Abstract
Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy (eds), The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ISBN13: 9780195337426
An academic field of research is coming of age as it establishes its own past. As Maurice Halbwachs once opined about growing up: ‘[T]he life of the child is immersed in social milieus through which he comes in touch with a past stretching back some distance. The latter acts like a framework into which are woven his [the child’s] most personal remembrances. […] Later on, his memory will ground itself on this lived past, much more than on any past learned from written history’ (1980: 68). Thus, social milieus, the groups one is involved in, are a requirement for autobiographical memory, but it is the memory that gives a sense of personal self. The field of Memory Studies is in its current phase somewhere between adolescence and adulthood, constituting itself across milieus and disciplines, not least by creating its own memory. It was a child wonder, to remain within the metaphor, an A-list star of the 1990s in society, politics and media as well as in academia, which now requires reigning in and structuring so as not to fall apart. In the last couple of years, several attempts have been made to provide a framework for pulling together the manifold interests and character traits of this widely engaging ‘prodigy’, including a book series, a dedicated journal and numerous overviews and handbooks. However, looking at its past, at its ancestors, its family, its schools, looking at the milieus that made it, may in fact be the best way of creating a framework of memories that achieves cohesion, sense and relevance. The Collective Memory Reader is quite possibly the most important contribution to this end.
Jeffrey Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy have achieved an outstanding volume by putting together an impressive selection of extracts from over 40 texts central to the history of memory studies. It is not the first collection of classic texts about memory (e.g. Rossington and Whitehead, 2007) but it is well thought out, carefully selected and convincingly structured upon central contributions to the field of memory studies. In contrast to other compilations, the editors have made the wise decision to leave out the classics of ancient, medieval and renaissance considerations about memory, and instead to focus on modern texts that have shaped and directly influenced memory studies as it was established. The oldest passage of the collection is from Edmund Burke from 1820, which finds particular appeal in current cultural memory studies, and only three more (from Marx, Nietzsche and Renan) are from the nineteenth century, while the majority of the selection is from the 1980s and 1990s, with several older ones spread over the twentieth century and some later contributions. It is the choice of texts that makes it evident that the editors are principal figures and close observers of the development of memory studies over the last 20 years or so. Aside from authors who would most certainly be known beyond memory studies for their contributions to the perception of the past, such as Freud, Halbwachs, Mead and Hobsbawm, the editors have brought together key texts of the most influential authors of the field, the names of whom, though often only their names, are familiar to scholars of social memory. They have also unearthed meditations on memory from well known theorists who are not naturally associated with this research field, including Adorno, Foucault, Sennett and Giddens. Moreover, they included writers who are widely unknown but who are yet to be appreciated for their work on memory. In each of these instances, the editors deserve particular praise for editing often long and complex texts to brief but pointedly passages. For example, the few chosen pages from Halbwachs’s rare book The Collective Memory can be said to summarize the basics of his theory more succinctly (and offer a more accessible approach for students) than the 240-page abridged compilation of Halbwachs’s other memory books which is widely used (Halbwachs, 1992; translated from Halbwachs, 1925).
Although the reader’s editors stress the subjective nature of the selection process (from a list of a thousand texts), it is overall balanced and focused in its representation of memory studies’ history. Proust and Benedict Anderson might have been passed over, Sartre and Luhmann could have been included and some more obscure works of relevance might still hide in someone’s library, but there is no compelling reason that those should have been chosen over the ones in the reader. Critically, though, the compilation is overwhelmingly Western, not just regarding the authors – who, I believe, are all European or from North America – but also topically. The latter point concerns both geography and content. I understand that The Collective Memory Reader is not concerned with empirical studies but with theories and concepts. Yet, the thinking about memories differs in a multi-ethnic and cast society like India, for instance (e.g. Chaturvedi, 2007). Two texts, Bastide on Brazil and Ranger on Africa, are too little to represent the ‘rest of the world’, especially considering the broad discussion of memory in post-colonialism. Important contemporary debates about historical/transitional justice, migration and other transnational aspects of memory studies are neglected as well. In the end, it is surely the discussion about the relevance of certain texts for memory studies that the book should start (but engaging with this is beyond the boundaries of this review); this could be an important contribution of the reader to the future of the field. However, the reader presents the origin, the tradition and the past of memory studies – and after all, this might be its strength – rather than contemporary debates and current links or intersections with other fields. As such, for its excellent selection of texts and passages, The Collective Memory Reader is indispensable for both interested students and seasoned scholars of memory studies, for an overview, as inspiration and as a treasure chest.
While the compilation overall is a careful reflection of the history of memory studies, the opportunity of the volume’s 60-page introduction to bring the compiled texts together has unfortunately been missed. Here, the editors try to cover too much ground beyond the reader, canvassing too many approaches in numerous short and uninspired narratives that overall remain disjointed, thereby neglecting the actual scope of the volume. The book would have profited from an introduction to or a historical interpretation of memory studies in a comprehensive but diverse narrative that relates the presented texts with one another. In particular, the over-emphasis on Halbwachs and his reception (and the neglect of Bartlett, Mead and many others) and on Holocaust memories (but not on other genocides or other events) only seems to reiterate the often lamented standard and mono-causal version of the field. This is regrettable, especially because the selection of the volume itself is outstanding for presenting multiple alternative traditions of memory studies and it could offer so much more variety in application. Possibly, this is the ironic triumph of the ‘lived past’ over the ‘written history’ of which Halbwachs wrote in the quote above. Yet, after establishing memory studies’ own memory, its ‘lived past’ created from its milieus, the next step would have to be to engage with close and intersecting fields. ‘As the child grows,’ Halbwachs knew, ‘and especially as he becomes an adult, he participates (at first unaware) in a more distinct and reflective way in the life and thoughts of the groups to which he belongs’ (1980: 69). As memory studies matures, we have to look beyond its apparent historical boundaries. It would be a shame if the autobiographical self-perception of the field that the collective memory reader purports commendably would veil the many milieus and research fields it lives from and participates in.