Memory

I have to take a deep breath and really think about our readings from this week. I have to admit that I found this week to be a bit challenging. Our selections were very heavy on the theory and at times I feel like I got caught-up in the weeds of their discussions. I guess that can be the problem you stumble upon when dealing with heavy theory. Well, here goes nothing.

Coming into Alison Landsberg book, Prosthetic Memory, I thought this would be something right up my alley. She's going to be discussing memory within the context of movies. Wow! It doesn't get much better than that for me. At the heart of her book, Landsberg was examining how memory can be created within modes of mass consumption. She also investigated the ramifications to these constructs.

I found places where I agreed with what she wrote but in other cases I felt she was grasping for connections. I believe memory possesses an amazing power to transcend time and social barriers. Memory can be positive and empower people. Memory can be negative and serve as a stark reminder of the past. Regardless of the shape it takes, memory is a dynamic force and I side with Landsberg on this idea. On the other hand, I disagree with the empathetic emotions memory can evoke in people. I see memory being too easily used for finding what one is personally looking for, especially when it comes to mass consumption. For example, the Battle of Little Big Horn was a military failure for General Custer. But, the battle, and Custer, are discussed with reverence in circles outside of academia. In many cases, the memory has contributed to the "American narrative" and the memory has diverged from the event. I don't see empathy stemming from this type of scenario.

The second work we read was Jay Winter's "The Generation of Memory: Reflections on the "Memory Boom" in Contemporary Historical Studies." Winter investigated the proliferation of memory within the field. Winter laid-out a number of factors which contributed to the growth of memory. For example, the growth of identity politics and new social history contributed to the growth of memory as a field of historical inquiry.

While I was reading Winter, I kept trying to establish my own definition of memory. I wrestled with this idea but I think I've come up with my own working definition. Part of my definition is contrasted to what I see historiography being. Essentially, I see historiography and memory as being opposed to one another. Historiography would be the lens in which historians use to establish an understanding of the past. I believe memory is something which is very different. Memory has a more organic feel and it emanates from the public. Memory is the public understanding of people or events which happened in the past. The historian intervenes with memory by placing it within a larger framework but memory is truly "bottom-up."