From Collective Memory

5/9/2018 From Collective Memory - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-collective-memory 1/37

Social Memory Studies: From "Collective Memory" to the Historical Sociology of MnemonicPracticesAuthor(s): Jeffrey K. Olick and Joyce RobbinsSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24 (1998), pp. 105-140Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223476

Accessed: 08/05/2009 09:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/223476?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/223476?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Annu.Rev.Sociol. 1998. 24:105-40

Copyright? 1998 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

SOCIAL MEMORY STUDIES:From

"CollectiveMemory" o the Historical

Sociology of MnemonicPractices

JeffreyK. OlickandJoyce RobbinslDepartmentof Sociology, ColumbiaUniversity,New York,New York 10027;e-mail:[email protected]

KEYWORDS: ociology fknowledge,dentity ndmemory,

ABSTRACT

Despite substantialwork in a variety of disciplines, substantiveareas,and

geographicalcontexts,social memorystudies is anonparadigmatic,ransdis-ciplinary,centerlessenterprise.To remedythis relativedisorganization,we

(re-)constructout of the diversityof workaddressingsocial memoryauseful

tradition,rangeof workingdefinitions, and basis for futurework. We trace

lineages of the enterprise,review basic definitionaldisputes, outline a his-toricalapproach,and review sociological theoriesconcerningthe staticsand

dynamicsof social memory.

Introduction

...the time is pastinwhichtime did not matter.Modemmanno longerworksat what cannot be abbreviated...

PaulValery

Scholars have viewed social memory narrowly as a subfield of the sociology of

knowledge (Swidler & Arditi 1994) and broadly as "the connective structure

of societies" (Assmann 1992, p. 293). They have seen it as involving particular

1Directall correspondence o JeffreyK. Olick, Departmentof Sociology, 324M Fairweather

Hall, ColumbiaUniversity,New York,New York 10027; e-mail:[email protected]

105

0360-0572/98/0815-0105$08.00



106 OLICK& ROBBINS

sets of practices like commemorationand monumentbuilding and generalforms like tradition,myth, or identity. They have approached t from sociol-

ogy, history, literarycriticism,anthropology,psychology, arthistory,andpo-litical science, among other disciplines. They have studied it in simple and

complex societies, from above andbelow, across the geographicalspectrum.Social memorystudies is nevertheless,or perhapsas a result, a nonparadig-matic,transdisciplinary, enterlessenterprise.While this relativedisorganiza-tion has beenproductive, t now seems possible to drawtogethersome of these

dispersed insights. Ourgoal in this essay is thereforeto (re-)constructout ofthe diversity of work addressingsocial memory a useful tradition,range of

workingdefinitions,andbasis for futurework in a field that ronicallyhas little

organizedmemoryof its own.

Lineages

Memory,of course, has been a major preoccupation or social thinkers since

the Greeks. Yet it was not untilthe late nineteenthandearlier wentieth centu-

ries thata distinctivelysocial perspectiveon memorybecameprominent.The

firstexplicituse of the termcollective memorywe could find was by HugovonHofmannsthal n 1902, who referred o "the dammedup force of ourmysteri-ous ancestorswithinus"and"piled up layersof accumulatedcollective mem-

ory"(Schieder1978,p. 2). Contemporary sagesareusuallytraced o MauriceHalbwachs,who publishedhis landmarkSocial Frameworksof Memoryin

1925. Halbwachs' Strasbourgcolleague, historianMarc Bloch (1925), also

used the term collective memoryin 1925 as well as later n his book on feudal

society (Bloch 1974 [1939]). The arthistorianAby Warburgusedthe term so-

cial memoryto analyzeartworksasrepositoriesof history.WalterBenjaminas

well, thoughhe never used theterms social or collective memory,analyzedthe

materialworld as accumulatedhistory, brilliantlyemphasizingnot only the

manifold traces of the past in the artifactsof commodityculture,but the rela-

tions between commoditycultureand particular orms of historicityas well(Buck-Morss1989).

Bartlett 1932) is usuallycreditedas the first modempsychologistto attendto the social dimensionsof memory,attributingdecisive importance o groupdynamicsin individualremembering.AnthropologistEvans-Pritchard1940)

developedanotionof "structural mnesia" nhis famousstudyof the Nuer.In-

teresting but largely forgottenworks in other fields include Janet's (1927)

studyof the evolution of memoryandthe concept of time, Vygotsky's 1929

claimthatmemorytakes narrative orm and is wholly shapedby cultural nflu-

ences (Bakhurst1990), and Czamowski's 1919 Durkheimiananalysisof festi-vals and ritualscelebratingSaintPatrick(Schwartz1996, pp. 275-76).In aboutthe same period,Americansociologists Cooley (1918) and Mead

(1959 [1932]) also theorizedaboutthe social context of remembering,buttheir



SOCIALMEMORYTUDIES 107

important deas-especially Mead's-have usually been ascribedto extraso-

ciological interests(Maines et al 1983). Among the emergingEuropeanclas-

sical theorists, Durkheim(1951 [1915]) is insightful about temporalitybutaddresses memory directly only in his brief discussion of commemorative

rituals,and thereonly as a featureof primitivesocieties. Social reproductionis perhapsthe centralcategory of Marx's thought,but the Marxist tradition

emphasizes the automaticand unconscious qualityof the process; consciousattention to the past is characterizedas an irrationalresidue of earlier socialforms: "The tradition of the dead generations,"Marx (1852) writes in The

EighteenthBrumaire,"weighs like a nightmareon the minds of the living."Simmel (1959) wrote that "All the uncertainties of change in time and the

tragedyof loss associatedwith the past find in the ruina coherentand unifiedexpression."This remark s prescientof later theoriesthatsee memorytracesas evidence of loss, but Simmel did not develop it more than aphoristically.Weber,too, had little to say aboutmemory, despite his interestin traditional

legitimation:"by its very 'progressiveness' [civilized society]... gives deaththe imprintof meaninglessness"(1946). Meaningfuldeath is elusive because

memory is inadequate o hold togetherthe diversity of our life experiences.But this is anintriguingaside rather hanthebeginningof atheoryof memory.

Shils (1981, p. 9) explainsthis sharedneglect of traditionandmemoryby

demonstratinghow Weber and his contemporarieswere the victims of theirown overdrawndichotomies. The classical theorists, Shils writes, "oversub-scribed to the naive view that modem society was on the road to traditionless-ness...." From such a perspective, an interest in how the past works on the

presentwas antiquarian, rat least useful only asa contrast o theways modemsocieties work. In his discussion of Tonnies, Terdiman 1993) notes how un-usual this lack of interest n memoryandtraditionwas in a fin de siecle culturehe describes as otherwise obsessed with memory.

Between this early period of scatteredwork on the social foundations of

memoryand the present, relativelylittle attentionwas paidto the issue. Evenmajorworks like Lloyd Warer's TheLiving and the Dead (1959) were con-sidered exotic. Since about 1980, however,both thepublicand academiahavebecome saturatedwith references to social or collective memory. Why has

public interestin memory grown so in the last two decades? Kammen(1995)explainsit in termsof the rise ofmulticulturalism, hefall of Communism,anda politics of victimization and regret,among other factors. Schwartz(1997)explains a decline in presidentialreputationsunder the rubric of postmoder-nity.Nora, Hutton,Le Goff, Matsuda,andHuyssen pursuesimilar lines of ex-

planationthroughan enterprise hey label "thehistoryof memory,"which wereview in greaterdetail below.It is a slightly different matterto trace the rise of scholarlyinterestin the

memory problematicand the associatedrediscoveryof Halbwachs;analytical



108 OLICK& ROBBINS

paradigms appear to have at least a semiautonomousdynamic. Schwartz

(1996) identifies threerelatedaspectsof 1960s-1970s intellectualculturethat

gave rise to interest n the social constructionof the past. First,multicultural-ists identify historiographyas a source of culturaldominationand challengedominanthistorical narratives n the name of repressedgroups.Second,post-modernistsattack heconceptualunderpinnings f linearhistoricity, ruth,and

identity,therebyraisinginterest n the relationslinking history,memory,and

power. Finally, hegemonytheoristsprovidea class-basedaccount of the poli-tics of memory,highlighting memorycontestation,popularmemory,and theinstrumentalization f the past.

Hutton(1993) traces the memoryproblematic o the historyof mentalities

that has dominated Frenchhistoriographysince the 1960s. Foucault's "ar-

chaeological"stanceprovidedgeneralphilosophical support or a desacraliza-tion of traditions. Historians like Aries (1974) and Agulhon (1981), Hutton

writes,beganto studythehistoryof commemorativepractices,whichtheysawas mechanismsof politicalpower,thusshiftinghistoriographicalnterest rom

ideology to imageryand from meaningto manipulation.Writers like Hobs-bawm-whose much-citedInventionof Traditionwas a hallmarkworkin thisvein-extended this desacralization, eeing traditionsas disingenuouseffortsto secure

political power. Accordingto Hutton, t was on this foundation hat

interestin Halbwachsrevived;his apparentlypresentistposition was seen as

anticipatingpostmodernism.The recent effort by Nora to document all the"realmsof memory" n Frenchsociety (discussed below), Huttonargues, s the

crowningmomentin this tradition.

Analogously, sociology has moved fromthe studyof social structuresandnormative ystemsto thatof"practice" Bourdieu1984,Ortner1984),expand-ing the functionalistdefinitionof cultureas norms,values,andattitudes o cul-

ture as the constitutive symbolic dimension of all social processes (Crane

1994).The view thatall

meaningframeworkshave histories and that

explicitlypast-orientedmeaningframeworksareprominentmodes of legitimationand

explanation eadsto increased nterest n socialmemorybecause it raisesques-tions about the transmission,preservation,and alterationof these frameworksover time. Social memorystudies also draw on the Mannheimian radition nthesociology of knowledgeand the Mertonian radition nthesociology of sci-ence as well as on Berger& Luckmann's(1966) social constructionism, orwhich many sociologists of memory seem to have a special affinity. Social

memorystudies thusfit squarelywithinthereorientation f culturalsociology,much like thatof recent

historiography,rominterestin "ideas

developed byknowledge specialists... [to] structuresof knowledge or consciousness that

shapethe thinkingof laypersons" Swidler& Arditi 1994) as well as drawingon oldersociological interests.



SOCIALMEMORY STUDIES 109

Delimitingthe Field

Through his reconstructionof intellectual ineages for social memorystudies,it is possible to limn a conceptualcore for ourcontemporary fforts. Theplaceto begin is Durkheim'sresponseto philosophicalpositions, in contradistinc-

tion to which he demandeda social account of temporality.For Halbwachs,Durkheim'sstudent,this meant thatstudying memorywas not a matterof re-

flecting philosophicallyon inherentpropertiesof the subjectivemind;memoryis a matterof how minds worktogether n society, how theiroperationsarenot

simply mediated but arestructuredby social arrangements: [I]tis in societythatpeople normally acquiretheir memories. It is also in society thatthey re-

call, recognize, and localize their memories..." (Halbwachs 1992, p. 38).Nonetheless, because questionsof social memoryinvolve issues of temporal-

ity, mind, and, as we see shortly, narrativeand historicity, social studies of

memoryhave remainedclose to philosophy.Halbwachsdeveloped his concept of collective memorynot only beyond

philosophybut against psychology, thoughthe very idea of a social memoryappropriatespsychological terminology. Freud had arguedthat the individ-ual's unconscious acts as a repository for all past experiences. Forgetting,

rather hanremembering, s whattakes workin the formof repressionand thesubstitutionof "screen"memories thatblock access to more disturbingones.Halbwachsrejectsthis Freudianandotherpurelypsychological accounts. He

arguesthat it is impossible for individuals to remember n any coherent and

persistent ashion outside of theirgroupcontexts:"There s [thus]nopoint,"he

argues,"inseekingwhere... [memories]arepreserved n my brainor in somenook of my mind to which I alonehave access: for they arerecalledby me ex-

ternally,and the groupsof which I am a partat anytime give me the means toreconstruct hem..." (Halbwachs1992, p. 38).

Writersin other traditions have rejected an individual-psychologicalap-proachto memory as well: Gadamer(1979), for instance,has written,"It istime to rescuethe phenomenonof memoryfrombeing regardedas a psycho-logical facultyand to see it as anessential elementof the finite historicalbeingof man"(Hutton 1993). Contemporarypsychologists Middleton & Edwards

(1990) as well encouragetheirdisciplineto recoverBartlett'sandHalbwachs'more social insights.Neisser (1982) implicitlycalls for a more social perspec-tive on memory when he argues that the standardexperimentalmethods of

cognitive psychology have been inadequatedue to the artificialityof the ex-

perimentalsetting. Pennebaker,Paez, and Rime (1997) take an explicitly so-cial psychological perspectivein theirstudies of collective memoryof politi-cal events. Preserving more of the individualistperspective, some authorshave suggested possible benefits of linking social, neuropsychological,and



110 OLICK& ROBBINS

paleoanthropological nquiries nto memory(Schachter1995, Leroi-Gourhan

1993).

Thethird,andperhapsmost contested,boundary or social memorystudiesis its relationto historiography.Halbwachs was very decisive about his solu-tion:History s deadmemory,away of preservingpaststo which we no longerhave an "organic" xperientialrelation. On the surface,this understandingofthe distinctionnegatesthe self-image of historiographyas the moreimportantor appropriate ttitude owardthe past: History'sepistemologicalclaim is de-valued in favor of memory'smeaningfulness.At a deeperlevel, however, the

distinction is the same that traditionalhistorianswould draw betweenhistoryandmemory:Onlythe former s engagedin a searchfor truth. n thisvein, Ye-

rushalmi(1982, p. 95) drawsa sharpcontrast between Jewish memory andJewishhistoriography, rguing hatuntiltheeighteenthcentury, he formerex-

cluded the latter. On the one hand, he lamentsthis conditionbecause, as he

writes,".. collective memory... is drasticallyselective. Certainmemories live

on; the rest are winnowed out, repressed,or simply discardedby a process ofnatural election which thehistorian,uninvited,disturbsand reverses."On the

otherhand,he critiqueshistoryfor its sterilepostureof distancefrommeaningandrelevance:"...Jewish historiography an never substitute or Jewishmem-

ory.... A historiographyhat does not aspireto be memorable s in perilof be-

coming a rampantgrowth" Yerushalmi1982, p. 101).Recentapproacheswithinhistoriography,however,have critiqued his un-

derstandingof the relationsbetweenhistoryandmemory.First,as historiogra-

phyhas broadened ts focus fromthe official to the social andcultural,memoryhas become central "evidence." Theorists now recognize, moreover, that

memoryfrequentlyemployshistoryin its service: Professionalhistorianshave

often providedpolitical legitimation for nationalismand other more recon-

structiveidentity struggles.This involvement calls into questionnot only the

success of historians nbeing objective,but theverynotion of objectivity tself

(Novick 1988). Furthermore,postmoderists have challenged the "truth-claim" of professionalhistoriographyby questioningthe distinctionbetween

knowledge and interpretation, ndderivativelybetween historyandmemory(White 1973, Veyne 1984). Philosophershave arguedforcefully that histori-

ographyconstructsas muchas uncoversthe "truths"t pursues(Novick 1988,

Iggers 1997). History is writtenby people in the present for particularpur-

poses, and the selectionandinterpretation f"sources"arealwaysarbitrary.f

"experience,"moreover,is always embedded n and occursthroughnarrative

frames,then there is no primal,unmediatedexperiencethat canbe recovered.

The distinctionbetween history and memoryin such accounts is a matterofdisciplinary power ratherthan of epistemological privilege. Burke (1989)thereforerefers to historyas social memory,using the termas "a convenient

piece of shorthandwhich sumsuptherathercomplex processof selection and



SOCIALMEMORY TUDIES 111

interpretation."Hutton(1993) titles his book History as an Art of Memory.Schwartzarguesthat"Sharpoppositionbetween historyand collective mem-

oryhas been our Achilles Heel, causingus to assertunwillingly,and often de-spite ourselves, that what is not historical must be 'invented' or 'con-structed'-which transformscollective memory study into a kind of cynicalmuckraking"B Schwartz,personal communication).

Before turning o thehistoryof memoryand to the substantiveresults of so-cialmemorystudies,it is possible, on thebasis of theprecedingreconstruction,to define some of the basic concepts for such an inquiry.Halbwachsdistin-

guishedamongautobiographicalmemory,historicalmemory,history,andcol-lective memory.Autobiographicalmemoryis memoryof those events thatwe

ourselvesexperience,while historicalmemoryis memorythatreaches us onlythroughhistorical records. History is the rememberedpast to which we no

longerhave an "organic" elation-the pastthat is no longeran importantpartof ourlives-while collective memoryis the activepastthatforms ouridenti-ties. Memoryinevitably gives way to historyas we lose touch with ourpasts.Historicalmemory,however, can be eitherorganicor dead: We can celebrateeven whatwe did not directlyexperience,keepingthe given past alive forus,or it can be alive only inhistoricalrecords,so-calledgraveyardsof knowledge.

Though collective memory does seem to take on a life of its own, Halb-

wachs remindsthat it is only individualswho remember,even if they do muchof this remembering ogether.And Coser (1992) points out that,while Durk-heimwrites"Society"with a capitalS, Halbwachsemploys themore cautious

"groups."Halbwachscharacterized ollective memoryasplural;he shows thatsharedmemories can be effective markers of social differentiation(Wood1994, p. 126). Some authors,nonetheless,detect the collectivist overtones ofthe Durkheimian radition n Halbwachs'work. Fentress& Wickham(1992)worry about "a concept of collective consciousness curiously disconnectedfromthe actualthought processes of any particularperson,"which risks ren-

dering"theindividual a sort of automaton,passively obeying the interiorizedcollective will."

As aresultof theseproblems,some authorspreferothertermsto "collective

memory." Sturkin (1997) defines "culturalmemory" as "memory that issharedoutsidethe avenuesof formalhistoricaldiscourseyet is entangledwithculturalproductsand imbuedwith culturalmeaning."Fentress& Wickham

(1992) refer to "social memory"ratherthan to collective memory. Olick &

Levy (1997) refer to "imagesof the past"as partsof "politicalculturalpro-files." Assmann(1992) distinguishesamongfour modes of memoryin an ef-

fort to capturethe range of memory problematics:1. mimetic memory-thetransmissionof practicalknowledge from the past;2. materialmemory-thehistory containedin objects; 3. communicativememory-the residues of the

past in languageandcommunication, ncludingthe very abilityto communi-



112 OLICK&ROBBINS

cate in language;and 4. culturalmemory-the transmissionof meaningsfromthe past, thatis, explicit historicalreference and consciousness.

Critics who chargethat "collectivememory"over-totalizesprefera prolif-erationof more specific termsto capture he ongoing contest over images ofthepast:official memory,vernacularmemory, publicmemory,popularmem-

ory, local memory, family memory,historicalmemory,culturalmemory,etc.Still othersarguethat a collective memoryconcepthasnothingto add to olderformulations ike myth, tradition,custom, andhistoricalconsciousness. Gedi&Elam(1996) hold thatoveruse of the termcollective memory s "anactof in-trusion... forcingitself like amolten rock into anearlier ormation...unavoid-

ably obliteratingfine distinctions...." If defined too broadly,as the pattern-maintenancefunction of society or as social reproductionper se, what is notsocial memory?On the otherhand,Burke(1989) arguesthat"if we refuse touse suchterms,we areindangerof failingto notice the differentways in whichthe ideas of individualsare influencedby the groupsto which they belong."Schwartzuses HerbertBlumer's classical distinctionbetweenoperationaland

sensitizing concepts,and classifies collective memoryas of the lattersort. He

argues that collective memory"is not an alternative o history (or historical

memory)but is rathershapedby it as well as by commemorativesymbolismand ritual. To conceive collective

memoryin this

waysensitizes us to

realitywhile encouragingus to recognize the many thingswe can do to realityinter-

pretively"(personalcommunication).In this review, we refer to "social memorystudies"as a generalrubricfor

inquiryinto the varieties of forms throughwhich we are shapedby the past,conscious andunconscious,public andprivate,materialandcommunicative,consensualandchallenged.We referto distinct sets of mnemonicpracticesinvarious social sites, rather hanto collective memoryas athing.Thisapproach,we argue,enables us to identify ways inwhichpastandpresentare intertwined

withoutreifyingamystical groupmindandwithout ncludingabsolutelyevery-thing in the enterprise.Methodologically,Olick (n.d.) and Schudson(1992)suggest specifyingthe different nstitutional ields thatproducememorysuchas politics and the arts;Olick (n.d.) and Reichel (1995) theorizethe varyinglinksbetween mediaandmemory;Wagner-Pacifici 1996) places special em-

phasis on memory'scultural orms.

The History of Memory

Instead of trying to fix conceptualdistinctionstheoretically, many scholars

have called for a historicalapproach o social memory,one thatsees such dis-tinctions as emergingin particular imes and locations and forparticularpur-poses. As Matsuda 1996, p. 16)putsit, "...memoryhas too often become an-other analytical category to impose on the past; the point should be to re-




historicizememoryand see how it is so inextricablypartof the past."Yates'

(1966) TheArt of Memory s the seminalwork in this vein, charting he links

between memory systems andparticularhistorical orders. Yates traces trans-formations n ars memoria-the rhetoricalart of memorizing throughspatial

images-from Romantimes throughthe Renaissance,where the artof mem-

ory persistedin the humanisttraditiondespite its decline due to the spreadofthe printingpress. Coleman(1992) as well offers a comprehensivehistoryof

theories of memory from antiquitythroughlater medieval times, noting the

particular ophisticationof medieval theories,which address the reconstruc-tion of narratives.Following Yates' lead, Carruthers1990) demonstrates he

persistenceof memorytrainingeven with the spreadof texts,which resulted n

thehighlymixed oral-literatenatureof medieval cultures.Indeed,the dissemi-nation of writtenmaterials,she argues, occurredthroughmemorization andoral transmission.

Yet for Yates, Coleman,andCarruthers,memorizationremains central:Inearliercenturies,this form of rememberingwas of greatersignificancethanitis today. But even for those periods,an analysis of ars memoria reveals littleaboutpopularmemorydue to its elite focus. Inresponse, Geary(1994, p. 8) fo-cuses on ordinarymedieval people who, he argues,were actively engaged in

creatingtheir past: "Individualsand communitiescopied, abridged,and re-

vised archivalrecords, iturgical exts, literarydocuments,doingso with refer-ence to physical remindersfrom previous generationsand a fluid oral tradi-tion...." Geary(1994) also breakswith Yates et al by expanding he definitionof memoryto include textual transmissionas well as oral memorization.

But while ancient arts of memorydo persistin the intersticesof later mne-monic forms(Matsuda1996, Casey 1987, Zonabend1984), it is virtuallyim-

possible to discuss collective memorywithouthighlightinghistoricaldevelop-ments in the materialmeans of memorytransmission.While new technologi-cal means of recording hepastare oftenseen as "artificial,"withtimetheyare

incorporated nto the accepted cultural constructof memory. By extension,contemporary nterest in the social bases of memory may be traced at least

partlyto a historical shift of memoryfrom the mind to externalloci; withoutextemalizationof memoryin "artificial" ites, the social locationof memory snot as clear. Even in earlier cultures, however, direct attentionto materialforms of memorycan yield importantnsights.

Assmann (1992), for instance, argues that while Babylonian, Egyptian,Greek,and Jewish cultures all developed the technical means for preservingthepast (word,text,writing,andbook), only theGreekand Jewishpersistedas

living traditions,due to the peculiaritiesof theirhistoricalexperiences.In theJewish case, where the entireweight of culturalcontinuityrested on funda-mentaltexts, everythingdependedon keeping them alive. This led to the de-

velopment of a new form of reading-commentary-and a new kind of his-



114 OLICK& ROBBINS

torical consciousness. This studythus contradicts echnologicallydeterministclaims about the importanceof the alphabet or culturalcontinuity:While the

developmentof an alphabetwas important, t was not sufficient,norwere itseffects uniform.

Epochalgeneralizations bout hedevelopingrelationsbetweenmemoryand

technologiesof communicationhave nonethelessdescribedabroadshift from

oralityto literacyover millennia.Foundingthis tradition,McLuhan heorizedthe effects of electroniccommunications ntypographic ulturewithin ahistorythat ncludesthemove frommanuscriptoprintculture wocenturies arlierandfromoralityto literacya millenniumbefore that(Hutton 1993). Subsequently,Ongtraceda long-rangepattern romorality o manuscriptiteracy, o printcul-

ture,to mediaculture,drawingout implicationsformemory.The inventionof

writinginantiquitywas theseed forthe rise of more abstract hinking.Becausethatcapabilityresided n thehandsof a smallelite,however,itwas not untilthevast expansionof literacyin the seventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesthat the

profoundpossibilities of written culturebecame a dominantculturalform.Inthe process, memorybecame a public affair,and a problematicone at that.

On the basis of this kind of macro-historical heory, many contemporaryscholars of memorywork with an image of oral culture as richly expressiveandof literatecultureas detachedandintrospective Goody 1986). "Memory,"as Hutton 1993, p. 16)putsit, "firstconceivedas arepetition, s eventuallyre-conceived as arecollection."WhereProustrevelledinthe"involuntary"mem-

ory evoked by the taste of a tea cookie, macro-historical heorists of memorydescribe modemmemoryas predominantly"voluntary" r active. Hobsbawm& Ranger(1983), for instance,distinguishsharplybetween custom andtradi-tion. The former is the unproblematic ense of continuitythatundergirds he

gradual, iving changes of "traditional"ocieties. Tradition, n contrast,aimsat invarianceand is the productof explicit ideologies.

In an importantsynthesis, Le Goff (1992) follows Leroi-Gourhan 1993[1964-1965]) in identifyingfive distinctperiodsin the historyof memory.

* First, peoples without writing possessed what Le Goff calls "ethnic

memory," n which memory practicesare not highly developed arts;LeGoff thereforesee societies withoutwritingas free, creative,and vital.

* Second, the move from prehistoryto Antiquity involved the develop-ment fromoralityto writing, though writingnever fully supplantedoraltransmission.This new condition enabledtwo importantnew mnemonic

practices-commemoration and documentary recording-associated

with emerging city structures.

* Third,memory in the Middle Ages involved "the Christianizationof

memoryandofmnemotechnology,thedivision of collective memorybe-



SOCIALMEMORYSTUDIES 115

tween a circular iturgicalmemoryand a lay memorylittle influencedby

chronology, the developmentof the memoryof the dead andespecially

of dead saints..." (p. 68).

* Fourth,memoryas it developed fromthe Renaissance to the presentin-volved the gradualrevolutionin memory broughtaboutby the printingpress,which required he long developmentof a middle class readershipto complete its effect. With a "progressiveexteriorizationof individual

memory," he collective memory grewto such a degreethatthe individ-ual could no longer assimilate it in toto. In the nineteenthcentury,Ro-manticism added to a growing fervor for commemorating,andprolifer-

ated multifarious forms for doing so, including coins, medals, postagestamps, statuary, nscriptions,andsouvenirs.Inthe sameperiod,we wit-ness the birthof archives,libraries,andmuseums,reflectingtheinterestsof differentnationsseekingto buildshared dentitieswithintheir citizen-ries.

* Finally, changes in the twentieth century constituted anothergenuinerevolutionin memory,the most importantelement of which was the in-vention of electronic means of recordingand transmitting nformation,which not only changethe

waywe remember,but

providenew

waysof

conceptualizingmemory.Not only computersbut imageprocessingandthe immunesystem (Sturkin1997) now serve as basic models andmeta-

phorsfor thinkingaboutmemory.

A key pointinmanyhistories of memory s thata significanttransformationinthe experienceof timeoccurredatsome debatablepointbetween theMiddle

Ages andthe nineteenthcentury.Many authorsdescribe an existential crisis

arisingout of the increasedpossibility for abstract houghtdiscussed above,out of accelerating change resultingfrom increasedindustrializationand ur-

banization,as well as out of the resultantdecline of religiousworldviews andof traditional orms of political authority.Koselleck (1985), for instance,de-scribes a shift from a "space of experience"to a "horizon of expectation."Through he seventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,awide varietyof new expe-riences andevents producedan awarenessof the "noncontemporaneity f the

contemporaneous,"which led, in turn,to a sense of a humanfutureand of thedistinctness of history.Aries's (1974) work on attitudes oward deathanddy-ing in Westernculture,as well, attributes he risingimportanceandfrequencyof commemorativepracticesin thenineteenthcenturyto anincreased sense of

change:The pastwas no longer felt to be immediatelypresentbut was some-thingthatrequiredpreservationandrecovery.

Hobsbawm(1972) describesthe rise of linearhistoricalconsciousness as a

necessary solution to the existentialproblemsof rapidtransformation: Para-



116 OLICK& ROBBINS

doxically, thepastremains he most useful analytical ool forcopingwith con-

stantchange."Thompson(1995) attributesa similardynamiclargelyto trans-

formations n mediatechnology,which extended individuals'experiencesbe-yond the sphere of day-to-day encounters:"The process of self-formation

[thus] became more reflexive and open-ended."Jacoby (1975) and Berman

(1982), amongothers,attribute o late modernitya condition-at least partlyrelatedto rampant ommodification-that makes it harderand harder o relate

to thepast,producingwhatJacobycalls "socialamnesia."When thepastis no

longerobviouslyconnectedto thepresent,memorybecomes of diagnosticim-

portance,as Terdiman 1993) putsit. Yerushalmi 1982) specifiesmuch of this

in his discussion of Jewish memory:"The moder effort to reconstruct he

Jewish past begins at a time that witnesses a sharpbreakin the continuityofJewish living and hence also an ever-growingdecay of Jewish groupmem-

ory."Insum,according o Schieder(1978, p. 8), ".. .historical houghtserveda

compensatingfunctionmaking up for the actual loss of history by exaggerat-

ing a consciousness of it."The connectionbetween nationalism and social memory appearsto have

been especially important.Cressy(1989) tracesa new kind of memoryinEng-land to the seventeenthcentury,amemorythatgave expression o amythicand

patrioticsense of national dentity:"Thecalendarbecameanimportantnstru-

ment for declaringand disseminatinga distinctively Protestantnational cul-

ture... bindingthe nationto the ruling dynastyandsecuringit throughan in-

spiringprovidentialinterpretationof English history"(Cressy 1989, p. xi).Calendarsmap the basic temporalstructuresof societies, enablingand con-

strainingtheirabilities to rememberdifferentpasts (Zerubavel1981); manyhave notedhow a new calendarservedFrenchRepublican eadersas effective

symbolic markers or theirbreakfromthe old regime (Hunt 1984, Ferguson

1994). Moregenerally,Gillis (1994) links the constructionof nationalmemo-

ries to what he calls a cult of newbeginnings.Anderson 1991) combinesinsightsintothespreadof print iteracy,capital-

ist commerce,and the decline of religious worldviews to explain the rise of

historicizing national identities as a pervasive modem principle. In his ac-

count, the transformation f temporalityandthe associatedrise of interestin

the past made it possible "to thinkthe nation."Printcapitalism,accordingto

Anderson,was the principalagentof this transformationowardwhatBenja-min (1968) called the "empty,homogeneous time" of the nation-state.Felt

communitiesof fate were securedacross wide territoriesby newspapersand

novels, which producedsharedculture

among peoplewho would nevermeet.

As a result,in Smith's(1986) words,"ethnicnationalismhas become a 'surro-

gate' religionwhich aims to overcomethe sense of futilityengenderedby the

removalof anyvision of anexistenceafterdeath,by linkingindividuals oper-




sisting communities whose generationsform indissoluble links in a chain ofmemories and identities."

Othershave given similarinsightsa more criticalturn.Boyarin(1994), forinstance,points out that statist ideologies "involve a particularlypotentma-

nipulationof dimensionalities of space andtime, invoking rhetoricallyfixednational dentitiesto legitimatetheirmonopolyon administrative ontrol."Re-nan is remembered from the nineteenthcentury for having pointed out the

ways in which national identitiescombinerememberingand forgetting,with

greateremphasison the latter:They forgetthattheyare not inevitable and thattheir internalfissures may be as significantas theirexternalboundaries An-derson 1991). Duara(1995) writes that the relationshipbetween linearhis-

toricity and the nation-state is repressive:"Nationalhistory secures for thecontested andcontingentnation the false unityof a self-same,nationalsubjectevolving throughtime..." enabling "conquestsof Historical awarenessover

other, 'nonprogressive'modes of time."

Manywritershavepointedto theways in which nationalstatesconsciouslymanipulateand exploit professional history. Smith (1986) writes that "One

sign of the formationof the nation out of the protonation s the shiftingof thecenter of collective memoryfromthe templeand its priesthoodto the univer-

sity and its scholarly community."Breisbach(1994) shows that "Historians

were called on to mediate between the demands for change and the equallystrongdesire to see thecontinuityof past,present,and futurepreserved.... Pre-sentedby carefulscholars with greateloquence,these histories becamepopu-larpossessions rather hanscholarlycuriosa."Novick (1988) shows how, de-

spite protestationsof disinterestandobjectivity,Americanhistoricalscholar-

shiphas alwaysbeen inextricably ied to contemporarypolitical problematics.Moregenerally,Levi-Strauss 1979) arguesthat "Inourown societies, historyhasreplacedmythologyand fulfills the samefunction...."Nevertheless,Noir-iel (1996) has arguedthat"thedegree to which commemorationof historical

origins is essential for building political consensus may be treated as a vari-able." Smith (1986) as well warns against either overgeneralizingor over-

specifying the urge toward historical commemoration:Nostalgia exists in

every society; in the eraof the nation-statenostalgiafor the "ethnicpast"has

merelybecome more acute.In a majorcontribution,Hobsbawm(1983) notes the proliferation n the

mid to latenineteenthcenturyof state-ledefforts to "invent"useful traditionsto shoreuptheirfading legitimacy.Particularly fter1870, inconjunctionwiththe emergenceof masspolitics, political leaders"rediscovered he importance

of 'irrational'elements in the maintenanceof the social fabric and the socialorder."Many thinkers thus advocatedthe constructionof a new "civil relig-ion;"successful leaderssoughtto imbueeducational nstitutionswith nation-alist content, to expand public ceremony,andto mass producepublic monu-



118 OLICK& ROBBINS

ments. Thisimpulsespread o nonstategroupsaswell, producinganinterest n

genealogies of all sorts, includingsocial registersfor the upperclasses. With

more emphasis on local cultures in the nation-buildingprocess, Confino(1997) shows how Germannation-building n the nineteenthcentury(andbyextension othernation-buildingprojectselsewhere) requiredassimilatingdi-

verse regionalmemoriesinto one coherentnationalidentity,which was suc-

cessful only when the nationalwas mediatedthrough ocal categories.Not all thinkersof the nineteenthcentury,however,championed hisprolif-

erationof history.Nietzsche (1983) was highly critical of his age's pervasive

productionof thepastin bothits scientific and monumentalguises. Whilerec-

ognizingthat t is thepowerto bringthepastto life that constitutes he human-

ity of humanbeings, Nietzsche also claims that an excess of historycan de-stroyourhumanity:"Thepast,"he writes,"hasto be forgotten f it is not to be-

come the gravediggerof the present."Many contemporarywriterson social

memory quoteBorges's shortstory about"Funes the Memorious,"depictingtheagonyof ayoungmanwho has lost theabilityto forget.Nietzsche sees his-

toricism'sscientificattitudeasproducing"dead"knowledge,while monumen-

talhistory "inspires he courageous o foolhardinessand theinspired o fanati-

cism."In anotherwell-known essay, Butterfield(1965 [1931]) warnsagainstanoverly interestedapproach o historywriting,what he calls "Whighistory,"

which produces"astorywhich is the ratification f not the glorificationof thepresent."

Moving to a slightly laterperiod,historiansof memory emphasizethe im-

portanceof the First WorldWar for perceptionsof temporalityand the status

of nationalmemory.Benjamin nparticularportrayed he Warexperienceas a

decisive momentin a longer-term rend, ypifiedby a decline of storytelling,a

processwhich he sees, however,as "onlya concomitantsymptomof the secu-

larproductive orcesof history."The conditionsforstorytelling,"woventhou-

sandsof yearsago in the ambienceof the oldest formsof craftsmanship" ave

lost theirmost basic support"becausethereis no moreweaving andspinningto go on while... [stories]arebeing listenedto.""Boredom,"Benjamin(1968)writes, "is the dreambirdthat hatchesthe egg of experience.A rustlingin the

leaves driveshim away.... Withthis, the gift for listeningis lost and the com-

munityof listenersdisappears."For Benjamin,the FirstWorldWarbroughtthisprocessintoa newphase:"...never hasexperiencebeencontradictedmore

thoroughly hanstrategicexperienceby tacticalwarfare,economicexperience

by inflation,bodily experienceby mechanicalwarfare,moral experiencebythose inpower."Thiscataclysmleftpeoplenotonly withouttheconditionsfor

telling storiesbutwithoutcommunicableexperiencesto tell.With less apocalypticvision, otherwritersas well have noted a changein

the formof memoryafterthe War.Mosse (1990), in a studyof "TheMythof

the WarExperience,"notesthattheburialof the deadand commemorationbe-




came the tasks of specially formed national commissions during the War.

Paradoxically, ust as the effect of warwas felt morebrutally hanever among

civilianpopulations, he tasks of consolation weremade morepublicthaneverbefore. As a result,"Thememoryof the warwas refashioned nto a sacredex-

periencewhich providedthenation with a new depthof religious feeling, put-ting at its disposal ever-presentsaints and martyrs,places of worship, and a

heritageto emulate."Additionally,Winter(1995) explores the new formsofwarmemorialthatemergedto appropriatehe devastationof totalwarforna-tionalpurposes,thoughhe emphasizestheproliferationof more introspectiveforms too. Gillis (1994) notes thatWorld War I markeda massive democrati-zation of the cult of the dead. Ina detailedstudyof warliterature hatemerged

inGreatBritain,Fussell (1975) characterizeshiscorpusas comprisingapecu-liarly"modem" orm of memory.

While theFirstWorld Warthuscreatednew attitudes owardboththepres-ent andthepast, theHolocaust is said to haveproducedaneven moredecisivecrisis of representation."We are dealing,"writes Friedlander 1992, p. 3),"withaneventwhichtests ourtraditional onceptualandrepresentationalate-

gories, an 'event atthe limits."'There is the oft-quotedremarkof Adoro thatto writelyricpoetryafterAuschwitzis barbaric.By extension,manyhavepor-trayedthe Holocaust as challengingthe validity of any totalizingview of his-

tory (Friedlander1992, p. 5). In Germanintellectual circles, this issue hasspawnedan ongoing debatebetween those who maintainthatthe Holocaustwas uniqueand thosewho call for"historicizing"t. The literatureon Germandebatesaboutthe Nazi past is too voluminousto even begin to report.Good

startingplaces areMaier(1988), Evans(1989), andOlick (1993).Gillis (1994), Mosse (1990), Young (1993), andKoonz (1994) document

changes in warmemorialsafterthe Second WorldWar,notingthatthe mem-

ory of war is now understoodin a new way. Where nationalistleaders ex-ploited a cult of the wardeadafterthe FirstWorld Warto foment furtherna-

tionalist sentiment,memory after Auschwitz and Hiroshimahas often beenmoreproblematic Bosworth 1993). Whereearliermonumentsaimedto exac-erbate resentmentfor future campaigns, many later monumentsworked toerase a clearburden.Indeed,Young (1992) goes so faras to implicatetheveryformof monumentalization n the forgetting:"...once we assign monumentalform to memory,we have to some degreedivestedourselves of the obligationto remember."Adoro (1967) hadmany yearsearlierpointedoutthe associa-tion between the words "museum"and"mausoleum."

While some authorsmake the Holocaustthe decisive turningpoint, others

see in it merelyone last andmost horriblestage in a developmentalreadyun-der way-one which included recognition of horrors of colonialism, twoworld wars, racism, environmentaldamage, etc-on the road to postmoder-nity. In either case, from early intimations of postmodernism n Heidegger,



120 OLICK&ROBBINS

through he criticaltheoryof BenjaminandAdoro, to thepostmodernist he-

ory of the 1980s, the connectedproblemsof time andmemoryhavebeen cen-

tral issues for culturalcriticism.Postmoder writers have addressed he rup-turedsense of continuityandthemultipletemporalities hattheysee as charac-

terizingourhighlymediatedsociety. Whilemanyof these theoristshave made

important nsights,we focus verybrieflyon only two here,Huyssenand Nora.For acritiqueof thepostmodernistaccountof memoryasoverlyunilinear n its

critiqueof unilinearity,see Schwartz(1997).In TwilightMemories,AndreasHuyssen(1995) characterizes he situation

of memoryin postmoderity as paradoxical.He notes the simultaneouspopu-larityof museums and theresurgenceof the monumentand the memorialat the

sametime there is an "undisputedwaningof historyand historical conscious-ness."Novelty, he says, is now associatedwithnew versions of thepastratherthanwithvisions of the future.Thismemoryboom, however, is not to be con-fused with the historical fever to legitimatizenation-states hat Nietzsche de-

rided."Incomparison, he mnemonic convulsionsof ourcultureseem chaotic,

fragmentary,andfree-floating."His pessimism, however, is not complete, and his analysis is perceptive:

"The currentobsession with memory,"Huyssenwrites,"is not simplya func-tion of the fin de siecle syndrome,anothersymptomof postmodernpastiche.

Instead, t is a sign of the crisisof thatstructure f temporality hat marked heage of modernitywith its celebrationof the new asutopian,as radicallyandir-

reduciblyother."WhereBenjaminand Adomo ascribed hecontemporary ri-

sis of memoryto theforgettingat the centerof thecommodity,Huyssenrelates

the furtherdevelopmentof mediatechnologies since theirtimeto "theevident

crisis of the ideology of progress and modernizationand to the fading of awhole traditionof teleological philosophiesof history."As a result,the post-modem conditionof memoryis not wholly one of loss: "Thus the shift from

historyto memoryrepresentsa welcome critiqueof compromised eleological

notions of historyrather hanbeing simply anti-historical, elativistic,or sub-jective." Thecontemporary risis of memory,Huyssen argues,"representshe

attempt o slow down informationprocessing,to resist the dissolution of timeinthesynchronicityof thearchive,to recovera modeof contemplationoutsidethe universeof simulationandfast-speedinformationand cable networks,to

claim some anchoringspace in a world of puzzling and often threateninghet-

erogeneity,non-synchronicity,and informationoverload."Wherepostmoder

antiepistemologyderides any easy correspondencebetween experience and

memory, Huyssen characterizes hat fissure as "apowerful stimulant or cul-

turalandartisticcreativity."Frenchhistorian PierreNora (1992), leading theoretician and editorof a

massive seven-volumeprojecton "places"or "lieux"of Frenchmemory,also

beginsby observingtheparadoxesof memory npostmodernity."Wespeakso




much of memory,"he writes, "becausethereis so little of it left."Nora can in

thisway be seen as the trueheirto Halbwachs,who noted thepassingof mem-

ory into historyas we lose a living relation to the past, thoughNora sees thisprocess as even more dramaticandirreversible,andas moreclearlypolitical,than Halbwachs did. Where premoder societies live within the continuous

past, contemporarysocieties have separatedmemory from the continuityofsocial reproduction;memoryis now a matterof explicit signs, not of implicitmeanings.We now compartmentalizememoryas a mode of experience;our

only recourse is to representandinventwhat we can no longer spontaneously

experience(Wood 1994). Nora thuscontrastscontemporary"lieux"orplacesof memoryto earlier ived "milieux."Theformerareimpoverishedversionsof

the latter:"Ifwe were able to live withinmemory,we would not have neededto consecratelieux de memoirein its name."

Nora's projectis to catalogueall of theseplaces of memoryin Frenchsoci-

ety. He organizestheanalysesaround hreeprincipleswhich he sees as layeredon top of one another n telling ways: theRepublic,theNation,and "LesFran-

ces." For Nora, this ordering representsa historicalprogressionfrom unity,throughuncertainty,to multiplicity. The peculiar status of the second, the

memory-nation, s the linchpin. In its ascendancy,the memory-nationreliedon national historicalnarratives o providecontinuity through dentity.In the

nineteenthcentury,change was still slow enough that states could control itthroughhistoriography.But, Nora argues,the nation as a foundationof iden-

tityhas erodedas the state has cededpowerto society. Thenationitself, earliershoredup by memory, now appearsas a mere memorytrace. In contrast totheoriesof the nation discussed above, Nora thus sees the nation-stateas de-

clining in salience, the last incarnationof the unification of memoryand his-

tory, a form in which history could provide the social cohesion memoryno

longercould. Historytoo has now lost its temporaryabilityto transmitvalueswith pedagogical authority(Wood 1994). All that is left, as Hutton(1993)

characterizesNora'sproject,is to autopsythepast,at best to celebrate ts cele-brations.

Manywriters,however,notethatolderstyles of memorypersistinthe inter-

stices of modem historicalconsciousness, andthey see in this coexistence an

indictmentof cleardichotomybetweenmemoryandhistory(Zonabend1984),while othersworrythatsuch accountsareinappropriatelyeleological. Rappa-port (1990), moreover,chargesthat the dichotomybetween oral andwrittenmodes of memory serves a colonialist mentalitythat devalues non-Westernforms of remembering.These critiquesnotwithstanding, t is clear that the

situation of memoryhas changedratherdramaticallyboth over the centuriesandespecially in the last few decades. Nora's approachraises as many ques-tions as it answers:Given the scope of the cataloguingproject,what is not alieu de memoire? Isn't the attemptto catalogueeven what one recognizes as



122 OLICK& ROBBINS

impoverished memory traces itself a political act of recuperation Englund1992)?Nonetheless,Nora's theoryremains he mostcomprehensiveempiricaleffort to confront the contemporary ituation of memory.Where Yates sug-gests a historyof memory,Nora takes it to a programmaticevel.

Processes of Social Memory:Statics andDynamics

The historyof memoryoutlinedabove makes clearthatmemoryis not anun-

changingvessel forcarrying hepastintothepresent;memory s aprocess,nota thing,anditworksdifferentlyatdifferentpointsin time(Zelizer1995). Soci-

ologists of memoryhave thus sought to specify at a more middle level how

memoryprocessesoperatewithin

specificsocial institutions.Here the

quintes-sentialsociological issues of power,stratification, ndcontestationarecentral.One meritof Nora's project s thatit remindsus of all the differentplaces his-torical imageryandpracticesoccur. Sociologists have long studiedmany ofthese sites andpractices n anattempt o understand hestatics anddynamicsofsocial reproduction.Key terms here include identity,contestation,malleabil-

ity, andpersistence.

Identity

Erikson(1959) is usuallycreditedwith introducing he identityconceptto de-scribepsychological developmentover the life course:personalidentity,de-

spite periodic crises, is self-sameness over time. A recent narrativeturn in

identitytheory,however,haswarnedagainstessentializingidentities; nstead,

they areseen as ongoing processes of construction n narrative orm (Bruner1990, Calhoun1994). As Maclntyre(1984, p. 218) puts it, "...all attempts oelucidate the notionof personal dentity[and,by extension,group dentity]in-

dependentlyof and in isolation from the notions of narrative... are bound tofail."As Hallwrites,"Identities personalorcollective] arethenameswe give

to the differentways we arepositioned by, andpositionourselvesin, the narra-tives of thepast" Huyssen 1995,p. 1). Identitiesareprojectsandpractices,not

properties.Manyrecent social theorists have extendedthe conceptto the social level,

noting, as Maclntyredoes, that "Thepossession of an historicalidentityand

thepossession of a social identitycoincide."As Hobsbawm(1972) writes,"To

be amemberof anyhumancommunity s to situateoneself withregard o one's

(its)past,if onlyby rejecting t." In amuch-quoted ormulation,Bellahand co-

authors(1985, p. 153) write that "Communities... have a history-in an im-

portant ense are constitutedby theirpast-and for this reasonwecan

speakof

a real communityas a 'communityof memory,' one that does not forget its

past. In ordernot to forget thatpast, a communityis involved in retellingits

story, its constitutive narrative.""Thetemporaldimension of pastness,"Wal-




lerstein (1991, p. 78) adds, "is central and inherent n the concept of people-hood."

A crucial inkbetweenthe literatures n identityandmemoryconcernshowwe acquireourpersonaland social identities.Halbwachspaidparticular tten-tion to the role of the family in shapinghow we construct he past;Zerubavel

(1996) generalizesthis insightby discussingwhat he calls "mnemonicsociali-zation" nto "mnemoniccommunities.""All subsequent nterpretations f our

early 'recollections,"'he writes, "areonly reinterpretations f the way theywere originallyexperiencedand rememberedwithin the context of our fam-

ily." Muchof what we "remember,"moreover,we did not experienceas indi-viduals. "Indeed,"Zerubavelwrites, "beingsocial presupposesthe ability to

experienceevents thathappenedto groupsand communitiesto which we be-long long before we joined themas if they werepartof our own past...." This

"sociobiographicalmemory"is the mechanismthroughwhich we feel pride,pain, or shame with regardto events thathappenedto our groupsbefore we

joined them.Another centralconceptualtool for analyzingthis intersectionbetween in-

dividual and collective identities as constitutedthroughsharedmemories isthatof generations.Mannheim's(1952 [1928]) seminalwork herearguesthatsocial andpoliticalevents shapegenerations hroughmajorsharedexperience

during heir formativeyears.It is notanaccidentthatthenotion of generationsfloweredinEuropeafterWorldWarI. The war createda felt communityof ex-

perienceespecially amongthe soldiers. Wohl (1979) refers to "thegenerationof 1914," whose members, following Mannheim'stheory, were in the rightplace (totalwar)at the righttime (when they were young men) to form a par-ticularly clearly demarkedgeneration.Schuman& Scott (1989) develop andtest Mannheim's theories about the connections between generationsandso-cial memoryby askingdifferentage cohortsto rankvarioushistoricaleventsinterms of theirperceived importance.Strikingresponsedifferences,theyargue,

demonstrate hatgenerationaldifferences in memoryare strong,that adoles-cence andearlyadulthoodare indeed theprimaryperiodsfor"generationalm-

printing n the sense of political memories,"and that later memories can bestbe understood n termsof earlierexperiences.Shils (1981) pointsoutthat new

generationsdefine themselves againsttheirelders andthusbeara differentre-lation to the past than previous generations.Theorists of nationalism have

pointed out (Smith 1986, Anderson 1991) thatnationalistmovements almost

always centrallyinvolve youthmovements.In the previous section, we saw thatthe nation-state,despite internaldivi-

sions along generational,regional, religious,and other ines, has often claimedto be theprimary ormof organizingsocial identity.But in thehistoryof mem-

ory,thisremainsa broadepochal generalization.Sociologists have studiedat acloser level how this aim to dominateidentitymanifestsitself throughcollec-



124 OLICK&ROBBINS

tive mnemonicprocesses. Collectivememorydoes not merelyreflectpastex-

periences (accurately or not); it has an orientational function (Schwartz

1996a).As Schwartzputsit, "collectivememoryis botha mirroranda lamp-a model of anda model for society"(personal communication).

National and other dentitiesare establishedandmaintained hrougha vari-

ety of mnemonic sites, practices, and forms. Spillman(1997), for instance,

compares he role of centennialand bicentennialcelebrations n Australiaandthe United States, demonstrating he differentways each of these countriesused commemorations o addressdiverse issues. Hunt(1984) explores cloth-

ing, medals, language,and othersymbolic formsas well, as markersof mem-

ory and identity.Cerulo(1995) examinesnationalanthems,thoughshe does

not make the connectionto social memoryexplicit. Schwartz 1990, 1991) andGoode(1978), not to mentiontheclassical work of ThomasCarlyle(1901), ex-amine the role of heroes in national dentity.Coontz(1992) documentsnostal-

gia for earlier"golden ages,"as does Smith(1986), who notes the importanceof origin myths in creatingandmaintaining dentities. Zerubavel(1995) dis-cusses nationalmythologies,andassociatedphysical places, as orderingprin-ciples for articulationsof nationalmemory. Ferguson(1994), Boyer (1994),andHaydon(1995) examinethewaysurban orm embodiesa vision of identityby inscribingthe past. Muensterberger1994) explores collecting as a mne-

monic practice,while Bennett(1995) undertakesa historyof the museumandof the world'sfairas sites forarticulatingnational dentities.Rochberg-Halton(1986) studies the role of household objects in establishingthe relations be-tween memoryandidentity.Olick (1993, 1997) examinespolitical speech asmnemonicpractice.Dayan & Katz (1992) see the mass media as producingelectronic monuments hatcompetewithhistorywritingto frame social mem-

ory; Lang & Lang (1989) examinethe role of the news in forging collective

memory.The literatureon film andnationalmemoryis enormous.Therearemany important ase studiesof the connectionsbetweenmemory

andparticularnationalidentities,emphasizingbothpositive andnegative as-pects of those historical formations. Rousso (1991) and Maier (1988) studyhow France and Germanyrespectively confront their difficult legacies ofWorld WarII. Roniger(1997) andNino (1996) look at how various countriesin the SouthernCone, includingChile, Uruguay,andArgentina,confrontthe

memoryof humanrightsviolations.Aguilar(1997) discusses the problematiclegacy of the SpanishCivil War forsubsequentregimes.Trouillot(1995) ana-

lyzes the complex memories of colonialismandcontemporary trugglesoverhistorical dentityin Haiti. Sturkin 1997) examines memories of Vietnamand

of the AIDS epidemic in the United States as sites for working out nationalidentity.Buruma 1994) comparesJapaneseand Germanmemoriesof the Sec-ond WorldWar.Gluck(1993) examines differentepochsinJapanesememory.A special issue of thejournal Representationseditedby Greenblatt,Rev, and




Starn(1995) studies struggles in EasternEuropewith memory of pre-1989events; a volume editedby Watson(1994) examines memoryunder state so-

cialism; Tumarkin 1994) has written on the cult of World War II in Russia.Borneman(1997) analyzes how various central and easternEuropeancoun-

trieshave settledaccounts after1989 with theirCommunistpasts,as does Ro-

senberg(1995).Herzfeld(1991) uses ethnography o analyzethe complex negotiationsbe-

tween local and nationalmemories in a Greektown, as does Confino (1997)for WilhelmineGermany.Kammen(1991, 1978) is the preeminentanalystofAmericanmemory, documenting he changingforms of historicalconscious-

ness in Americanhistory;Thelen (1989) has edited an importantvolume on

Americanmemory.Mudimbe& Jewsiewicki(1993) explorehistorymaking nAfrica,while Fabre& O'Meally(1994) exploretheroleof memory nAfrican-

Americanidentity.Segev (1993) and Zerubavel 1995) presentrichstudies of

memoryin Israeli collective identity.Darian-Smith& Hamilton(1994) have

edited a volume on Australianmemory. A massive tome sponsoredby the

HolocaustMemorial Center(Wyman 1996) containsmonographson how 24

differentnationsreactedto theHolocaust,exploringhow thateventshapedna-tional identities and vice versa.Rapaport 1997) and Irwin-Zarecka1989) re-searchhow Jews in contemporaryGermanyandPoland,respectively, live in

the lands of their formeroppressors.Oneparticularlyvibrantarea of debateconcerningthe connection between

memory and identity has been scholarshipconcerning heritage. The classicwork in this field is Lowenthal's (1985) monumental The Past Is a ForeignCountry,which documents heways in which nationalpasts, particularlyheirbuilt and geographicalremains,are reshapedaccordingto present interests.

Heritagesites appear o be especially useful for dramatizing he historicityofthe nation,particularly n GreatBritain.Indeed,the heritagedebate has beenmost heated in Britain, which possesses an elaboratephysical legacy and

which has a substantialhistory of propagating t. Barthel (1996) comparessuch debatesin Great Britain and the United States, findingmore democraticand inclusive versions in the United States and more elitist programs n theUnited Kingdom; Koshar (1994) studies such processes in West Germany.Wright(1985) has provideda detailed account of British debatesand, alongwith Hewison (1987), criticizes the nostalgia "industry"or producingmind-

less, pacifying, andpolitically conservative commodificationsof the national

past.Samuel(1994), on the otherhand,sees aredemptivepotential n theheri-

tage industry; o argueotherwise is to denigratepopularconsciousness in the

name of the people. Manyothers have documentedthe commercializationofnostalgia,particularly n the form of reconstructedvillages, Disneylandver-sions of the Americanpast,andsouvenirs(Davis 1979).Foraninformativere-view of the literatureon nostalgia, see Vromen(1993).



126 OLICK& ROBBINS

National identities, of course, are not the only ones available, but he-

gemonicforces withinthenation-statehave workedhard o appropriate ndsi-

lence otheridentitydiscourses. As Alonso (1988) explains,"Historicalchro-nologies solder a multiplicityof personal,local, andregionalhistoricities andtransform hem into a unitary,nationaltime." Almost all of the studiesjustmentioned,however, highlightnot the simplicity or unity of national narra-

tives, but the fact thatthey areessentiallycontested:Memorysites and mem-

ory practicesare centralloci for ongoing strugglesover identity.As Sturkin

(1997) puts it, "Culturalmemory is a field of culturalnegotiation throughwhich different storiesvie for a place in history."This soundsalmost too be-

nignandpassive;peopleandgroupsfighthard ortheirstories. Contestation s

clearlyat the center of bothmemoryandidentity.

Contestation

Memorycontestation akesplace from above andbelow, fromboth centerand

periphery.The critical theoristsof nationalism discussed above noticed thatnation-statesnot only use historyfor theirpurposes,but makehistoriographyinto a nationalistenterprise.Indeed,Wilson et al (1996) document how na-tional governmentsseek to controlthe very "sources"of professionalhistori-

ography by limitingaccess to state archives. "The

hegemonyof moder

nation-states,"Alonso writes(1988), "and he legitimacywhichaccruesto the

groupsandclasses that control theirapparatuses,arecriticallyconstitutedbyrepresentationsof a nationalpast."This is accomplishedthroughthe related

strategiesof naturalization,departicularization, nd idealization. This meansthathistoryas a tool has until recentlynot been easily available to competingidentities;as a result,otherclaimants often have not been very good competi-tors. As Foucault(1977) put it, "Since memory is actuallya very importantfactor in struggle... if one controlspeople'smemory,one controls theirdyna-mism."

In order o resist the disciplinarypowerof nationalisthistoriography,Fou-caultarticulated notionof"counter-memory," eferring o memories thatdif-fer from, and often challenge, dominantdiscourses. In a similarvein, manyscholarsin the past several decades have soughtto redirecthistoricalinquiry

awayfrom the nation-stateas aunitof analysisin favorof groupsandperspec-tives excluded from traditional accounts. Feminist historians, for instance,have soughtto recover therepressedhistoryof women thathas been left outof

"official"histories.Oralhistorians(Thompson1988) see theirenterpriseas a

way of giving "historyback to the people in their own words:"It claimsto bemore democraticthan otherhistoriographicalmethodologiesbecause it pro-vides an alternativeviewpoint from below, a viewpoint that conventional

methodologydisenfranchises.Feministsandoralhistorians, n fact,have often




combinedtheirefforts to recover the lost voices of ordinarywomen's experi-ence (Leydesdorffet al 1996).

The dominanceof nationalmemoryover othermemoriesthusnot only ex-cludesothercontestants orcontrol over the national dentitybutmaintains he

primacyof nationalover otherkinds of identityforprimaryallegiance.On theotherhand,counter-memoryapproachesoften employa ratheressentialistno-tion of authenticity:Counter-memorys sometimesseen asprotectedandsepa-ratefromhegemonic forms.To resistthis, the Popular MemoryGroup(John-son et al 1982) andothersemployingthe conceptof popularmemory(Lipsitz1990, Wallace 1996) have sought to understandpopularmemoryin terms of

ongoing processes of contestation and resistance, a relatively free space of

readingandreaction n whichofficial andunofficial,publicandprivate, nter-penetrate.Dominantmemoryis notmonolithic,noris popularmemorypurelyauthentic.Some historians of gender arguethat"focusing exclusively on thedominatedmakesa full understanding ven of the originsandmaintenanceoftheirsubordinationmpossible" Leydesdorffet al 1996). "The ntertwiningof

power and memory,"these authorswrite, "is very subtle... when we as oralhistorians try to rescue and interpretthese memories... we also inevitablytransform heirstandingandcharacteras memories."

Achieving mnemonic consensus is thus rarely easy, chargedas it is with

transcending he infinityof differencesthatconstituteandareconstitutedby it.As Thelen (1989) puts it, "Thestruggle for possession and interpretation f

memoryis rooted in the conflict andinterplayamongsocial, political,and cul-turalinterests..." "It is a product,"Irwin-Zarecka 1994) writes, "of a greatdeal of work by large numbersof people." Many empiricalstudies have fo-cusedon these struggles,especiallyover the mostpublicrepresentations f the

past to be found in monumentsand museums. Wagner-Pacifici& Schwartz

(1991), for instance, introducea notion of culturalentrepreneurshipn their

studyof the strugglefor theVietnamVeteransMemorial.Theessays inLinen-

thal & Engelhardt(1996) documentso-called history wars over a proposedSmithsonianexhibit on the bombingof Hiroshima.Savage (1994) character-izes AmericanCivil Warmemorials as involving "systematicculturalrepres-sion, carriedout in the guise of reconciliationandharmony."But as much asmonumental ormstrives forpermanence,Savageargues,"theculturalcontestthatmonumentsseem to settle neednot endonce theyare builtanddedicated":Even the most concretepresentationsof the past arepolysemic. Along theselines, Sandage (1993) showed how African-Americancivil rightsgroups ap-propriated he LincolnMemorial as a site for articulating heirclaims.

Groupscan also use images of the past andstrugglesover historyas vehi-cles for establishingtheirpower or, perversely, lack of power. Baker(1985)demonstrateshow revolutionaries n eighteenth-centuryFranceused memoryto achieve their movement aims. Bodnar (1992) shows how various ethnic



128 OLICK&ROBBINS

groups in the 1920s used national holidays to articulate their versions ofAmerican identity and to claim a unique place in the cultural landscape.

Takezawa 1995) documents heJapanese-AmericanmovementforredressinginternmentduringWorldWarII. De Oliver(1996) analyzesthe struggleover

containingalternativevoices at the Alamo historic site. There are numerousother such studies of contestationandsocial movementsdemandingan inver-sion of some past or a new monumental nterpretation.

Malleability and Persistence

Noticing theways in which imagesof thepastare theproductsof contestationhas led varietiesof both constructionistsanddeconstructionists o

emphasizethatthepastis produced n thepresentandis thus malleable.A powerfulline ofso-called "presentism" unsthroughmuch of the sociological work on mem-

ory,workwhich documents heways in which imagesof thepastchangeover

time, how groupsuse the past for presentpurposes,and that the past is a par-ticularlyuseful resourceforexpressing nterests.Withinpresentism,however,it is possible to emphasizeeither nstrumental rmeaningdimensions of mem-

ory:The formersee memoryentrepreneurships amanipulation f thepastfor

particular urposeswherethe lattersee selective memoryas an inevitable con-

sequenceof the fact that we

interprethe world-including the

past-onthe

basis of our own experience and within cultural frameworks.Hobsbawm&

Ranger (1983) areparadigmaticexamples of instrumentalpresentism,whileMead (1959 [1932]) and Mannheim (1956) manifest the latter variety;Halbwachs(1992) combineselements of both.

In response to the perceived ascendancyof presentismin social memorystudies, a number of authorshighlight limits on the malleabilityof the past.Schudson(1989, 1992), forinstance,arguesthat "Thepastis in somerespects,and under some conditions,highly resistant o effortsto makeit over." Three

factors, accordingto

Schudson,limit our abilities to

changethe

past:The

structure f availablepasts presentsonly somepastsandposes limitsto thede-

gree to which they can be changed,while placingotherpasts beyond ourper-ceptualreach; he structure f individualchoicemakes somepastsunavoidable

and othersimpossibleto face; andthe structureof social conflict overthepastmeans thatwe arenot always the ones decidingwhich pasts to rememberand

which to forget. In his important tudyof Watergate n Americanmemoryas

well, Schudson(1992) respondsto the instrumentalist laim of infinitemalle-

abilityby takingthe limits on such manipulabilitynto account.In

contrast,Schwartz

(1991, 1996) respondsto the culturalclaim of malle-

ability: Certainpasts, while somewhatmalleable, are remarkablypersistentovertime. Schuman& Scott (1989) and Middleton& Edwards 1990) empha-size individual-levelprocesseslikegenerational xperienceandpersonal den-




tities, while Schwartz andothers look at institutional actors. Schwartzdocu-mentshow certainmeaningsremainrelevantover long periodsof time despite

superficialchangesin thereadingof those meaningsas well as in their institu-tionalcontexts;certainpastsare constitutiveelements of politicalcultures,andthese endureas long as thepoliticalculture s notcompletelysuperseded.Evenwhen radically new pasts emerge, they often superimposethemselves overolder versions withouteliminatingthem. As Shils (1981) sumsup a moreex-treme version of this argument,"traditionalpatternsof belief and conduct...arevery insistent;they will not wholly release theirgripon those who would

suspendorabolishthem."Shils also emphasizesthatthepersistenceof thepastcan be an explicit goal, as in self-conscious orthodoxies,thus mixing instru-

mentalistand culturalistpositions.A thirdaspectof memorypersistenceandmalleabilitycouldbe termed"in-

ertial." Halbwachs discusses how memories become generalized over timeinto an "imago,"a generalized memorytrace. Conservatives see this kind of

change in memoryas decay and seek ways to recuperate he lost past. Shils

(1981) and Assmann(1992), amongothers,discusspaststhatremainthe same

simply out of the force of habit. Connerton's 1989) focus on memory"incor-

porated" n bodily practices(as opposed to that"inscribed"n print, encyclo-pedias, indexes, etc) suggests this sortof inertia.Drawingon Elias's civilizing

process andBourdieu'swork on consumption,he arguesfora "mnemonicsofthe body."

Table 1 summarizesthis discussion by identifyingsix ideal types of mne-monic malleabilityor persistence: 1. instrumentalpersistence-actors inten-

tionally seek to maintaina particularversion of the past, as in orthodoxyormovementsto maintainor recovera past;2. culturalpersistence-a particularpastperseveresbecause it remainsrelevantfor latercultural ormations moregeneral images are more likely to adaptto new contexts than more specificones); 3. inertialpersistence-a particularpast occurs when we reproducea

version of the past by sheer force of habit;4. instrumental hange-we inten-tionally change an image of the past for particularreasons in the present(though we cannot always predict the results of our efforts); 5. cultural

Table 1

Instrumental Cultural Inertial

Persistence Self-conscious orthodoxy, Continuedrelevance, Habit,routine,repeti-conservatism,heritage canon tion, custommovements

Change Revisionism, memoryen- Irrelevance,paradigm Decay, atrophy,satura-trepreneurship,edress change, discovery of tion, accidental loss,movements, legitima- new facts death

tion, invented tradition



130 OLICK& ROBBINS

change-a particularpastno longerfits with presentunderstandings rother-wise loses relevance forthepresent;and 6. inertialchange-the carriersof par-

ticularimages die, our mnemoniccapabilities decay, or we simply forget.Oneproblemwith instrumentalist nd inertialaccountsof changeorpersis-

tence is that they locate the statics and dynamics of memoryoutside of thememories themselves. Even culturalapproaches,while emphasizingmean-

ings, seem to locatethe source of changeinpoliticalcultures,not in thetextual

dynamics of memory itself. To remedy this exogenous bias, Olick & Levy(1997) arguethatwhethera particularpast persists or not depends partlyonhow it is constituted:Mythic logics producetaboos and duties while rational

logics produceprohibitionsandrequirements;he formerrequirebold acts of

transgression o changethemwhile the lattercan be changed hroughargumentand refutation.Olick (1997) also refinesculturalist heories of mnemonicdy-namicsby pointingoutthatculturalpersistenceorchangeis notmerelya mat-ter of fit or lack of fit with context,norof whethera particularmemoryis de-fensible as accurateor authentic:Memories formgenresthatunfold over time

by referringnot only to their contexts and to the "original" vent, but to theirown histories and memories as texts.

Reputations and Knowledge

Two empiricalareasthat have seen a greatdeal of work on the staticsanddy-namics of memory are reputationstudies and the sociology of knowledge.While the sociology of reputation s not an entirelynew field-biographieshave always dealt with image-it concentrates n an unprecedentedway onhow individualsare remembered ather han how they lived. Often these stud-ies begin by recognizingthatreputationsareonly loosely correlatedwith life-time achievements;not only talent,but social factorsplay a role in securingandmaintaining he outstandingreputationsof individuals.

Various authors, including especially Lang & Lang (1988) and Taylor

(1996), appear o haveconvergedon explanations ntermsof fourbasic factorsin reputationaldynamics.First,personalstrategizingandpoliticalmaneuver-

ing by the figureor his or herrepresentativescan controlthe figure's image.Strategies include seclusion, autobiography, lamboyance, forging relationswith patrons,etc. Lang& Lang (1988) note thatin orderto catchthe eyes of

dealers,collectors, curators,and arthistorians,artistshave toproducea criticalmass of work,keep adequaterecords o guaranteeproperattribution, ndmake

arrangements or custodianship.Institutionalpractices like record-keepingalso favor some kindsof reputation orpreservationover others.

Second,imageis influencedby those with a stakein aparticular eputation.Latour 1988), for instance,arguesthat Pasteur'sreputation preadas doctorsandhygienists alignedthemselves with the scientist's cause to promotetheirown professional interests.De Nora (1995) shows how Beethoven benefited




from admirationby an aristocraticmusicalpublic that was pivotal in shapingthe narrativeof his genius. Schudson (1990) reveals how Ronald Reagan's

popularitywas constructedby an oral political culturein Washington,DC.Donoghue (1996) arguesthat in the eighteenth-century iterarymarket, t was

reviewers, and not the authorsthemselves, who were chiefly responsiblefor

creatingnarrativesof literarycareers.

Third,the impactof culturalfactors on reputation s theorizedin two dis-tinctways. Forthose who view culturalpatternsas distinct fromtalent,cultureworks to boost somereputationsat theexpense of othersas amatterof happen-stance.Lang& Lang(1990), forinstance,discuss the influence of ideology on

reputation,notingthatartists' achievementsarerefracted"throughheiravail-

abilityas a symbolic form for a varietyof sentiments hatmayhavenothingtodo directly with art." In a different approach,culturaltheorists (Bourdieu1984) who focus on the constructednatureof taste show how reputationsde-

pendon strugglesforprestigeandpositionthatemploycultureas a tool andasmarkers.De Nora (1995, p. 180), for instance,details how Beethoven's pro-motion of a sturdierpianohelpedcreatenew aestheticcategorieswithinwhichhis music "couldmake sense andbe positively evaluated."Reviews of Beetho-ven's work became more favorable as personal idiosyncrasiesand creativitycame to be valued inthe music-criticaldiscourse as a "higher" ormof music.

Similarly,Tuchman& Fortin(1984) show how women were "edgedout" ofthe literary ield:As menentered hefield, thenovel roseto high-culture tatuswhile the themes andstyles of women's writingwere demoted to popularcul-ture. Zelizer (1992) shows how professional ournalistsused the Kennedyas-sassinationandtheireulogies of himto advancetheirown authoritative tatus.

A fourth line of work on reputationshows how reputationsrespond tobroadernarrativeand cultural orms. We have a tendency,theorists of reputa-tion argue,to exaggeratebothgreatnessand evil. One of the earliestreputationstudies (Connelly 1977), for instance,demonstrateshow the figure of Robert

E. Lee was invested withextraordinarymportbecause,acrossmany years,hisimageacted as apalimpseston which contemporary oncernscould be writtenandrewritten.Schwartz 1990) documentshow Lincoln's imagechangedfromone of simple accessibility to that of a "remote and dignified personage."Schwartz (1991) also shows how Washington'sreputationalmalleability istiedupwiththechangingneeds of differentperiodsinAmericanhistory,while

maintaininga common core of continuity.In his now classic study, Pelikan

(1985) shows how thevarying representation f Jesus reflectedparticularpre-occupationsof differentsocieties in differentperiods.

Fromthe otherside, Ducharme& Fine (1995) show how villains-in theircase, BenedictArnold-are remembered n muchworse lightthantheirdeeds

mightwarrant;Johnson(1995) discusses the rehabilitationof RichardNixon.

Additionally, Taylor(1996, p. 261) notes that"we areparticularlyproneto re-



132 OLICK& ROBBINS

memberstimuli associatedwithmajorchangesin a niche."Ithelpsone's repu-tation,Latour 1988) argues,to be associated with the dawn of a new erain a

particular ield. Othershavecarried his line of argument ven further,arguingthat the very possibility of distinctivereputations s tied up with the careerofthe genius notionin the cultureat large.Heinich(1996), for instance,inquiresinto thehistoryof thecategoryof talentinherstudyof TheGloryof VanGogh,as does Gamson(1994) in his study of the categoryof celebrityin Americanculture.

Anotherempiricalfield where sociologists have studied the dynamics of

memory is the sociology of science and knowledge. Research on scientific

knowledge is concerned argelywith the problemof forgetting,while investi-

gationsof canonformationaskwhy particularkinds of knowledgeare remem-bered. Kuhn(1962) arguesthatknowledge dependson paradigmatic onven-

tions: Normalsciencewithinparadigmscumulates,butknowledgein different

(later) paradigmsis incommensurable.Gans (1992) argues, however, that

even withinparadigmsknowledgedoes not cumulate:Youngerresearchers e-

peat findingsalreadyreportedby earlierpractitioners.Gans labelsthisprocess

"sociological amnesia"andattributes t to institutional actorsincludingaca-

demia's rewardstructure,mythsof scientificprogress,and the lack of mecha-

nisms for punishing unintentional borrowers. Gans is aware that Sorokin

(1956) hadalreadymade the samepoint.Merton 1973) also documentedhowscientists tend to forgetthe originsof their ideas: Scientists arecommittedto

anideology of originaldiscovery,"which s embedded n all the formsof insti-

tutionallife, along with prizes andnamingof plants,animals,measurements,and even diseases after scientists." Good ideas, moreover,arethe productsof

climates of opinion; t is thus oftenpointlessto askwho saidsomethingfirst,as

Mertondemonstrates n his study of the expression,"onthe shouldersof gi-ants"(1985 [1965]).

Some works, figures, and ideas, however, tend to be singled out andpre-

served as particularlymportant.Justas forreputation,one important actorishow closely associatedwith amajorrupture work orideais, in Kuhn'sterms,how close to a paradigmshift. As Levine (1995) notes, moreover,disciplineshave collective memoriesthat establishand maintain heir identities.Douglas

(1986) arguesthat a theoryis more likely to be remembered f it sharesbasic

formulae,equations,and rules of thumbwith theoriesin other fields: "Onthe

principleof cognitive coherence, a theory that is going to gain a permanent

place inthepublicrepertoireof what is knownwill needto interlockwithother

kinds of theories."Tuchman& Fortin 1984), as alreadynoted,showthatthese

processes can be political:Ideaspropagatedby powerfulgroupsandfor

pow-erfulpurposesare more likely to be remembered han others.Taylor(1996),

amongmanyothers,documentstheunderlyingpolitical functionof canonsas

well.




Efforts to revise establishedknowledge orthodoxies can be tied up withovertpoliticalconstellationsandpurposesas well. Inthepastdecade,therehas

been a proliferationof "historians'disputes," public debates aboutboth thecontentandmeaningof historyin severalnations,includingGermany Maier1988), France(Kaplan 1995), and Israel (Ram 1995). The rise of interestin

memory, the challenges to the distinctionbetween history and memory, andthe status of memoryin postmodernsociety reviewed in this essay arepartofthe explanationfor these debates. It is interestingto note thatthe term"revi-sionism" is of relatively recent vintage (Novick 1988); revisionism now istaken to refer to those who denytaken-for-grantedruths-like the occurrenceof a Germangenocide of Jews inthe 1940s-though it originallymeantanyat-

temptto challenge commonlyheld beliefs about the past, includingthe "nor-mal"growthof scientific knowledge. Studies of more extremerevisionisms

(Lipstadt1993, Vidal-Naquet1992) documentboth thathistorycan serve as a

surrogate n more generalpolitical strugglesas well as thatparticularmagesof thepasthavesymbolicimport hatextendsbeyondquestionsof theirtruth.

Future Directions

The field of social memorystudies is clearlyvast, the forms of memoryworkdiverse. It should be clear,however,thatsimilarthemesoccurin differentdis-

ciplinary,substantive,and geographicareas. Given the epochal characterofmemorydemonstrated y thehistoryof memory,this shouldnot be surprising.As Valeryput it in ourepigraph, he time is past in which time did not matter;we experiencethis condition as a problemof memory.Inrecenttimes, the so-lution hasbeen to designatesites to stand n for lost authenticity, o proliferatenew narrativeswhen the old ones no longer satisfy, and to abbreviate-ashere-in face of insurmountableaccumulation.Social memory studies arethereforepartof thephenomenon heyseekto explain.But theexplanation,wehave tried to show, need not be relentlessly particular:The enterprisedoes

have clearlineagesjust as thephenomenonhasgeneralcontours,andexplana-tions of thevariousprocessesaretransposableacrosscases (e.g. Germanyand-the United States)and across issues (e.g. reputation,monuments,and knowl-

edge).We concludeby pointingto fourareasthatemergein social memorystudies

as possible futuredirections.First, social memorystudies clearly fit with the

widespread interest in identity in recent social and sociological discourse.

Memory is a central,if not the central,mediumthroughwhich identities areconstituted. Inquiriesinto identity and memory are being related;these re-search

programs,we hope, will illuminatefurtherhow, when, andwhy indi-viduals andgroupsturntowardtheirpasts.Interestingly,both fields have attackedthe tendencyto reify theirfounda-

tional concepts; both identity and memory, we now recognize, are ongoing



134 OLICK & ROBBINS

processes, not possessions or properties.This leads directly to our second

point: Many sociologists (McDonald1996)haverecently argued hatthe basic

categoriesof sociological analysisreify temporality.Thesecritiquescall for a"processual"or "narrative" pproach o social processes, arguingthat socio-

logical strategiesfor approaching he past have heretofore been ahistorical.

Appreciating he changinghistoryof mnemonicpracticesas well as the waysin which these changingpracticesare the media of temporal experience canandshouldplayaroleinthis search oramoregenuinelyhistoricalsociology.

A thirdpoint is morepractical.As the belief thathistoryandmemoryare

epistemologically and ontologically distinct has eroded and as competingpasts and historical legitimacy claims have proliferated, he ability to settle

conflicts over how to represent hepasthasalso diminished.We havecertainlygottenbetteratdeconstructingdentitarianmythology,butthishas left us witha not-always-productive acophonyof claimsvying for dominance.While therecentperiodof inquiry nto thehistoryanddynamicsof social memoryseemsto havefed this deconstructivemood (andvice versa),we hopethatfurther e-

searchwill helpus resolve someof the conflicts oratleastmanagethembetter.Our fourthpoint is connectedto this: Until now, it seems thatmacrosocio-

logical theoriesof modernityandpostmoderity have donewell at explainingmemoryas a dependentvariable.But social memory s largelyabsentfrom our

grandest heories. The diversememorypracticesreviewed here are not merelysymptoms of modernityand postmodernity-they are modernityand post-

modernity. Sociological theorists,we argue, thus have a great deal to learn

from theorists like Nora, Huyssen, and Koselleck. Recent work by Giddens

(1990, 1994) has moved in this direction. More studies of the way memorypracticesare central eaturesof moder andpostmodern ife and more theories

of these epochal formswith memoryat their heart should follow. In sum, all

four of these points demonstrate hat social memory studies is not a narrow

subfield;it provides powerful lessons for sociology as a whole, is consonantwith the reformationof historicalsociology now occurring,andprovides im-

portant nsights for theoryat the broadest evel. Sociology, we argue,cannotaffordto forgetmemory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work on thispaperwas partiallysupportedby a Council Grant orResearch nthe Humanitiesand Social Sciences, ColumbiaUniversity.The authors hankPriscillaFerguson,HerbertGans, Daniel Levy, Michael Schudson,andpar-

ticularly BarrySchwartzfor commentson an earlierdraftof this essay.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at

http://www.AnnualReviews.org.



SOCIAL MEMORY STUDIES 135

Literature Cited

Adorno T. 1967. Valery Proust Museum. InPrisms. Transl. S Weber, pp. 173-86.

Cambridge,MA: MITPress

Aguilar P. 1997. Collective Memory of the

SpanishCivil War: The Case of the Politi-cal Amnesty in the Spanish Transitionto

Democracy. Democratization 4(4) (Win-ter):88-109.

Agulhon M. 1981. Marianne into Battle. Re-

publican Imagery and Symbolism inFrance, 1789-1880. Transl.JLloyd. Cam-

bridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. PressAlonso AM. 1988. The effects of truth:re-

presentationof the

pastandthe

imaginingof community.J. Hist. Soc. 1:33-57Anderson B. 1991. Imagined Communities.

Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism.New York:Verso. 2nd ed.

Aries P. 1974. Western Attitudes Toward

Deathfrom the MiddleAges to the Present.Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press

AssmannJ. 1992.Das kulterelle Gedaechtnis:

Schrift, Erinnerungundpolitische Identi-taet infruehen Hochkulturen.Munich:CHBeck

Baker KM. 1985. Memory andpractice:poli-tics and the representationof the past in

eighteenth-century France. Representa-tions 11:134-64

Bakhurst D. 1990. Social memory in Soviet

thought. See Middleton & Edwards1990,pp. 203-26

Balibar E, Wallerstein I. 1991. Race, Nation,Class: Ambiguous Identities. Transl. CTurner.London: Verso

BarthelDL. 1996. HistoricPreservation. Col-lective Memory and Historical Identity.New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniv. Press

Bartlett FC. 1932. Remembering:A Study in

Experimental and Social Psychology.

Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. PressBellahRN, MadsenR, SullivanW, SwidlerA,Tipton SM. 1985. Habits of theHeart. In-dividualism and Commitmentn American

Life. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

BenjaminW. 1968. The storyteller.In Illumi-nations. Transl.H Zohn,pp. 83-109. NewYork: Schocken

Bennett T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum:History, Theory, Politics. New York:Routledge

Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1966. The SocialConstructionof Reality. A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge.New York: Dou-bledayBerman M. 1982. All That Is Solid Melts Into

Air: The Experience of Modernity. NewYork:Penguin

BhabhaHK, ed. 1990. Nation and Narration.London:RoutledgeBloch M. 1925. Memoirecollective, tradition,

et coutume: a propos dans livre. Rev.

Synth.40:Bloch M. 1974. (1939). Feudal Society.

Transl.LA Manyon. Chicago: Univ. Chi-

cago PressBodnar J. 1992. RemakingAmerica: Public

Memory,Commemoration, nd Patriotismin the TwentiethCentury. Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv. Press

Borneman J. 1997. Settling Accounts: Vio-lence, Justice,

andAccountabilityin Post-

socialist Europe. Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press

Bosworth RJB. 1993. Explaining Auschwitzand Hiroshima: History Writingand theSecond World War, 1945-1990. NewYork:Routledge

BourdieuP. 1984.Distinction. Transl.RNice,1979. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.Press

BoyarinJ, ed. 1994.RemappingMemory:ThePolitics of TimeSpace. Minneapolis, MN:Univ. Minn. Press

BoyerMC. 1994. TheCity of Collective Mem-

ory. Its Historical Imageryand Architec-tural Entertainments. Cambridge, MA:MITPress

BreisbachE. 1994. Historiography: Ancient,Medieval, and Modern. Chicago: Univ.

Chicago Press. 2nd ed.BrunerJS. 1990.Acts of Meaning. Cambridge,

MA: HarvardUniv. PressBuck-Morss S. 1989. The Dialectics of See-

ing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades

Project. Cambridge,MA: MITPressBurke P. 1989. History as social memory. In

Memory: History, Culture and the Mind,

ed. T Butler, pp. 97-113. New York:BlackwellBuruma I. 1994. The Wagesof Guilt. Memo-

ries of War in Germanyand Japan. NewYork:Farrar,Straus,Giroux

Butterfield H. 1965. (1931). The WhigInter-

pretation of History.New York: NortonCalhoun C. 1994. Social theory and the poli-

tics of identity. In Social Theoryand thePolitics of Identity, ed. C Calhoun, pp.9-36. Cambridge,MA: Blackwell

Carlyle T. 1901. On Heroes, Hero-Worship,and the Heroic in History. New York:

Scribner'sCarruthersM. 1990. The Book of Memory:AStudy of Memory in Medieval Culture.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

CaseyE. 1987.Remembering:APhenomenol-



136 OLICK & ROBBINS

ogical Study.Bloomington: IndianaUniv.Press

Cerulo KA. 1995.IdentityDesigns. TheSights

and Sounds of a Nation. New Brunswick:RutgersUniv. PressColeman J. 1992. Ancient and Medieval

Memories: Studies in the Reconstructionof the Past. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

ConfinoA. 1997. TheNation as a Local Meta-phor: Wfcrtemberg, Imperial Germany,andNational Memory,1871-1918. ChapelHill, NC: Univ. N. CarolinaPress

Connelly T. 1977. TheMarbleMan. RobertE.Lee and His Image in American Society.New York:Knopf

ConnertonP. 1989. How Societies Remember.New York:CambridgeUniv. Press

Cooley CH. 1918. Social Process. New York:Scribner's

Coontz S. 1992. The Way We Never Were:American Families and the NostalgiaTrap.New York:Basic Books

Coser L. 1992. Introduction: MauriceHalbwachs 1877-1945. See Halbwachs1992, pp. 1-34

CraneD, ed. 1994. TheSociology of Culture.Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Ox-ford:Blackwell

Cressy D. 1989. Bonfires and Bells. National

Memoryand the Protestant Calendar inElizabethan and Stuart England. Ber-keley: Univ. Calif. Press

Darian-SmithK, HamiltonP, eds. 1994. Mem-oryandHistoryin Twentieth-Century us-tralia. Melbourne:Oxford Univ. Press

Davis F. 1979. Yearning or Yesterday:A So-ciology of Nostalgia. New York: FreePress

Dayan D, Katz E. 1992. Media Events: TheLiveBroadcasting of History. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press

De Nora T. 1995. Beethovenand theConstruc-

tionof Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna,1792-1803. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Pressde Oliver M. 1996. Historical preservation

andidentity: he Alamo and theproductionof a consumerlandscape.Antipode28(1):1-23

Donoghue F. 1996. TheFame Machine:BookReviewing and Eighteenth-CenturyLiter-ary Careers.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv.Press

Douglas M. 1986. How Institutions Think.Syracuse,NY: SyracuseUniv. Press

Duara P. 1995.RescuingHistory rom the Na-tion:

QuestioningNarratives

ofModern

China.Chicago:Univ. Chicago PressDucharme LJ, Fine GA. 1995. The construc-

tion of nonpersonhoodand demonization:commemoratingthe traitorousreputation

of Benedict Arnold. Soc. Forces 73(4):1309-31

Durkheim E. 1961. (1915). The Elementary

Forms of the Religious Life. Transl. JWSwain. New York:Collier BooksEnglund S. 1992. The ghost of nation past.J.

Mod. Hist. 64(June):299-320Erikson E. 1959. Identity and the Life Cycle.

New York:NortonEvansRJ. 1989. In Hitler'sShadow. WestGer-

man Historiansand theAttempt o Escapefrom theNazi Past. New York:Pantheon

Evans-PritchardEE. 1940. The Nuer: A De-scription of the Modes of Livelihood andPolitical Institutions of a Nilotic People.Oxford: Clarendon

FabreG, O'Meally R,

eds. 1994.History

andMemory in African-American Culture.New York:Oxford Univ. Press

FentressJ,WickhamC. 1992.Social Memory.Oxford,UK:Blackwell

FergusonPP. 1994. Paris as Revolution. Writ-ing the 19th-CenturyCity.Berkeley:Univ.Calif. Press

Foucault M. 1977. Language, Counter-Memory,Practice: SelectedEssays andIn-terviews. Transl. DF Bouchard, S Simon.Ithaca,NY: Cornell Univ. Press

FriedlanderS, ed. 1992. Probing the LimitsofRepresentation. Nazism and the "Final

Solution." Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Fussell P. 1975. The Great War and ModernMemory.New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Gamson J. 1994. Claims to Fame: Celebrity n

ContemporaryAmerica. Berkeley: Univ.Calif. Press

Gans HJ. 1992. Sociological amnesia: he non-cumulation of normal social science. So-ciol. Forum7(4):701-10

Geary PJ. 1994. Phantomsof Remembrance:Memory and Oblivion at the End of theFirst Millennium.Princeton,NJ: Princeton

Univ. PressGedi N, Elam Y. 1996. Collective mem-ory-What is it? Hist. Mem.8(2):30-50

Giddens A. 1990. The Consequencesof Mod-ernity.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press

Giddens A. 1994. Living in a post-traditionalsociety. In ReflexiveModernization:Poli-tics, Traditionand Aesthetics in the Mod-ern Social Order,ed. U Beck, A Giddens,S Lash, pp. 56-109. Stanford,CA: Stan-ford Univ. Press

Gillis JR, ed. 1994. Commemorations:ThePolitics of National Identity. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Gluck G. 1993. The past in the present. InPostwarJapan as History, ed. A Gordon,pp. 64-95. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Goode W. 1978. The Celebrationof Heroes:




Prestige as a Social Control System.Ber-

keley: Univ. Calif. Press

Goody J. 1986. TheLogic of Writingand the

Organizationof Society. New York: Cam-bridge Univ. PressGreenblattS, Rev I, StarnR. 1995. Introduc-

tion. Representations49(Winter):1-14Halbwachs M. 1992. On Collective Memory.

Transl./ed. LA Coser. Chicago:Univ. Chi-cago Press

HaydonD. 1995. The Power of Place: Urban

Landscape as Public History. Cambridge,MA: MITPress

Heinich N. 1996. TheGlory of VanGogh:An

Anthropology of Admiration. Transl. PLBrowne. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press

Herzfeld M. 1991. A Place in History: Socialand MonumentalTime in a Cretan Town.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press

Hewison R. 1987. The Heritage Industry:Britain in a Climate of Decline. London:Methuen

Hobsbawm E. 1983. Mass-producing tradi-tions: Europe 1870-1914. See Hobsbawm& Ranger 1983, pp. 203-307

HobsbawmE, RangerT, eds. 1983. TheInven-tion of Tradition. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press

Hobsbawm EJ. 1972. The social function of

the past: some questions. Past Present 55:3-17

Hunt L. 1984. Politics, Culture,and Class inthe French Revolution. Berkeley: Univ.Calif. Press

HuttonP. 1993. Historyas an Art of Memory.Hanover,NH: Univ. PressNew Engl.

Huyssen A. 1995. TwilightMemories: Mark-ing Time in a Culture of Amnesia. NewYork:Routledge

IggersGC. 1997.Historiography in the Twen-tieth Century:From Scientific Objectivityto the Postmodern Challenge. Hanover,

NH: Univ. PressN. Engl.Irwin-Zarecka . 1989. Neutralizing Memory:The Jew in ContemporaryPoland. NewBrunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks

Irwin-Zarecka I. 1994. Frames of Remem-brance: TheDynamics of Collective Mem-ory. New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionBooks

JacobyR. 1975. SocialAmnesia: A CritiqueofConformist Psychology From Adler toLaing. Boston: Beacon

JohnsonR, McLennanG, Schwarz B, SuttonD, eds. 1982. MakingHistories: Studies in

History-Writingand Politics. London:

Cent. Contemp.Cult. Stud.Kammen M. 1978. A Season of Youth: The

American Revolution and the HistoricalImagination.New York:Knopf

Kammen M. 1991. MysticChordsof Memory:The Transformations of Tradition inAmerican Culture.New York:Knopf

Kammen M. 1995. Review of Frames of Re-membrance: The Dynamics of Collective

Memory,by I Irwin-Zarecka.Hist. Theory34(3)(0ct.):245-61

Kaplan SL. 1995. Farewell, Revolution: Dis-

puted Legacies, France, 1789/1989. Ith-aca, NY: CornellUniv. Press

Koonz C. 1994. Between memory and obliv-ion: concentrationcampsin Germanmem-

ory. See Gillis 1994, pp. 258-80Koselleck R. 1985. Futures Past: On the Se-

mantics of Historical Time. Transl. KTribe. Cambridge,MA: MITPress

Koshar R. 1994.Building pasts:

historicpres-ervation and identity in twentieth-century

Germany.See Gillis 1994, pp. 215-38Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

LangGE, LangKL. 1989. Collective memoryand the news. Communication11:123-40

LangGE, LangKL. 1990. Etched in Memory.The Building and Survival of Artistic

Reputation. ChapelHill: Univ. NC PressLangGE,LangKL. 1988. Recognition and re-

nown: the survival of artistic reputation.Am. J. Sociol. 94(1):78-109

LatourB. 1988. ThePasteurizationof France.Transl. A Sheridan, J Law. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Le Goff J. 1992. History and Memory.NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1993. (1964-1965). Ges-ture andSpeech. Transl.AB Berger.Cam-bridge,MA: MITPress

Levine D. 1995. Visions of the SociologicalTradition.Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

Levi-Strauss C. 1979. Myth and Meaning.New York: Schocken

Leydesdorff S, Passerini L, Thompson P.

1996. Gender and Memory.Oxford, UK:Oxford Univ. PressLinenthal ET, EngelhardtT, eds. 1996. His-

tory Wars.The Enola Gayand OtherBat-tles for the American Past. New York:Holt

Lipsitz G. 1990. Time Passages: CollectiveMemory and American Popular Culture.Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press

Lipstadt DE. 1993. Denying the Holocaust:The GrowingAssault on Truthand Mem-ory. New York: Free Press

Lowenthal D. 1985. The Past Is a Foreign

Country.New York:

CambridgeUniv.

PressMaclntyreAC. 1984. After Virtue:A Studyin

Moral Theory.NotreDame, IN: Univ. No-tre Dame Press



138 OLICK & ROBBINS

Maier CS. 1988. TheUnmasterablePast: His-tory, Holocaust, and German NationalIdentity. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.

PressMaines DR, Sugrue NM, Katovich M. 1983.The sociological importof G. H. Mead'stheory of the past. Am. Sociol. Rev.48(Apr):161-73

Mannheim K. 1952. (1928). The problem ofgenerations. In Essays in the Sociology ofCulture,pp. 276-322. London:Routledge& Kegan Paul

Marx K. 1992. (1852). The Eighteenth Bru-maire of Louis Bonaparte. In SurveysFrom Exile: Political Writings, 2:143-249. London:Penguin

Matsuda MK. 1996. TheMemory of

the Mod-ern. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

McDonald J, ed. 1996. The Historic Turninthe Human Sciences. Ann Arbor: Univ.Mich. Press

MeadGH. 1959. (1932). ThePhilosophyof thePresent. La Salle, IL:OpenCourt

Merton RK. 1973. TheSociology of Science.Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

MertonRK. 1985. (1965). Onthe ShouldersofGiants: A Shandean Postscript. NewYork: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich

Middleton D, EdwardsD, eds. 1990. Collec-

tive Remembering. Newbury Park, CA:Sage

Miller J. 1990. One, by One, by One. Facingthe Holocaust. New York: Simon &Schuster

Mosse GL. 1990. Fallen Soldiers: ReshapingtheMemoryof the WorldWars.New York:Oxford Univ. Press

MudimbeVY, JewsiewickiB, eds. 1993. His-tory Making in Africa. Hist. Theory 32.(Entire issue)

MuensterbergerW. 1994. Collecting:An Un-ruly Passion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. PressNeisser U. 1982. MemoryObserved:Remem-

bering in Natural Contexts. New York:Freeman

Nietzsche FW. 1983. Untimely Meditations.Transl. RJ Hollingdale. Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniv. Press

Nino CS. 1996. Radical Evil on Trial. NewHaven: Yale Univ. Press

Noiriel G. 1996. The French MeltingPot: Im-migration, Citizenship,and NationalIden-tity. Transl. G de Laforcade.Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press

NoraP, ed. 1992. Les Lieux de memoire,Vol.7. Paris:Les Frances,La Republique, LeNation. 7 Vols.

Novick P. 1988. ThatNoble Dream: The "Ob-jectivity Question"and the American His-

torical Profession. Cambridge,UK: Cam-bridgeUniv. Press

Olick JK. 1993. The sins of thefathers. the

Third Reich and West German legitima-tion. PhD thesis. New Haven: Yale Univ.Press

OlickJK. 1997. The textualdynamics of mem-ory: continuities and departures in Ger-man commemorationof May8, 1945. Pre-sented at the Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. As-soc., Toronto

Olick JK, Levy D. 1997. Collective memoryand cultural constraint: Holocaust mythandrationality n Germanpolitics.Am.So-ciol. Rev. 62(6):921-36

OrtnerS. 1984. Theory in anthropologysincethe sixties.

Comp.Stud. Soc. Hist. 26:

126-66PelikanJ. 1985. Jesus Through he Centuries.

His Place in the History of Culture.NewHaven: Yale Univ. Press

PennebakerJW,Paez D, Rime B. 1997. Col-lective Memoryof Political Events: SocialPsychological Perspectives.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum

Ram U. 1995. Zionist historiographyand theinvention of modem Jewish nationhood:the case of Ben Zion Dinur. Hist. Mem.

7(1)(Spring-Summer):91-124Rapaport . 1990. ThePolitics of Memory:Na-

tive Historical Interpretation in the Co-lombian Andes. Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridgeUniv. PressRapaportL. 1997. Jews in Germanyafter the

Holocaust: Memory,Identity,andJewish-GermanRelations. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press

Reichel P. 1995. Politik mit der Erinnerung.Munich: CarlHanserVerlag

Rochberg-HaltonE. 1986. Meaningand Mod-ernity.Social Theory n thePragmaticAt-titude.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress

RonigerL. 1997. Humanrightsviolations and

thereshapingof collective identitiesin Ar-gentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Soc. Identi-ties. Forthcoming

RosenbergT. 1995. The HauntedLandscape.Facing Europe '92s Ghostsafter Commu-nism. New York: Random House

Rousso H. 1991. TheVichySyndrome:HistoryandMemory n France Since 1944. Transl.A Goldhammer.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Samuel R. 1994. Theatresof Memory.Vol. 1.Past and Present in ContemporaryCul-ture. London: Verso

SandageS. 1993. A marblehouse divided:the

LincolnMemorial,the Civil RightsMove-ment, and the politics of memory,1939-1963. J. Am. Hist. 80(1):135-67

Savage K. 1994. The politics of memory:




Black emancipation and the Civil Warmonument. See Gillis 1994, pp. 127-49

Schachter D, ed. 1995. Memory Distortion:

How Minds, Brains, and Societies Recon-struct the Past. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press

Schieder T. 1978. The role of historical con-sciousness in political action.Hist. Theory17:1-18

SchudsonM. 1989. Thepresent n thepastver-sus the pastin thepresent.Communication11:105-13

Schudson M. 1990. Ronald Reagan misre-membered. See Middleton & Edwards

1990,pp. 108-19Schudson M. 1992. Watergate in American

Memory.How WeRemember,

Forget,and

Reconstruct the Past. New York: BasicBooks

Schuman H, Scott J. 1989. Generations andcollective memory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54:359-81

SchwartzB. 1996a.Memoryas aCulturalSys-tem: Abraham Lincoln in World War II.Am.Sociol. R. 61(5) (Oct):908-27

Schwartz B. 1990. The reconstruction ofAbraham Lincoln. See Middleton & Ed-wards 1990, pp. 81-107

Schwartz B. 1991. Social change and collec-tive memory: the democratization of

George Washington. Am. Sociol. Rev.56(April):221-36

Schwartz B. 1996. Introduction: he expand-ing past. Qual. Sociol. 9(3)(Fall):275-82

Schwartz B. 1997. Post-modernity and theerosion of historical reputation:AbrahamLincoln in the late twentiethcentury.Pre-sented at Annu.Meet.Am. Sociol. Assoc.,Toronto

Segev T. 1993. The Seventh Million: The Is-raelis and the Holocaust. Transl.H Watz-man. New York: Hill & Wang

Shils E. 1981. Tradition.Chicago: Univ. Chi-

cago PressSimmel G. 1959. The ruin. In Georg Simmel1858-1918, ed. K Wolff, pp. 259-66. Co-lumbus: Ohio State Univ. Press

Smith AD. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Na-tions. Oxford: Blackwell

Sorokin PA. 1956. Fads and Foibles in Mod-ern Sociology and Related Sciences. Chi-cago: HenryRegnery

Spillman LP. 1997. Nation and Commemora-tion: Creating National Identities in theUnited States and Australia. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press

Sturkin M. 1997.Tangled

Memories. TheVietnamWar,The Aids Epidemic,and thePolitics of Remembering.Berkeley:Univ.Calif. Press

Swidler A, Arditi J. 1994. The new sociology

of knowledge. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 20:305-29

TakezawaYI. 1995.BreakingtheSilence: Re-

dress and Japanese-AmericanEthnicity.Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv. Press

Taylor G. 1996. Cultural Selection. NewYork: Basic Books

TerdimanR. 1993. Present Past: Modernityand the Memory Crisis. Ithaca: CornellUniv. Press

Thelen D, ed. 1989. Memory and American

History. Bloomington:IndianaUniv. Press

Thompson JB. 1995. The Media and Moder-

nity:A Social Theory of the Media. Cam-

bridge, UK: PolityThompson P. 1988. The Voice of the Past.

OralHistory.

Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ.Press. 2nd ed.

Trouillot MR. 1995.Silencingthe Past: Powerand the Production of History. Boston:Beacon

TuchmanG, Fortin NE. 1984. Fame andmis-fortune:edging women out of the greatlit-erary radition.Am.J. Sociol. 90(1):72-96

TumarkinN. 1994. TheLivingand the Dead:TheRise and Fall of the Cultof WorldWarII in Russia. New York:Basic Books

Veyne P. 1984. Writing History: Essay on

Epistemology. Transl. M Moore-Rinvo-lucri. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan Univ.

PressVidal-Naquet P. 1992. Assassins of Memory.

Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust.Transl. J Mehlman.New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press

Vromen S. 1993. The ambiguityof nostalgia.YIVOAnnu.21:69-86

Wagner-Pacifici R. 1996. Memories in themaking: the shapes of things that went.Qual. Sociol. 19(3):301-22

Wagner-Pacifici R, Schwartz B. 1991. TheVietnam Veterans Memorial: commemo-ratinga difficult past.Am.J. Sociol. 97(2):

376-420Wallace M. 1996. MickeyMouse HistoryandOtherEssays on AmericanMemory.Phila-delphia, PA: TempleUniv. Press

Wallerstein I. 1991. The construction of peo-plehood: racism, nationalism, ethnicity.See Balibar& Wallerstein1991

WarnerWL. 1959. TheLivingandthe Dead: AStudy of the Symbolic Life of Americans.New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Watson RS, ed. 1994. Memory, History, andOpposition Under State Socialism. SantaFe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press

Weber M. 1946. Science as a vocation. InFrom Max Weber:Essays in Sociology.Transl. HH Gerth, CW Mills. New York:Oxford Univ. Press

White H. 1973. Metahistory: The Historical



140 OLICK & ROBBINS

Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Eu-rope. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press

Wilson K, ed. 1996. Forging the CollectiveMemory: Government and InternationalHistorians Through Two World Wars.Providence,RI:Berghahn

Winter J. 1995. Sites of Memory, Sites ofMourning. The Great War in EuropeanCultural History. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press

Wohl R. 1979. The Generationof 1914. Cam-bridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press

WrightP. 1985. OnLiving in an Old Country.The National Past in ContemporaryBrit-ain. London:Verso

WymanDS, ed. 1996. TheWorldReacts o the

Holocaust. Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press

Yates FA. 1966.TheArtof Memory.Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Yerushalmi YH. 1982. Zakhor: Jewish His-tory and Jewish Memory. Seattle: Univ.Wash. Press

Young JE. 1992. The counter-monument:

memory against itself in Germany today.Crit.Inq. 18(2):267-96

Young JE. 1993. The Texture of Memory:

Holocaust Memorialsand Meaning. NewHaven, CT: Yale Univ. PressZelizer B. 1992. CoveringtheBody: TheKen-

nedy Assassination, the Media, and theShaping of Collective Memory. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Zelizer B. 1995. Reading the past against thegrain: the shape of memory studies. Crit.Stud. Mass. Commun.12(June):214-39

Zerubavel E. 1981. Hidden Rhythms:Sched-ules and Calendars in Social Life. Ber-keley: Univ. Calif. Press

ZerubavelE. 1996. Social memories:stepsto a

sociologyof the

past. Qual.Sociol.

19(3)(Fall):283-300ZerubavelY. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collec-

tive Memoryand theMakingof Israeli Na-tional Tradition.Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

Zonabend F. 1984. The Enduring Memory:Time and History in a French Village.Manchester,UK: ManchesterUniv. Press

From Collective Memory

Documents

Transcript of From Collective Memory