Hannah Hester

WMST 3110

Dr. Jones

30 January 2015

The Effect that Coercive Memory has on Archival Memory

“There are three sides of any story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories

shared serve each differently.” –Robert Evans

Perception impacts the way that history and events are told and remembered. By

definition, all archival memory reflects the point of view by which it is recorded. Writers,

filmmakers, and the media can only pull memory from their own specific viewpoint. No matter

how objective a person can try to be, they can still offer only one side to a multi-faceted

experience. When reading, watching, or hearing about an event, it is important to consider the

effect that the narrator’s point of view has on the story. Some original sources can distort the

truth by oversimplifying or controlling the facts shared about an event in order to lead the

audience to form a specific opinion. This form of storytelling, through utilizing coercive

memory, affects archival memory through a conscious effort to move the audience toward an

intended conclusion.

In her book, Embodying American Slavery in Contemporary Culture, Lisa Woolfork

defines the process of manipulating an event or a story to support a specific goal as coercive

memory. She illuminates the utilization of coercive memory by examining the two similarly

themed films, Brother Future and The Quest for Freedom. In these films, black teenagers are

sent back in time to the slave past in order to reform their delinquent behavior. In both stories,

the boys undergo a positive attitude transformation, as “any complaints about their present-day

predicaments pale in comparison to the conditions of the slave past” (Woolfork 72). The films

employ coercive memory by only allowing the viewer to form one response to the past

manipulation and the selection of certain moments that support the filmmaker’s purpose. In order

to prove that their solutions are effective, the filmmakers must show that their characters are

positively influenced by the time traveling experience, and the public is quick to accept the

idealist ‘quick fix’. Woolfork explains that, “the combination of coercive memory and bodily

epistemology is part of the larger cultural desire to manage and control young black behavior.

The fantasy is motivated by [the public’s] need to quell anxiety about the things that the

emerging hip-hop generation had come to represent by the early 1990’s” (Woolfork 67). Society

wants to believe that this type of reforming punishment can effectively transform delinquent

behavior, so they easily accept the manipulated stories out of wishful thinking.

In the same way that Brother Future and The Quest for Freedom employ coercive

memory in telling their stories, the creators of a reform program Scared Straight! manipulate the

publicized responses to shine a positive light on the reformation method. Similar to the ideas

presented in the films, Scared Straight! relies on a shocking embodied experience in order to

reform disobedient adolescents, without the implication of time travel. Scared Straight! follows

the theory that if a teenager physically faces the consequences of bad behavior they will better

appreciate the advantages of, and work harder to preserve, their current position in society.

While lacking actual evidence for a positive outcome of the program, people continue to use the

method today. These proponents reference the few, yet exaggerated, stories of reformed teens,

and due to the, “conservative ideological culture, low cost,” and wishful thinking of the public,

these types of programs still receive support today (Woolfork 70). People believe in the program

because, in theory, it is a quick and easy solution to a serious issue. This quick acceptance

“represents what researchers call a panacea phenomenon in government policy, ‘the search for

simple cures for difficult social problems’” (Woolfork 70). The general public receptivity of

coercive memory is also witnessed within the public’s quick acceptance of their superior’s and

the media’s point of view, as Taylor explains in her chapter “Hemispheric Performances.”

Taylor begins the chapter by sharing a personal story concerning a run-in with the

NYPD. She had been viewing and video-recording the rumba in Central Park (a peaceful and

positive event, from her perspective), when the NYPD appeared and brought with them an

entirely new angle. They began by pointing out their ‘superiority’ to the members and viewers of

the performance, and made references to any broken rule or regulation that could validate their

own need to be present. Unlike many police encounters, however, the presence of Taylor’s video

camera added an extra dimension to the situation. Her camera forced the police to acknowledge

the objective form of archival memory documenting the event. Instead of relying on their

superiority to later manipulate the story through coercive memory, therefore highlighting or

manipulating facts to support their position, the police had to “perform” for the camera. They

attempted to include niceties and referenced laws specifically in front of Taylor and her objective

source. The camera represents a form of archival evidence that cannot be as easily affected in

terms of coercive memory as can an oral account. The cops knew that it was their own story

against the performers, now with the added neutrality of video evidence, so they made sure to do

everything in their power to push any blame and negative perceptions onto the crowd.

As a playwright can manipulate a play to enforce a certain point of view, the police

staged their own performance in order to enforce the perspective insinuating that they are

“solving a problem.” Taylor notes the sheer number of cops, jesting, “how many police officers

and police cars does it take to inquire about a permit?” (Taylor 268). The NYPD set up the

scenario in a way that made the gathering look threatening: in addition to the outrageous amount

of officers present, two had their hands on their pistols the entire time and others cautiously

watched the crowd from a distance. This ‘defensive’ staging was the design of coercive memory,

influencing the public to view the event and form the conclusion that the police desire, that the

performers are dangerous and the police are doing a public service. The police’s story overrode

the performers story, and the NYPD successfully banned the group from performing in the park.

As with Woolfork’s explanation of the Scared Straight! program, the public easily accepted the

policemen’s point of view, because it is easier for them to believe that the police are solving a

problem rather than consider the notion that the police may be overstepping their authority. That

would present a larger institutional problem that would be more complex to resolve.

The implications of coercive memory are woven into any story, performance, or form of

media told from a single point of view. As Taylor explains, “those who controlled writing gained

an inordinate amount of power” (Taylor 18). The creators of Brother Future and The Quest for

Freedom demonstrated this power by manipulating the stories to fit a desired outcome, the media

demonstrated this by manipulating public approval of Scared Straight!, and the police

demonstrated their power by influencing the media to accept their perception of the rumba

scenario. When faced with learning through archival knowledge, we must acknowledge its

perspective and the implications that point of view has on the historical accuracy of events.

Taylor recognizes that “the real advantage to experiencing something at first hand was not so

much knowing its details- who said or did what- but sensing the multiple meanings and

possibilities only to participants” (Woolfork 79). Though the undeniable impossibility of

experiencing every event first-hand presents a barrier to our understanding of the past, we must

acknowledge the consequences that a singular perspective has on the story we are told- it is not

the only one.