This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 29 September 2014, At: 06:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

ParallaxPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpar20

What Place Is This? Transcultural Memory andthe Locations of Memory StudiesSusannah RadstonePublished online: 11 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Susannah Radstone (2011) What Place Is This? Transcultural Memory and the Locations ofMemory Studies , Parallax, 17:4, 109-123, DOI: 10.1080/13534645.2011.605585

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2011.605585

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What Place Is This? Transcultural Memory and the Locationsof Memory Studies1

Susannah Radstone

Where have I been? Where am I? Fair daylight?

I am mightily abused . . . Pray, do not mock me . . .

I fear I am not in my perfect mind.

Methinks I should know you, and know this man;

Yet I am doubtful for I am mainly ignorant

What place this is.

William Shakespeare, King Lear2

We all know how it feels – that experience of finding ourselves, or perhaps better put,

losing ourselves, in an uncanny or excessive space. On leaving the cinema, our

surroundings, even when familiar, may take on a strangeness lent to them by the

continuing presence of the cinema’s imaginary spaces and places. Far from a loved one,

we find ourselves neither where we, or they, are. These disorientating experiences

demonstrate the competing material and psychical realisms of location. Where we are,

and where we feel we are, may not coincide. These apprehensions of spatial dislocation

and disjuncture can be triggered, asmyfirst example shows, by the cinema, aswell as by

other immersive media. But they can be generated, too, by actual uprootings and

relocations – by experiences of exiledom, refugeedomandmigration,when theactuality

of our locationmay jarparticularly harshlywithwherewe feelwe are andwherewe long

to be. The contemporary ubiquity of these distressing, unwelcome and forced dis- and

re-locations, as well as the pervasiveness ofmore privileged and plannedmodes of global

transit can appear to render long-term attachments to, and locatedness in place

anachronistic. Along with these actual mobilities, the virtual mobilities of the digital

realm can seem to render our place of home and its location, with all of its historical and

affective dimensions, merely contingent and on the whole, irrelevant. That locatedness

remains nevertheless utterly – though complexly – significant can be gleaned not only

from the uneasy as well as pleasureable aspects of individual experiences of dislocation

but from, for instance, the ever-expanding literature on nostalgia.3 Though a strong

trend in this literature seeks to avoid associating migrancy and exiledom with an

understandingof nostalgia as sufferingvictimhood, stressing, rather, nostalgia’s capacity

to aid in the construction of newhomes in new lands,4 this literature points, nevertheless,

to the continuing significance of location, and, particularly, memories of ‘home’, for the

meaning-making and affective dimensions of life in the present.

parallax

ISSN 1353-4645 print/ISSN 1460-700X online q 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2011.605585

parallax, 2011, vol. 17, no. 4, 109–123

parallax

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

If we are ‘made of our memories’5 research on nostalgia constitutes only one routeinto the study of identity’s associations with the locatedness of memory. In anevocative and wide-ranging essay on the relations between theory and memory,the US-based memory scholar Richard Terdiman traces, amongst much else, thememories that welled up during a visit to Cieszyn, in Poland. Referring to thesemnemonic associations in terms of ‘the mysterious territory of recollection’,6

Terdiman uses his exploration of their blase incongruities to emphasize thedifference between the governing logics of memory (rhetoric) and of logic itself,positing that ‘[t]he logic of rhetoric (association, metaphor, metonomy) and thelogic of logic (propositional deduction and implication) are our two indispensible –and polar – modalities for connection and sense-making. It is memory that modelsand motivates the first of these modalities’.7 By way of explaining the origins ofthese thoughts on memory’s apparently ‘stochastic’8 associations, Terdimandescribes how, during his visit to Cieszyn, he found himself ‘in a park surroundingthe ruins of the eleventh-century castle there, thinking about [ . . . ] the eeriepostmodern disorientations of Los Angeles’.9 Noting amongst other things, therecent arrival, in Cieszyn, of computer stores, Terdiman suggests that:

[m]aterially, geographically, electronically we are realizing inpostmodernity the seemingly effortless and atemporal leaps thatmemory has been accomplishing for all of history [ . . . ] In general itmight feel as if we are living postmodernism as an incessantlydisappearing homeland. The most evident analogue for ourhyperbolic ability to flourish in dissociation might be thebewildered non-location we experience on the Web. In this utopiayou can be anywhere at 56K; but where are you?10

If for Terdiman, the Internet’s associational logic figures the contemporarytechnological realization of memory’s inner workings,11 it has been taken toexemplify, also, the contemporary geographical mobility, portability andtransmissability of cultural memories themselves. A shift in memory studies fromresearch on sites of memory, to the analysis of memory’s cultural dynamics12

brought into view those processes of negotiation, revision and contestation thatsustain memory and militate against forgetting. This approach incorporated intothe study of cultural memory an engagement with its inter- and transmedialdimensions13 – with cultural memory’s pre- and remediation by diverse media, aswell as the capacity for remembered events to ‘be represented across the spectrum ofavailable media’.14 Though this approach’s focus on the diachronic aspects ofcultural memory’s remediation has tended to emphasize histories of culturalmemory, attention to cultural memory as process has also involved the spatial

tracking of memory as a significant aspect of what has suggestively been termed‘memory on the move’.15 That memories – as photographs in the suitcases ofrefugees and migrants, for instance – do move is incontrovertible. The websites ofmemorials and museums such as Rwanda’s Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre,Israel’s Jerusalem Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum and South Africa’sRobben Island Museum facilitate virtual visits to these memory sites from anyglobal location.16 But if these developments encourage us to perceive of culturalmemory as process, rather than site, they also direct us to attend to those processes of

Radstone

110

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

encountering, negotiation, reading, viewing and spectatorship through whichmemories are, if you like, brought down to earth. How, for instance, does thelocation of a computer screen and its viewer in Cieszyn, intervene in the processes ofengaging with and making sense of the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre? Forwhile it may be the case, as Terdiman suggests, that on the web, ‘you can beanywhere’,17 the senses and sensibilities that we bring to the web are woven throughwith our locatedness in histories, in place, in culture – all of which play their part inproducing the never random associative leaps that constitute the rhetorics ofmemory.

The origins of Terdiman’s example of such a leap – his own remembering of L.A.from a hillside of Cieszyn – was, he explains, ‘not mysterious [ . . . ] I was reading Cityof Quartz, Mike Davis’s brilliant book about L.A.’18 Explaining that he had picked thisbook from his Polish friend’s extensive library, Terdiman goes on ‘[b]ut the choice ofthis book there, from among all the ones on Tadeusz’s shelves, exemplifies somethinglike the odd elections that animate memory itself. Why fall upon that volume?’19

Terdiman doesn’t offer a direct response to this question, emphasizing, instead thesheer difference between LA, ‘a city without memory’20 and Cieszyn, ‘the heart of historyitself’.21 Yet if Terdiman’s L.A./Ciszyn leap tropes memory’s incongruousassociations, it also still leaves us, I think, with the ghost of a question: ‘Why fallupon that volume?’ If memory’s assocations are, in a sense, ‘falls’, the earth to whichthey momentarily return us is, as often as not, familiar ground – here, a city not sofar from Terdiman’s university and his home, as he mentions, in San Francisco.As Terdiman explains, memory’s leaps are ‘multiple, unpredictable, but alwayseventually comprehensible. Associations are myriad, but they are not haphazard.’22

And memories of home remind us that our associations and our vision are shaped byour inescapable histories of locatedness and culture, albeit that such histories havebeen constituted through the movements of for instance, colonialism and refugeedom.

In its turn to memory’s labyrinthine transnational and transcultural dimensions,memory research will find itself focusing on the locatedness of engagements withmemories on the move, rather than with their ‘non-location’. But what of the focusthat is brought to the study of these located engagements? If, engagements withmemory now animate research and activism transnationally – if memory studies is,in many senses, a mobile field – the practices and perspectives through which it isundertaken are, themselves ineluctably located and formed out of diverse historiesand intellectual traditions as well as increasingly in touch, through conferences,collections and journals, with a broader domain. What might it mean to think ofmemory studies itself as both located and mobile? By way of a first step on this path,I want to turn my attention now to my own familiar ground, to the story, that is, ofmy own path to and through memory studies.

Locating Memory Studies

The story of memory studies that I’ve started to tell pretends to a degree ofobjectivity and neutrality. One of the fundamental insights provided by memoryresearch, however, is that memory constructs the past in the present. So any story that

parallax

111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

I might tell about the history and development of memory studies will be a story thatI tell from, and inside, not just the present, but my present.

I came to memory research by way of an intellectual journey through Britishcultural studies, feminist psychoanalytic theory and a film/literature PhD on womenand confession. After abandoning a previous degree in English Literature at SussexUniversity ten years previously, I restarted my education in 1980, having been told,by a colleague at the radical and socialist bookshop at which I then worked (thoughat this stage, I was hardly the most politically educated of people) that a new andvery interesting degree was about to recruit its first students. Happily, I was offered aplace. As a mature student in the first cohort of the first British undergraduatedegree in Cultural Studies at what was then the North East London Polytechnic(NELP) I was taught by a group of lecturers whose intellectual and politicalpassions were palpable and whose links with the Birmingham Centre forContemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), and with its then Director, Stuart Hall,ran deeply through personal as well as intellectual lives. This was an inspiring andlife-transforming education. At NELP, the Cultural Studies that we learnt taught useach day that every aspect of life is, in some sense, deeply political – all aspects oflife, culture, experience being inextricably part of, and active within, networks ofpower and desire. Yet this was a Cultural Studies that eschewed both the flatteningof experience into the categories of the ‘already known’, and the deadening of historyinto the endlessly predictable (as some forms of political ‘education’ are apt to do).With its intellectual foundations in the post-Gramscian political and cultural theorydeveloped under Stuart Hall at the CCCS,23 it conceived of the present not in termsof its inevitability, but in terms, rather of unstable alliances and conjunctures forgedwithin history’s turbulent crucible. History as both made and for the making;consciousness determined and mutable. This was a cultural studies with its roots inhistory but with its gaze fixed upon but never transfixed by the present.

Memory was, then, there, in a sense, from the start. There in cultural studies’determination to take everyday experience seriously (experience was and remainsan absolutely central, through endlessly elusive concept for cultural studies), there inits emphasis on the importance of a fully historicized analysis of culture, there in itsnegotiations with that most irritating and yet, at that time, seemingly indispensibleconcept of ‘ideology’. Various groups at the CCCS had, indeed, begun to researchand publish on the theme of ‘Popular Memory’ during the 1980s,24 though few thencould have imagined how freighted and fecund memory research was rapidly tobecome.

One of the most critical and defining aspects of the cultural studies that formed mewas its engagement with the question of the relationship between politics andsubjectivity, or, put slightly differently, between the inner and outer worlds. Itschallenge was to re-think those concepts that were, in a sense, both its patrimonyand its burden – ideology, false consciousness – in terms that spoke to the supplenessand complexity of lived cultural negotiations. Psychoanalysis, that, as feminism hadalready compellingly and yet controversially asserted,25 offered a powerful means tointerrogate the inner world’s relations with and resistances of culture and its forces,was a powerful influence at NELP. The cultural studies faculty comprised cultural

Radstone

112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

theorists and historians, bringing together, for instance, research and teaching on thepsychoanalytic film theory of the 1970s and 1980s with lectures on those radical oralhistories that were aiming, at that time, to elicit and record ‘other’ voices – voices ofwomen, the working class, ethnic minorities.26 But, as many were beginning to pointout, memory exists in the present: hence we can speak of the oral historian’s‘interaction’ not with the past, but ‘with the past within living memory’.27 It ishardly surprising that in a context where oral history was being taught alongsidepsychoanalytic ‘screen theory’28 and feminist psychoanalytic theory, the view thatoral history interviews offered a clear ‘window’ into the past was always going to beuntenable. Gradually, then a new set of questions began to emerge. Byconcentrating on the nuanced living of culture and of power, ‘our’ cultural studieshad already striven to undo the overly determinist and ‘one-way’ theories ofideology that it had inherited from sociology and Marxism. For this committedlyhistoricized and political cultural studies, memory now promised to open up otherdimensions of experience, or of ‘living’. With its attunement to the temporal andwhat I hesitate to call the ‘historical’29 dimensions of lived experience, the study ofmemory promised to enhance understandings of the living of culture and the living ofpower by contributing an understanding of memory as the living, or the life of ‘thepast’ in the present.30

The links between CCCS, NELP and the radical historical journal History

Workshop Journal had always run deep, but were further emphasized, in 1995, byRaphael Samuel’s appointment to a Chair within our School (to which I had bythen returned, as a lecturer) at what had now become the University of EastLondon. Samuel, the foremost socialist historian of his time and the founding editorofHistory Workshop Journal took up his post and established his research centre – nowthe Raphael Samuel History Centre31 in what turned out to be the last year of hislife – the year following the publication of his vast, eclectic and brilliant Theatres of

Memory Volume One: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture.32 With its emphasis on‘the past in the present’ and on ‘contemporary culture’, that volume’s title aloneunderlined memory’s increasing salience for contemporary cultural and historicalenquiry. Meanwhile, Theatres of Memory’s cornucopic assemblage of chapters ontopics including heritage, photography and film ushered in, in Samuel’s inimitableidiom, a broad-based approach to memory, not just as that which ‘belongs’ toindividuals, but as a fully political, affective and representational dimension ofculture and the public sphere.

For the last several years, my own research – inflected, always, throughpsychoanalytic ways of thinking – has remained powerfully indebted to theintellectual history that I inherited from cultural studies, from feministpsychoanalytic theory and from ‘cinepsychoanalysis’, or psychoanalytic cinemastudies, so that for me, the field of memory research forms part of a much broaderfield of cultural enquiry engaged with the relations between inner and outer worlds,with the politics of subjectivity and with the temporal, psychical, affective andrepresentational dimensions of culture and experience. I dwell on this history andthis inheritance at a time when the institutionalization of memory research intoMemory Studies rushes on apace and the search is on for formulations of the fieldsuited to a transnational and transdisciplinary market.33 But there remains

parallax

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

something more than a little paradoxical, as well as instrumental – and power,intellectual, economic, institutional, is clearly at issue here – about the attempt toproduce a fully ‘globalizable’ version of memory studies, for memory research, likememory itself (notwithstanding possibilities for transmission and translation) isalways located – it is, as I’ve already demonstrated, specific to its site of productionand practice. As we have seen, as the new subject area of Memory Studies is beingglobalized, and as the field is being defined and re-defined34 writings in memoryresearch are focusing, increasingly, on ‘transcultural’ and ‘transnational memory’,35

producing accounts of memory that emphasize its ‘high speed’ travels across theglobe.36 But at the same time that publications and conference papers in MemoryStudies are proposing that memory research adopts a transcultural or transnational‘lens’,37 memory research is producing rich and detailed analyses of the resonance,meaning and affectivity of highly specific and located processes, acts and events ofmemory and forgetting. Are there contradictions, here? A liberal response to thispresent configuration of the global with the local might propose that theories oftranscultural and transnational memory are well suited to the analysis of memory inits mobile dimensions, while other theories that were developed to engage withmemory in its local, regional and national specificities remain better suited for theiroriginal tasks. But I am not sure of the adequacy or sufficiency of this liberalresponse. Taking my lead from the cultural studies that formed me, I want to ask,rather, about the gains and losses, the forces in play that drive intellectual andconceptual shifts. I want to ask, that is, about the politics of ideas. These questionsare best considered not at a level of high abstraction, but on the ground, in thespecific locations where memory is researched.

Journeys Through Memory

This year, the voyages (both literal and figurative) and encounters to which mywork has led me, have brought home to me more than ever, in concrete, rather thanabstract terms, the knowledge that memory research is always a deeply locatedpractice: located in particular intellectual histories and addressing itself to specific‘pasts in the present’. Indeed, to put things like this is already to separate out issuesthat are mutually implicated, for intellectual histories are bound up with national,regional and local histories – with politics, war and culture.

Earlier this year, I was invited to give lectures at two European universities withinwhich memory research is currently flourishing, Konstanz University in Germanyand Lund University in Sweden. At Lund, I met with a group of researchers forminga Nordic Universities network to develop a project on the challenges posed toEuropean integration by pre-1989 memories that refer back, amongst much else, tothe Communist era – a project that will also investigate the uses and consequences ofany transnational mobilization of these location-specific memories.38 Projects of thissort demonstrate, I think, the very best of a transnational and transculturalapproach to memory, for memory research of this sort combines an attentiveness tothe locatedness of memory with an awareness of memory’s potential to wander butalso to remain fixed in its place. The location-specific memories in question withinthis project pose problems, indeed, for European integration precisely because of

Radstone

114

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

their immobility as well as their longevity. Some memories get stuck and won’t beeasily forgotten. Without attending to the locatedness of memory, as well as itsmovements, theories of transnational and transcultural memory, with their focus onmemory’s high-speed (often digital) travel around the globe, risk eliding suchmemories from view, precisely because of their locatedness and immobility. Theytherefore risk producing a self-fulfilling theory by telling the story of only thosememories that – for whatever reason – do move, or appear to move, betweenlocations. And this begs a series of questions about which memories – and whichtheories of memory – do travel, and why, and to whose advantage and disadvantage?

Under the guidance of Aleida and Jan Assmann, Konstanz University’s ‘Geschichteund Gedachtnis’ project had its origins in a research cluster on ‘The Archaeology ofLiterary Communication’ founded in 1979. With their shared roots in the culturalanthropology of Egypt and with Aleida Assmann’s expertise, also, in literary studies,the Assmanns have gone on to develop a distinctive approach to memory39

influenced, in the main, by the writings of Maurice Halbwachs.40 Even thoughmemory research at Konstanz had its origins, in part, in the ancient world, researchat Konstanz has turned its attention, also, to twentieth century German history andto memories of the Second World War. My recent visit to Konstanz illustrated, inthe context of this research on German memories of recent history, that memoryresearch takes very different paths within its different locations. The influences ofBritish cultural studies, Gramscian Marxism and psychoanalytic theory that formedmy approach to memory research have played no part in the formation of memoryresearch at Konstanz. Instead, memory research at Konstanz, as well as in Germanyas a whole, is now shaped by Halbwachs’s theory of collective memory, with itsemphasis on the framing and transmission of memory by a nation’s social institutionsand by the Assmanns themselves, whose work has come to characterize, indeed,an identifiably German mode of ‘post-Halbwachsian’ memory research.41 Acomparison of the histories and politics of German and British cultural memory andmemory studies cannot be undertaken in the space available here without riskinggross over-simplifications and reductivisms, but any such study might begin byconsidering the different genealogies that have brought us to these contrastingversions of memory research: on the one hand, the left-aligned and empirical studiesfound in the UK and on the other, the conceptually-led mappings of different modesof memory found in Germany.42 These divergencies of orientation become apparentat the levels of both theory and practice. From my cultural studies andpsychoanalytically informed perspective, Halbwachs’s sociological writings on thetransmission of collective memory by institutions including education and the familymight benefit from some integration with psychoanalytic theory in order to explorefully the processes of transmission through which the inner worlds of memoryarticulate with the fields of the social, the institutional and the public. But this is aperspective informed not only by British cinema and cultural studies, but by thepolitics associated with this theory. This is a politics that conceives of processes ofmemory transmission within multiple force fields including those of the psychical,the social and the national, and that understands memories, whether personal,collective, literary, cinematic or digital, for instance, not as reflections of past eventsor experiences, but as complex constructions constituted through processes

parallax

115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

including displacement, condensation and the screening or substitution of onememory of, or for, another.

As I write, however, the picture that I have just attempted to sketch is changing. Forif memory research at Konstanz developed out of Egyptology as well as literarystudies, its current focus on memories of the Second World War might be said to bebringing memory research back home and introducing into memory research inGermany and on German topics, concepts and theories belonging to an emergingtransnational Memory Studies, within which theories of trauma, testimony andwitnessing have become central. The discussion following my lecture at Konstanzincluded, for instance, a lively exchange on the usefulness for memory research of theconcept of witnessing. Along with testimony, witnessing has emerged, over the lastdecade or so, as a pivotal concept within trauma theory – a key transnational theoryof memory that has been mobilized frequently in discussions of victim andperpetrator memory. There is something paradoxical, however, about thedeployment of what is now a transnational theory of trauma, by memory researchconducted in Germany, and on the memories of German people, for althoughtheories of trauma, witnessing and testimony were themselves developed largelywith reference to the Holocaust, most of the key writings on Holocaust memory,testimony and trauma emerged in the 1980s in the United States.43 The USprovenance of trauma theory can be explained, in part, by the presence, in theUnited States of those Holocaust survivors whose testimony informed thedevelopment of trauma theory.44 But trauma theory developed, too, within aparticular intellectual and theoretical milieu informed by the work of Paul de Manat the Yale School of Deconstruction, under whom trauma theory’s main exponent,Cathy Caruth, studied for her doctorate, as well as by the more Lacanian-influencedwork of Shoshana Felman, also at Yale.

If German and US memory research have been informed, up until quite recently byrather different intellectual histories, history – the historical events of war and theHolocaust – runs through the formation of memory research in both national sites.For if the perspective associated with what began as American, but is nowtransnational trauma theory was derived from encounters with Holocausttestimony, war and disruption were critical, also, to the development of the Frenchsocial scientist Maurice Halbwachs’s understandings of memory and memo-rialization.45 Halbwachs’s early life was marked by the uprooting and dislocation hisfamily experienced in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war; his major work On

Collective Memory,46 was written during World War I, and his later career wasovershadowed, and ultimately cut short – Halbwachs died in Buchenwald in 1945 –by the Holocaust.

Trauma theory has become the dominant mode within which to analyze thetransmission of experiences of catastrophe. But Halbwachs’s writings too, havebeen drawn on, though less commonly, in work in this field.47 Though, as I’vealready suggested, his writings might now be judged to require revision throughpsychoanalysis or affect theory, Halbwachs’s stress on the necessity of a sharedlanguage and culture for mutual comprehension and transmission can shed acertain light on the communicative blockages associated by trauma theory with

Radstone

116

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

traumatic memories. Trauma theory, with its stress on the unspeakable and theunrepresentable, pays little attention to the question of the fit, or lack of fitbetween the cultural, local, regional and national knowledges and repertoires oftestifier and witness, and neither does it address the differentials of powerembedded within any such differences. But perhaps a Halbwachsian stress on thecommonalities formed by memory transmission, but also required for itstransmission might also be pertinent with regard to theories of memory. Thereare two aspects to the point I am seeking to make here. First, and paradoxically,trauma theory, with its stress on silence and the unrepresentable, rather than onthe specifics of location, language and culture, allows memory research to thinkthat it can, under the guise of trauma analysis, go anywhere – and I don’t thinkI need to draw attention to the hubris (and the political implications) of thisassumption. Second, the alignment of trauma with the unrepresentable, and withsilence sets few limits on interpretation – silence can be made to mean manythings48 – while making any such interpretations hard to contest. For all of usengaged in memory research, trauma theory, with its emphasis on the analyst assecondary witness, only serves to underline, though, assumptions about theuniversal transparency of memory that theories of transnational andtranscultural memory threaten to compound. As the emphasis on transnationaland transcultural memory strengthens, it becomes all the more vital to rememberand pay attention to two dimensions of location: the location of the researcher andthe locatedness of instances of transmission.

Where the researcher is concerned, I am only too aware that up until now, I havemyself paid little attention to my own locatedness. But even if there are dimensions ofmemory transmission that speak to experiences that are universal andtranshistorical, that exceed language and that operate at the level of the affectsrather than at the level of representation, and even if subjectivity is fluid andunfixed, and even if the unconscious will always exceed our capacity to knowourselves there are aspects of our location that continue to form and to inform ourtheory and our research and that need to be acknowledged. How, for instance, areAustralian or British or American researchers to undertake the exploration of thetrauma cinemas of Argentina, or Japan, given that those researchers are embeddedin specific intellectual histories and given that they are located inside their ownmemory cultures as well as outside of the memory cultures they seek to understand?And I mention this example because it relates to a research project with whichI have links. Here, we are confronted with the first set of urgent questions facingtransnational and transcultural memory research.

Another set of questions emerges around the study and analysis of what are beingdescribed as ‘transnational’ or ‘transcultural’ memories. Though it might seemparadoxical, it is from the perspective of the ‘transnational’ and the‘transcultural’ that we are reminded of the significance of memory’s locatedness.Whether we focus on the ways in which memory might ‘travel’ via the cinema, orthe Internet, for instance, that travel remains only hypothetical, or an unrealizedpotential, until a particular individual goes to a specific website, or a particularaudience watches a specific film. For even when (and if) memory travels, it isonly ever instantiated locally, in a specific place and at a particular time. It is to

parallax

117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

this precise ‘event’ of memory’s instantiation, as well as to the relations betweensuch events, that memory research can address itself. And in order to engage withthese memory events, we, as researchers need to understand, if not be a part of,the culture – however hybridized, complex, multiform – within which thatmemory event is taking place. Anthropology, amongst other disciplines, hastaught us that it takes a great deal of time and skill to even begin to researchacross cultures and these may be skills that research into transnational andtranscultural memory requires.

In my own recent journeys through memory research, I have been particularlyimpressed by work that, while it takes on board the ways in which memory – andtheories of memory – might be said to travel, adopts a questioning approach totheories that are sometimes regarded as having universal applicability. The workI discuss below pays close attention to processes of mediation as it focuses on specific,localized instantiations of what we call remembering. As one of my own currentprojects is located within the field of critical trauma studies, and as trauma theoryis perhaps the most widely promulgated element of memory research, it is towardswork in this area that my attention has been drawn.

The opening paragraph of Catherine Merridale’s essay ‘Soviet memories:patriotism and trauma’49 contains the trenchant comment that ‘all assumptions,and especially the most fashionable, demand constant question’.50 As shecontinues, it becomes clear that Merridale’s own questions concern ‘the currentvogue for writing about memory’.51 Immersed in the study of Russia’s violent past,and having access to a wide range of other sources, Merridale writes that she knew,nevertheless, that ‘hearing stories directly from the survivors of Soviet powerwould open new vistas of understanding’.52 Finding herself engaged in oralhistory, and having stated that oral history is ‘little else’53 than memory, Merridaleexplains that she therefore ‘came to memory by accident, reluctantly, and I writeabout it equally unwillingly’.54 Having come to memory unwillingly, Merridale’scontribution to the field at this moment of its expansion and codification is,however, significant, for she found that:

the classic story of trauma’s legacy, the medical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) now so universally accepted, simplymisses the point in the Soviet case. It is irrelevant because it is animport to the Soviet situation, a discovery that suggests that, whilesuffering is universal, the reactions to it, especially at the social level,are culturally specific.55

Merridale’s findings, which emphasize the specificities of communist, collectivistculture and group membership in determining Soviet memory, are a powerfulreminder of the importance of building theory from the ground up and of respectingmemory’s located specificities. A theory that works in one location may not workelsewhere.

If Merridale’s explorations of Soviet memories raise questions about theuniversalization of trauma theory, the work I turn to next critiques trauma

Radstone

118

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

theory’s dominant understandings of witnessing and testimony for its inhibiting of‘cosmopolitan or transnational memory cultures able to sustain efforts toward theglobal attainment of human rights’.56 Like Merridale, Marianne Hirsch andLeo Spitzer seek to question trauma theory’s emphasis on the embodied symptomsarising from traumatic memory’s unspeakability. However, unlike Merridale, theyemphasize not the lack of fit between the theory and the specificity of actualhistorically located survivors, but the uses to which the silences and bodilysymptoms dwelt on by trauma theory may be put. Focussing specifically onHolocaust testimony and returning us to the politics of theory, Hirsch and Spitzersuggest that:

the moments of mute or traumatized witness that have become soparadigmatic in recent discussion are so open to interpretation andprojection that, outside the narrow framework of psychoanalyticencounter, they preclude therapeutic restorative listening in favour ofascription and appropriation.57

For Hirsch and Spitzer, trauma theory’s emphasis on the silence andunspeakability of Holocaust testimony has had two interlinked effects. It hascontributed to the view of the Holocaust as a unique and incomparable event, andto the appropriation of the suffering of Holocaust victims by ‘nationalist andidentity politics’.58 In place of this emphasis, Hirsch and Spitzer propose mutenessand affect as ‘human elements of survival that can become the links between thediverse catastrophes of our time’, so that Holocaust memories might becomeincorporated ‘into an enlarged global arena, making room for additional local,regional, national and transnational testimonies about slavery, colonialism,genocide and subordination’.59

Hirsch and Spitzer’s stress on the politics to which trauma theory’sinterpretations of testimony might be put is timely and significant, as is theirwish to facilitate modes of remembering that might create alliances betweensurvivors of diverse historical catastrophes, wars and oppressions. But if we setMerridale’s findings about Soviet memories against Hirsch and Spitzer’sconclusion, we are returned, I think, to the intractable questions around whichmy essay has been circling – questions about the specificities and localities ofmemory, and the locatedness and politics of theory. For while Hirsch and Spitzerseek to loosen the chains of nationalist and identity politics by basingcosmopolitan or transnational memory in universal experiences of suffering,Merridale insists that though suffering may be universal, experiences of andreactions to suffering – how it is felt and remembered, whether it is remembered –are culturally specific. And if testimony is forged through culture, locality, politics,so, as my next example shows, is witnessing.

Kelly Butler’s study of the witnessing of Indigenous and Asylum Seeker testimonyin Australia60 engages critically with trauma theory’s concepts of witnessing andtestimony by demonstrating that, in the Australian case, witnessing of Indigenousand Asylum Seeker testimony served to ‘renew’ white settler identity throughdemonstrations of compassionate and ethical witnessing, while withholding full

parallax

119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

subjectivity from those who become the ‘objects’ of its compassion. Butler’s localstudy of witnessing in Australia takes issue with trauma theory’s transnationallycirculating assumptions about the virtues of witnessing, demonstrating that localstudies can do more than simply ‘fill in the blanks’ of a Memory Studies withglobal aspirations; for they can problematize, too, the assumptions embeddedwithin already-globalized theory, in this case, by demonstrating that ‘witnessing’brings with it no ethical guarantee.

Finally, Michael Rothberg’sMultidirectional Memory61 returns us to the question ofthe politicalmobilization ofHolocaustmemory. Rothberg’s impressive study of therelations between Holocaust memory and decolonization struggles advancescontemporary memory research’s engagement with transnational and transcul-tural theory by developing a critique of the widely held view that differentcatastrophes and historical traumas are fated to vie for attention in the publicsphere. Rothberg’s Multidirectional Memory comprises a careful analysis of theimbrication of Holocaust memory with writings on colonialism and anti-colonialstruggles, producing a critique of the ‘conception of competitive memory’.62 Inplace of an approach that assumes that memories of traumatic suffering competefor recognition in the public sphere, and that therefore pits Holocaust memoryagainstmemories of slavery and colonization and vice versa, Rothberg convincinglyoutlines the complex mnemonic connections between the Holocaust, slavery andcolonialism. But the connections that Rothberg finds are not equivalent to thetransnational memories that might bind distinct groups together on the basis ofshared suffering. For Rothberg focuses on perpetration, as much as he does onsuffering, and on the transnational processes through which memory may bescreened, denied or displaced. In outlining these connections, Rothberg develops acritically revised trauma theory, attuned to those processes of transmission andintertwining that are the subject of his study.

As Imove towards concluding an essay written in tension with both the globalizingthrust of memory studies and with theories of transnational and transculturalmemory, I find myself commenting appreciatively on a work that foregroundsHolocaust memory’s breaking ‘of the frame of the nation-state’63 and that focuseson memory’s ‘jagged’ borders.64 However, though Rothberg’s book emphasizes inits very title, memory’s multidirectional potential, his book comprises a series offorensic analyses of specific texts that he reads for their symptomatic remembranceand forgetting of violence. Focusing on memory’s screenings, displacements andcondensations, this quest brings memory’s ‘travels’ back home – to processes thatcan be tracked within and across the locations instances, texts, narratives andevents of memory. The idea that memory ‘travels’, stands in for the articulation ofthese processes – processes that my version of memory research, located, as I’veshownwithin a specific national, intellectual and political history, conceives of andseeks to track with the aid of a range of methodologies, including those developedwithin media, literary and cultural studies, and most often, in the case of my ownresearch, by recourse to the concepts, theories and methods offered to theHumanities by psychoanalysis. And if psychoanalysis shows us one thing, it is thatthe processes that it reveals are never-ending, that meaning will always be revised,and that stories, like this one, of my journey through memory, have no end.

Radstone

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Notes

With my warmest thanks to Barbara Tornquist-

Plewa (Lund University) and Aleida Assmann,

Nina Fischer and Birgit Schwelling (Konstanz

University) for invitations to visit their universities

that inspired thinking for this essay. Thanks also

to the anonymous referee whose helpful comment

I acknowledge in note 41.1 The title for this essay includes Richard

Terdiman’s question ‘[w]hat place is this?’; see

Richard Terdiman, ‘Given memory: on mnemonic

coercion, reproduction and invention’, inRegimes of

Memory, ed. Susannah Radstone and Katharine

Hodgkin (London and New York: Routledge,

2003), p.190; re-printed as Radstone andHodgkin,

eds,Memory Cultures (Piscatawny, NJ: Transaction,

2005).2 WilliamShakespeare,KingLear,Act IVSceneVII.3 See for instance Nadia Atia and Jeremy Davies,

eds, ‘Nostalgia and the Shapes of History’, special

issue, Memory Studies, 3:3 (2010); Svetlana Boym,

The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books,

2001); Susannah Radstone, The Sexual Politics of

Time: Confession, Nostalgia, Memory (London and

New York: Routledge, 2007).4 Ghassan Hage points, for instance, to the

‘“miserabilist” tendency in the study of migration

that wants to make migrants passive, pained

people at all costs.’ Ghassan Hage, ‘Migration,

Food, Memory and Home-Building’, in Memory:

Histories, Theories, Debates, ed. Susannah Radstone

and Bill Schwarz (New York: Fordham University

Press, 2010), pp.416–427; p.417.5 Edward Casey, Remembering: A Phenomenological

Study (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,

1987), p.290.6 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.187.7 Richard Terdiman, ‘GivenMemory’, pp.188–9;

emphasis in the original.8 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.186.9 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.189.10 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.192.11 For more on metaphors of memory and their

links with technology and the media see Douwe

Draaisma, Metaphors of Memory: A history of ideas

about the mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2000).12 Ann Rigney, ‘The Dynamics of Remembrance:

Texts Between Monumentality and Morphing’, in

Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Inter-

disciplinary Handbook, ed. Astrid Erll and Ansgar

Nunning (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,

2008), pp.345–353.13 Astrid Erll and Ann Rigney, eds, Mediation,

Remediation and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory

(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009).

14 Astrid Erll, ‘Literature, Film and the Mediality

of Cultural Memory’, in Cultural Memory Studies: An

International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, ed. Astrid

Erll and Ansgar Nunning (Berlin and New York:Walter de Gruyter, 2008), pp.389–398, p.392.15 This shift to the spatial tracking of cultural

memories can be discerned, as I’ve suggested, inthe titles and themes of recent conferences, two

examples of which are the ‘Transcultural Memory’

conference from which many of this special issue’s

essays have been drawn, and the ‘Memory on theMove’ conference, Utrecht University, December

2–3 2010.16 See ,http://www.kigalimemorialcentre.org/old/index.html.; ,http://www.yadvashem.

org.; ,http://www.robben-island.org.za.17 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.192.18 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.188.19 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.188;

emphasis in the original.20 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.189;

emphasis in the original.21 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.189.22 Richard Terdiman, ‘Given Memory’, p.195.23 For a comprehensive list of Stuart Hall’s publi-

cations see ,http://www.mona.uwi.edu/library/

stuart_hall.html. . A series of interviews betweenStuart Hall and Bill Schwarz is currently in

preparation, to be published as Stuart Hall and

Bill Schwarz, Conversations with Stuart Hall (Oxford:

Polity Press).24 See, for instance, Popular Memory Group,

‘Popular Memory: Theory, Politics, Method’, in

Richard Johnson, Gregor McLennan, BillSchwarz, and David Sutton, eds,Making Histories:

Studies in History-writing and Politics (London:

Hutchinson, 1982), pp.205–252. For a fuller

bibliography of these publications and a discussionof the problematic attempt, by one group, to

undertake a form of self-reflexive research they

termed ‘memory work’, see Mariette Clare andRichard Johnson ‘Method in our Madness:

Identity and Power in a Memory Work method’,

inMemory andMethodology, ed. Susannah Radstone

(LondonandNewYork: Berg, 2000), pp.197–224.25 Juliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism

(London: Allen Lane, 1974).26 For a seminal discussion of oral history practiceby one of its foremost practitioners see Paul

Thompson,The Voice of the Past: Oral History, Third

Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

The book series Memory and Narrative (Trans-action Publishers) contains many of the most

interesting recent interventions into the theory and

practice of oral history.

parallax

121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

27 Joanna Bornat, ‘Oral history as a social

movement: Reminiscence and older people’, Oral

History, 17:2 (1989), p.16.28 A term used to describe that amalgamation of

Marxist, feminist and psychoanalytic theories

developed by the British cinema studies journal

Screen in the 1970s and 1980s.29 I hesitate to use the term ‘historical’ because, in

theUK,oneof themost long-lastingandcentral lines

of debate and enquiry has centred on the relations

between history and memory. For discussions of

history’s relations with memory see, for instance,

Katharine Hodgkin and Susannah Radstone,

‘Introduction’, in Contested Pasts: The Politics of

Memory, ed. Katharine Hodgkin and Susannah

Radstone (London: Routledge, 2003); reprinted as

The Politics of Memory: Contested Pasts, (Piscatawny,

NJ: Transaction, 2005); Susannah Radstone and

Katharine Hodgkin, ‘What History Forgets: Mem-

ory and Time’, in Regimes of Memory, ed. Susannah

Radstone and Katharine Hodgkin (London:

Routledge, 2003), pp.131–4; Karl Figlio, ‘Getting

to the beginning: identification and concrete

thinking in historical consciousness’, Regimes,

pp.152–166; Bill Schwarz, ‘“Already the Past”:

memory and historical time’, Regimes, pp.135–151.30 I have placed quote marks around ‘the past’,

here, because there is much more to be said and

understood about what might be meant by that

term in this context. Memory’s complex tempor-

alities impel us to interrogate our common sense

understandings of historical temporality’s linearity

and to ponder the relation between memory and

history (see Schwarz, ‘“Already the Past”’).31 To find out more about our research centre

visit , http://www.raphael-samuel.org.uk . .32 Raphael Samuel, Theatres of Memory 1: Past and

Present in Contemporary Culture (London: Verso,

1995).33 See Susannah Radstone, ‘Memory Studies: For

and Against’,Memory Studies, 1:3 (2008), pp.31–39.34 For different accounts of what Memory Studies

is, ought, and might be, see, for instance recent

contributions to the new journal Memory Studies,

including Steven D. Brown, ‘The quotation marks

have a certain importance: Prospects for a

“memory studies”’, Memory Studies, 1:3 (2008),

pp.261–71; Andrew Hoskins, ‘Flashbulb mem-

ories, psychology and media studies: Fertile

ground for interdisciplinarity?’, Memory Studies,

2:2 (2009), pp.147–50; Nancy Van House and

Elizabeth Churchill, ‘Technologies of Memory:

Key issues and critical perspectives’, Memory

Studies, 1:3 (2008), pp.295–310; Carolyn Kitch,

‘Placing journalism inside memory – and memory

studies’, Memory Studies, 1:3 (2008), pp.311–320;

Radstone, ‘Memory studies: For and Against’;

Henry L Roediger III and James V. Wertsch,

‘Creating a new discipline of memory studies’,

Memory Studies, 1:1 (2008), pp.9–22; Marita

Sturken, ‘Memory, consumerism and media:

Reflections on the emergence of the field’, Memory

Studies, 1:1 (2008), pp.73–78; John Sutton,

‘Looking beyond memory studies: Comparisons

and integrations’, Memory Studies, 2:2 (2009),

pp.299–302.35 The recent international conference ‘Transcul-

tural Memory’ included much discussion of trans-

national memory. Its website is at , http://igrs.

sas.ac.uk/research/transculturalmemory.htm . .

Meanwhile books and essays are appearing on the

topic of transnational memory; see, for instance,

Aleida Assmann and Sebastian Conrad, eds,

Memory in a Global Age (Houndsmills: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2010); Udo J. Hebel, ed.,Transnational

AmericanMemories (Berlin andNewYork:Walter de

Gruyter, 2009).36 Here, I am quoting from Astrid Erll’s keynote

lecture at the ‘Transcultural Memory’ conference.

This lecture and my response are currently

available online at , http://igrs.sas.ac.uk/

research/transculturalmemory.htm . .37 I take this term from Erll’s keynote lecture (see

note 36).38 This project’s website is at , http://www.cfe.lu.

se/towards-a-common-past . .39 See, for instance, Aleida Assmann, ‘Four

Formats of Memory: From Individual to Collec-

tive Constructions of the Past’, in Cultural Memory

and Historical Consciousness in the German-Speaking

World Since 1500, ed. Christian Emden and David

Midgley (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004), pp.19–37; and

Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten

Studies (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,

2005).40 Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory

[1925], ed., trans. and intr. Lewis A. Coser

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).41 With thanks to one of my anonymous referees

for pointing this out.42 For a study of German memory and memory

studies see Wulf Kansteiner, In Pursuit of German

Memory: History, Television and Politics After

Auschwitz (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press,

2006); see also Miriam Hansen and Andreas

Huyssen, ‘Introduction’, New German Critique, 71

(1997), pp.3–4; Michael Geyer, ‘The place of the

Second World War in German memory and

history’, trans. Michael Latham, New German

Critique, 71 (1997), pp.5–40.43 See Shoshana Felman and Dori Laub, Testi-

mony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis

and History (New York: Routledge, 1992); Cathy

Caruth, ed., Trauma: Explorations in Memory

Radstone

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14

(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1995); Cathy Caruth, Unclaimed Experience:

Trauma, Narrative and History (Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).44 See, for instance, Dori Laub’s analyses of

Holocaust testimony in Shoshana Felman and

Dori Laub, Testimony, pp.57–92.45 See Erika Apfelbaum, ‘Halwachs and the social

properties of memory’, in Memory: Theories,

Histories, Debates, ed. Susannah Radstone and Bill

Schwarz (New York: Fordham University Press,

2010), pp.77–92.46 See note 40.47 See, for instance, Erika Apfelbaum, ‘And now

what, after such tribulations: memory and

dislocation in the era of uprooting’, American

Psychologist, 55:9 (2000), pp.1008–13.48 This point has been well made in Marianne

Hirsch and Leo Spitzer, ‘The witness in the

archive: Holocaust Studies/Memory Studies’, in

Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates, ed. Susannah

Radstone and Bill Schwarz (New York: Fordham

University Press, 2010), pp.390–405.49 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories: patri-

otism and trauma’, in Memory, ed. Susannah

Radstone and Bill Schwarz, pp.376–389.

50 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’, p.376.51 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’, p.376.52 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’, p.377.53 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’, p.378.54 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’, p.377.55 Catherine Merridale, ‘Soviet memories’,

pp.379–80.56 Marianne Hirsch and Leo Spitzer, ‘The witness’,

p.391.57 Marianne Hirsch and Leo Spitzer, ‘The witness’,

p.403.58 Marianne Hirsch and Leo Spitzer, ‘The witness’,

p.403.59 Marianne Hirsch and Leo Spitzer, ‘The witness’,

p.404.60 Kelly Jean Butler, Witnessing Australian Stories:

history, testimony and memory in contemporary culture,

unpublished PhD thesis (Melbourne: University of

Melbourne, 2010).61 Michael Rothberg, Multidirectional Memory:

Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization

(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009).62 Michael Rothberg, Multidirectional Memory, p.5.63 Michael Rothberg, Multidirectional Memory,

p.20.64 Michael Rothberg, Multidirectional Memory, p.5.

Susannah Radstone teaches in the School of Arts and Digital Industries at theUniversity of East London. Her most recent publication is (edited with Bill Schwarz)Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates (Fordham University Press, 2010) and she iscurrently working on a new book to be published as Getting Over Trauma.

parallax

123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

6:38

29

Sept

embe

r 20

14