kolektif-sosyal hafıza ayrımı

8/2/2019 kolektif-sosyal hafıza ayrımı

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kolektif-sosyal-hafiza-ayrimi 1/16

Social Thought & Commentary: The Abuses of Memory: Reflections on the Memory Boom inAnthropologyAuthor(s): David BerlinerReviewed work(s):Source: 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/4150896 .

Accessed: 18/03/2012 16:30

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].

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150896?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150896?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer



SOCIAL HOUGHT COMMENTARY

T h e A b u s e s o f M e m o r y :

Reflectionso n

t h e M e m o r y B o o m

i n Anthropology'

DavidBerliner

Harvard niversity

n recent years, studies of memory have blossomed in the humanities.

(Klein2000, Radstone2000, Zelizer1995)2 Inanthropologyin particular,a

vast numberof scholars are currentlyoccupied with research about memory.

(Candau1998, Climoand Cattell2002, Olickand Robbins1998)Thelist of con-

tributions in this recent field of researchis 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 unthinkable20 years ago. Also,con-

ferences and workshopsare being organizedwith a special focus on memory

issues, something that would also have been unthinkable 20 yearsago.3

However,they are many unsettled areas in the field of memory studies.

Historianshave indeedbegun warning

usagainst

the"terminologicalprofu-sion" and the "semanticoverload"of the notion (Kansteiner 002, Klein2000).

Gillis observes that "memoryseems to be losing precise meaning in propor-

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

cogently writes,

197



TheAbuses f Memory: eflectionsn theMemory oom nAnthropology

"The nlyfixedpoint s the nearubiquity f the term[memory].ust s

we use wordslike love and hate without everknowing heir full or

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

ry,"he historicalignature f ourgeneration"Winter000:13).

From he idea that"asocietyor a culture anremember ndforget" Are ot

only individuals apableof remembering?)4o the widelyused notion of

"vicariousmemory"5'nd the questionable alidity f the notionof memoryinapproachingertain rans-culturalontexts,6 broad angeof fundamental

epistemologicalssuesare stillto be raisedwithregardo memory.The pointthat I would like to emphasizehereconcerns he "danger f

overextension"f theconcept.Aconceptosingprecisemeaning,memoryan

also be approached s an expansivenotion.ForGediand Elam,"'collective

memory'hasbecome he all-pervadingonceptwhich n effectstands orall

sortsof humancognitiveproducts enerally"Gedi& Elam 996:40).Inpar-

ticular,historianshave alreadyunderscoredhe risksof entanglement f

memoryand identity Gillis 994, Megill1998).Someanthropologists,oo,

startedexpressing oncernsabout the "dangers f overextensionhat areinherentnthe currentboomof memory"Fabian 999:51).ForFabian,he

"concept f memorymaybecomeindistinguishablerom eitheridentity r

culture"ibid:51).JonathanBoyarinoncurs,noting hat"identitynd mem-

oryarevirtuallyhe same"Boyarin994:23).Inthisessay, contend hat he

currentusageof the notionbyanthropologistsan be a sourceof confusion

as ittendsto encompassmany eatures f the notionof culture tself. arguethat this processof conceptualextension eadingto the entanglement f

memory nd culturemerits arefulcrutinys ittells us a greatdealabout he

anthropologicalroject.Needlesso say,Iwillraisemanyquestions ndgive

very ew answers.Thispieceshouldbetakenasanepistemologicalhallengerather han a pessimistic eproach.

Memory n Anthropology:a HistoricalPerspectiveItisunfortunatehattherehasnotbeen

yeta

history, genealogyf the con-

ceptof memorynanthropology,hereasheongoingobsessionwithmemo-

ryin the humanities has been abundantlydocumented. In a powerfularticle,

Kleinreminds us that

198



DAVID ERLINER

"Memoryrew ncrediblymarginal, nd in 1964 TheDictionaryf the

Social Sciencesclaimed that the word verged on extinction [...] The

1968 Editionof the InternationalEncyclopediaof the Social Sciences

declined o definememoryat all, despitethe luxuryof stretchingts

contentsout for 7 volumes.By1976 [...] RaymondWilliams'slassic

study, Keywords,[...] ignored memory. [...] Little more than two

decades separate memory'svirtual disappearanceand triumphalreturn"Klein 000:131).

Toexplainhistriumphaleturn, istorianayWinter asshown hatthereare

"distinctiveourcesof the contemporarybsessionwith memory hat ariseout of a multiplicityf social,cultural,medical,and economic rendsand

developments f an eclecticbutintersecting ature"Winter000:1). Many

factorshistorical,ocialandsocietal)havebeen invoked o explainhe emer-

genceof thememory onceptn the humanities: boveall theShoah Lacapra

1998),butalso the influenceof identitypoliticsn the U.S, he marketingf

memoryandretro-mania,he reassessmentf national dentities n Europe

(Klein2000).FrenchanthropologistoelCandaudescribesour present-day

obsessionwithmemoryunder he term"mnemotropisme."ccordingo him,thismnemotropismes"aproblemnidentity ausedbyour ncapacityo mas-

ter theanxiety f loss" Candau998:104,mytranslation).nvadedby"apro-fuseproductionf information,magesandtraces"ibid:105,my ranslation).Candaurgues,oursociety s lesscapableof transmittingmemoryhanoth-

ers,and more obsessedwithit. In the samevein, Baxterunderlines,n the

Businessf Memory,hat"fetishizingmemorys manifestingtselfin a socie-

tywherewearetryingo copewith nformation-gluthatDavid hrenk alled

the 'data mog"'Baxter999:vii).Intheacademicworld,he memoryboomstarted ecentlyn history, rin-

cipallyncultural istory.PierreNora 1989) ndJanAssman1995) re known

as thefathers f thememory razeamonghistorians.n hewakeof the"post-modernist urn"and the deconstructionf the meta-texts,tudentsof the

humanities aveproduced adevastatingritique f the totalizing spectsof

historical iscourse"Klein000:128).Aconcept losero experiencen its con-

notations,memory"

efers o thepast

as it is livedby

thesocialagents Dosse1999,Ricoeur001).Itis definedas morehumanandsubjective,nd the his-

torian becomes interested less in the reliabilityof memorythan in the memo-

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

ance,"(Jing1996: 16)and criticalof the oralhistorypractice n the early1980s,

199




the PopularMemoryGrouplsoplayed crucial ole norientinghe attention

of scholarsowardshe "nature ndprocessesf remembering,s muchas the

contentsof the memories...]"(Thomson,risch nd Hamilton 994:34).It istemptingo understandhe success f memory monganthropologists

inthe lightof the postmodernisturnand the ragingmemory/historyebate

in the humanities, s theybothaffectedourdiscipline.Recent nthropologi-cal studieshave indeedabandonedhe suspicious ttitude owardmemorythatpreviouslyharacterized anyhistorieslike hoseof Vansina1980)or

example)ora morephenomenologicalpproach,whichconsists f capturing

the way people perceive:hey remember,orgetand reinterpretheirown

pasts.This ocuson historyas it is lived,on the remembrancesharedandtransmitted ysocialgroupshasshown hatpeopleexperience ndinterpret

theirpasts roma multiplicityf viewpoints. ucha perspective, hichdocu-

mentsthe existenceof multipleand sometimesantagonisticisionsof the

pastwithin he samesociety,hasbeencopiouslydevelopednanthropologi-cal studiessince the 1980s.A bouquetof writings pringso mind,such as

those,amongmanyothers,of Appadurai1981),Bloch 1998),Boyarin1991),Cohn 1995),Cole 2001),Dakhlia1990),Hastrup1992),Herzfeld1991), ing

(1996),Kilani1992),Lapierre2001),Rappaport1990),Rosaldo1980),Stolerand Strassler2000)and Tonkin 1992).Furthermore,ome of these recent

workshavebeguntreatinghe bodyas a "vital ite of memory,"Strathern1996:29)such as those colonialmemories xploredbyBloch n Madagascar

(1998)and Stollern Niger 1995).Anotherpateof writings n memory nd

its relationshipo places Feldand Basso1996)andobjects Radley 990) s

alsoemerginghesedays,emphasizinghe waybothplacesandobjects on-

tribute o materializendividual iographynd sharedhistory.

The Overextensionof Memory:Memoryand Culture

Today,mostanthropologistsse the notionof memoryo refer o the social

rememberingf precise istoricaland ometimesraumatic)ventsandexperi-ences.Theyunderstandt asanextremelyocialactivity yvirtue f whichone

registers,etains nd revisits ventsandexperiences. ut, ormanyanthropolo-

gists,eaders f

Halbwachs,ora,ConnertonndBastide s

well,memorysalso

understoodoughlys the"persistencefsomethingrom hepast nto hepres-

ent"(Halbwachs 994 [1925],mytranslation) r, in otherwords,when "apartic-

ular past perseveresbecause it remains relevantfor latercultural ormations"

(Olick& Robbins1998:129).Thelabel"memory"imsto grasp he pastwe carry,

200



DAVID ERLINER

howweareshapedby t andhow hispast stransmitted.herefore,very ittle

traceofthe"pastnthepresent"sdesignatedsmemory.Here,here s neither

perceptionorremembering. emorys not seen as a setof representationsf

eventsandexperienceshatareshared,butas theway astingracesof thepast

persistwithinus, as the transmissionnd persistence f cultural lements

throughhegenerations.Memorys not theseseriesof recalledmental mages,buta synonymorculturaltorage fthepast: t is thereproductionf thepastin the present,hisaccumulatedastwhichacts on us and makesus act.As

PierreNoraputit,"Collectiveemorys whatremainsrom he past ngroups'

life,orwhatgroups o with hepast"Nora 972:398,my ranslation).

For nstance,hisis particularlylear n the powerful ookbyJunJingTheTemplef Memories,here heauthor mployheword"memory"o refero the

"meticulousemembrancef pasteventsand persons"romthe Communist

political ersecutionra(Jing 996:17)aswellas to describehecontemporary

"resurgencef popular eligion"ibid:173) n the Chinese illageof Dachuan.

Thenotionof memoryhelpsJing,nstead f mourninghe passing f tradition-

alsociety,othinkhroughhepersistencef hisobject fstudy,hat s therepro-duction f Kongocietyhroughimedespitedramatichangesncontext:

"Thetoryof Dachuannd its Confuciusemple,"ewrites, ...] "isone

of proud ndinnovative eople ryingo rebuildheir ifeaftergrievousassaultson their culturaldentity,ense of history, ndreligiousaith"

(ibid: 2).

Itis as if,afterhavingbeen uncertain bouthowpracticesouldbe transmit-

ted in such tormentedmodernworldswhere"savages" ere supposed o

"vanish,"nthropologistsealized hat the pastdoes notevaporate,butper-sists nmultipleways.Here,"collectivememory"eferso the memoryof the

society,tsability o reproducetselfthroughime.

Tothe best of my knowledge,he contemporarynthropologicalse of

memorys hoveringbetweenhistory s it is livedby peopleand those issues

of culturalpersistence.As Battagliaput it, "thestudyof "socialmemory"

addressesproblemsn the "livinghistory"ndongoing ulturalraditionsfcollectivities

f persons"Battaglia992:

14, myemphasis).Atthe sametime

the term stands n for remembrancef pastevents and experiences nd a

"past"ransmittedand stored (like in a computer,without meaningor

remembering).Indeed, byvirtue of its semantic multidimensionality,memo-

ryis an expansive label that seems to migrateinto different places. Infact, as

201



TheAbuses f Memory: eflectionsn theMemory oomnAnthropology

wetrack heusagesof theconcept,tbecomes lear hatwecanobserve dif-

fusionof the problem f memorynto thegeneralprocess f culture.

Tosuggestwhat I havein mind,let me offerone illuminatingxample

from he recentbookeditedbyClimo ndCattell, ocialMemoryndHistory:

Anthropologicalpproaches.n her contributiono the volume,"ExploringVenuesof SocialMemory,"aroleCrumley eginsbyasking wo questions:"One earnsculture,but how?Which lementsand events of everydayife

transmitvalues, beliefs,techniques,strategies?"Climoand Cattell2002:

39).Shehenproposes definition f socialmemory:

"Socialmemory",he writes,"is the meansby whichinformationstransmittedmong ndividual ndgroupsandfromone generationo

another.Notnecessarilyware hattheyaredoingso, individuals asson theirbehaviors nd attitudes o others nvarious ontextsbutespe-

cially hrough motionalandpracticalies andin relationshipsmong

generations ...] Touse an analogy romphysics, ocialmemoryacts

likea carrierwave,transmittingnformation vergenerations egard-lessof the degreeto whichparticipantsreawareof their roles n the

process"ibid:40).

Accordingly,ocial memorycorrespondso those "community ercep-

tions, attitudes, behaviors,values and institutions"hat "aretransmitted

acrossgenerations"ibid:40).Thethingto noteaboutCrumley'sext is that

itsdefinitionof memorys so broad hat it becomes ncreasinglympossibleto discern he boundaries f the notion.Indeed,whatis notmemoryhen?

Besides, f memorys howthe past persistsnand invests he present,being

everythingndeverywhere,f it is definedas"thepattern-maintenanceunc-

tionof societyor as socialreproduction erse"(Olick&Robbins 998:112),then isn'tmemoryhe process f culture tself?Isthat notwhat he conceptof culture s all about?

But"how hese collectivememoriesdifferfromanything lse learned,"

askscogentlyCrapanzano2004:156)?Onemight ndeed be puzzledbythe

similarity f Crumley'sefinitionwith the initialdefinitionof culturepro-

posednthe fifties

byKluckhonndKroeber:

"Culture,"hey say,"consistsof patterns,explicitand implicit,of and for

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

embodiment in artifacts; he essential core of culture consists of tradi-

202



DAVID ERLINER

tional(i.e. historicallyerivedandselected) deas andespeciallyheir

attachedvalues;culture ystemsmay,on the one hand,be considered

as products f action,on the otherhand as conditioninglements of

furtheraction"Kroeber Kluckholn952:357).

Mympressionere sthat,bya dangerousctof expansion,memory raduallybecomes verything hich s transmittedcross enerations,verythingtored

inculture, almostndistinguishable"henfrom heconcept f culturetself.

ContinuityAsmanytheoristshavepointedout, the memorycrazein historyand the

social ciences anbeseen as a consequence f thepostmodernisturn.Pierre

Norahimselfobserveshat "thecollectivememorys a recenthistorical rob-

lem" Nora1972:400, mytranslation).However,herehasto be more o the

story f one is to understandts successamonganthropologists.ome, the

memoryboom in anthropologys not a surprise,nor is memoryonly an

invention f the postmodernisturn.Indeed,accordingo White,

"Toanthropologists,he spateof recentwritingon collectivememory

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

approachesoculture ndidentity ommonlypursuedn ethnographic

research n narrative,itualpractice,ifehistories, nd so forth"White1996:495, myemphasis).

Withoutminimizinghe crucial mpactof the postmodernisturn since

the 1980s, I wouldliketo suggestthat we can, and perhaps hould,also

understand he successof memoryamonganthropologistss an avatarof

the never-endingebateaboutthecontinuity ndreproductionf society. n

particular,findthattheconceptualnterferencesetweenmemoryand cul-

tureteach usa greatdeal aboutthe wayanthropologistsonceptualizeoci-

etyandculture.

Inanthropology,wooft-ignoreduthors an be seenaspioneersn the field

ofmemory

tudies.ThenameofJackGoody

sassociatedwith he first tudies

of memory. nspired y research boutbardicperformances, oody howed

that there is no idea of a fixed model text to serve as a ritualistguide. Thereis

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

Goodywas not interested n "popularmemory,"but rather n the exactitudeof

203



TheAbuses f Memory: eflectionsntheMemory oom nAnthropology

rememberingnd memorization. owever,yfocusing n thesuccessiveepe-titionsof onemythand itsmetamorphoses,isresearch ealtprecisely ith he

processes ndconditions f learning ndthe transmissionf culture.Also,we

shouldpaya specialattention o theworkof RogerBastidewhois usuallyor-

gotten n memory tudies.8Analyzinghe vestiges f African ulturen Brazil,

Bastide1970)builthiswholework round heconcept f collectivememoryo

describereligiousyncretistichenomena, specially hrough ensory-motorrecollectionsfAfricanites nSouth-Americanontexts.

Goody nd Bastidewereverymuchconcernedwith ssuesofwhathasbeen

called he presentist malleability"f the past,andthe"bricolage"imension

of ourrelationshipoward t. However,he initialemphasisntheirworksasin the works f Halbwachs)son the continuance nd transmissionfsociety.Howpractices e-enact,modifyand conserve"pastness"hroughime is the

mainanthropologicalssue hattheyweredealingwith.Insofars it is defined

as a faculty hat sustainscontinuity,he notionof memoryhelpedthemto

think hroughhose issuesof cultural onservationnd socialcontinuity. or

Connerton,whose work (like Halbwachs')as been highlyinfluential n

anthropology,memory s alsoan idealentrypointto engagewithissuesof

cultural ontinuity:

"Whereasome dominantcontemporaryrends in socialtheory,"he

writes,"areoften criticized n theground hattheydo notaddress, r

addressnadequately,hefactof socialchange, shallseekto highlightthe wayin whichsuchtheoriesare oftendefectivebecausetheyare

unableto treatadequatelyhe fact of socialpersistence"Connerton1989:39-40).

Ina revealingway,memory,s it is usedbyanthropologists,s notthisfrag-ileand unreliablememoryhatembarrasseduspicious istoriansn thepast.

Todaymore hanever,memorys on the side of continuity, ermanencend

"retention"Crapanzano004). Foranthropologists,here is nothingnew

aboutthese ideas. Hasanthropology ot alwaysbeen concernedwith the

retentionof the old, sinceinitialevolutionistmphasison "survivals,"hese

vestigesof older customs hat resisted volution,o the theoriesof cultural

transmission y Herskovits?s not the "anthropologyf knowledge"evel-

oped by Barth(1990)another example of the same set of paradigmatic nter-

ests with culturalreproduction? nthese dayswhen the Bourdieusianhabitus

dominates our intellectualenvironment,debates about the continuityof soci-

204



DAVID ERLINER

etyand of culturalpractices recrucial o anthropologists,hile new devel-

opmentsin cognitiveanthropologyBloch1998,Whitehouse 002)offer a

fresh ookat issuesof culturalransmissionndpersistence.Thisopensontoa fundamental uestionas to what isactuallynew inour

current ascinationwith memory.HistoriansGediand Elam uggested hat

"'collectivememory' ...] covers he areaspreviously esignatedby'myth"'

(Gedi nd Elam1996:41).In the samevein,for Klein,memorys "replacingold favorites"uchas"nature, ulture,anguage"Klein 000:128).Followingthis line,Iwouldliketo suggest hat the successof memoryamonganthro-

pologists esidesalsoin itsconceptual fficiencyo prolonghe anthropolog-

ical projectof understandingontinuity.Alongwiththe notion of culture,withwhich t tendsto fusion,memoryhelpsus to think hroughhe continu-

ityand persistence f representations,ractices,motions,andinstitutions,

an idea fundamentalo anthropologistsincethe founding f the discipline.A last word remainso be writtenaboutforgetting.Thesuggestion am

making or memory-that the triumphof memory n our disciplinecould

also be understood yreferenceo issuesof cultural ontinuity nd persist-

ence-may be extended o the treatmentof "forgetting"n anthropological

studies.Inthisessay, did not consider heconceptofforgettinghat anthro-pologistshaverecently rought ut to better ackle ssuesof identity onstruc-

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

giststend to entanglememoryand cultural eproduction,hatisat stake n

forgettingtudies s the veryreproductionr persistence f forgetting. ince

it is a socialprocess,orgettings described s"acrucialpartof theway den-

tityisactively cquired...]"(Carsten995:318).Similarly,orBattaglia, for-

gettinggivesriseto "society,"Battaglia993:430)and,byvirtueof its"per-

sistentnon-presence,"ibid: 38,myemphasis),t serves o prolong aunitary

perdurableocialorder"ibid:430).Although aivelyheldin oppositionwith

memory,he anthropologicalpproacho forgettingeems to be motivated

bythe same setof paradigmaticoncerns.Middleton nd Edwardsre rather

clearabout t, by pointing ut thatinanalyzinghe"practicesf institutional

rememberingndforgetting,t is possible o see howthe continuity f social

life, as preservedn certain orms of socialpractices, ...] dependson the

preservationf those

practices"Middeltonnd Edwards 990:

10).Tosome

degree, orgetting, longwithmemory,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




Clarity

Among nthropologists,ntilrecently,herewasa high evelof consensus n

the conceptof memory.Thisessayattemptedo demonstratehatwe should

be ascritical f "memory,"problematicutindispensableoncept orthem,

aswe have earned o beof"culture"r"identity."tseems o me thatthecon-

ceptof memoryhas becomea scientific ommonsensentheanthropological

discourse,onstantlyndunthinkinglyeployed.First, argued hat "memo-

ry," s it is usedbyanthropologists,asgraduallyecomeavague, uzzyabel.

Indeed,some of the authorscurrentlyworking n memory, tart fromtoo

broada definition, ndthat,as a result,we no longer ee clearlywhatthey

meanbythe term.Sucha lackof claritys farfromexceptionaloranthropo-logical oncepts, nd there s,of course,no needto advocateora rejectionf

the term.Rather,argued,t is time todisentanglehe multiple ndexpansive

meanings f the notion,and to questiontspopularitynourdiscipline.Inparticular,have shown hatone of theseambiguitiess thatthe con-

ceptof memoryends to encompasshe notionof cultureand its reproduc-tion. Inmyview, hisemphasison memory s "thepresence f the past," s

continuityndpersistencelsoexplainswhy t hasbecome ucha trendy on-

cept in ourdisciplinehistoricallykewed oward hose issues.Inthisprocessof conceptualexpansion,some highlyinfluential cholarssuch as Nora,

Halbwachs, erdiman ndespeciallyConnertonwhouse the concept n its

broadest ense)can also be held for responsible. t is worthnoticing hat

"Connerton'slim volume is indeed often the only referenceprovidedby

anthropologistsntheirdiscussions f memory"Sutton001:10). Byarguingthatmemoryseverythingr thateverythingsmemory aswritesTerdiman)and that"societys itselfa formof memory"asConnertonut t), heseschol-

ars plainlycontributed o diffusethe problemof memory nto the general

processof culture,and to the renewed nterestamonganthropologistsn

"socialmemory s culture."

Consequently,heanthropologicalsesof memory an be a sourceof con-

fusion.Such ndiscriminate sesof a term to denote such different xperi-ences andprocessesdo indeedbreedmisunderstanding,ndwe mustmake

necessaryerminologicalistinctionsfor nstance,betweenmemory s recol-

lectionandmemory

s culturaleproduction).

bove ll,byoverextending

he

usageof thisnotion,aren'twe arelosing hespecificityf whatanthropology

of memory is, i.e. to understand the way people rememberand forget their

past?Asthe historianJayWinterput it candidly,

206



DAVID ERLINER

"Oneof the challengesof the next decade or so is to tryto drawtogeth-

er some of these disparatestrands of interest and enthusiasm through

a more rigorousand tightlyarguedset of propositionsabout what exact-

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

Inthe same vein as Todorovwarningagainst the abuses of memory in the

political sphere, Ricoeur invited us to look for what he calls "une memoire

juste"(Ricoeur2001). I haveargued in this essay,that in anthropologyas well,

it is time for a more matured use of this notion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thispiecewas writtenat HarvardUniversitywhile a recipientof a PostdoctoralFellowshipof the BelgianAmericanEducational oundation. am verygrateful o MichaelHerzfeld,RandyMatory,DebboraBattaglia nd Lauren hweder or theirinsightful ommentson mywork.For nspiringdiscussions, want to thank RamonSarro.Ashortenedversion of this

essaywas deliveredat the 8th EuropeanAssociation f SocialAnthropologistsonferenceheld in Vienna, September2004. I wish to thank the convenorsof the lively panel"Anthropologicalpproaches n SocialMemory,"haronMacDonald,HelenaJermanandPetriHautaniemi.Finally, wasmuchhelped bythe editorialcommentsof RichardGrinker,MeliGlennandJenHuiBonHoa.

ENDNOTES

11borrowedhe title from the bookLesabusde la memoirebyTvetzanTodorov1995).Inthistext,he denounces he exploitation f the notionof memorynthe contemporary olit-icalsphere.

2Thoughignoreduntilrecently,Halbwachs'lassics,LesCadresociauxde la memoire 1994[1925]) nd Lamemoire ollective1997[1950]),havenowbeen re-discovered. ince he 80s,

anthropologists ave been reading he colossalLesLieux e la memoirepublishedbyhisto-rianPierreNora 1989),while HowSocietiesRemember1989)byConnerton, escribedas "atouchstone or recentstudiesof memory,"Sutton2001: 10)has become an anthropologi-cal must-read.

31should mentionthat these reflectionshavearisenout of fieldwork onducted n Guinea-

Conakry,WestAfrica.As memory s a key-wordn the social sciencestoday,the attitudetoward he pastand its transmission re a hot topic in Africanocietiesas well.Alongwith

"identity,"memorys at presenta globalizednotion,and the concept s nowlargelyusedbyAfrican oliticians nd local elites. Idon't have time here to deepenthis point,but we def-

initelylive in a time when memory s globalized,an historicalmomentthat Nora ermed

convincinglyhe moment-memoire.

4Somescholarsusedangerouslyhe notion of "remembering"n reference o collectiveenti-ties. For nstance, n the introduction f her TangledMemories,turken sks"What oes it

mean fora culture o remember?"Sturken 997:1). In the samevein, MaryDouglascon-siders that institutionscan "Rememberand Forget" Douglas1986). Connerton'sHowSocietiesRememberonstitutesanother amousexampleof this imprudent emanticexten-

207



TheAbuses f Memory: eflectionsn theMemory oomnAnthropology

sion. However, s Funkenstein bserves,"consciousness nd memorycan only be realized

byan individualwhoacts, is aware,and remembers. ustas a nationcannoteat ordance,neither can it speak or remember.Rememberings a mental act, and therefore it is

absolutelyandcompletelypersonal"Funkenstein989:6).Fora criticalookat this misuse

of "remembering,"ee also Kansteiner2002).5"Vicarious emories" ccurwhen someone"remembers"vents that havenot been per-sonallyexperiencedbyher/him Teski nd Climo1995).In herMemoriesf the SlaveTrade,RosalindShaweloquentlycapturescontemporarymemoriesof the Atlantic lave tradeinTemneritualpracticesSierraLeone).However, eruseof "remembering"eems hazardousto me. For nstance, he proposes o explore he way"inwhichthe slave tradeis forgottenas historybut remembered s spirits"Shaw 002:9). But,can we really"remember"ome-

thingthatwe did not experience?Can omeone"remember"he slave trade?

6Handlerhowedeffectively hatthe conceptof identity annot"beappliedunthinkinglyoother placesandtimes" Handler 994:27).Thesame remains o be verified or the notion

of memory.7In the samevein,one mightbe intriguedbythe resemblances etweencertainapproach-es to traditionand so-called "culturalmemory."Consider,or instance,the definitionof"tradition" roposed by Shils(1983),and see how it overlapswith the semantic field of

memory.Following hils,"Memoryeavesan objectivedepositin tradition.Thepastdoesnot have to be rememberedbyall who reenact t. [...] But to become a tradition,and toremaina tradition,a patternof assertionoraction musthave enteredintomemory"Shils1983:167).What re then the conceptual imitsbetween he notionsof memoryandtradi-tion?Istradition he "presence f the pastin society"ibid:162) or is that memory?

8For n exception, ee Bourguet,Valensiand Wachtel1990).

REFERENCES

Appadurai,Arjun. 981. "Thepastas a scarceresource."Man16: 201-219.

Assman, an.1995. "CollectiveMemorynd Culturaldentity."ewGermanCritique5 : 125-133.

Aug6,Marc. 998.Lesormesde I'oubli.Paris:Payot.

Barth,Fredrik. 990. "TheGuruand the Conjurer:Transactionsn Knowledgeand the

Shapingof Culturen SoutheastAsiaand Melanesia."Man25(4):640-653.

Bastide,Roger. 970. "Memoire ollectiveet sociologiedu bricolage." 'Anneeociologique21: 65-108.

Battaglia,Debbora. 992. "TheBody nthe Gift:Memory nd Forgettingn SabarlMortuaryExchange."merican thnologist9(1):3-18.

. 1993. "AtPlay in the Fields(and Borders)of the Imaginary:MelanesianTransformationsf Forgetting." ultural nthropology(4):430-442.

Baxter,Charles.1999. TheBusinessof Memory.TheArtof Rememberingn an AgeofForgetting.aintPaul,Minnesota:Graywolf ress.

Bloch,Maurice. 998. How WeThinkTheyThink:Anthropological pproacho Cognition,MemoryndLiteracy.UK:WestviewPress.

Bourguet,Marie-Noelle, ucetteValensiand NathanWachtel.1990. BetweenMemorynd

History.Chur:HarwoodAcademicPublishers.

Boyarin,onathan. 991. PolishJews nParis:TheEthnographyf Memory. loomingtonnd

Indianapolis:ndianaUniversity ress.

208



DAVID ERLINER

. 1994 Remapping Memory:the Politics of TimeSpace. Minneapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress.

Candau, oel.1998.Memoiret identite.Paris : PressesUniversitaires e France.

Carsten, anet.1995. "ThePoliticsof Forgetting:Migration,Kinship nd Memoryon the

Periphery f the SoutheastAsianState."].Roy.Anthrop.nst.1: 317-335.

Climo, Jacob and Maria Cattell. 2002. Social Memoryand History.AnthropologicalPerspectives.WalnutCreek,CA:AltamiraPress.

Cohn,Bernard. 995. "ThePastsof an IndianVillage." nTime:Histories nd Ethnologies.Hugues, Diane and ThomasTrautmann,eds. pp. 21-30. Ann Arbor:Universityof

MichiganPress

Cole, Jennifer.2001. ForgetColonialism?acrifices nd the Artof Memory.Berkeley/LosAngeles/London: niversityf California ress.

Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember.Cambridge/NewYork:Cambridge

University ress.Crapanzano,Vincent. 2004. ImaginativeHorizons:An Essayin Literary-Philosophical

Anthropology. hicago: heUniversity f ChicagoPress.

Dakhlia, ocelyne.1990."L'histoirest dansI'attente." ahiers 'Etudes fricaines0(3):251-278.

Dosse,Francois. 999. "Lamithode historique t les traces m6morielles."nLedefiduXXlesiecle.Relieres connaissances. dgarMorin, d. pp.317-326.Paris:Editions u Seuil.

Douglas,Mary. 986.HowInstitutions hink. yracuse: yracuseUniversity ress.

Fabian,Johannes.1999. "Rememberinghe Other:Knowledgeand Recognition n the

Explorationf CentralAfrica." ritical

nquiry6: 49-69.

Feld,Stevenand KeithBasso.1996. Sensesof Place.SantaFe:Schoolof AmericanResearchPress.

Funkenstein,Amos. 1989. "CollectiveMemoryand HistoricalConsciousness." istory nd

Memory (1):6.

Gedi,NoaandYigalElam.1996. "CollectiveMemory What sIt?"History ndMemory(1):30-50.

Gillis, John. 1994. "Memoryand Identity: The History of a Relationship."InCommemorations:hePoliticsof NationalIdentity.Gillis, ohn,ed. pp.3-27. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity ress.

Goody, ack.1972. TheMythof theBagre.Oxford: Clarendon ress.

Halbwachs,Maurice. 994. [1925]Lescadressociauxde la memoire.Paris:EditionsAlbinMichel.

.1997 [1950] La

memoirecollective. Paris:Albin Michel.

Handler,Richard. 994."IsIdentity' UsefulCross-Culturaloncept?"nCommemorations:The Politicsof National Identity.Gillis,John, ed. pp. 27-40. Princeton:Princeton

University ress.

Hastrup,Kirsten. 992. OtherHistories.London:Routledge.

Herzfeld,Michael.1991.APlace n History. ocialand Monumental imen a CretanTown.

NewJersey:PrincetonUniversity ress.Jing,Jun.1996. TheTemple f Memories.History,Powerand Moralityn a ChineseVillage.

Stanford: tanfordUniversity ress.

Kansteiner,Wulf.2002. "FindingMeaning in Memory:A MethodologicalCritiqueof

CollectiveMemory tudies."History nd Theory 1: 179-197.

209



TheAbuses f Memory: eflectionsnthe Memory oom nAnthropology

Kilani,Mondher. 992. Laconstructione la memoire.Le ignageet la saintetedansI'oasisd'ElKsar.Geneve:Labor t Fides.

Klein,Lee.2000."Onhe Emergencef MemorynHistoricalDiscourse." epresentations9:127-150.

KroeberA. and C.Kluckhohn. 952. Culture: CriticalReview f Conceptsnd Definitions.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Lacapra,Dominique.1998. History nd MemoryfterAuschwitz.thaca:CornellUniversityPress.

Lapierre,Nicole.2001. Le silencede la memoire.A la recherche esJuifsde Plock.Paris:EditionsLeLivre e Poche.

Megill,Allan.1998."History,Memory, dentity."Historyf theHumanSciences 1(3):37-62.

MiddeltonDavid nd DerekEdwards. 990.Collective emembering.ondon/NewBury/NewDelhi:Sage.

Nora,Pierre.1972. "Memoire ollective." n La NouvelleHistoire, acquesLeGoff,RogerChartier t Jacaues Revel, eds. pp. 398-401. C.E.P.L., es Encyclop6dies u SavoirModerne.

1989. "BetweenMemory nd history:LesLieuxde M6moire." epresentations26: 7-24.

Olick, effrey ndJoyceRobbins. 998. "SocialMemory tudies:From CollectiveMemory'othe Historical ociologyof MnemonicPractices." nnualReviewof Sociology 4: 105-140.

Radley,Alan.1990."Artefacts,Memory nd a Senseof the Past." nCollective emembering,DavidMiddelton nd DerekEdwards,ds. pp.46-59.London/New ury/NewDelhi:Sage.

Radstone,Susannah. 000. MemoryndMethodology. xford/New ork:Berg.

Rappaport, oanne.1990. ThePoliticsof Memory.Nativehistorical nterpretationn theColombian ndes.Cambridge/Nework:Cambridge niversity ress.

Ricoeur,Paul.2000. Lamemoire, 'histoire,'oubli.Paris:Editions u Seuil.

Rosaldo,Renato.1980. llongot Headhunting1883-1974.A Studyin Societyand History.Stanford: tanfordUniversity ress.

Ross,Bruce.1991.RememberinghePersonalPast.Descriptionsf Autobiographical emory.NewYork/Oxford:xfordUniversity ress.

Shaw,Rosalind. 001. Memoriesf theSlaveTrade.Ritualand the Historicalmaginationn

SierraLeone.Chicago/London:heChicagoUniversity ress.

Shils,Edward. 983. Tradition. hicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.

StolerAnnand Karen trassler.000.Castingsor the Colonial:MemoryWorkn'NewOrder'

Java.ComparativetudiesnSociety nd History2(1):4-48.

Stoller,Paul.1995.Embodying olonialMemories:piritPossession, ower ndthe HaukanWestAfrica.NewYork/LondonRoutledge.

Strathern,Andrew. 996.BodyThoughts. nnArbor:TheUniversity f MichiganPress.

Sturken,Marita.1997. TangledMemories:TheVietnamWar, he AIDSEpidemic, nd thePolitics f Remembering. erkeley:Universityf California ress.

Sutton,David.2001. Remembrancef Repasts:AnAnthropologyf Foodand Memory.NewYork/Oxford:erg.

Terdiman,Richard. 993. PresentPast.Modernitynd the MemoryCrisis. thaca/London:CornellUniversity ress.

210



DAVIDERLINER

Teski,Mareaand JacobClimo.1995. TheLabyrinth f Memory.Ethnographicourneys.

Westport/London:erginandGarvey.

Thomson,Alistair,Michael Frischand Paula Hamilton.1994. The Memoryand HistoryDebates:SomeInternational erspectives.OralHistory 2(2):33-43.

TodorovTzvetan. 995.Lesabusde la memoire.Paris : Arlda.

Tonkin,Elizabeth.1992. Narratingour Past. The Social Constructionf Oral History.Cambridge: ambridgeUniversity ress.

Vansina, an.1980."MemoryndOralTradition."nTheAfricanPastSpeaks.Essaysn OralTradition ndHistory.Miller, oseph,ed. pp.262-279.Folkestone:Dawson-Archon.

White,Geoffrey.001. "HistoriesndSubjectivities."thos28(4):493-510.

Whitehouse,Harvey.2002. "ReligiousReflexivityand TransmissiveFrequency." ocial

Anthropology0(1):91-103.

Winter,Jay.2000. "The Generationof Memory.Reflectionson the MemoryBoom in

Contemporary istorical tudies."GermanHistoricalnstitute 7.

Zelizer,Barbie.1995."Readinghe PastAgainst he Grain:TheShapeof MemoryStudies."Critical tudies n MassCommunication2: 214-239.

kolektif-sosyal hafıza ayrımı

Documents

Transcript of kolektif-sosyal hafıza ayrımı