Historical memory vs. Memory

[RobertP]

The concept of historical/public memory is used frequently around here. I wish someone would explain it to me and why historians think it trumps actual memory.

Thanks

 

[Bruce Vail]

Fill me in -- Who is it exactly that is claiming historical/public memory trumps actual memory?

 

[RedRover]

Regarding what it is:

Valerie Lynn Schrader's "Public Memory and the Television Series Outlander" (2021) gives one of the simplest explanations to your question I can find:

Richard J. Cox's article, "The Concept of Public Memory, and its IMpact on Archival Public Programing,":

Cox, Richard J., Concept of Public Memory...


From the book, "Places of Public Memory: Museum and Public Memorials" (2010) it states that public memory is "collective" and not based on any one persons personal "memories," viz. a sort of group identity issue rather than history: a "remembering in common." An official "memory" to which one might subscribe:

This "Public Memory" has its own "history" and so employs "historians" to study it.

From P.J. Brendese's "The Power of Memory in Democratic Politics" (University of Rochester, 2014):

As to why historians employ it, it is evidently the nature of the academy. John Bodnar in his 1992 book on public memory entitled "Remaking America", suggests that studying the history of public memory was a means of making "social history" more attractive to scholars in the 1980s by making it useful to the public sector:

He notes that his own pioneering work on the subject was funded by a number of agencies thanked in his preface, etc.


David W. Blight, advocates for "History and Memory" and the necessity to serve a public interest. He argues for the process:

Historians and Memory...

Here historian Niall Ferguson argues for a restoration of general history, at least in academia.

Niall Ferguson: Decline and fall of History, Youtube

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Will have a go at it.

In my view, 'historical memory' and 'actual memory' are two different ways of perceiving history.

'Historical memory' refers to relying on social or collective memory – i.e. the currently accepted group view of history. It can be described as the the way society currently chooses to remember (or identify) with the past. The collective group (society) can choose to construct (and accept) any version of the past. But this can lead to distortions of historical accuracy and manipulative interpretations to promote a nationwide mythology.

In contrast, 'actual memory' refers to systematically studying actual accounts from the past , which are found ideally in primary source materials.

If one's goal is to discover the truth about what happened, then relying on 'actual memory' is always superior to 'historical memory', especially if individual actual accounts sourced can be corroborated by other accounts at the time.

In my view, the only time 'historical memory' might have some limited use, is in circumstances where there is a current knowledge void (in the absence of 'actual memory') of the past, but even then, one must view any such societal consciousness with a degree of caution.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I'm familiar with David Blight's work and am a great admirer. I've read over Blight's mini-essay cited by RedRover and see nothing there that suggests that his concept of historical memory trumps "actual memory."

It would be helpful if the OP would name names as to the actual offense he complains about.

 

[RobertP]

I'm familiar with David Blight's work and am a great admirer. I've read over Blight's mini-essay cited by RedRover and see nothing there that suggests that his concept of historical memory trumps "actual memory."

It would be helpful if the OP would name names as to the actual offense he complains about.

It was a question seeking information. The two, History and Memory, get a lot of use here and I simply wanted clarification. Is that OK?

 

[Rebforever]

It was a question seeking information. The two, History and Memory, get a lot of use here and I simply wanted clarification. Is that OK?

What do you propose of it ain't OK?

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

It was a question seeking information. The two, History and Memory, get a lot of use here and I simply wanted clarification. Is that OK?

I'll take a shot at it. Growing up in a weirdly long-lived family, with weirdly long-lived grandparents, etc, my historical memory got mixed up with the stories I heard over the years. My father's family took care of two brothers at two DIFFERENT TIMES. One was a Civil War vet. My father was also, as a young man, present at the death of both of these men who had no family left - they died at his parent's farm.

In my mind, I thought they were BOTH Civil War vets and claimed that for years. During Covid, most of New England was shut down and locked up tight. So I went graveyard visiting. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered that one of the brothers was indeed a Civil War vet but the other brother was only 4-years-old when his brother was off fighting!

This was a simple memory error, easily fixed. But…. How many stories have been told from any war that were "Gospel Truth" and were confabulated or mixed up like mine but were not able to be proven or corrected like mine?

Is that what you meant, Robert? I think I get it.

 

[BCS1973]

What do you propose of it ain't OK?

Please not a duel. Unless it's with banjo's and a guitar--maybe...just no hatchets this time.....

 

[Bruce Vail]

It was a question seeking information. The two, History and Memory, get a lot of use here and I simply wanted clarification. Is that OK?

Of course it is OK. My bad for misreading the OP as a complaint, rather than a query.

 

[DixieRifles]

I spoke to a friend who is writing a book on his father's WW2 combat engineer unit. To his amazement, he found a 100-year old veteran who was able to fill in many stories. My friend said it was too bad he could not use much of the Veteran's stories. One main reason was because the veteran NCO had a beef with a Major in his command. Of course this conflict likely influenced the vet's memory but it would be a bad decision to publish stories that reflected bad about an officer without getting the historical facts, which he is able to do with morning reports, etc.

 

[wausaubob]

Historical memory? Isn't that story telling by folks who did not experience the events they are speaking or writing about? Memory comes from the memoirs of those who were present at the events, and reports and current recollections compiled by journalists. Some of this will be hearsay of various degrees. But written and spoken history created 155 years after the Civil War is likely to be negligently and even deliberately distorted.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Actual memories of individuals who experienced the same event often widely differ from each other in their recollection and interpretation of said event. Posterity inherits the task of sorting out the conflicting information from those actual memories, but successive generations always view the past through a colored lens shaped by their own individual experiences and their societal worldview.

Put another way, it is impossible to even accurately describe an actual memory from your own childhood, say the experience of swimming at a beach. Because it is no longer the same beach, it is no longer the same water, and you are no longer the same person; it has become a tainted historical memory even if you are unwilling to admit it.

 

[James Brenner]

I always believed that collective memory is what a group of people (town, village, family, patriotic group, etc.) commonly agree on not only what happened, but more importantly, what the significance of that event was. Not to oversimplify, but it bumps up against folklore and folktales. As such, the lesson is more important than the story. George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree, but that legend not only made GW seem more like an everyday kid, but it taught honesty and integrity.

Historical memory is what an individual recalls. My dad was a medic at Tarawa and his memories are not the same as the other medics in his unit: close, but no cigar. And as others have said, as we grow older, memories fail, particularly the bad ones.

My default definition of memory and historical events is akin to Mark Twain's. "When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I will be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened."

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Actual memories of individuals who experienced the same event often widely differ from each other in their recollection and interpretation of said event.

Agree. To add.

Actual memories and recollections are always imprecise, and these become vague over the passage of time. Also, individual perceptions of events are shaped by one's own focuses and biases, which do not necessarily coincide between individuals.

That's why it's always preferable to rely on a variety of accounts recalling the event, in order to determine some patterns of commonality, as to what might have happened. And of course, unadulterated contemporaneous accounts (not later ones) are generally a safer bet to be more accurate of the individual's experience, because of the imprecision of subjective human recall.

 

[wausaubob]

So true. But the best starting point is still the people who were there and the conflicting accounts compiled at the time of the event.

Actual memories of individuals who experienced the same event often widely differ from each other in their recollection and interpretation of said event. Posterity inherits the task of sorting out the conflicting information from those actual memories, but successive generations always view the past through a colored lens shaped by their own individual experiences and their societal worldview.

Put another way, it is impossible to even accurately describe an actual memory from your own childhood, say the experience of swimming at a beach. Because it is no longer the same beach, it is no longer the same water, and you are no longer the same person; it has become a tainted historical memory even if you are unwilling to admit it.

tgr

 

[Bruce Vail]

This caught my eye...

"Essayist and novelist George Santayana famously said that history is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there. Napoléon Bonaparte remarked that history is a set of lies that have been agreed upon. Winston Churchill famously said that history is what is written by the victors. Thus, you cannot blame me for believing that history is just a version of events and readers of history tend to accept what suits their own sensibilities."

read more from Indian fiction author Ashwin Sanghi: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...y-the-truth-often-lies/?source=app&frmapp=yes

 

[thomas aagaard]

This caught my eye...

"Essayist and novelist George Santayana famously said that history is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there. Napoléon Bonaparte remarked that history is a set of lies that have been agreed upon. Winston Churchill famously said that history is what is written by the victors. Thus, you cannot blame me for believing that history is just a version of events and readers of history tend to accept what suits their own sensibilities."

read more from Indian fiction author Ashwin Sanghi: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...y-the-truth-often-lies/?source=app&frmapp=yes

Well Churchill was wrong. (unless we are talking events where the looser was destroyed and left no written records.)

Our understanding of the Vietnam war is mostly based on the American understanding of events.
The same is the case of the Korean war... or the war in the pacific during WWII.
The reason is simple, we read English but not Vietnamese, Koran or Japanese.
There are some American historians who do read other languages, but it is simply not the norm.

The western understanding of the war on the eastern front during WWII was until 1990 almost entirely based on German sources.
Too few Historians read Russian and the Soviets did not allow access to archives anyway.

In short our ability to read secondary sources like books written by historians is the main factor in our understanding of history when we are talking wars between two cultures who speak different languages.

---
And then we got the exceptions where the winner did write the hisotry.
Our knowledge Punic wars are mostly from Roman sources. Caesar is the main source on his wars in Gaul.
The Spanish conquest of south America... But its the exception, not the rule.

 

[Old Soldier]

Another thing to bear in mind is that people who write the histories rarely participated in the actions described, or were well behind the action or directing the action. For many involved, it was VERY hard to write about their experiences - too many bad memories. When they did write about it, it was in the form of a novel - fiction - and many years afterwards. Im Western Nichts Neues (All quiet on the Western Front - WW1) was not written until 1927 and published in 1928 - Das Boot (The Boat - WW2) did not appear until 1973. Why these two examples? History experienced first-hand - and written by the loser.

So what? There are two sorts of histories: event history and participation history. The first one deals with what happened on a large scale and over a particular time period. Written by those at the top of the command structure, they generally have little detail with general descriptions and seen from a particular viewpoint and often well after the events described. For example, Caesar did not write Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Gallic Wars) as they happened but what he remembered. When they are written by non-participants (even decades or centuries afterwards), they are generally based on earlier histories but detailed using a number of other contemporary sources - including written and verbal accounts and records.

The second is what was experienced. This, as already explained, is personal experience and is rarely 'immediate'. Trouble is, as the mental scars heal, time passes, and detail of memories fade. They generally do not like to go against the PUBLIC perception of what happened which is often based on press articles or the 'official' histories.

 

[vmicraig]

I had the good fortune to be deployed to Iraq during my military career on several occasions and during one, collected over 200 oral histories from Privates to General's who were actively engaged in combat operations at that moment in time. For the higher ranking, the focus was more on strategic governance of a hostile area, whereas the lower ranking focused on the tactical situation in which they were immediately involved. The whole reason for employing a Marine on ground collecting oral histories in the midst of combat operations is because Corps leadership realizes no matter how little time passes after the event, memory fades, tales get exaggerated and history is distorted. People tend to let opinions and biases cloud the memories of the event pretty quickly. In the case of combat, mere hours can distort the actual events, even for the most hardened. Without oral or written record taken contemporaneously with the action or event being discussed, the history is and will forever be incomplete, skewed and altered. Collective memory and even individual memory in any situation is simply fraught with error, even if well intentioned.

Every Civil War vet who spun a tale likely added or exaggerated, as there were few contemporaneous interviews conducted for historical sake. Public and collective memory of the Civil War was surely no different than today. I could likely go to any Marine I interviewed and ask the exact same questions I did of him in Country a mere 15 years ago or so and their memory of the event would not recall the same story as originally told. As such, our reliance on the memories of anyone, even if written down in post action books, chronologies and novels, must be taken with a grain of salt.