Memory


 * Definition**

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), definitions for "memory" vary depending on different senses. For instance, when "memory" is regarded in terms of "senses relating to the action or process of commemorating, recollecting, or remembering," the primary definition for "memory" is "an act of commemoration, esp. of the dead" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). When "memory" is regarded in terms of "senses relating to the faculty of recalling to mind," the concept is defined as "the faculty by which things are remembered; the capacity for retaining, perpetuating, or reviving the thought of things past" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The term "memory" is thought to have been first used ca.1225 as the Anglo-Norman //memoire// (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The OED further notes that the etymon of the Anglo-Norman memoire is found in "classical Latin //memoria//" (n.p.).


 * Memory and Classical Rhetoric**

In its classical roots, memory functioned as one of the five canons of rhetoric adding to an orator’s knowledge and ability to persuade extemporaneously (Quintilian, 11.2.1). Although memory was conceived as a natural tool of the mind, it was exercised (often through mnemonics ) in order to attain its fullest potential for a speaker’s capacity to recall (Quintilian, 11.2.7). In contrast to first century rhetoricians, 20th century scholars began to conceptualize memory as an active psychological construction, not just a retrieval of things past (Bartlett, 1932). This reconceptualization laid the groundwork for understanding memory both in its individual and public function.


 * "Public Memory"**

In the last few decades, Communication scholars have focused on public memory as socially constructed when a “body of beliefs and ideas about the past” (Bodnar, 1992, p. 15) is given “expressive form” in public space (Browne, 1995, p. 248). Stephen Browne (1995) explores the discursive nature of public memory in which memory functions with “a sense of the text as a site of symbolic action, a place of cultural performance” (p.237). The ways in which memories are framed reflects institutional values, contemporary aesthetic preferences, and insight for critiquing form and content. Public memory thus “becomes implicated in range of other activities having as much to do with identity formation, power and authority, cultural norms, and social interaction, as with the simple act of recall” (Zelizer, 1995, p. 214).

"**Collective Memory"**

Public memory and collective memory are often used interchangeably, but shared experiences dominantly constructed through media suggest the shift in conceptualization to collective memory. Sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1952) is attributed as the theorist launching collective memory as a social framework of comparative consciousness. Halbwachs (1952/1992) indicates “while these remembrances are mutually supportive and common to all, individual members still vary in the intensity with which they experience them” (p. 48). For example, the collective American experience of the Vietnam War or 9/11 varies in remembrance due to a number of factors including level of participation, age, race, gender , etc. Collective memory is intrinsically a unifying concept, but we are cautioned against forming rigid images of the group.

According to Barbie Zelizer (1995), collective memory “refers to recollections that are instantiated beyond the individual by and for the collective” (p. 214). The public itself acts as an interpretive community that sifts through media to create meaning of collective experiences, without necessarily an emphasis on accuracy (Hariman & Lucaites, 2007, p. 2). Collective memory accounts for the ways in which the act of publicly remembering past events unifies the group, catalyzing and solidifying shared identity(Zelizer, 1995, p. 217). Collective memory serves a sense-making function for those who are seeking "resources for making sense of the past" (Zelizer, 1995, p. 214). For example, iconic photographs referencing past memories are often re-circulated or thematically appropriated to create new and sometimes countering meanings to those they originally conveyed (Hariman & Lucaites, 2007, p.79).


 * "Critical Memory"**

The variance which individuals experience collective memory and its “processual” change over time (Zelizer, 1995, p. 218) illustrate that collective memory may be as viscous as it is in the individual mind. Interpretation of public events is contingent on hegemonic constructions of what is culturally significant (Hariman & Lucaites, p.16). In exploration of what events or interpretations are chosen for reification and what are absent or forgotten, rhetorical scholar J. R. Cox (1990) theorizes critical memory as a method of social critique and mode of “emancipatory agency” (p. 3). Cox (1990) engages in a process of subverting and re-inscribing history to reveal dominant ideologies and reconfigure them (p. 10). In other words, Cox brings a critical eye to the ideologies reified through artifacts existing in public memory, thus revealing bias in the form and content of collective memories.


 * Case Studies of Collective Memory**

Since the early twentieth century, collective memories predominantly involving moments of national crisis have been associated with images and material culture. The appearance and circulation of certain images, particularly in the instance of the “iconic photograph,” seem to be the catalyst for their continued existence in collective memory (Hariman & Lucaites, 2003, p. 61). Iconic photographs function in collective memory to communicate, not events, but “social facts” that “set the tone for later generations’ understanding of social life” (Hariman & Lucaites, 2003, p. 11). Communication scholars also examine the function of monuments and memorials to explore how these visually public forms elicit a range of viewer interpretations while constructing meaning of past events (Foss, 1986, 335). Memory is co-constituted between the visual artifact and the viewing public. For instance, Victoria Gallagher (1999) analyzes how the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute creates an interactive format which, “establish[es] a space for rethinking and re-envisioning our past, our current and future selves, and our relationships to one another” implicating “the institutionalization of memory” (p. 304). Memory achieves some level of fixedness as it is institutionalized in public space, but it is always fluid and never stagnant.


 * Emerging Areas of Memory Studies**

Recently, scholars have begun to investigate other aspects of memory that account for the failure of memory, including "misremembering," and "amnesia." As Kendall Phillips (2010) notes, "what makes memory so important is the prospect of its failure" (p. 213). Phillips continues that scholars of history would be wise to consider the act of misremembering, or "making knowledge claims about the past that are in error" (p. 212), when asking questions about how a public remembers the past. Along similar lines, "amnesia" has emerged as a critical concept within memory scholarship. Selective amnesia, according to Kristen Hoerl (2012), is "the rhetorical processes by which public discourse routinely omits events that defy seamless narratives of national progress and unity" (p. 180). Current memory studies, therefore, investigate the processes that render certain individuals, collectivities, identities, and events as forgotten, asking scholars "to attend to the rhetoric of absence" (Hoerl, 2012, p. 182).

While previous memory scholarship often discusses memory in terms of material culture (see above), scholars are increasingly writing about how memory is cultivated and perpetuated through digital culture. Aaron Hess (2007), for example, contends that online memorials allow vernacular voices to emerge and contribute to commemorative projects, as opposed to non-digital memorials that may be comprised of more "official" discourses (p. 816). Ekaterina Haskins (2007) makes a similar distinction between "official memory" and "vernacular memory" for those interested in digital archives (p. 403). Although mass-digitization projects have made discourses and material rhetorics more accessible to the public, Haskins cautions against looking to digital archives as storehouses of memory; as she states, "When technology offers the ability of instant recall, individual impulse to remember withers away" (p. 407). Memory, therefore, continues to be a slippery concept.

Edited by Katie Irwin (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Memory" limit="10"


 * References**

Barlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bodnar, J. (1992). Remaking America: Public memory, commemoration, and patriotism in the twenitieth century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Browne, S. H. (1995). Reading, rhetoric, and the texture of public memory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 237-265.

Cox, J. R. (1990). Memory, critical theory, and the argument from history. Argument and Advocacy, 27, 1-13.

Foss, S. K. (1986). Ambiguity as persuasion: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 326-340.

Gallagher, V. J. (1999). Memory and reconciliation in the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2(2), 303-320.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. (F. J. Ditter, Jr. & V. Y. Ditter, Trans.). Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1952).

Hariman, R., & Lucaites, J. L. (2003). Public identity and collective memory in U.S. iconic photography: The image of “Accidental Napalm”. Critical Studies in Media Communication 20(1), 35-66.

Hariman, R. & Lucaites, J. L. (2007). No caption needed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Haskins, E. (2007). Between archive and participation: Public memory in a digital age. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 37(4), 401-422.

Hess, A. (2007). In digital remembrance: Vernacular memory and the rhetorical construction of web memorials. Media, Culture & Society, 29(5), 812-830.

Hoerl, K. (2012). Selective amnesia and racial transcendence in news coverage of President Obama's inauguration. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 98(2), 178-202.

Memory. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com

Phillips, K. R. (2010). The failure of memory: Reflections on rhetoric and public remembrance. Western Journal of Communication, 74(2), 208-223.

Quintilian. (2006). Institutes of oratory. L. Honeycutt, Ed., (J.S. Watson, Trans.). Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://honeyl.public.iastate.edu/quintilian/ (Original work published 1856).

Zelizer, B. (1995). Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12(2), 214-239.

[NO1Could we add some subtitles to help readers navigate the wiki entry? [NO2We need less OED here and much more of your basic summary of the concept and preview or what is to come.