Abstract
While research methodologies across the social sciences may differ, those social scientists interested in remembering in the “real world” agree that such remembrances occur in particular contexts and that these contexts have profound influences on how the past is remembered. Moreover, if human cognitive activity is the result of contextualized interactions with culturally and historically organized material and social environments (Huchins, 2010), then an explicit description of these contexts is essential toward understanding when and how individuals and groups remember the past at any particular moment (see, for example, the work by the psychologist, Endel Tulving on the encoding specificity principle, Tulving and Thomson, 1973; see also Surprenant and Neath, 2009).
This Special Issue integrates cutting-edge research from memory scholars across disparate disciplines who, in general, have remained largely ignorant of each others’ research. Thus, a central goal of this Special Issue is to explicitly examine how different but interrelated contexts (e.g. bodily, intercorporal, psychological, conversational, technological, societal, and political) shape the way individuals and groups remember the past in natural, applied, and experimental settings. To this end, this Special Issue brings together diverse perspectives in memory and communication research—from discursive, social, and cognitive psychologists, to philosophers, cognitive linguists, and technological designers. In doing so, we hope and believe that the sum of this Special Issue will ultimately provide, not only a description of the breadth of memory studies research being conducted across disciplines but also a better understanding of how different contexts shape the way individuals and groups remember the past and help provide the basis for an interdisciplinary model of how the past is remembered.
In June 2012, a 3-day workshop was held on “remembering in context” at the Center for Interdisciplinary Memory Research (ZiF), Bielefeld University, Germany, to explore the varieties of contexts across disciplines that shape the way individuals and groups remember the past. The workshop benefited from contributions from discursive, social, cognitive, and neuropsychologists, as well as sociologists, cognitive linguistics, computer scientists, and technological designers. Aside from Kopietz and Echterhoff’s research article and Singer and Conway’s general commentary, early versions of all the articles in this Special Issue were presented at this workshop.
Underlying each of the articles in this Special Issue (either implicit or explicitly) is the concept of episodic memory (Rubin, 2006; Tulving, 2002). Episodic memories are critical in the way humans define themselves and assign meaning to the world. From the here and now, episodic memory enables us to reconstruct and re-encounter autobiographical experiences which have occurred throughout the course of our lives. Furthermore, episodic memories allow humans to project themselves into the future by making predictions and inferences that allow them to anticipate possible, future outcomes (e.g. Schacter and Addis, 2007). Several studies on autobiographical memory and embodied cognition (Glenberg, 1997; Rubin, 2006) have claimed that individual representations of past experiences are formed by the interplay of multimodal components—merging the coordination of kinesthetic, visual, auditory, haptic, spatial, affective, and linguistic memory traces. Thus, the reconstruction of an episodic memory “involves simulating its multimodal components together” (Barsalou, 2008: 623). These claims are in accordance with the research that suggests that the personal experiences on which autobiographical memories are based are always situated within socially, materially, and spatiotemporally localized contexts.
In other words, when individuals and groups remember the past, they do so in particular, diverse and complex contexts. And each and every aspect of these contexts has important influences on the way that individuals and group remember the past. Each of the articles in this issue attempt to delineate particular contexts, eight in total, from a particular perspective and illustrate how said contexts play an important role in shaping how the past is remembered. Our Special Issue concludes with an article by Singer and Conway where they manage to distill the important themes and issues raised throughout the Special Issue. It is through each of these articles, and the Special Issue itself, that we hope to continue an open dialogue with researchers across disciplines so that we may one day develop a truly interdisciplinary model of how individuals and groups remember the past.
Contributions to the Special Issue
The Special Issue begins with Koch, Summa, and Fuchs examining how remembering the past is shaped within the context of the body. Koch, Summa, and Fuchs’ article examines how bodily positions shape human memory, the results of which have both ontogenetic and phylogenetic consequences for affect and cognition. Koch, Summa, and Fuchs claim that “body memory” is comprised of interwoven, universal, and culturally mediated bodily features. That is, a memory is about the quality of the experience rather than its content and is grounded in all bodily experiences, both of which have a strong effect on memory retrieval (Fuchs, 2012). The subjective and unique characteristics of body memory are determined by the affordances provided by people’s bodies along with the environment in which these implicit memory processes occur.
Second, Harris, Barnier, Sutton, and Keil examine how remembering the past is shaped within the context of long-lasting, intimate relationships. Specifically, they examine how older couples form a particular type of social group whereby they are able to use each other’s cognitive capacities to facilitate the recall of particular, shared events. That is, under some circumstances, when older couples remember together they are able to remember information that both individuals, in isolation, had forgotten (Harris et al., 2011). Such a facilitation effect is unusual given the copious amounts of research demonstrating that groups remembering together often recall less than the sum of an equal number of individuals remembering in isolation. Harris and colleagues argued that such mnemonic benefits found in these older couples stems from shared retrieval strategies, interactive cuing styles and repetition.
Third, Kopietz and Echterhoff examine how remembering the past is shaped within the context of the “collective social other.” In particular, they investigate the Germans’ collective memories of the 2006 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup held in Germany. In two experiments, they demonstrate how the extent to which Germans were confident in their memories of the World Cup depended on whether they recalled episodic memories (e.g. I was watching the semi-finals against Italy at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin) or semantic memories (the Allianz Arena in Munich was specifically built for the World Cup). More relevant to the present Special Issue, Kopietz and Echterhoff found that when Germans thought about people with similar memories as themselves, perceived shared relevance and identification with Germany increased. Thus, the mental context in which individuals place themselves also has important mnemonic and social consequences.
Fourth, Stone and Hirst examine how remembering the past is shaped within the context of public silence. Stone and Hirst demonstrate that the forging of a collective memory through communication is not merely the consequence of what is discussed, but also a result of what is left silent (Stone et al., 2012). Not all silences are mnemonically equal. Remaining selectively silent about a topic not only induces these aspects to be less accessible (i.e. forgetting), but also provides a functional mechanism in forging a collective memory. By reviewing results of their ongoing empirical studies on retrieval-induced forgetting in relation to public silence (e.g. failure of political leaders to state all that they know), Stone and Hirst argue that “if the public silence is related to what is mentioned, the resultant individual and collective forgetting would be greater than if the public silence was unrelated to what is mentioned” (in press).
Fifth, Brown and Reavey examine how remembering the past is shaped within the context of emotion and social interactions. According to Brown et al. (2001), remembering is a performance, and it is within this framework that Brown and Reavey examine what they call “vital memories.” These are, they argue, a particular kind of autobiographical memory (or memories) of an enduring, difficult and painful personal episode that shapes the present and past sense of self:
Our ongoing research is concerned with particular kinds of autobiographical memories amongst so-called “vulnerable” groups. These include survivors of child sexual abuse, adopted children and their families, forensic mental health service users, elderly persons in care home settings. (in press)
Brown and Reavey argue that vital memories are highly interdependent with other memories and the present, social context. In other words, vital memories seem to present a specific type of relation with the social contexts in which these painful and troubling recollections are brought to the present.
Sixth, Murakami examines how remembering the past is shaped within the context of self-relevant commemorations or pilgrimages. From an ethnographic perspective and within the framework developed by discursive psychologists, Murakami examines the commemorative practices of the British veterans who fought in the Burma Campaign during World War II (1942–1945, for further information see http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk). To do so, she followed the veterans on their pilgrimage to Burma for a reunion with both, not only fellow British soldiers and their families, but also the Burmese soldiers and their families. Murakami’s chapter goes beyond the analysis of real-world conversational practices by taking into account the key role artifacts, mediation, and embodied action play in such reunions and pilgrimages. Murakami lucidly demonstrates the importance of cultural, social, and material contexts in shaping the commemorative practices of the Burma Campaign in the United Kingdom.
Seventh, Cienki, Bietti, and Kok examine how remembering the past is shaped within the context of multimodal collaborations. Cienki and his collaborators examine, in particular, the central role that the alignment and coordination of embodied resources play during collaborative remembering in small groups. For example, they examine the role manual gestures, postural sway, and eye-gaze play in shaping the way small groups collectively remember the past. Their results suggest that the alignment of different modals have important implications for how small groups collaboratively remember.
Last, Van den Hoven examines how remembering the past is shaped within the context of technological interactions. Given the advancements in technology over the last 20 or 30 years, the way humans interact with technology has changed the way individuals encode, store, and retrieve memories, if we may use such terminology for clarity’s sake. In Van den Hoven’s article, she explores how technology can make important contributions to the field of memory studies both in terms of how and which memories are retrieved and remembered. Van den Hoven presents two cases based on naturalistic observations of users behaviors with two digital, interactive devices: the Cueb and 4Photos. She demonstrates how these devices may help facilitate social remembering (e.g. family remembering at the dinner table) and strengthen group bonds. Thus, the interaction between humans and technology may not only give hope to those who wish to always remember everything (Kaku, 2014), but may also, somewhat ironically, provide a means to build stronger social, human bonds around a shared past.
Toward an interdisciplinary model of how the past is remembered
As can be seen by the various methodologies, vernacular and interpretations of exactly what is meant by both “remembering” and “contexts,” attempting to find a holistic, interdisciplinary model of how the past is remembered by integrating them all, is a difficult and lofty endeavor. However, rather than shy away from such an arduous task, researchers must embrace, understand, and negotiate these cross-disciplinary differences. For, as should be abundantly clear by now, we believe an interdisciplinary approach toward understanding how individuals and groups remember the past is the present and future of memory studies. Singer and Conway underscore this point in their cogent and insightful commentary:
[…] we must also acknowledge that to be human is to be part of a biological reality that extends beyond our conscious awareness—to be human is to be embedded in networks of intimate and more extended relationships—to be human is to belong to a larger collective that helps to shape our memory and that remembers with us. This variety of individuality, corporality, and community takes us toward a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of how memory in the human species works. (in press)
This is precisely our hope, that this Special Issue will go a long way toward developing a more interdisciplinary and inter-contextual approach toward memory studies and, in the elegant words of Singer and Conway, “… a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of how memory in the human species works.”