

s it is used

by

anthropologists,

s notthis

frag-

ileand unreliablememoryhatembarrasseduspicious istoriansn thepast.

Today

more

han

ever,

memory

s on the side of

continuity,

ermanence

nd

retention

Crapanzano004).

For

anthropologists,

here

is

nothing

new

about

these ideas. Has

anthropology

ot

always

been concernedwith the

retentionof the

old,

since

initialevolutionist

mphasis

on

survivals,

hese

vestiges

of older customs hat resisted

volution,

o the

theories

of

cultural

transmission

y

Herskovits?

s not

the

anthropology

f

knowledge

evel-

oped

by

Barth

(1990)

another

example

of the same set of

paradigmatic

nter-

ests with culturalreproduction? nthese dayswhen the Bourdieusianhabitus

dominates our intellectual

environment,

debates about the

continuity

of soci-

204



10/16

DAVID ERLINER

ety

and of cultural

practices

re

crucial o

anthropologists,

hile new devel-

opments

in

cognitiveanthropology

Bloch

1998,

Whitehouse

002)

offer a

fresh ookat issues

of

cultural

ransmission

nd

persistence.

Thisopensontoa fundamental uestionas to what isactuallynew inour

current ascinationwith

memory.

Historians

Gediand Elam

uggested

hat

'collective

memory'

...]

covers he areas

previously esignatedby

'myth '

(Gedi

nd Elam

1996:

41).

In the same

vein,

for

Klein,

memory

s

replacing

old favorites uchas

nature, ulture,

anguage

Klein

000:

128).

Following

this

line,

I

would

ike

to

suggest

hat the successof

memory

mong

anthro-

pologists

esidesalso

in its

conceptual

fficiency

o

prolong

he

anthropolog-

ical

project

of

understandingontinuity.Along

with

the

notion of

culture,

withwhich t tendsto

fusion,

memoryhelps

us to think

hrough

he continu-

ity

and

persistence

f

representations,

ractices,

motions,

and

institutions,

an idea fundamentalo

anthropologists

incethe

founding

f the

discipline.

A

last word remains

o

be writtenabout

forgetting.

The

suggestion

am

making

or

memory-that

the

triumph

of

memory

n

our

discipline

could

also be understood

y

reference

o

issuesof cultural

ontinuity

nd

persist-

ence-may

be

extended

o the

treatment

of

forgetting

n

anthropological

studies.

In

this

essay,

did not consider he

concept

of

forgetting

hat anthro-

pologists

have

recently

rought

ut to better ackle ssuesof

identity

onstruc-

tion (Aug6 998,Battaglia993,Carsten 995).However,ustas anthropolo-

gists

tend to

entangle

memory

and cultural

eproduction,

hat

is

at

stake

n

forgetting

tudies s the

veryreproduction

r

persistence

f

forgetting.

ince

it is a social

process,

orgetting

s described s

a

crucial

part

of the

way

den-

tity

is

actively cquired

...]

(Carsten

995:

318).

Similarly,

or

Battaglia,

for-

gettinggives

riseto

society, Battaglia

993:

430)

and,

by

virtue

of its

per-

sistent

non-presence,

ibid:

38,

my

emphasis),

t serves o

prolong

a

unitary

perdurable

ocial

order

ibid:430).Although aively

held

in

opposition

with

memory,he anthropologicalpproacho forgettingeems to be motivated

by

the same set

of

paradigmatic

oncerns.Middleton nd Edwardsre rather

clearabout

t,

by pointing

ut that

in

analyzing

he

practices

f

institutional

remembering

nd

forgetting,

t is

possible

o

see howthe

continuity

f

social

life,

as

preserved

n certain orms of

social

practices,

...]

depends

on the

preservation

f those

practices

Middelton

nd Edwards 990:

10).

To

some

degree, orgetting, long

with

memory,

ooksas

if

it is on the side of

perma-

nence and

retention,

and serves

also,

by

its

non-presence,

to

prolong

the

anthropological projectof understandingcontinuity.

205



11/16

The

Abuses

f

Memory:

eflectionsn the

Memory

oom n

Anthropology

Clarity

Among nthropologists,

ntil

recently,

herewas

a

high

evel

of

consensus n

the

concept

of

memory.

This

essayattempted

o demonstratehat

we

should

be ascritical f memory, problematicutindispensableoncept or hem,

as

we have earned o be

of

culture

r

identity.

t

seems o me thatthe

con-

cept

of

memory

has become

a

scientific ommonsense

n

the

anthropological

discourse,

onstantly

nd

unthinkingly

eployed.

First,

argued

hat memo-

ry,

s

it is used

byanthropologists,

as

gradually

ecome

a

vague,

uzzy

abel.

Indeed,

some

of

the authors

currently

working

n

memory,

tart fromtoo

broad

a

definition,

nd

that,

as

a

result,

we no

longer

ee

clearly

what

they

mean

by

the term.Sucha lackof

clarity

s far

from

exceptional

or

anthropo-

logical

oncepts,

nd there

s,

of

course,

no needto

advocate

or

a

rejection

f

the term.

Rather,

argued,

t is time to

disentangle

he

multiple

nd

expansive

meanings

f the

notion,

and to

question

ts

popularity

n

our

discipline.

In

particular,

have shown

hat

one of these

ambiguities

s

that

the con-

cept

of

memory

ends to

encompass

he notionof culture

and

its

reproduc-

tion. In

my

view,

his

emphasis

on

memory

s the

presence

f

the

past,

s

continuity

nd

persistence

lso

explainswhy

t has

become

uch

a

trendy

on-

cept

in

our

disciplinehistorically

kewed

oward hose issues.In

this

process

of

conceptualexpansion,

some

highly

influential

cholarssuch as

Nora,

Halbwachs, erdiman ndespeciallyConnertonwhouse the concept n its

broadest

ense)

can

also be held for

responsible.

t

is worth

noticing

hat

Connerton's

lim volume is indeed often the

only

reference

provided

by

anthropologists

n

their

discussions f

memory

Sutton

001:

10). Byarguing

that

memory

s

everything

r that

everything

s

memory as

writes

Terdiman)

and that

society

s itselfa formof

memory

as

Connerton

ut

t),

heseschol-

ars

plainly

contributed o diffusethe

problem

of

memory

nto the

general

process

of

culture,

and

to the renewed nterest

among

anthropologists

n

socialmemory s culture.

Consequently,

he

anthropological

sesof

memory

an be a

source

of con-

fusion.

Such ndiscriminate ses

of

a term to denote such different

xperi-

ences and

processes

do indeed

breed

misunderstanding,

nd

we mustmake

necessaryerminological

istinctions

for

nstance,

between

memory

s recol-

lectionand

memory

s cultural

eproduction).

bove

ll,

by

overextending

he

usage

of

this

notion,

aren't

we are

losing

he

specificity

f

what

anthropology

of

memory

is,

i.e. to

understand the

way people

remember

and

forget

their

past?Asthe historianJayWinterput it candidly,

206



12/16

DAVID ERLINER

One

of the

challenges

of the next decade or so is

to

try

to

draw

togeth-

er some

of these

disparate

strands of interest and enthusiasm

through

a

more

rigorous

and

tightly

argued

set

of

propositions

about

what

exact-

ly memory is and what has been in the past. [...] (Winter 000: 13).

In

the same vein as Todorov

warning

against

the abuses of

memory

in

the

political

sphere,

Ricoeur invited us to

look

for what he calls une

memoire

juste

(Ricoeur

2001).

I

have

argued

in this

essay,

that in

anthropology

as

well,

it

is time for a more

matured use

of

this notion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This

piece

was writtenat Harvard

University

while a

recipient

of a

Postdoctoral

Fellowship

of the

Belgian

AmericanEducational oundation.

am

very

grateful

o

Michael

Herzfeld,

Randy

Matory,

Debbora

Battaglia

nd Lauren hweder or their

insightful

ommentson

my

work.

For

nspiring

discussions,

want to

thank RamonSarro.

A

shortenedversion of this

essay

was

delivered

at the 8th

European

Association

f Social

Anthropologists

onference

held in

Vienna,

September

2004.

I

wish

to thank the convenors

of

the

lively

panel

Anthropologicalpproaches

n

Social

Memory,

haron

MacDonald,

Helena

Jerman

and

Petri

Hautaniemi.

Finally,

was

much

helped by

the editorialcomments

of

Richard

Grinker,

MeliGlennand

Jen

HuiBon

Hoa.

ENDNOTES

11

borrowed

he title from the book

Lesabus

de

la

memoire

by

Tvetzan

Todorov

1995).

In

this

text,

he

denounces he

exploitation

f the notionof

memory

n

the

contemporary

olit-

ical

sphere.

2Though

ignored

until

recently,

Halbwachs'

lassics,

LesCadres

ociaux

de

la

memoire

1994

[1925])

nd Lamemoire ollective

1997

[1950]),

have

now

been re-discovered. ince

he

80s,

anthropologists

ave been

reading

he

colossalLes

Lieux e

la

memoire

published

by

histo-

rianPierreNora

1989),

while How

Societies

Remember

1989)by

Connerton,

escribed

as

a

touchstone

or recentstudies

of

memory,

Sutton

2001:

10)

has become an

anthropologi-

cal must-read.

31

should mentionthat these reflectionshave

arisen

out of fieldwork onducted n

Guinea-

Conakry,

WestAfrica.

As

memory

s

a

key-word

n

the social

sciences

today,

the attitude

toward he

past

and its transmission re a hot

topic

in African

ocietiesas

well.

Along

with

identity,

memory

s at

present

a

globalized

notion,

and the

concept

s now

largely

used

by

African

oliticians

nd local elites.

I

don't have time here to

deepen

this

point,

but we def-

initely

live in a time

when

memory

s

globalized,

an

historical

moment

that

Nora

ermed

convincingly

he moment-memoire.

4Some

scholars

use

dangerously

he notion of

remembering

n

reference o

collectiveenti-

ties. For

nstance,

n the

introduction f her

Tangled

Memories,

turken sks

What oes

it

mean for a culture o remember?

Sturken

997:

1).

In the same

vein,

Mary

Douglas

con-

siders that institutionscan Rememberand

Forget Douglas1986). Connerton's

How

SocietiesRememberonstitutesanother amous

example

of this

imprudent

emanticexten-

207



13/16

TheAbuses f

Memory:

eflectionsn the

Memory

oom

n

Anthropology

sion.

However,

s

Funkenstein

bserves,

consciousness nd

memory

can

only

be realized

by

an

individualwho

acts,

is

aware,

and remembers.

ust

as a

nation cannot

eat

or

dance,

neither

can it

speak

or

remember.

Remembering

s a

mental

act,

and

therefore it is

absolutely

and

completelypersonal

Funkenstein

989:

6).

Fora

critical

ook

at this misuse

of

remembering,

ee also Kansteiner

2002).

5 Vicarious emories ccurwhen someone remembers vents that havenot been

per-

sonallyexperiencedby

her/him

Teski

nd Climo

1995).

In her

Memories

f

the Slave

Trade,

Rosalind

Shaw

eloquentlycaptures

contemporary

memories

of the Atlantic

lave trade

in

Temne

ritual

practices

Sierra

Leone).

However,

er

use

of

remembering

eems hazardous

to me. For

nstance,

he

proposes

o

explore

he

way

in

whichthe

slave trade

is

forgotten

as

history

but remembered s

spirits

Shaw

002:

9).

But,

can we

really

remember ome-

thing

that

we

did

not

experience?

Can omeone

remember he slave trade?

6Handler

howed

effectively

hat

the

concept

of

identity

annot be

applied

unthinkingly

o

other

places

and

times

Handler

994:

27).

Thesame remains

o

be

verified or the

notion

of

memory.

7In

the

same

vein,

one

might

be

intrigued

by

the

resemblances etween

certain

approach-

es to traditionand so-called cultural

memory.

Consider,or

instance,

the definitionof

tradition

roposedby

Shils

(1983),

and

see

how it

overlaps

with

the semantic field of

memory.

Following

hils,

Memory

eaves

an

objectivedeposit

in

tradition.

The

past

does

not

have to be

remembered

by

all who reenact t.

[...]

But to become a

tradition,

and to

remain

a

tradition,

a

pattern

of

assertion

or

action must

have entered

into

memory

Shils

1983:

167).

What

re then the

conceptual

imitsbetween he

notionsof

memory

and

tradi-

tion?

Is

tradition he

presence

f the

past

in

society

ibid:

162)

or is that

memory?

8For n

exception,

ee

Bourguet,

Valensiand Wachtel

1990).

REFERENCES

Appadurai,Arjun.

981. The

past

as

a

scarceresource.

Man16: 201-219.

Assman,

an.

1995. Collective

Memory

nd Cultural

dentity.

ewGerman

Critique

5 : 125-

133.

Aug6,

Marc. 998.

Les

ormes

de

I'oubli.

Paris:

Payot.

Barth,

Fredrik. 990.

The

Guru

and the

Conjurer:

Transactions

n

Knowledge

and the

Shaping

f Culture

n

SoutheastAsia

and Melanesia. Man

25(4):

640-653.

Bastide,

Roger.

970. Memoire ollective

et

sociologie

du

bricolage.

'Annee

ociologique

21: 65-108.

Battaglia,

Debbora. 992. The

Body

n

the Gift:

Memory

nd

Forgetting

n

Sabarl

Mortuary

Exchange. merican thnologist9(1):3-18.

. 1993. At

Play

in

the Fields

(and

Borders)

of

the

Imaginary:

Melanesian

Transformationsf

Forgetting.

ultural

nthropology

(4):

430-442.

Baxter,

Charles.

1999. The

Business

of Memory.

The

Art

of

Remembering

n

an

Age

of

Forgetting.

aint

Paul,

Minnesota:

Graywolf

ress.

Bloch,

Maurice. 998. How WeThink

They

Think:

Anthropological pproach

o

Cognition,

Memory

nd

Literacy.

UK:Westview

Press.

Bourguet,

Marie-Noelle,

ucette

Valensiand Nathan

Wachtel.1990. Between

Memory

nd

History.

Chur:

HarwoodAcademic

Publishers.

Boyarin,

onathan.

991.

Polish

Jews

nParis:The

Ethnographyf Memory.

loomington

nd

Indianapolis:ndianaUniversity ress.

208



14/16

DAVID ERLINER

.

1994

Remapping Memory:

the

Politics

of

Time

Space. Minneapolis: University

of MinnesotaPress.

Candau,

oel.

1998.

Memoire

t identite.Paris :

Presses

Universitaires e France.

Carsten, anet.

1995.

The

Politicsof

Forgetting:

Migration,Kinship

nd

Memory

on the

Periphery

f

the SoutheastAsian

State. ].Roy.Anthrop.

nst.1: 317-335.

Climo, Jacob

and Maria Cattell. 2002.

Social

Memory

and

History.Anthropological

Perspectives.

Walnut

Creek,

CA:

Altamira

Press.

Cohn,

Bernard. 995.

The

Pastsof an Indian

Village.

n

Time:Histories nd

Ethnologies.

Hugues,

Diane and

Thomas

Trautmann,

eds.

pp.

21-30.

Ann

Arbor:

University

of

Michigan

Press

Cole, Jennifer.

2001.

Forget

Colonialism?

acrifices

nd

the

Art

of Memory.Berkeley/Los

Angeles/London:

niversity

f California ress.

Connerton,

Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember.

Cambridge/New

York:

Cambridge

University

ress.

Crapanzano,

Vincent.

2004.

Imaginative

Horizons:

An

Essay

in

Literary-Philosophical

Anthropology. hicago:

he

University

f

Chicago

Press.

Dakhlia,

ocelyne.

1990.

L'histoire

st dans

I'attente.

ahiers 'Etudes

fricaines

0(3):

251-

278.

Dosse,

Francois.

999. Lamithode

historique

t les

traces m6morielles.

n

Le

defi

du

XXle

siecle.

Relier

es connaissances.

dgar

Morin,

d.

pp.

317-326.

Paris:

Editions u

Seuil.

Douglas,

Mary.

986.

How

Institutions hink.

yracuse:

yracuse

University

ress.

Fabian,Johannes.

1999.

Remembering

he Other:

Knowledge

and

Recognition

n

the

Exploration

f Central

Africa.

ritical

nquiry

6: 49-69.

Feld,

Steven

and

KeithBasso.1996. Senses

of

Place.SantaFe:Schoolof American

Research

Press.

Funkenstein,

Amos. 1989. Collective

Memory

and Historical

Consciousness.

istory

nd

Memory (1):

6.

Gedi,

Noaand

Yigal

Elam.1996. Collective

Memory

What s

It?

History

nd

Memory

(1):

30-50.

Gillis,

John.

1994.

Memory

and

Identity:

The

History

of a

Relationship.

In

Commemorations:hePolitics

of

National

Identity.

Gillis, ohn,

ed.

pp.

3-27. Princeton:

Princeton

University

ress.

Goody,

ack.

1972. The

Mythof

the

Bagre.

Oxford:

Clarendon

ress.

Halbwachs,

Maurice.

994.

[1925]

Lescadres

ociaux

de

la

memoire.Paris:EditionsAlbin

Michel.

.

1997

[1950]

La

memoire

collective.

Paris:

Albin

Michel.

Handler,

Richard. 994.

Is

Identity'

UsefulCross-Cultural

oncept?

n

Commemorations:

The Politics

of

National

Identity.

Gillis,

John,

ed.

pp.

27-40. Princeton:

Princeton

University

ress.

Hastrup,

Kirsten. 992. OtherHistories.

London:

Routledge.

Herzfeld,

Michael.1991.

A

Place

n

History.

ocialand Monumental ime

n

a CretanTown.

New

Jersey:

Princeton

University

ress.

Jing,

Jun.

1996. The

Temple f

Memories.

History,

Powerand

Morality

n

a

Chinese

Village.

Stanford: tanford

University

ress.

Kansteiner,Wulf.

2002.

FindingMeaning

in

Memory:

A

MethodologicalCritique

of

CollectiveMemory

tudies.

History nd Theory 1:

179-197.

209



15/16

The

Abuses

f

Memory:

eflections

n

the

Memory

oom n

Anthropology

Kilani,

Mondher. 992. La

construction

e

la

memoire.

Le

ignage

et la

saintete

dans

I'oasis

d'El

Ksar.

Geneve:Labor t Fides.

Klein,

Lee.2000.

On

he

Emergence

f

Memory

n

HistoricalDiscourse.

epresentations

9:

127-150.

KroeberA. and C.

Kluckhohn. 952. Culture: CriticalReview

f Concepts

nd

Definitions.

New

York:

RandomHouse.

Lacapra,

Dominique.

1998.

History

nd

Memory

fter

Auschwitz.

thaca:Cornell

University

Press.

Lapierre,

Nicole.

2001.

Le silence

de

la

memoire.

A

la

recherche

es

Juifs

de Plock.Paris:

Editions

LeLivre e Poche.

Megill,

Allan.

1998.

History,

Memory, dentity.

istory

f

the

HumanSciences

1(3):

37-62.

Middelton

David

nd DerekEdwards. 990.

Collective

emembering.

ondon/New

ury/New

Delhi:

Sage.

Nora,

Pierre.1972.

Memoire ollective.

n

La Nouvelle

Histoire,

acques

Le

Goff,

Roger

Chartier t

Jacaues

Revel,

eds.

pp.

398-401.

C.E.P.L.,

es

Encyclop6dies

u

Savoir

Moderne.

1989. Between

Memory

nd

history:

Les

Lieux

de M6moire.

epresentations

26:

7-24.

Olick,

effrey

nd

Joyce

Robbins. 998. Social

Memory

tudies:

From Collective

Memory'

o

the Historical

ociology

of

MnemonicPractices.

nnual

Review

of

Sociology

4: 105-

140.

Radley,

Alan.1990.

Artefacts,

Memory

nd a

Senseof the Past. n

Collective

emembering,

DavidMiddelton nd Derek

Edwards,

ds.

pp.

46-59.

London/New

ury/New

Delhi:

Sage.

Radstone,

Susannah. 000.

Memory

nd

Methodology.

xford/New

ork:

Berg.

Rappaport,

oanne.

1990. The

Politics

of Memory.

Native

historical

nterpretation

n the

Colombian ndes.

Cambridge/New

ork:

Cambridge

niversity

ress.

Ricoeur,

Paul.

2000. La

memoire,

'histoire,

'oubli.

Paris:Editions

u Seuil.

Rosaldo,

Renato.

1980.

llongot Headhunting

1883-1974.

A

Study

in

Society

and

History.

Stanford: tanford

University

ress.

Ross,

Bruce.1991.

Remembering

he

Personal

Past.

Descriptions

f Autobiographical emory.

New

York/Oxford:

xford

University

ress.

Shaw,

Rosalind. 001. Memories

f

the

Slave

Trade.Ritualand the Historical

magination

n

SierraLeone.

Chicago/London:

he

Chicago

University

ress.

Shils,

Edward.

983. Tradition.

hicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

StolerAnnand Karen

trassler.

000.

Castings

or the Colonial:

Memory

Workn

'NewOrder'

Java.

Comparative

tudies

n

Society

nd

History

2(1):

4-48.

Stoller,

Paul.

1995.

Embodying

olonial

Memories:

pirit

Possession,

ower nd

the Hauka

n

West

Africa.

New

York/London

Routledge.

Strathern,

Andrew.

996.

Body

Thoughts.

nn

Arbor:The

University

f

Michigan

Press.

Sturken,

Marita.

1997.

Tangled

Memories:The

Vietnam

War,

he

AIDS

Epidemic,

nd

the

Politics

f

Remembering. erkeley:University

f California

ress.

Sutton,

David.

2001. Remembrance

f

Repasts:

An

Anthropologyf

Foodand

Memory.

New

York/Oxford:

erg.

Terdiman,

Richard. 993. PresentPast.

Modernity

nd the

Memory

Crisis.

thaca/London:

Cornell

University

ress.

210



16/16

DAVID

ERLINER

Teski,

Marea

and

Jacob

Climo.

1995.

The

Labyrinth f

Memory.

Ethnographic

ourneys.

Westport/London:

ergin

and

Garvey.

Thomson,Alistair,

Michael Frischand Paula Hamilton.

1994.

The

Memory

and

History

Debates:

Some

International

erspectives.

Oral

History

2(2):

33-43.

TodorovTzvetan.

995.

Lesabus

de

la memoire.Paris :

Arlda.

Tonkin,

Elizabeth.1992.

Narrating

our

Past. The Social Construction

f

Oral

History.

Cambridge: ambridge

University

ress.

Vansina, an.

1980.

Memory

nd

Oral

Tradition.

n

The

African

Past

Speaks.

Essays

n

Oral

Tradition nd

History.

Miller,

oseph,

ed.

pp.

262-279.

Folkestone:

Dawson-Archon.

White,

Geoffrey.

001. Histories

nd

Subjectivities.

thos

28(4):

493-510.

Whitehouse,

Harvey.

2002.

Religious

Reflexivity

and Transmissive

Frequency.

ocial

Anthropology

0(1):

91-103.

Winter,

Jay.

2000. The Generationof

Memory.

Reflections

on

the

Memory

Boom in

Contemporary

istorical

tudies. GermanHistoricalnstitute 7.

Zelizer,Barbie.1995. Readinghe PastAgainst he Grain:TheShapeof MemoryStudies.

Critical tudies n MassCommunication2: 214-239.

211

the abuses of memory

Documents