SHARED MEMORY, THE SOCIAL NATURE OF REMEMBRANCE AND FORGETTING
(INTRODUCTION AND CONVERSATIONAL RECALL: A SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH)
David Middleton - Derek Edwards (1992)
Summary:
1. INTRODUCTION
The study of human memory is not a forgotten subject. Frances Yates, in "The Art of Memory" (1966), locates the origins of this
debate in the philosophical discussions of antiquity. Today, memory continues to be a central theme in academic and popular
debates. Although these works vary, from psychoanalytic explanations of repression to computerized simulations of mnemonic
processes, the predominant focus has been on the study of memory as an individual property, with the social context treated only
as a complement.
Treating the social simply as an enabler of individual memory is a simplistic approach. The essays presented in this work represent
a shift towards considering memory and forgetting as inherently social activities, linking what we do as individuals with our
sociocultural heritage. This approach treats remembrance and forgetting as integral parts of daily social practices, essential to the
evolution of everyday life.
The recognition of the social aspect of memory has roots in studies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Figures
such as Durkheim, Halbwachs and Janet in France, Bartlett in the United Kingdom, and Vygotsky and his colleagues in the Soviet
socio-historical tradition have profoundly influenced this field. In North America, Mead and De Laguna's social behaviorism has
also guided research towards a social understanding of memory.
SOME CONTEMPORARY FOUNDATIONS AND PROBLEMS
Although this widely disseminated literature was widely read and exerted enormous influence, it was never established as a
predominant line in the psychology of remembrance and forgetting. As Ulric Neisser stated, if there is an interesting or socially
significant aspect of memory, probably some psychologist is studying it right now. However, the study of human memory as a social
process has not yet received full attention from psychological research. Whether the work in this work can contribute to social
aspects being more prominent in psychological research programs remains to be seen. Still, we can be optimistic, as this book is
not an isolated example of a socially oriented approach to the study of memory. Psychology no longer has a monopoly on interest
in this topic, as other fields such as oral history, folklore, museum studies, historical geography, communication studies, sociology,
and social theory also show a growing interest in the social nature of memory.
Oral historians approach "popular memory" by referring to local representations of past events and social practices, beyond
individual memory. Problems such as the reliability of oral testimonies and variability in explanations have an important
relationship with the social perspective of recall. David Thelen, in an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of American
History on "American Memory and History," points out that variability in memories reveals the relationship between what people
remember and their socioeconomic and political circumstances.
Folklore scholars also focus on the content and social process of memory, recognizing the interdependence between individual
representations and tradition. This approach shows that memory is not just an individual property, but a social activity.
Interest in collective memory has also been revitalized in studies on landscape change and conservation and in the collection of
artifacts in public spaces. David Lowenthal, in The Past is a Foreign Country, highlights the connection between personal and
community memory, showing how relics of the past symbolize and memorialize communal bonds over time.
A recent issue of the journal Communication analyzes "social memory" from a communicative perspective, underscoring the
importance of the media in the creation and reconstruction of shared memories.
The institutionalization of forgetting, or structurally instigated amnesia, is another topic of interest, as seen in the work of Mary
Douglas, who examines how institutions influence recall and forgetting. Institutional transformation in psychology could allow for
a broader recognition of social issues in the study of memory.
Several chapters of this book demonstrate the interest of psychologists in socially oriented recall and forgetting research programs.
Although psychology has developed sophisticated concepts about individual memory, other disciplines also treat memory in terms
of its socially organized character.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, We hope that the priority of study will no longer be limited to individual memory, but will also consider social, historical, and
cultural circumstances, recognizing the social nature of memory.
Remembering Together
We share memories and objects with a social background, reflecting that we live in a world that extends beyond ourselves. By
remembering together, we not only add individual experiences, but we create a foundation for future reminiscences. For example,
by evoking memories at family events, we reinterpret and discover aspects of the past that become content for future
commemorations.
This distributed cognitive activity is also observed in groups that collaborate to achieve common goals, collectively reconstructing
cultural knowledge as part of their socio-historical evolution.
Social Practices of Commemoration
One aspect of joint remembrance that has particularly caught our attention is that of social practices of commemoration. In these
practices, we intentionally remember and celebrate the past, a person, or an event, attributing historical significance to them. In
this way, we share a common identity and cultural and generational conception.
In figures such as the gunmen of the West, statues of eminent citizens, and places named after famous people, we evaluate our
culture and determine what is remarkable. However, commemorative events reflect a constant tension between the immutable
aspects of the past preserved in the present and the transformable and manipulable past. Today's heroes can be tomorrow's
villains, and what was once considered radical can become today's orthodoxy.
Commemorations often silence criticism of the past, as when the memory of those killed in battle obscures criticism of the
decisions that led to those losses.
Foundation and social context of individual memory
The joint reconstruction of the past and the general process of commemoration can be interpreted as ways in which both children
and adults learn to remember and understand the meaning of this act as part of a social process. While the conversational process
of remembering is open, public commemorations often have repetitive and catechetical characteristics. An example of this is the
morning prayers in American schools, which show how individual memory is formed in a shared social context.
Voices that sound in unison create a collective environment where newcomers can learn, overcoming any lack of personal skill. At
the same time, each new representation consolidates the authority of those who impose it. However, even catechisms and
memorial ceremonies are the product of conversations and discussions, as people debate how best to commemorate an event,
what to say, and how to acknowledge it. Billig (1987) mentions the same with regard to the formal rules of games such as cricket.
Rhetorical Organization of Remembrance and Oblivion
Children, as novice cultural participants, find it difficult to explain the right story at the right time and to the right person. The
rhetorical organization of remembrance and forgetting is an important theme in this book, evidenced in discussions of
contradictory versions of the past and who to blame, excuse, acknowledge, praise, honor, thank, or trust. These rhetorical skills
are also related to ideological considerations that place people in a contradictory relationship with what they remember or
highlight from the past in the present.
The tension between continuity and revision of the past is manifested in the government's authority to open archives to public
scrutiny, limit them, or sanction only "sterilized" versions of the past. These dilemmas emerge in all organized rhetoric as a defense
or attempt to legitimize which aspects of the past should be remembered or "forgotten" in the current circumstances. The "truth"
of the past is always potentially questionable, not deposited in any objective social report or archive, but obtained as an
epistemological achievement created through dialectics and discussion between opposing positions.
Institutional social remembrance and oblivion
The rhetorical organization of remembrance and forgetting gives us clues about how social institutions question the past in order
to influence the future. The social process of forgetting allows us to reconstruct what has been debated and questioned, while
2
Made by MatyBuda
(INTRODUCTION AND CONVERSATIONAL RECALL: A SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH)
David Middleton - Derek Edwards (1992)
Summary:
1. INTRODUCTION
The study of human memory is not a forgotten subject. Frances Yates, in "The Art of Memory" (1966), locates the origins of this
debate in the philosophical discussions of antiquity. Today, memory continues to be a central theme in academic and popular
debates. Although these works vary, from psychoanalytic explanations of repression to computerized simulations of mnemonic
processes, the predominant focus has been on the study of memory as an individual property, with the social context treated only
as a complement.
Treating the social simply as an enabler of individual memory is a simplistic approach. The essays presented in this work represent
a shift towards considering memory and forgetting as inherently social activities, linking what we do as individuals with our
sociocultural heritage. This approach treats remembrance and forgetting as integral parts of daily social practices, essential to the
evolution of everyday life.
The recognition of the social aspect of memory has roots in studies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Figures
such as Durkheim, Halbwachs and Janet in France, Bartlett in the United Kingdom, and Vygotsky and his colleagues in the Soviet
socio-historical tradition have profoundly influenced this field. In North America, Mead and De Laguna's social behaviorism has
also guided research towards a social understanding of memory.
SOME CONTEMPORARY FOUNDATIONS AND PROBLEMS
Although this widely disseminated literature was widely read and exerted enormous influence, it was never established as a
predominant line in the psychology of remembrance and forgetting. As Ulric Neisser stated, if there is an interesting or socially
significant aspect of memory, probably some psychologist is studying it right now. However, the study of human memory as a social
process has not yet received full attention from psychological research. Whether the work in this work can contribute to social
aspects being more prominent in psychological research programs remains to be seen. Still, we can be optimistic, as this book is
not an isolated example of a socially oriented approach to the study of memory. Psychology no longer has a monopoly on interest
in this topic, as other fields such as oral history, folklore, museum studies, historical geography, communication studies, sociology,
and social theory also show a growing interest in the social nature of memory.
Oral historians approach "popular memory" by referring to local representations of past events and social practices, beyond
individual memory. Problems such as the reliability of oral testimonies and variability in explanations have an important
relationship with the social perspective of recall. David Thelen, in an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of American
History on "American Memory and History," points out that variability in memories reveals the relationship between what people
remember and their socioeconomic and political circumstances.
Folklore scholars also focus on the content and social process of memory, recognizing the interdependence between individual
representations and tradition. This approach shows that memory is not just an individual property, but a social activity.
Interest in collective memory has also been revitalized in studies on landscape change and conservation and in the collection of
artifacts in public spaces. David Lowenthal, in The Past is a Foreign Country, highlights the connection between personal and
community memory, showing how relics of the past symbolize and memorialize communal bonds over time.
A recent issue of the journal Communication analyzes "social memory" from a communicative perspective, underscoring the
importance of the media in the creation and reconstruction of shared memories.
The institutionalization of forgetting, or structurally instigated amnesia, is another topic of interest, as seen in the work of Mary
Douglas, who examines how institutions influence recall and forgetting. Institutional transformation in psychology could allow for
a broader recognition of social issues in the study of memory.
Several chapters of this book demonstrate the interest of psychologists in socially oriented recall and forgetting research programs.
Although psychology has developed sophisticated concepts about individual memory, other disciplines also treat memory in terms
of its socially organized character.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, We hope that the priority of study will no longer be limited to individual memory, but will also consider social, historical, and
cultural circumstances, recognizing the social nature of memory.
Remembering Together
We share memories and objects with a social background, reflecting that we live in a world that extends beyond ourselves. By
remembering together, we not only add individual experiences, but we create a foundation for future reminiscences. For example,
by evoking memories at family events, we reinterpret and discover aspects of the past that become content for future
commemorations.
This distributed cognitive activity is also observed in groups that collaborate to achieve common goals, collectively reconstructing
cultural knowledge as part of their socio-historical evolution.
Social Practices of Commemoration
One aspect of joint remembrance that has particularly caught our attention is that of social practices of commemoration. In these
practices, we intentionally remember and celebrate the past, a person, or an event, attributing historical significance to them. In
this way, we share a common identity and cultural and generational conception.
In figures such as the gunmen of the West, statues of eminent citizens, and places named after famous people, we evaluate our
culture and determine what is remarkable. However, commemorative events reflect a constant tension between the immutable
aspects of the past preserved in the present and the transformable and manipulable past. Today's heroes can be tomorrow's
villains, and what was once considered radical can become today's orthodoxy.
Commemorations often silence criticism of the past, as when the memory of those killed in battle obscures criticism of the
decisions that led to those losses.
Foundation and social context of individual memory
The joint reconstruction of the past and the general process of commemoration can be interpreted as ways in which both children
and adults learn to remember and understand the meaning of this act as part of a social process. While the conversational process
of remembering is open, public commemorations often have repetitive and catechetical characteristics. An example of this is the
morning prayers in American schools, which show how individual memory is formed in a shared social context.
Voices that sound in unison create a collective environment where newcomers can learn, overcoming any lack of personal skill. At
the same time, each new representation consolidates the authority of those who impose it. However, even catechisms and
memorial ceremonies are the product of conversations and discussions, as people debate how best to commemorate an event,
what to say, and how to acknowledge it. Billig (1987) mentions the same with regard to the formal rules of games such as cricket.
Rhetorical Organization of Remembrance and Oblivion
Children, as novice cultural participants, find it difficult to explain the right story at the right time and to the right person. The
rhetorical organization of remembrance and forgetting is an important theme in this book, evidenced in discussions of
contradictory versions of the past and who to blame, excuse, acknowledge, praise, honor, thank, or trust. These rhetorical skills
are also related to ideological considerations that place people in a contradictory relationship with what they remember or
highlight from the past in the present.
The tension between continuity and revision of the past is manifested in the government's authority to open archives to public
scrutiny, limit them, or sanction only "sterilized" versions of the past. These dilemmas emerge in all organized rhetoric as a defense
or attempt to legitimize which aspects of the past should be remembered or "forgotten" in the current circumstances. The "truth"
of the past is always potentially questionable, not deposited in any objective social report or archive, but obtained as an
epistemological achievement created through dialectics and discussion between opposing positions.
Institutional social remembrance and oblivion
The rhetorical organization of remembrance and forgetting gives us clues about how social institutions question the past in order
to influence the future. The social process of forgetting allows us to reconstruct what has been debated and questioned, while
2
Made by MatyBuda
