EPILOGUE 325

Abstract It is apparent that the past has a robust future. With the intensification ofglobalization comes an increase in discourses of the past, accompanied by an expan-sion of memory studies in the academy. This “memory moment” is generating researchon topics that are at once intensely personal and political. Anthropological approachescapable of linking the affective textures of personal experience with the broad sweepof collective histories are well suited to research in this area. Taken together, the articlesassembled here suggest the emergence of new paradigms for understanding the culturaland emotional politics of social memory making. [memory, history, identity, culturalpolitics, cultural psychology]

The idiom of memory has become a code for all sorts of practices ranging fromcomprehension and recall to movements and monuments (Gedi and Elam1996; Irwin-Zarecka 1994; Kansteiner 2002; Kenny 1999; Yelvington 2002).Given the diversity of projects undertaken under the umbrella of memory, it isunderstandable that skeptical voices have asked if the term is still useful ( just asother key terms such as culture and identity also suffer from semantic exhaus-tion; Klein 2000). The articles collected in this issue, with their avowedlyinterdisciplinary aims, suggest that the answer is yes, and that this unruly areaoffers useful directions for future work, particularly in the border regions traveledin psychological anthropology and cultural psychology.

As Kevin Birth states in his introduction (see “The Immanent Past” this issue),approaches to collective memory are burdened by long-standing conceptual

ETHOS, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 325–341, ISSN 0091-2131, electronic ISSN 1548-1352. ©2006 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website,http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

Epilogue: Memory Moments

Geoffrey White

326 ETHOS

dichotomies of individual–society and psychology–culture that separate personalcognition and emotion from social, political, and historical process (Cole 2004;Wertsch 2002; White 2000b). The articles in this issue suggest that much ofthe utility of research on “collective,” “social,” or “public” memory has to doprecisely with its ability to traverse those oppositions and trouble the discipli-nary boundaries that sustain them. Such familiar binaries as mind–society,private–public, and agency–structure have been reproduced and policed througha long history of disciplinary insularity in the social sciences (as well as throughthe wider customary division between the social sciences and humanities).Looking broadly at 20th-century social science, one may trace multiple genealo-gies of memory studies, with a psychological tradition finding its intellectualheirs in Frederic C. Bartlett (1932) and Soviet psychology (Luria et al. 1979)and a sociological tradition descended from Émile Durkheim through MauriceHalbwachs (Coser 1992) and Walter Benjamin et al. (1994). Whereas a morecomplicated intellectual history remains to be done, the former paradigm isevident today in the work of cultural psychologists such as Jerome Bruner(1990), Michael Cole (1971), David Middleton and Derek Edwards (1990), andJames V. Wertsch (2000, 2002); and the sociological tradition plays out in thewritings of many historians and anthropologists concerned with collective rep-resentations of the past (e.g., Connerton 1989; Nora 1989). Indeed, echoes ofthese distinct traditions are evident in the different writing styles and method-ological choices brought to the studies collected here—varying from thecultural historical analyses of Elizabeth Ferry and Jason James to the moreexperience-near approaches of Birth, Jennifer Cole, and Kyoko Murakami andDavid Middleton. The fact that these multiple approaches are in conversationaround common problems of social memory is one of the important develop-ments marked by this collection.

Although differing in their styles of analysis, the studies gathered here all chal-lenge dichotomies of psychology and culture evident in the divergent traditionsof sociological and psychological work on memory. They do so by foreground-ing processes that take cognition (and emotion) out of the head at the sametime as they “mess up” structural accounts of collective memory with bodies,feelings, and experience. In this regard, psychological anthropology—positionedon the edges of cultural anthropology with its ambivalent (dis)engagementwith the “psychological”—has the opportunity to develop new conversationswith other anthropologists who now find topics of memory and emotion to be

critical to their interests in the operations of culture and power. By the sametoken, these conversations may also extend outward to include colleagues inpsychology who find their field’s historical lack of attention to political and his-torical structures an impediment to research on cognition, memory, and emotionas social action.

Despite disciplinary boundaries, there are numerous examples of previouswork that has sought to complicate these binaries by examining connectionsbetween the more personal thought worlds of individuals and larger sociopoliti-cal structures shaping collective memory. Important convergences of theory andmethod are evident in recent work in discursive psychology (Brockmeier 2002;Wertsch 2002), ethnographies of social memory (Antze and Lambek 1996;Bloch 1998; Boyarin 1992; Cole 2001; Rappaport 1998; Stewart 1996; Stoller1995; Yoneyama 1999) and, to a lesser extent, interdisciplinary writing on pub-lic culture in literary and media studies (Bal et al. 1999; Boym 2001; Hodgkinand Radstone 2003; Huyssen 2003; Sturken 1997). Consider, for example,psychological research on “flashbulb memories”—the term used to describelong-term recall for the circumstances in which individuals first hear the newsof shocking historical events, such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy or,more recently, September 11, 2001 (9/11). Contrary to the conjecture thatthese phenomena (observed across generations and ethnicities) could beexplained in physiological terms, Ulric Neisser (1982) argued that the intensi-fication of personal memory follows from the increased salience of personalexperiences that intersect with significant events in history. In other words, thearticulation of personal experience and larger social histories has systematiceffects on recall as well as the personal meaning of historical events.

However, even though the research on flashbulb memories is concerned withremembering in natural contexts, it has remained largely focused on the cogni-tive parameters of memory. When documenting differences in the socialdistribution of event memories across ethnic and generational lines, psycho-logical research has not investigated the sociopolitical or historical factorsunderlying comparative differences in remembering and forgetting. In contrast,anthropology, with its master concepts of culture and cultural reproduction,has been primarily interested in differences in historical consciousness, tempo-rality, and the like. In fact, anthropologists can be said to have been working oncollective memory all along, although without focusing on acts of rememberingor explicitly historical discourse.

EPILOGUE 327

In general, then, anthropological studies of memory appear to constitute theobverse of the psychological: collective representation with little exploration ofpersonal or subjective worlds. Where anthropologists have focused directly onacts of personal remembering, this has often been through work on life histo-ries (e.g., Frank 2000; Myerhoff 1992; Watson 2000). Although research on lifehistories is a mainstay of the ethnographic toolkit, the standard approach of“doing life histories” by interviewing individuals in private—separated fromordinary contexts for remembering or representing the self—illustrates thecontinuing force of models that separate the individual from the collective, orthe psychological from the sociocultural. Research on life histories or life storiesthat has taken an interest in the discursive means of self representation opensup questions about uses of the remembered past to craft identities and negoti-ate social and emotional realities (Desjarlais 2003; Holland and Lave 2001;Peacock and Holland 1993; Smith 2004; White 2000a; Wilce 1998). Interest-ingly, a significant line of work in this area has come from the disciplines oflinguistics and psychology rather than anthropology (see Linde 1993; Nelsonand Horowitz 2001; Ochs and Capps 2001).

Given the fragmented state of interdisciplinary memory studies, the articlescollected here are remarkable for their integration of psychology and anthro-pology and for significant areas of overlap in theory and method. Despitedifferences in approach, these convergences are suggestive of the potential formore focused work in the future as problems and vocabularies start to coalescein multidisciplinary projects. Broadly speaking, these intersections indicatecommon concern with the relevance of the (inter)personal and (inter)subjectivefor social productions of collective pasts as well as with the significance oflarger social histories for the epistemic conditions of personal narrative. Inshort, these articles underscore the importance of a methodological approachthat focuses on the production of memory in context. Interest in the study ofmemory as social action, including the discursive means that people use toactively remember and represent the past, marks a distinctive contribution foranthropological studies within the broader realm of memory studies.

Much of the work on collective memory in history, literature, and the humani-ties is only metaphorically concerned with the experiential dimensions ofmemory. Furthermore, a vast amount of writing on collective memory onlydiscusses decontextualized representations of the past. In a critical review ofthis literature, Kansteiner notes the common lack of reference to audience—a

328 ETHOS

problem that is exacerbated “by the metaphorical use of psychological and neu-rological terminology, which misrepresents the social dynamics of collectivememory as an effect and extension of individual, autobiographical memory”(2002:179). Anthropology’s interest in the social and semiotic construction ofpersons, including autobiography, offers a variety of approaches to just theseissues—issues that involve the articulation of personal worlds with largersociopolitical formations. As Cole has written, “memory connects the individualand private with the social and public in complex ways. As such, memoryremains a key site at which one can witness the multiple ways in which individ-ual subjectivity is tied to larger projects of political struggle and historicaltransformation” (2004:104).

To discuss some of the areas of convergence evident in these studies, I want tobriefly note four themes that crosscut the articles, suggesting frameworks forfurther work. I’ll label these, in no particular order: (1) memory as social action,(2) the politics of memory, (3) the emotionality of memory, and (4) the materi-ality of memory. In all of these themes, memory or, more appropriately, acts ofmemory, are no longer strictly a matter of cognitive process. This is not to saythat cognitive (and physiological) processes are not an integral part of anylarger theory of remembering, only that these studies and the wider field ofmemory studies have expanded the lens to include social practices that mediatehistorical consciousness. The choice of focus here reflects theoretical commit-ments to the crucial role played by social, cultural, and semiotic factors informing understandings of the past and, more generally, the subjectivitieswithin which purposive actors think, feel, and act.

Memory as Social ActionIn his book Voices of Collective Remembering, Wertsch underlines the socialaspects of memory, arguing that “collective remembering is essentially social”(2002:172). He extends Halbwach’s claim that it is “individuals as group mem-bers who remember” (Wertsch 2002:172), by drawing on Bakhtin and conceptsof semiotic mediation to develop a theory linking cognitive process with socio-historical process. Even though Wertsch’s research has focused mainly onhistorical texts (rather than situated talk or performance), he observes that, “thetextual resources we employ in collective remembering always belong to, andhence reflect, a social context and history” (2002:172). The recent rise ofanthropological interest in memory is analogous to the emergence of an

EPILOGUE 329

anthropology of emotion that approaches emotion in contexts where it isexpressed, discussed, and performed in everyday social interaction. Whereasthe study of emotion was once associated with individuated psychologicalanalysis, it is now the subject of a wide array of social, cultural, and politicalresearch (Abu-Lughod and Lutz 1990; Desjarlais and Wilce 2003; Lyon 1995;Reddy 1997). In similar fashion, “memory” or representations of the past nowconstitute topics of interest in anthropology, particularly as cultural forms thatmediate collective identities, especially ethnic and national formations.

All of the articles collected here discuss the essentially social nature of memory,focusing on situated acts of memory in contexts where the past matters.Whether the analysis concerns representations of the past or acts of remem-brance (a term I reserve for processes that involve some measure of recall ofpast experience), these studies approach memory as a process that is alwaysenacted in and through social context. Thus, Birth looks at generational identi-ties and other positional influences on memory to critique psychologisticexplanations that focus only on the cognitive efficacy of memory. He argues for asocial model that sees memorability in terms of intelligibility, communicability,and other factors related to the contextual use of memory. The social-relationalcontexts of and for collective memory are especially evident in Cole’s accountof Malagasy memories of violence that are variously forgotten or mobilized asthey are put to use in nation-state politics.

Just as Cole’s study traces the long-term contours of memory through colonialand postcolonial history, so Ferry and James also bring a social-historical lensto the study of collective memory, examining the operation of ideologies of thepast in terms of present-day political and economic developments. In thesestudies, efforts at historic restoration in urban environments objectify andcommodify national pasts in the context of global flows of capital and ideology.Here, interest in the construction of the past is quite literal, with movements to(re)build architectural monuments fueled by the significance of those sites asicons of imagined communities of culture and nation. Although these authorsdraw more from textual and intertextual sources than from experience-neardata, it is clear that, as sites of and for collective identification, architecturalicons enable acts of imagination associated with evocative narratives. Much ofthe social and emotional force of historical narrative derives from its ability todraw subjects into the dramas of the collective past. Memory as cultural tool ismost poignant and effective when personalized in the stories of individual

330 ETHOS

experience, such as Cole’s account of the Merina story about a young girl gangraped in front of her father or the traumatic wartime experience of Nobel lau-reate Gunter Blobel discussed by James.

By approaching memory as social action, these studies show that representa-tions of the past, if they have any significance for collective identity, are alwaysin some way about the present. Furthermore, this interest in social actiondemonstrates that memory practices are not only about the present; they areused pragmatically to act on the present, to transform emergent social and psy-chological realities. Murakami and Middleton’s study of British war veteransand their narratives of redemption makes this point most clearly. In their study,memory discourse is enacted with an avowedly transformative purpose—toactively rework conflicted memories and emotions, with the possible result ofrapprochement with former enemies and troubled selves. They show that auto-biographical memories of traumatic events and larger global histories ofconflict work to make each other up, with both text and context emerging inacts of remembrance. Their study not only uncovers some of the cultural basesfor the intense emotionality of memorial sites but situates that emotionality inrelation to diverse audiences and histories that underwrite the multivocal andmultivalent character of public memory.

Politics of MemoryAll of the studies in this collection argue that memory must be studied in rela-tion to the things that people actually do with the past. If representations ofhistory (or, more generally, the past) mediate social relations and identities,then they become tools for shaping those identities and, in a more fundamentalway, determining which identities obtain public recognition and validationthrough acts of memory. How and why do some events enter into the realms ofpublic memory? These questions inevitably raise questions about the politics ofcollective memory, questions concerning the absences, deletions, erasures, andsilences that exist in the margins of dominant narratives.

The authors here ask what is at stake in remembering and forgetting. Birth dis-cusses the importance of labor relations for “landmarks” in social history; Coleexamines the long-running presence of structural inequalities coded in ethnicrelations and state violence; Ferry asks who controls and profits from com-modification of the past for tourism; James’s study of the significance of

EPILOGUE 331

“sacred” architectural sites locates German interest in promoting culturalrecovery within the long and complex history of German nationalism (see alsoEidson 2000); and Murakami and Middleton analyze acts of reconciliation asmeans of transforming past injustices and refiguring conflicted relationsmarked by past violence (cf. Matsuki 2000; Thorsten 2002).

Yet, as Murakami and Middleton remind us in their study of war remembrance,context is neither static nor fixed. Both memory and context are emergent,contingent formations. Despite the wish of various paradigms to fix one or theother, neither is given. By recognizing the contingent quality of the culturaloccasions and social contexts in which history is represented, it becomes possi-ble to see more clearly the work done by acts of memory—the pragmatics ofmemory—in defining or fixing contexts, however briefly, in relation to variousdiscourses of identity and collectivity.

Emotionality of MemoryActs of memory and sites of memory are inevitably evocative—marked byexpressions and ideologies of emotion that convey something about the salienceof past events for persons recalling them. Attention to the role of emotion incollective memory carves out a set of issues that fit well the problems and methodsof ethnographic work—issues that span the study of history, on the one hand,and the study of discursive politics, on the other hand (Harkin 2003). In herstudy of Malagasay postcolonial society, Cole (2001) sees emotions as the critical,mediating device linking discursive and bodily forms of expression. As theanthropological literature on emotion has demonstrated, emotions andrhetorics of emotion everywhere constitute a moral language for representingthe social and personal significance of events (Lutz and Abu-Lughod 1990;Desjarlais and Wilce 2003). And, just as research on emotion in ordinary lan-guage exposes its ability to do things in everyday life, so the studies gatheredhere point to the transformative power of acts of memory in shaping social-political realities. In Cole’s words, “any act of remembering is also an act oftransformation” (this issue).

In contexts as diverse as psychotherapy, commemorative practices, urbanrenewal, and truth commissions, emotional stories about the past are used torepresent and transform problems and moral conflicts of all sorts (Cain 1991;Garro 2001; Swora 2001; Wertsch 1997; White 1999). In these articles, Cole’s

332 ETHOS

focus on narratives of political violence, James’s interest in histories of nationalsuffering and redemption, Ferry’s attention to the inalienable ties among per-sons and places, and Murakami and Middleton’s research on veterans’ accountsof redemption are all concerned with struggles over memory that have thepower to shape identities and move people to action. To the general principlethat memory be studied in social contexts, we may add that memory in contextwill always be to some degree emotional, marked by expressions of affect thatsignify something about the meaning and force of past events for those doingthe remembering.

In the vast literature on Holocaust memory and its concern with the contradic-tions of representing the unrepresentable, one finds a surprising dearth ofethnography (but see Boyarin 1992; Myerhoff 1992). In a literature saturatedwith testimonial narrative, interpretations of museums and monuments, andliterary renderings of traumatic experience, one finds few close-up interpretivestudies of the world of survivors and transformations in their experience throughtime (see Cappelletto’s study [2003] of narratives of traumatic violence ofWorld War II for a notable exception). When the communities involved arelargely imagined communities and the field is defined by an epoch in history,anthropologists have been slow to recognize relevant subject matter. By con-trast, in a different case of genocidal violence, the autobiography of RigobertaMenchu (1984), the Mayan woman who received a Nobel Prize for her poignanttestimonial of state violence directed against Indian communities, has attracteda high degree of anthropological interest, spilling across disciplines andnational audiences (Arias 2001). Perhaps because Menchu’s narrative directlyconcerns communities that host anthropological research, and because theautobiography raised issues of cultural truth and authenticity, it has sparked along-running exchange attempting to evaluate the significance of Menchu’snarrative as a culturally constituted mode of (collective) self-representation. Atissue are a host of questions, many yet unresolved, regarding the tools andethics of the anthropology of memory in areas that, in this case, became thesubject of a national truth commission.

Materiality of MemoryThe shared commitment to the study of memory in social context nonethelessallows a great deal of latitude in methodological choices evident in these articles.Whereas all are in some sense ethnographic and based on fieldwork, some utilize

EPILOGUE 333

focused interviewing with a limited sample of informants (“Past Times” Birth thisissue; Murakami and Middleton this issue), whereas others choose to ground theirwork in specific sites and scenes in which the past is represented in organizedactivities enacted on formal and informal occasions. Examples of this strategyinclude Cole’s focus on tumultuous political events; Ferry’s discussion of city struc-tures, including tourist sites such as a converted mine used to narrate an idealizedpast; James’s discussion of plans to rebuild Dresden’s Frauenkirsch (Church of OurLady) as an object of cultural heritage, and Murakami and Middleton’s interest inmemorial sites that function as sites of pilgrimage for veterans returning to thinkand feel their way through war experiences.

Once memory studies began to take context seriously, it was inevitable that theplaces and practices in which the past is produced would also be seen as iconicmediators of the past. In places where certain sites are cultivated through timeas locations for the repeated production of meaning and emotion, it becomespossible to study the ecology of memory as encoded in the objects, texts, andactivities produced at such focal sites. Here the physical and social spaces ofmemorial sites offer a number of strategies for ethnographic research on theproduction of emotional meaning, exemplified by the study of Murakami andMiddleton. Although textual readings of memorial sites often treat them as fixedin time and space, it is the enactment of collective memory practices at suchlocations that gives them cultural and emotional significance. The post–9/11World Trade Center site offers a poignant example of a space of loss thatfunctioned as a memorial site long before plans for memorial architecture wereput forward (Sturken 2004; White 2004).

Ethnography in the Global MemoryscapeSeveral years ago Wertsch commented that, “Until we obtain some clarity [onthe meanings of collective remembering], we are likely to continue to havetrouble engaging in productive debate, especially debate that extends acrossdisciplines and intellectual traditions” (2002:171). The points of convergenceevident in the articles collected here suggest that a framework for “productivedebate across disciplines and intellectual traditions” may now be emerging.For all their diversity, these studies suggest avenues for more focused work oncollective memory in its varied dimensions, from the intimate worlds of per-sonal memory to state-sponsored histories, and the electronically mediated

334 ETHOS

representations of cyberspace. More importantly, these convergences suggestgreater recognition of possible linkages between diverse strands of memorystudies and some of the big questions that guide research in the border zones ofculture and psychology.

The diverse strategies applied by authors in this collection invoke and, poten-tially, integrate a variety of disciplinary perspectives and methodologies, fromwork on cultural models (Quinn 2005) to constructions of emotion (Lutz andAbu-Lughod 1999; Desjarlais and Wilce 2003), and narrative practices of(collective) self-representation (Mattingly and Garro 2000; Wertsch 2002;Wilce 2004). It is arguable that this confluence of approaches anticipates aresearch trajectory capable of producing a clearer articulation of issues of long-standing interest. A number of the tensions and polarities discussed here inrelation to historical memory are already evident in ongoing research on topicssuch as cognition, emotion, self, and person. For example, where ethnographiesof person or self have produced general recognition of the utility of analyzingsocial-emotional realities in context (Desjarlais 1997; Hollan and Wellenkamp1996; Holland and Lave 2001), the present issue exemplifies agreement on theimportance of studying formations of collective memory in relation to the pol-itics and emotions of everyday life. Consistent with the pragmatic turn inpsychological anthropology (Desjarlais and O’Nell 1999), today’s anthropologyof memory asks what acts of memory do in the emotionalized and politicizedspaces of public life.

Much of the potential for future work on the anthropology of history andmemory follows from the observation that people everywhere talk about history,consume images of the past, and variously engage in acts of social remembering.The cultural salience of these activities is often marked by institutionalizedframes of and for memory, including ritual occasions, architectural markers,and discursively marked histories of all kinds. To engage in the critical inter-pretive analysis of these sorts of complex cultural production will require anethnographic toolkit capable of tracking diverse means for expanding the mindthrough intersubjective processes, spatiotemporal extensions, and materialrepositories of knowledge and memory. We need to ask what is the relativeutility of applying various types of cultural analysis to the social practices,embodied emotions, and material landscapes that evoke and shape memory as atool capable of moving individuals and communities alike.

EPILOGUE 335

It is apparent that the past has a robust future. Despite persistent pronouncementsabout the end of history in the post–Cold War world, or perhaps because ofsuch pronouncements, recent decades have seen the rise of memory discourseeverywhere, from movements toward cultural recovery in new nations to theinvocations of history as an idiom for resurgent patriotism in the post-9/11United States. Among the more acute examples of contemporary memory dis-course are the persistent conflicts that surround World War II history. Despitethe fact that more than 60 years have passed since the formal end of that con-flict, the global public sphere is filled more than ever with the voices ofveterans, citizens, and “survivors”—all quickly passing from the scene. Today’ssurvivor discourse, ranging from the testimonials of combat veterans to agingwomen once pressed into sexual slavery, to Holocaust survivors or hibakusha(atomic bomb victims), demonstrates the power of personal narratives to evokestrong emotions and fuel movements for redress and redemption.

Even as these memory politics continue to unfold, today’s events of genocidalwar, terrorist attacks, and state-sponsored violence demand new forms ofethnographic and historical inquiry. These topics are at once intensely per-sonal, national, and global. The scope of anthropological research, capable offocusing on the affective textures of personal experience as well as the broadsweep of social and political formations through time, is well suited to researchin these difficult areas. Although we are a long way from having an adequateresearch paradigm to undertake coordinated work on the social and emotionaldynamics of collective memory, including memories of violence, the articlesassembled here take modest steps toward the creation of a framework that canguide work in these critical areas as well as the less visible spaces of everydaylife familiar to anthropology’s notebooks.

GEOFFREY WHITE is Professor in the Department of Anthropology at University ofHawai`i.

NoteAcknowledgments. I am grateful to Kevin Birth and all the participants in the “History and

Memory” symposium for ideas and discussions that inform this article. Although none of them

necessarily endorse views herein, I have learned much from their individual contributions and from

our collective conversation. I would also like to thank Janet Keller and two reviewers for this journal,

including Gelya Frank, for their wise comments and criticism.

336 ETHOS

References CitedAbu-Lughod, Lila, and Catherine Lutz

1990 Introduction: Emotion, Discourse, and the Politics of Everyday Life. In Languageand the Politics of Emotion. Catherine Lutz and Lila Abu- Lughod, eds. Pp. 1–23.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Antze, Paul, and Michael Lambek, eds.1996 Tense Past: Cultural Essays in Trauma and Memory. New York: Routledge.

Arias, Arturo, ed.2001 The Rigoberta Menchu Controversy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bal, Mieke, Jonathan V. Crewe, and Leo Spitzer, eds.1999 Acts of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present. Hanover, NH: University Press

of New England.Bartlett, Frederic C.

1932 Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Benjamin, Walter, Gershom Gerhard Scholem, and Theodor W. Adorno1994 The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910–1940. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Bloch, Maurice

1998 How We Think They Think: Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory,and Literacy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Boyarin, Jonathan1992 Storm from Paradise: The Politics of Jewish Memory. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.Boym, Svetlana

2001 The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.Brockmeier, Jens

2002 Introduction: Searching for Cultural Memory. Special Issue of Culture andPsychology on Narrative and Cultural Memory 8(1):5–14.

Bruner, Jerome1990 Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cain, Carole1991 Personal Stories: Identity Acquisition and Self-Understanding in Alcoholics

Anonymous. Ethos 19(2):210–253.Cappelletto, Francesca

2003 Long-Term Memory of Extreme Events: From Autobiography to History.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.) 9(2):241–260.

Cole, Jennifer2001 Forget Colonialism?: Sacrifice and the Art of Memory in Madagascar. Berkeley:

University of California Press.2004 Memory and Modernity. In A Companion to Psychological Anthropology.

Conerly Casey and Robert Edgerton, eds. Pp. 103–120. Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing.

Cole, Michael1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking: An Exploration in Experimental

Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

EPILOGUE 337

Connerton, Paul1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coser, Lewis A., ed.1992 Maurice Halbwachs on Collective Memory. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Desjarlais, Robert

1997 Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood among the Homeless. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.

2003 Sensory Biographies: Lives and Deaths among Nepal’s Yolmo Buddhists.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Desjarlais, Robert, and Theresa O’Nell, eds.1999 The Pragmatic Turn in Psychological Anthropology. Theme issue, Ethos 27(4).

Desjarlais, Robert, and James Wilce2003 The Cultural Construction of Emotion. In The Oxford India Companion to Soci-

ology and Social Anthropology. Veena Das, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Eidson, John

2000 Which Past for Whom?: Local Memory in a German Community Duringthe Era of Nation Building. Theme Issue, “History and Subjectivity,” Ethos28(4):575–607.

Frank, Gelya2000 Venus on Wheels: Two Decades of Dialogue on Disability, Biography, and

Being Female in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Garro, Linda

2001 The Remembered Past in a Culturally Meaningful Life: Remembering as aCultural, Social, and Cognitive process. In The Psychology of Cultural Experience.C. Moore and H. Mathews, eds. Pp. 105–147. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Gedi, Noa, and Yigal Elam1996 Collective Memory—What Is It? History and Memory 8(1):30–50.

Harkin, Michael E.2003 Feeling and Thinking in Memory and Forgetting: Toward an Ethnohistory of

the Emotions. Ethnohistory 50(2):261–284.Hodgkin, Katharine, and Susannah Radstone

2003 Contested Pasts: The Politics of Memory. New York: Routledge.Hollan, D. W., and J. C. Wellenkamp

1996 The Thread of Life: Toraja Reflections on the Life Cycle. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai`i Press.

Holland, Dorothy C., and Jean Lave2001 History in Person: Enduring Struggles, Contentious Practice, Intimate Identities.

Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Huyssen, Andreas

2003 Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Irwin-Zarecka, Iwona1994 Frames of Remembrance: The Dynamics of Collective Memory. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

338 ETHOS

Kansteiner, Wulf2002 Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory

Studies. History and Theory 41(2):179–197.Kenny, Michael

1999 A Place for Memory: The Interface between Individual and Collective History.Comparative Studies in Society and History 41(3):420.

Klein, Kerwin Lee2000 On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse. Representations

69(Winter):127.Linde, Charlotte

1993 Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.Luria, A. R., Michael Cole, and Sheila Cole

1979 The Making of Mind: A Personal Account of Soviet Psychology. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Lutz, Catherine, and Lila Abu-Lughod, eds.1990 Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyon, Margot L.1995 Missing Emotion: The Limitations of Cultural Constructionism in the Study of

Emotion. Cultural Anthropology 10(2):244–263.Matsuki, Keiko

2000 Negotiation of Memory and Agency in Japanese Oral Narrative Accountsof Wartime Experiences. Theme Issue, “History and Subjectivity,” Ethos 28(4):534–550.

Mattingly, Cheryl, and Linda C. Garro, eds.2000 Narrative and the Cultural Construction of Illness and Healing. Berkeley: University

of California Press.Menchu, Rigoberta

1984 I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. Elisabeth Burgos-Debray,ed. London: Verso.

Middleton, David, and Derek Edwards1990 Collective Remembering. London: Sage Publications.

Myerhoff, Barbara1992 Remembered Lives: The Work of Ritual, Storytelling, and Growing Older. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Neisser, Ulric

1982 Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Nelson, K. L., and L. M. Horowitz2001 Narrative Structure in Recounted Sad Memories. Discourse Processes

31(3):307–324.Nora, Pierre

1989 Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations 26(Spring):7–25.

Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps2001 Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

EPILOGUE 339

Peacock, James L., and Dorothy C. Holland1993 The Narrated Self: Life Stories in Process. Ethos 21(4):367–383.

Quinn, Naomi, ed.2005 Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods. New York: Palgrave.

Rappaport, Joanne1998 The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian

Andes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Reddy, William M.

1997 Against Constructionism: The Historical Ethnography of Emotions. CurrentAnthropology 38(3):327–351.

Smith, Andrea L.2004 Heteroglossia, “Common Sense,” and Social Memory. American Ethnologist

31(2):251–269.Stewart, Kathleen

1996 A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an “Other” America.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stoller, Paul1995 Embodying colonial memories: Spirit Possession, Power, and the Hauka in

West Africa. New York: Routledge.Sturken, Marita

1997 Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics ofRemembering. Berkeley: University of California Press.

2004 The Aesthetics of Absence: Rebuilding Ground Zero. American Ethnologist31(3):311–325.

Swora, Maria Gabrielle2001 Commemoration and the Healing of Memories in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Ethos 29(1):58–77.Thorsten, Marie

2002 Treading the Tiger’s Tail: Pearl Harbor Veteran Reunions in Hawai`i and Japan.Cultural Values: Journal of Cultural Research 6(3):317–340.

Watson, C. W.2000 Of Self and Nation: Autobiography and the Representation of Modern Indonesia.

Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press.Wertsch, James V.

1997 Introduction: Narrative Tools of History and Identity. Culture and Psychology3(1):5–20.

2000 Narratives as Cultural Tools in Sociocultural Analysis: Official History inSoviet and Post-Soviet Russia. Theme issue, “History and Subjectivity,” Ethos28(4):511–533.

2002 Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.White, Geoffrey M.

1999 Emotional Remembering: The Pragmatics of National Memory. Ethos 27(4):505–529.

2000a Afterword: Lives and Histories. In Identity Work: Constructing PacificLives. P. Stewart and A. Strathern, eds. Pp. 172–187. Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press.

340 ETHOS

2000b Histories and Subjectivities. Theme Issue, “History and Subjectivity,” Ethos28(4):493–510.

2004 National Subjects: Pearl Harbor and September 11. American Ethnologist31(3):293–310.

Wilce, James M.1998 Eloquence in Trouble: The Poetics and Politics of Complaint in Rural

Bangladesh. New York: Oxford University Press.2004 Narrative Transformations. In A Companion to Psychological Anthropology.

Conerly Casey and Robert Edgerton, eds. Pp. 123–139. Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing.

Yelvington, Kevin A.2002 History, Memory and Identity: A Programmatic Prolegomenon. Critique of

Anthropology 22(3):227–256.Yoneyama, Lisa

1999 Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space, and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley:University of California Press.

EPILOGUE 341