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
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 The Abuses of Memory
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