Memory and History

Coming from a history background I do not think that a separation exists between memory-work in museums, and the practise of history as has been suggested. Rather I think that history and memory-based museology can work together to examine the limitations of this approach, or to offer new possibilities. As such, I think a simple and radical break between history and memory work limits both kinds of inquiry, and limits the ways we conceptualise and challenge both.

When first discussing memory in the lectures I was reminded of an essay by Robert Darnton called “Worker’s Revolt.” (1985) This essay (and the book it was part of) provided a framework for approaching history from a cultural perspective, and instead of using empirical data it investigated the symbolic worlds and metaphoric connections presented by historical texts. Darnton started to excavate meaning from symbolic worlds by identifying what he called moments of “opacity”. In short, what interested him was what he could not understand. For example, the eponymous essay focussed on the laughter generated by the mass mock execution of a number of cats in France in the 1730s. By investigating laughter at event which shocked his modern sensibilities Darnton tried to generate understanding as to the symbolic and cultural metaphors at play, and the kinds of narratives created within a community who was distanced from him spatially, temporally, and symbolically. Furthermore, he tried to discover what was at stake in these interactions. It is this intention which reminded me of how we can approach memory work.

By approaching historical inquiry through opacity Darnton engaged in a heated debate as to how communities construct and share meaning through metaphors, narratives, symbols and texts. For historical writing it radically changed the way in which we perceive meaning to be communicated, and challenged the empirical authority of history texts (including Marxist histories) by demonstrating the unstable nature of communication and cultural memory. In terms of memory work, ‘opacity’ and ‘thick description’ as a way of approaching inquiry could be best used in contested memory sites, or subjects. This is particularly pertinent because as a method it challenges the assumptions of researchers, and requires deep thinking about how we construct narrative, what symbols exist within our cultural memory, what symbols we use when communicating, and ultimately challenges researchers to acknowledge that their own individual, cultural, historical and social values influence how they construct other people’s stories. In history this offered a new way of approaching historical inquiry.

Other historians similarly destabilized the authoritative voice perceived as ‘history’. Hayden White drew attention to how narrative and history function in history writing. Post-colonialist theory similarly questions the assumptions made and the absences constructed in the process of writing history. All these theories reflecting on the process of history defeat the notion that there is a binary opposition between the practises of memory and the practise of history.

As Nora reflects, “Without the intention to remember, lieux de memoire would be indistinguishable from lieux d’historie,” and while this is set up as an aggressive, consuming force Nora traces the connections between history and memory. As is written later in the essay, “it is memory that dictates while history writes…” (21) Even within Nora a battle between history and memory is not a decisive spilt. Instead memory and history overlap, consume, and provide the functions of each other in a world Nora sees as increasingly less made of living, ritualistic, social memory. Memory, as a living thing, circulates in the mundane, in the use of knives and forks or chop sticks or in specific sites, but history and memory practise, are similar forms of analytical story telling which directly investigate the way in which we represent and tell stories about sites and events. History and memory are the sides of the same coin, and of similar practises when awareness of how history is conceptualised is fully understood. What should be investigated is how Marxist narratives to history can be understood, not history in totality which is a series of approaches, practises and skills which have developed a memory work of their own.

I think Hoi An is a fantastic example of history and memory at play. Even though the activities in Hoi An are practised daily the performative aspect, generated by their historicised function as recognised by the museum and UNESCO, complicates the line between ritual memory and historical re-enactment. Both history and memory are trying to cope with loss and it is between memory practise and historical inquiry that narratives about and within cultural practise are developed and communicated. In this case the two fields work to legitimise both – legitimising Hoi An, legitimising the practises through recognising historical significance, and also potentially (through further memory work) de-legitimising its historical functions. This reflects what Nora writes about the interplay between history and memory. Memory work is the way in which museums can practically reflect the cultural turn of historical practise. Privileged national narratives are merely narratives and museums as institutions are as guilty of legitimising certain stories without conceptualising this fault as a vague notion of the power of ‘history’. Instead, envisioning history and memory work in museums as opposed means that a whole subsection of inquiry practise is removed from conversation. An opposition is not required when what can convey the tension between various groups and individuals over events can be a greater understanding of narrative, especially when the vague notion of history is not as tangible as the physical authoritative space of a museum site. Memory work in museums still encounters the same problems of privileging some voices over others – but it is the site of the museum which acts as the site of power. As such a break between history and memory work is not a easy, nor helpful way to envision the concepts of either. Furthermore, memory practise does not develop in reaction to history as a practise, but rather has developed alongside museums competition with other attractions, tourism, the need for doing as opposed to seeing, and the need for more community engagement in order to justify the existence of the 21st century museum. As such historical practises and skills can be incorporated into a much more nuanced discussion of the museum as a site of power, rather than standing in as comparative, binary dichotomy of approach.

Written by Bronte Geitz